Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 2010 Deletion review archives September 2010 >

31 August 2010

[edit]
  • Samuel Galindo – Unprotected and recreation allowed, but any editor is also free to send it back to AfD should the notability be contested. Note that technically, all the G4s for this content were improper, since it survived AfD once here, even though it was later deleted in a second AfD. – Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Samuel Galindo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A Bolivian footballer currently with UD Salamanca. I'm aware that he hasn't played any first team matches yet, but he made an international appearance for Bolivia in a friendly against Mexico back on the 24th of February. If a player makes a first team appearance in either a league or cup match, or an international appearance, then why delete the page? That's why I'm adding this on here. – Michael (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I see that the article was deleted for failing to meet WP:ATHLETE which states, that a player is notable if they "represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition . . . The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria." The second point is "Players who have appeared . . . in a fully-professional league." I'm assuming that "senior international competition" means competitions like the Olympics and FIFA World Cup. So my question is, was the Bolivia v Mexico match part of the 2010 FIFA World Cup? If not, then he doesn't pass this criteria. The second is playing in a fully-professional league. So is UD Salamanca part of a fully-professional league and has Samuel Galindo played in a league game? —Farix (t | c) 00:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt and allow recreation. The multiple G4 deletions are made on the basis of an AfD over 12 months ago. But it is abundantly clear that the player's career has moved significantly forward since then. Reliable sources say he has played a full international match.[1] He is variously described as a "wonderkid", "starlet" and has significant coverage in reliable sources. He might technically fail NSPORT as an international friendly is not a "sanctioned competition" and he hasn't played a senior club match, but he passes the GNG in spades (just do a news archive search). In any case, isn't it ridiculous that 10 minutes on the field in the English fourth tier gets you over NSPORT, but a full international friendly doesn't? At the least his claim to passing GNG is much better than it was 12 months ago so another AfD is called for rather than salting.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note because the most recent article wasn't fully up to date, I have created a userspace draft here. Far from perfect but sufficient in my view to be on the mainspace.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. Things have changed since that first AfD, and Mkativerata's draft is easily good enough. Meets WP:NSPORT thanks to the international appearance, and has the coverage to back up the content. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt, with no prejudice to recreation and if necessary an AfD. Given that the player has made a full international appearance, there is enough to suggest that he might be notable. If he isn't notable, it would still warrant a second AfD, given that the circumstances have significantly changed. --WFC-- 15:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt and allow creation - playing in an international match for Bolivia should connote notability, and the G4 was based on information which no longer applies. Jogurney (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt and allow recreation Fully agree with the sentiments of Mkativerata that representing your country is considerbly more prominant than a sub appearance in a marginal pro league - as long as it is a sanctioned FIFA international between two senior international sides, which is arguably a competitive match anyway as the result counts towards FIFA rankings, which determines your seedign for fianls tournaments. While there may be little or no mainstream press on the guy in England, he is without doubt covered in his ative Bolivia--ClubOranjeT 01:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of fictional magic users (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Also List of fictional parasites, List of fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds, and List of fictional characters with telekinesis. I'm the administrator that eventually deleted these pages (except for the list of parasites). This discussion is practically already being held on my talk page, so I'm listing it here because the user who asked about listing hasn't done so yet. I initially closed as no consensus, but upon review changed to delete all except for the parasite list. Many of the keep votes rest on arguments that should be avoided. I believe the correct desicion has been made, but considering others disagree, I'm putting this here. — GorillaWarfare talk 00:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse- yup, you got this one right. Reyk YO! 01:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expand my opinion- IMO the lesser weight accorded to the keep votes was justified. Firstly, many of the users advocating that the parasite one should be kept either had no opinion regrading the others or thought they should be deleted. Ignoring votes along the lines of "It's silly, but where's the harm", or "ITS USEFUL", or "Please give us more time", or incorrect assertions that no deletion rationale was presented, really leaves only DGG's opinion. This one was well argued, but seems to hinge implicitly on the idea that our requirements regarding things like WP:V, WP:OR and WP:N are lessened when we're talking about lists- and that is a questionable assumption at best. On the whole I find the side advocating deletion to have the stronger arguments. Correct close. Reyk YO! 23:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all No reason these can't be sourced lists, no reason they can't exist as both categories and lists, arguments of "unencyclopedic cross-categorization" are without any policy merit and should have been given zero weight. In other words, there was no good reason to delete any of them, no matter how many people showed up with non-reasons. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC <EC> got it right the first time. NOT#INFO is all well and good, but the lists were an organizational structure (as most lists are) not a directory or something else. Navigational aids are just fine. As such the !votes for keep were by-and-large policy based. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as written. Keep !votes had little basis in policy, while the delete commentary was on-target and relevant. Closer correctly discards many- not all, but many- as making weak arguments. That the deleted lists were original research went without a real refutation, and were correctly identified as higher arguments, worth more weight. Courcelles 02:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you identify those arguments you find to be the strong delete arguments and those you find to be weak keep arguments? I don't see things that way, but I can't tell what arguments you are basing your !vote on. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, while I can't claim that all delete !votes were based in policy, the ones that were were more based in policy and in line with the (LOTS AND LOTS of) previous discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can fly, whereas the keeps were primarily WP:ATA. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Overturn to "No Consensus" with respect to all except parasites which is a clear keep. While I believe that such lists have no organizational benefit and should be either categories or nothing, I don't see consensus for such as view either reflected in policy or in the AfD. The earlier "list of fictional superpower" list deletes were influenced by the claim that the powers were trivial or undefinable which isn't really the case with the iconic powers in the last debate. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, though TBH I would've endorsed the original closure as well, they were both within discretion; this was a close call. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse all, along the same lines as Black Kite. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as just a lot of "I don't like the outcome!" BAWWWing. Keep opinions rested on WP:USEFUL & WP:EFFORT, and were rightly given little weight. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Except for one, none of the keep arguments attempt to address the policy-based problems the lists face. One of the keep arguments didn't so much about why the lists should be kept, but was a rant about AfD as a whole. Most of the delete arguments, on the other hand, try to use policy to back up their positions based on recent outcomes of similar AfDs. —Farix (t | c) 14:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus for all but the parasite one that was keep. Some of those who wanted them deleted, said the content was better as categories, preferring them instead of list. Not a good reason to delete something. If you believe the information is valid as a category entry, why not as part of a list? Are there different standards listed somewhere? Do you sincerely doubt any of the characters used magic, in that one list about magic users? You can read a review about the series, or the back of the DVD boxes they come in, which will confirm they can use magic. Seems like just a bunch of list haters to me. A lot of people felt the same way and said keep. No consensus to delete any of this. Dream Focus 15:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the deletes to keep, which was the actual consensus. The conclusion that they should be categories but not lists is plain contrary to policy, which is that both are normally appropriate ( I think the only reasonable exception is when there are too few items for a list to be helpful). If there is enough evidence for a category, there is enough evidence for a list. A list limited to material in notable anythings is not indiscriminate, nor directory. Totally inappropriate rule-making by the closing admin. The arguments about sourcing was also contrary to fact, as most of the material could be sourced from the appropriate (primary, in this case) sources; an incorrect statement is not a policy based argument. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, per our verifiability policy, if there are no reliable, independent sources that discuss a subject then we should not have an article on it. That means it is not enough to "source" an article about a fictional element entirely to the work of fiction in which it appears. Reyk YO! 19:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're applying a narrow view of notability unsupported by consensus. Each list entry does not need to establish notability, and reliable sources for "list of fictional X" don't need to explicitly state "fictional x...", as long as they apply to the topic. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I think my view is supported by consensus- particularly concerning "list of fictional characters with attribute X" type articles. The community has well and truly decided that they are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Consensus has been established that if you can't even write an encyclopedia article about "X in fiction", then dumping a lot of names into a cross-category list is not on. The principle is very clear: is a list an article? Yes. Does policy allow articles to be written from only primary sources? No. Should you then compile a list from only primary sources? No. Reyk YO! 23:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, individual other discussions don't determine consensus other than locally. The fact that a lot of !voters are confused by the bad current state of some lists does not give you a license to presume that all such lists are to be expunged. Deletion discussions are to be about the encyclopedic potential rather than the current state of articles, so most of the "delete, looks like OR crap" votes are not supported by policy. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would think that several discussions regarding many of these lists, held in a central location like AfD and commented on by a large number of neutral observers and all ending in unequivocal delete is about as far from being limited consensus as you can get barring a Wikipedia-wide straw poll. I also think that, since WP:OR you know, kinda is policy, then arguments that make reference to it are also supported by policy. And arguing that anyone who disagrees with you must be "confused" is just poor form. Reyk YO! 00:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • While uncorrectable OR violation is a good deletion reason, there is no OR. Saying "OR" when it is itrrelevant is not a policy based argument but just bluster. Anyway, don't the continued arguments here and elsewhere prove there is no stable consensus? I hardly think the people who persistently gtry for the deletion of these articles count as neutral observers. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone explain how NOT#INFO applies here? It's a navigational aid to existing articles. I'm extremely unclear how that can be in violation of NOT#INFO (and I was in the AfD too). Hobit (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I can't speak for others, I would generally say that "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" which I believe these lists to be are "indiscriminate collections of information". I also note that the former is not a subheading of the latter in the current layout of WP:NOT, but I suspect that similar thinking influenced many of those who cited WP:NOT#INFO in the debate. This is the disadvantage of arguing with links and acronyms rather than arguments. Even if it's a standard one it can often be clearer to make it explicitly rather than via a linked acronym which often applies on in part or in spirit and not in all the specific bullet points listed at the linked section. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was my guess. I can't see how a navigational aid can indiscriminate collections of information. I think "loosely related" is a massive stretch here. I think the arguments for deletion in the AfD are just fundamentally flawed. I don't see how flawed arguments can win the day with that close of a !vote count. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to keep Per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to keep or at least no consensus, admin's closing summary clearly misinterprents or misunderstands the rationales - it would be harsh to blame the closing admin because the quality of debate here was very poor; there was an alphabet soup of quoted abbreviations, but their actual application in these cases received minimal discussion because of the varied bunch of articles nominated. There are legitimate arguments for the deletion of lists like these (I'd probably consider them only "marginal keeps") - for instance discussing navigational structure via WP:CLT, or arguing that the inclusion attribute is not a meaningful, important, verifiable, or just poorly defined - but I didn't discussion about this, particularly judging the articles case-by-case on their merits.
The arguments for deletion generally don't seem to apply policy and guidelines to the individual articles - one main thrust was that it was duplicated by a category, but that's not by itself a reason to delete if you read through WP:CLT (which is glaringly relevant, yet not mentioned in the nomination, the "delete" rationales or the closing statement). I'm not sure WP:IINFO was relevant: the lists had clear inclusion criteria, so by definition are not indiscriminate. The closing statement suggests that recreation as categories is possible which presumably rules out WP:IINFO - information that is genuinely indiscriminate wouldn't deserve a category! (And according to WP:CLT there is a valid argument for creating a list article from such a category and annotating and referencing it to make it non-redundant...so if a category is acceptable, there should be a specific reason why a list wouldn't be.) Some of the other "delete" rationales simply showed lack of knowledge about policies and guidelines: the idea that any list which could contain individually non-notable items is deletable unless it includes "List of Notable X" in the title shows a lack of knowledge of WP:NNC (it is appropriate for lists to include entries that don't deserve their own article - actually at WP:CLT that's a benefit of lists over categories - but it's also appropriate for editors to keep a list at maintainable and readable length, if necessary, by including only entries notable enough to possess an article), while arguments like 'wasted opportunities that follow the boring "click on the blue link" format' seen never to have considered WP:CLT or the fact that improvement of the lists by annotation so they are no longer redundant to a category.
What I found very unhelpful was the clear misinterpretation of several "keep" rationales, including in the admin's closure, in order to render them argument to avoid. For instance, under WP:CLT, a system of navigation (category, list or navbox) that is not useful, is a bad system of navigation, and should be removed if it's redundant to one of the others. So arguing for navigational usefulness is not the same mistake as WP:USEFUL, it's just pointing out that it satisfies WP:CLT. Similarly, DGG stated that for individual items on a list about attributes of fictional characters, it generally would be possible to reference the fact they possess that attribute (and hence belong on the list) to their source material. That's a point about whether the articles could be referenced, yet it is represented in the nominator's reply and closing summary as if DGG had made the mistake of arguing for WP:INHERITED notability of the list, and hence his point can be dismissed. Alphabet-soupping WP:ATA at opposing points of view, without considering arguments on their merits, is very harmful to meaningful debate. TheGrappler (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Most of the "keep" opinions were weak and ignored valid concerns with WP:IINFO WP:NOTDIR and WP:OR. ThemFromSpace 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly I just see waves toward those polices, with very little discussion of why they apply. It's now OR to group topics? We do that all the time. You'd be hard pressed to find a list of people here where there is a RS that puts all those people on the same list. NOTDIR also would seem to rule out all lists if you applied it here. Could you explain how it's different than say a list of songs by artist or a list of episodes? And IINFO doesn't even seem to vaguely apply. Could you explain how these policies apply here and where you see that explained in the AfD? Hobit (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:OR applies because we can't say that something is a fictional magic user (or what have you) unless a reliable source states the case. WP:IINFO states that articles must discuss "the reception and significance of notable works" of fiction; it also contains an admonishment against "excessive listing of statistics". WP:NOTDIR prohibits unencyclopedic cross-categorizations. All of these arguments were brought up at the AfD and were rebutted by vague handwaves such as "this material is appropriate" without anything to back it up (such as sources showing that this wasn't original research and that the topic has enough relevance to be considered encyclopedic). For lists such as these to exist we need to provide sources which show that both 1.the objects in the list belong there and 2. that the list itself is of an encyclopedic topic. ThemFromSpace 06:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, one at a time.
          • WP:OR. We can use a primary source to identify a "magic user". If the book says they use magic, that's enough. Is there a single case on the list where a primary source doesn't back that up? If so, remove it from the list. But all I saw easily met that requirement.
          • The section of WP:IINFO you discuss is for plot-only descriptions of fictional works. I think applying that requirement to a list entry is a massive stretch. If we are going to claim that listing a person as being a magic user (for example) is a "plot description" then we are left with the direction to be "concise". A list entry is about as concise as you could hope for.
          • WP:NOTDIR#6 is probably the best argument to be found, but it's also a stretch. There is plenty of coverage of fictional magic users as a concept. So the list topic is notable and therefore generally encyclopedic. Unless unencyclopedic means WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
        • My point is that the waves toward policy were A) unclear and B) largely wrong. WP:OR clearly is bogus as nothing prevents the use of primary sources. Heck, even without primary sources reviews and the like will identify the characters as "wizards" or the like. The section of WP:IINFO you cite is about writing too-long plot summaries and doesn't apply to simple lists. The WP:NOTDIR would seem to hang on a personal definition of "unencyclopedic". I'm really not seeing any valid arguments for deletion out there. If people had actually argued their points (like you did here, which I think is great) rather than waving at guidelines the keep folks could have countered them (as I have tried to do). But instead there were just waves on both sides to the guidelines and so we get a bunch of fairly worthless !votes to delete and keep. Hobit (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Bold call but I'm not going to support overturning the deletion of rampant original research. No, primary sources are not enough, it depends too significantly on how the individual editor interprets the primary source. People who write this stuff about fictional universes shouldn't be held to different sourcing standards than the rest of us who have to actually look for sources rather than watch movies and write about them.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bah. I agree that fictional sources shouldn't be held to different standards, but you seem to be holding them to higher ones. If we have a reliable source we can use it as a source, primary or otherwise. Could that lead to a disagreement? Sure just like reading any source. We resolve such things through discussion all the time, even on science topics and the like. The thing we avoid with primary sources is synthesis. I'm not sure how that could apply to a list of this nature. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I'm writing an article on politics, I can't observe the politics myself and write about it. That's OR. There's no difference between observing a movie, and using my observation to include a character on a list of fictional magic users or whatever. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, mostly per Mkativerata. Though I agree that both sides both had some rather poor arguments brought forward, concerns about original research – amounting as a result of a near-blind following of verifiability and nothing else – I think are valid. –MuZemike 06:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - there were essential problems with the lists that were deleted - mainly absence of secondary sources and OR problems. Claritas § 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. Sustain parasites as keep. The AfD nomination should have focused on one list and its associated articles, not several lists. The original nomination's two arguments were "inappropriate for Wikipedia" and "has a category already":
  1. Inappropriateness mentions no pillar, policy, guideline, or essay. Not a reason for deletion.
  2. "Has a category" is countermanded with authority by WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates - paraphrasing: lists and categories both are useful and considered necessary, and are mutually compatible; camps should not seek deletion. Not a reason for deletion.
  3. This leaves the nomination without foundation, except as a fishing expedition for reasons to delete. Fishing is not the purpose of deletion nominations. If I were an admin, I would close as an invalid nomination.
But WP isn't Includipedia, nor is it Deletipedia. The post-closure flip, in my view, should automatically result in a "no consensus" merely on procedural grounds, with sincere respect to the good faith of the closing administrator. The AfD discussion points were not shining examples of the best in such discussion, for two reasons: 1. the fan/editors of the articles and lists are comparatively deers-in-the-headlights of doggedly determined, blooded deletionists, and 2. too many editors on both sides inexcusably failed to read the entirety of linked pillars, policies, guidelines, and essays. What's the matter, TL;DR? As a result, the discussion was nowhere close to reaching consensus - no offered compromises were seriously considered - one example: the notion of "keep for some duration of time," per WP:DEADLINE, was dismissed here as "give US more time", even though the proferring editor obviously had nothing to do with the articles or lists mentioned. The WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates guideline strongly supports the mutually-inclusive existence of both by-list and by-category navigation of topics, which was the main argument offered for deletion in the AfD nomination. I have no interest in the mentioned lists, having created none, and having edited one only as an example of the kind of improvement which I strongly advocate. I would insist that the lists be improved with descriptions and some internal organization, and linked articles be improved with reliable, verifiable 3rd-party sources. If that improvement doesn't happen, I'll re-up the lists for deletion in WP:DEADLINE days myself. --Lexein (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly endorse. In a sort of AfD2 sense, the general argument about list articles suggests that the added utility of a list justifies some leeway when it comes to judging content and inclusion issues. There are some stronger opinions out there (that notability is additive and others), but that is the basic idea. On those merits, I have a lot of trouble seeing a list of fictional magic users as useful enough to overcome the OR/N/NOT issues raised in the deletion debate. On to the discussion itself, we do empower closing admins to take into account some opinions more than others. This is a case where that weighting happened and resulted in delete opinions being given more weight than keep opinions. And weighting those opinions did not require much tea leaf reading. The comments in the AfD were clear and articulate with rationales generally supporting keeping the parasites list (which has some strong potential sourcing) and deleting the rest. I won't do a line by line unless requested, but this close was at the margin of admin discretion and explained clearly. Protonk (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse All, most of the Keep arguments made were extremely feeble, justifying a delete call, and also per Mkativerata. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • So if the keep !votes were feeble we delete no matter how strong the delete !votes? I'm assuming that's not what you meant, but I would like to hear what you felt were good arguments on the delete side. I honestly don't see any. Hobit (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all deletes. The closer acknowledged, by indicating that parallel categories were appropriate, that the articles did not fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Therefore there is no policy-based reason for deletion (whatever improvement may be appropriate). Whether to maintain lists, categories, or both is therefore purely a matter for editorial discretion, where the closing admin should not have overridden the community's expressed consensus, or lack thereof, without compelling reasons. Without such reasons, there was no consensus to delete any of these articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Biomechanics of intrinsic gravity (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted in an AfD on the 10th of August and appeared on REFUND both before and after the deletion discussion. I deleted a recreation and the author asked me to post a deletion review here. He (I.R.Bhattacharjee) contends that the subject itself was inadequately covered in the deletion discussion and offers some sources and arguments on my talk page. My opinions on the page and the original deletion discussion are summarized on that talk page section: I don't think it belongs on wikipedia and I don't think the original deletion discussion was fatally flawed. Please understand that I am posting this on behalf of someone who does feel that the subject should be covered and that the deletion discussion was insufficient (ie. don't close this as without reason to overturn). Thanks. Protonk (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse I would like to draw the attention of user Hobit and proton towards the article "THE CORE OF THE MATTER

Core and Sleeve in the Rolfian Paradigm" in the url http://www.somatics.de/Linn/Core.htm , which explains the wider acceptance as required by them. I would not like to prove the wider acceptance in any other way but deletion of an elite article Biomechanics of intrinsic gravity from wikipedia would also entitle deletion of other related articles from wikipedia. An example of it could be Artificial Gravity article, because it also starts with some of the facts which have been deeply described by Dr.Bhattacharjee in his newly edited article [[2]]. Rajan Kashyap--Rajan Kashyap (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)--Rajan Kashyap (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)--Rajan Kashyap (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Courtney Thomas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I don't know who the musician was who's page was deleted several years ago, but there is now a new Courtney Thomas, Miss Pennsylvania 2010 and Miss America 2011 contestant who is deserving of a new page, which I would be glad to write if an administrator will unlock it and allow it to be created. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Steelhaven – Well, what do you do when a DRV on a no consensus close at AFD also fails to reach a consensus? Absolutely nothing. No consensus to overturn, so original no consensus close stands. After a reasonable period of time, a return to AFD is at editorial discretion, though a merger discussion should be held on the article's talk page. – Courcelles 05:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Steelhaven (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as NC "default to Keep", however there was only one "Keep" vote and one "Keep or Merge", both of which were basically WP:ITSNOTABLE and should've been given a lesser weight anyway. All the other eight comments agreed that the article was not independently notable. In no way whatsoever did the close reflect consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 13:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm inclined to think we should overturn to merge. There wasn't anything in the discussion upon which a keep result could have hung. Merge was the least deletionist outcome that could have been arrived at, so merge was the most that was within the closing admin's discretion. Delete would have been an appropriate close too and I would have argued for delete in the AfD as I really doubt there is anything of value to merge. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP ARTICLE - The article has proved to be actively developed, have references, and people who want to continue to develop it. What is the rush to delete the thing? Do people plan to repeatedly nominate articles for deletion until they get their way? Move on. Mathewignash (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to merge. Consensus was that it wasn't notable enough for its own article. Consensus was also that outright deletion wasn't a good idea, especially with the list already in existence. So merge it should be. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but merge "merge" is a variety of "keep" outcome, so the close is not numerically unreasonable, if we're counting noses. Having said that, I still believe the merger is the most encyclopedic outcome, as I proposed in the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete- consensus was clear that the contents of the article were unsuitable for inclusion, but the participants were split on how best to remove the bad content. Keep was the only outcome that could not have been arrived at through that discussion, and defaulting to the only outcome that was unacceptable to the participants is not really an appropriate way to close the discussion. Reyk YO! 22:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps someone should just have nominated all the Transformers spaceships to merge a single page of Transformers Spaceships in the first place instead of going on a binge of Deletion nominations. It would have not ruffled as many feathers and probably been done better, even supported by the normal editors of the Transformers articles. Heck, maybe someone should propose that now. Mathewignash (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black Kite and I had a discussion about that after this had been kicked off. I tend to agree with your position, but there are issues with sourcing such that if we take a bunch of uncited stuff and put it into one big list, it's still a big mess of uncited stuff. The problem with many fictional articles is that there aren't people willing to do the legwork to make real encyclopedia entries out of them, which I find quite unfortunate. Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, this is the problem; if you take half a dozen unsourced articles on non-notable subjects, you're just creating one big non-notable article. Whilst merging in this way is usual, the resulting article has to be sourced from actual reliable sources and not become a magnet for page upon page of completely non-notable trivia, like most of the Transformers articles currently are (i.e. this one is 116K - two thirds of it could be removed without losing anything important). Black Kite (t) (c) 08:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect (suggested boilerplate: "redirect, content available in history for merging"), clear consensus against stand-alone article. I don't see a delete consensus, but it would be within admin discretion. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I can't find any sort of consensus there (and if there was a delete consensus available, believe me I would have fished it out). Stifle (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect It seems to me there were more comments for merge then keep (and more or less about the same for delete). There is no evidance proudced to establish any notability (and there is still none).Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but merge: Looks to be no consensus on the surface. But with all the discussion here and there, it's clear there is support for a merge. No prejudice against starting an AfM discussion if this position appears controversial, but it really shouldn't be. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but hold off on the merge for now. This is a very young article, hardly over a month old. Merging would be like WP:DEMOLISH since merges often result in a loss of the majority of the information. Moreover, this subject seems to be rather unique in the transformer's universe, and spans multiple TV series so there's not obvious destination for it to be merged to as far as I know (though I must admit I know very little) —CodeHydro 14:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I said Merge in the discussion because I didn't think we'd end up keeping it. I'd prefer it kept of course since nothing is gained by destroying articles that some enjoy reading and those who don't won't ever find unless they were just looking for something to complain about and destroy. There was clearly no consensus to delete. The closure was fine. Dream Focus 17:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
By the End of Tonight (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A7'ed a couple of days ago. Requesting Undeletion based on the fact that the band has two full-lengths out on Temporary Residence Records and has had copious media coverage, e.g. Pitchfork, Allmusic, tinymixtapes, Drowned in Sound, Dusted. Happy to add to article if it's thin. Chubbles (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • undelete After a quick look at the I'm unable to tell which of those sources provided by Chubbles are reliable, but a discussion certainly seems reasonable at this point. No idea if the original speedy was justified or not as I can't see the article, so I won't !vote to overturn or endorse the decision at this time. Hobit (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn with liberty to list at AFD. Two album releases would be enough to keep the article at AFD, so are certainly enough to defeat an A7. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I also can't see the version as deleted but the band has sufficient releases and coverage to likely pass AFD.--Michig (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just give it a minute...:) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 August 2010

[edit]

27 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
human molecule (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Note: the article human molecule never when through an xfd. To give some history, in 2007 I wrote an article on human chemistry (my field of study), based on the first books written on the subject, such as American engineer William Fairburn’s 1914 book Human Chemistry, along with 50 or so other references. To give some idea of how the two subjects interrelate: Henry Adams, for example, defines “social chemistry” as the study of the mutual attraction of equivalent “human molecules” (1885). The two subjects are thus closely related. The human chemistry article was sent to afd (10 Oct 2007), on the grounds that I was attempting to self-promote my own publications, among other objections, rather than to summarize an historical subject. Out of irritation with the derogatory personal commentary directed at me, I speedy-tagged both the human chemistry and the associated article human molecule (that I also wrote earlier), per G7; specifically posting a request note on Tim Vickers’ talk page that he speedy human molecule for me, being that he seemed to be the one raising the most objection.

After three-year cool-off period of retraction from the subject, and from Wikipedia (Note: from 2005 to 2010, I have successfully author about 200 new Wikipedia articles), I attempted a new one-page reserved summary article on the topic of the “human molecule” (10 Jun 2010), being that, as I have come to find, at least seven books have been written on the subject of the human molecule and that the 2002 Sterner-Elser ecological stoichiometry calculation of the formula for one human molecule (the first published calculation for empirical formula for one human) has a 750+ Google citation count and is found in over 500+ libraries, world-wide. The total 90+ people to have written on the subject are listed here. In any event, after starting the new article a few months ago, only after a few edits, the previous deleting editor Tim Vickers, in discussion with Kww (who wants an indef ban on me), quickly objected and reached consensus between themselves, on 11 Jun 2010, to delete the human molecule article, per G4.

The problem here is that the human molecule article never went through an afd; hence G4 does not apply and has been misused in this case. Moreover, the new 2010-version of the human molecule, was not a “a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy” as G4 defines for speedy; but rather an honest effort to summarize a very notable subject in a more neutral way, given three-years retreat from writing at Wikipedia. I’ve discussed this now with the deleting editor (Vickers) who suggests deletion review and have now also requested editorial help, in finding two or three Wikipedians to help me write the article, at physics, chemistry, economics, and sociology, project pages, with the general suggestion being that I go to deletion review.

It is my belief that a noted (albeit controversial) subject over 220-years old, with a half-dozen books written on it, that is taught in universities, and with, unbelievably, four near 100-foot tall statues made in tribute to this subject that it should be notable enough to have a summary Wikipedia article. What I would like is to be allowed to do then, is to be allowed to write-up a neutral, reliably sourced, article on the topic of the human molecule and then if anyone has objections to the new article, let someone formally propose an afd for the article. Libb Thims (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry. The 2010 version may not have been identical, but it did not address the objections to the article raised in the AFD. If Libb Thims believes that he can create a version of the article that surmounts those issues, he can do so in the article incubator for review.—Kww(talk) 15:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That related deletion discussion, as I have already linked to above (10 Oct 2007), was for the particular article "human chemistry". The "human molecule" article, by contrast, while some may have objected to it, was cogent enough to be featured in October 2007 Did You Know? and was never sent to afd, but rather I requested it's deletion per G4. --Libb Thims (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to use CSD codes, please use them correctly. I'm skeptical that you requested a deletion via G4: G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. If so, you are agreeing with me that the article was indeed covered by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry, where it was specifically listed. Now G7, G7. Author requests deletion possibly does apply. Actual history is that it was stubbed to remove the WP:OR. You then redirected it. You then requested G7 deletion. That speedy was rejected. Coren then tried a G1 speedy, which was refused with a redirect to Nanoputian, up until the day the you recreated the original offending content, still replete with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. In summary, all content of this article was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry, that content was removed as a result of that discussion, and you have done nothing to repair that material.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I was using the codes in reverse order. I have corrected the typos above. The original request for G7 is here. Having now digested your suggestion, the incubator idea might be a good path. Over the next few days (week at most), I'll write up a new version of the article in the incubator space, at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Human molecule, and there you, Tim Vickors, Coren, and whoever else (maybe some Wikipedia:Project members) can raise whatever objections, and I will do my best to address each objection one a time. Thanks. --Libb Thims (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
at the time of the afd, i supported the article, but only if it was edited drastically,. The article now linked to above remains a combination of information about the historic use of it as a literary conceit, most notaably by Goethe in the novel Ellective Affinities, where they with a extension of the metaphor in ways that might be worth discussing, a cconsideration ofthe vague use opf "chemistry" to indicate romantic attraction, to an indication that it is being used as a serious sociological concept--which is fringe altogether and for which i am not sure there are any reliable sources. The present article is less confused than the past one, but is altogether oriented to the concept of it being a real sociological hypothesis, which I think nonsense, supported by such illustrations as a pile of multiple copies of the key author's books on a cart. I note our current article on Goethe's novel remains somewhat dominated that it was to even a slight degree a scientific theory, rather than the author's opportunity to work out a elaborate metphor by showing a playful intellectual game among the characters to justify their relationships. I am notsure the pressent editor will be able to rewrite the article objectively, in view of the amount of nonsense in the linked version. But he can try, and just possibly someone will fell inclined to make actual sense of it. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, thanks for the comments. Today’s version is starting to fill out and has 21-references (ten more than when you last viewed it), none of which are from a “pile of multiple copies of my books on a cart”. I still have 14 more header sections to write. It is puzzling to me, I must say, as to why I am facing such resistance to write on this topic? Granted, most theorizers on this subject are long dead: Henry Adams (spent 38-years thinking on this topic), Vilfredo Pareto (spent 22-years on this subject), Pierre Teilhard (spent 25-years on this topic), etc. What I’m most likely going to do, when the new-version of the article is finished, is send the whole thing to afd myself so that the article can gather a formal consensus. --Libb Thims (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please don't tell me that this horror show is ever going to appear as a real Wikipedia article. Please. This is not fringe, it's beyond that: this is a piece of original research kookery at its very worst. It's not even pseudoscience: it does not even try to be anything close to science. A textbook case of absurd absurdity cranked up to absurd. 80.135.29.39 (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kww, the problem here is that you have abused your admin powers by misusing G4 (speedy per "recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion") to delete the new-2010 version of the human molecule article I was attempting to start earlier this year. The 2007-version of the human molecule article was never sent to afd. Therefore, you cannot speedy an article that has never had an afd discussion. Secondly, you are admittedly impartial to my edits, as you have been labeled by other admins as a "shouter" for call to permanently ban me, a motion you have expressed on multitudes of pages and dates that I can't even begin to count. Therefore, to resolve this issue, and get a fair community vote on the subject "human molecule" is to finish the writing the article, stopping at the 100-reference level, then move the article into the main space, so I can add the missing images, then send the article to afd for community vote. I will likely be doing this within the next week. It would be enlightening if you could explain why you have such hate for me. I really don't even remember interacting with you prior to my writing the 2007 human chemistry article? --Libb Thims (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have abused nothing. It's just a really bad article, and you don't seem to understand that having this kind of article is not good for Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 14:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject you call “dreck”, or excrement, as you have stated in 2007, the Royal Society calls the best science writing of 2005. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is obvious that you are out of your topic area in that you do not have any type of science degree. You have been grinding an axe with me now for 3+ years? I would very much wish for you to cease your attack on me. --Libb Thims (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is attacking you. Write an article that meets Wikipedia standards, and it will be allowed back. Perform original research, and it won't. It really is that simple: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for publishing original research of any kind.—Kww(talk)
The current version has 30 direct references to the term "human molecule", used in various ways (economics, sociology, psychology, literature, physics, chemistry, history, culture, etc). Why don't you try to explain to me what part of the article is "original research"? --Libb Thims (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are using references to multiple different concepts that are only vaguely related and relating them in ways that external sources do not. This paragraph is the best example:
Variations or near-synonyms of the term "human molecule" include: point atom (Humphry Davy, 1813), atomic society and social molecule (Thomas Huxley, 1871), economic molecule (Léon Walras, c.1880), human atom (Albion Small, 1899), human chemical (Thomas Dreier, 1910), human chemical element (William Fairburn, 1914), Mr. Molecule (William Patton, 1919), "chemical formula in operation" (George Carey, 1919), human element (Pierre Teilhard, 1947), social atomism (Philip Rieff, c.1960), dissipative structure (Ilya Prigogine, 1971), Molecule Man (Jonathan Borofsky, 1977), human atomism (Arthur Iberall, 1987), human particle (Joel de Rosnay, 1975), molar group (Pierre Levy, 1994), mereological atoms (Eric Olson, 1998), free electron (Tom DeMarco, 1999), molecular relationship (Joseph Dewey, 1999), gay molecule Y2, the lesbian molecule X2, or middle-Eastern polygamous molecule X4Y (Christopher Hirata, c.2000), child "precipitate" PPT (Karl Fink, 2001), couple "compound" M-F (David Hwang, 2001), family molecule (Paul Peachey, 2001), giant molecule (Jim Eadon, 2001), "well-formed molecule" (Farrelly brothers, 2001), "highly evolved, overgrown super-molecules" (Peter Pogany, 2006), "The Human Element" (John Claxton/Dow Chemical, 2006), social atom (Mark Buchanan, 2007), "bag of chemicals" (Michael Brooks, 2009), chemical molecules (Surya Pati, 2009), entromorphic atom or Mr. Carbon Atom (Mark Janes, 2009), corporate molecule (Vineet Nayar, 2010), etc., among others; each of which are derivative terms discussing different aspects of the same overall subject.
Your thesis is that these are all derivative terms discussing different aspects of the same overall subject. Without an external source tying these things together, it's WP:SYNTHESIS. You can't make an article forwarding the proposition that there is a common subject tying these things together unless someone else states that common subject exists.—Kww(talk) 17:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you read up on Wikipedia:Merging. I’ll summarize the main guidelines for you for when to merge two related terms or topics into one:

  1. Duplicate – There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
  2. Overlap – There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
  3. Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.

According to your argument then, either I content fork these various 30 different terms "on exactly the same subject" into 30 new stub articles or else be accused of doing original research? Maybe you should post notice to all the merge-tag happy people in Wikipedia that they are doing original research and that this is not allowed at Wikipedia. Any other original research issues with the article? --Libb Thims (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are seriously arguing that an article that attempts to connect Atom Ant to Francois Massieu is simply merging 30 articles on exactly the same subject?—Kww(talk) 18:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both you and Tomdo08 have both complained about the one sentence comic section, as supposed grounds to delete the whole article, so I have moved it to the talk page. Regarding your issue with the different synonyms, I have now moved that group to its own header section, added in clarification explanation, with support references from German physicist Jurgen Mimkes who has been teaching this subject at the University of Paderborn for ten years now. Any other objections to the current article? --Libb Thims (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above doesn't seem to be getting anywhere - both sides have stated their positions, and neither are convinced by the arguments of the other. The deletion review has been open for almost 7 days, so in order to facilitate closing it, might I suggest that all interested parties briefly state their position below. Djr32 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’m out of time for the day, but briefly "NO the 2007 version was not deleted as WP:SYNTH". The human molecule article NEVER went to afd or was even prodded. Kww improperly speeded an article I was attempting to write on the human molecule in June. He hasn’t yet admitted to this mistake, but whatever. I am now a few days away from finishing the new-version, based on all the constructive feedback, at incubator. When I am done and have finished incorporating all the suggestions for improvement, etc., I will move the article back into the main space. After which, it seems, the article will then likely get an official community afd vote. So, I guess there is really no need for this review to remain open. Feel free to archive or close it as resolved. Thanks --Libb Thims (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you move the article in its current condition back to mainspace, it will be immediately eligible for deletion again, so I wouldn't advise that. Note that no participants in this review have argued that my deletion was improper.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as for the "constructive feedback" you have received at the incubator, it seems to echo what you have received here.
  • there are a lot of completely different philosophic and scientific ideas, allegories, technobabble and completely unrelated stuff mixed together under one umbrella
  • The article seems to be a synthesis of not-notable references that are about the subject, joke references that are taken seriously, and off-topic subjects that appear related (but are not) all brought together to form a original thesis
  • "human molecule" as you represent it there, is not a theory but a name for a lot of different things, some of them very much not being a theory at all
Given that, there isn't a consensus being developed anywhere that this article is suitable for Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 22:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How's about this compromise: (1) I'll finish writing the article. (2) I'll move the article into mainspace. (3) I'll notify you of article completion and then you send the article to afd and explain to everyone why it should be deleted. Is this compromise fine with you? --Libb Thims (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Finish it in the incubator, get a consensus that the article meets Wikipedia standards, and then move it to mainspace. If you move it to mainspace before that consensus is reached, I'll probably speedy it under G4 again.—Kww(talk) 13:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Debrahlee Lorenzana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I created a new page on this subject with entirely new sources that were not even in existence when the previous article was discussed and deleted, but it was speedily deleted. According to the Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages policy: "==Valid reasons for recreating a deleted page==

Acceptable reasons for recreating a previously deleted page are:
  • Notability status has changed: ... When an article was first created, the subject was not notable, but coverage has since expanded, thereby establishing notability."

That page also lists the requirements for the speedy deletion of recreated articles none of which are met. If someone could restore the content for this review that would be helpful. I am also open to having the article be about the firing if that's helpful. A study was recently released (sincle the last AfD) and linked to this case regarding gender discrimination of this type. Whether this case has broad implications was one of the concerns when it was deleted, and it's clear now that it does. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse and close this, as this is the same user who brought the last DRV. First Gillan Duffy now this, seeing the same "one event" one-trick-ponies pop up month after month is tiresome. There is still nothing to indicate the woman herself is anything beyond our favorite WP:BLP1E. Perhaps if energies were directed at writing an article about the case itself, fine. But this? No, this is not what an encyclopedia is for. Tarc (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for now The reason it was deleted was WP:BLP1E. I personally disagree with that outcome, but that was the consensus. More sources aren't going to help unless they are part of a second event. It looks like you started on an event article at one point and I'd support that quite handily. Sorry, I agree with you on the article existing, but can't endorse the recreation at this time as the study doesn't seem like it would be a second event and so we are stuck with that consensus. Work on the event article and if time shows that she is notable (say in 4 months) try the bio again then. Hobit (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and close No evidence this is anything other than a BLP1E case, as it was when it was last endorsed last month or the month before that. Also suggest a block if this shows up on DRV again, as 3 nominations in 3 consecutive months is clearly disruptive. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bah, it is annoying, but the point is valid. She's spawned a study about workplace discrimination and showed up in about 10 articles in real places (Newsweek, Washington Post, etc.) in the last month. We don't have an article on her because people have an allergy to anything that looks "tabloidish" even if Newsweek, the WP, etc. all have articles on them. Play a single game of major league baseball and you are notable, but hit every major news organization the world around and that's not notable if the reason you did so is somehow tabloid fodder. Bah. That said, creating the event article should be a fine solution... Hobit (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not only is Wikipedia NOT a tabloid, it's not a news source of any sort. It's amazing how even long-term editors sometimes forget that rather basic fact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but we do cover things that actually happen in the real world. "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." I think we hit all that quite easily. But somehow even experienced editors manage to place their views of what's important (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) ahead of the guidelines we are all supposed to be working off of. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, you missed something important in that quote of yours: "over a period of time". We aren't far enough past the event to determine whether it will ultimately recieve that sort of significance. Is it possible that in 10 or 20 years people will look back on Debrahlee's bodacious titties as a historical milestone like 9/11, the OJ trial, Watergate, the moon landing, the JFK assasination, and so on? Well, maybe. But the chances of that are low enough that we needn't really consider them in this debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Yes, that doesn't mean that it is notable, but it does mean we aren't required to wait.... Hobit (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion The nom failed to notify me of this review but did discuss. There is a long discussion on my talkpage but the essence is that Freakshownerd is conflating notability and BLP with regard to creating this article. The article was deleted as a BLP1E vio and there is a clear consensus for this which means that per BLP the content may not be restored without a clear consensus to do that. The article was created when Protonk userfied the deleted text and lost the page salting in the move. Since there is no clear consensus to have this article and there is no draft for us to discuss this should be closed as a waste of everyone's time. Spartaz Humbug! 04:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The actual policy in question states "If [BLP material] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". Do you assert that the new article is "without significant change"? Feel free to use my links in the below response. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The section of the policy in its entirety states "To ensure that material about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis." I would argue that after 2 DRVs and an AFD the consensus is clear that the actual article is a BLP vio under BLP1E. This means that no tinkering with the content will change the fact that there is an extant consensus to delete this article as a not allowed article and that the salting of the page after the DRV reflects this. Using the accidental loss of this salting to recreate the page against consensus without seeking a new consensus or discussing with the deleting/closing admins is a) an appalling act of bad faith; b) sticking 2 fingers up to the community and c) wilfully recreating a BLP violation. As I pointed out to Freakshownerd, the correct action is to write a draft in userspacem bring it here and then have a further discussion, but at some point those advocating for this article need to accept the consensus and give this some space to see if there is further evidence that this isn't a classic oneevent. Spartaz Humbug! 06:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Problems with the above: 1) BLP1E never applied, 2) the last DRV said it didn't, and 3) your G4 was out of process to begin with. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you reading a different wikipedia to me? The closing statement in full was "Endorse. BLP1E covers this pretty neatly, and the evidence given below doesn't point to sustained coverage (or more importantly, some coverage apart from the solitary event). I'm happy to userify the content or email it to anyone as needed. – Protonk (talk) 9:18 pm, 29 July 2010, Thursday (30 days ago) (UTC+3)" Ths bold is mine. Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)'[reply]
            • You just told me that Protonk's close was valid until challenged, and I challenged it. Appealing to a reasonably challenged close (numerical consensus was clearly against endorsement) is unhelpful. Did you mean I could challenge it, or didn't you? Protonk's close clearly does not reflect the strength of arguments nor the numerical input of the previous DRV. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sigh you know what I meant, successfully challenged. You know how it works. Don't be so obtuse. If you disgaree with protonK's close then have a discussion of that but however you parse the validity of the close the case at the time of the deletion was an unchallenged DRV.res 07:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn G4 is for identical content, and the appellant correctly notes that this was different content. Neither G11 nor G10 apply, so I really don't see a valid speedy deletion criterion which applies. BLP does not apply, because the subject of the article is clearly not a non-public figure, nor is the content unsourced, negative, or defamatory. That is to say of all the above "Endorse" !votes, none articulates a policy-based reason for not restoring the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note further that the prior DRV was inaccurately closed as endorse when there were more editors opining that it should be restored and relisted than endorsing the original close. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • An unchallenged close is valid until voided, so whether you agree or not with it or not, there is a valid consensus that we didn't have an article. Your votes doesn't really address my reasons for deleting which where BLP and consensus based. Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just challenged it--is it now voided?
        • The reason the article should be restored is that BLP1E has not ever applied to this person, who sought out the media attention herself and cannot thereby be remotely construed as a low-profile individual. That hasn't changed, although it really doesn't appear that many are listening. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse So what has actually changed? To overcome G4, the article has to overcome the reasons for deletion, which were BLP1E. Throwing in a new source doesn't just automatically cut it for G4. The new source has to raise a real prospect that BLP1E no longer applies. I'm not seeing it here: the "study" arises out of the same event. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please go read WP:CSD G4. The article has to be substantially the same, not just deletable under the same criterion. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly - substantially. If the article doesn't get anywhere near overcoming the consensus-based reason for deletion, it's substantially the same.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Absolutely, that has always been the way that G4 applies, whether the article has addressed the reason for deletion. And this one hadn't. Spartaz Humbug! 06:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The actual wording is "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy". This is neither. It uses entirely different sources, as the appellant pointed out. Spartaz, you've just admitted that you've inappropriately applied G4. Now would be an appropriate time to withdraw your speedy deletion, now that your deviation from policy has clearly been pointed out. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually it's both. If it hasn't overcome the reason for deletion, it is sufficiently identical and it is unimproved. Look at the substance the article not the form. Also, look at the purpose of G4, which is evidently to prevent the subversion of consensus.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's perfectly OK to want G4 to say that, even if it doesn't. Please go try and change G4 to mesh with your reasoning, and see how well the community likes that change. Or accept it the way it is, whichever. Just don't pretend that it currently says what you want it to say, which it most obviously does not. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It appears that there is not a groundswell of support for your argument. Let the DRV play out. Spartaz Humbug! 06:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Jclemens undeleted this article for the duration of the discussion although it is clearly a BLP issue. I have therefore moved the page into my space at User:Spartaz/Debrahlee Lorenzana and resalted. Cheers. Spartaz Humbug! 06:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CRYBLP and WP:BLPCORE apply. You're abusing tools designed to prevent real harm to living people in the case of an obvious publicity-seeker, especially in light of a previous consensus that the article should be restored. Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I used no admin tools to move the page. salting is a matter of discretion and there is no functional difference for DRV between hosting the page in mainspace and my area except that my solution prevents the page being mirrored and googlebotted. Spartaz Humbug! 07:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I love it when someone cites an essay to support an argument; doubly so when it it one of their own creations. Hell, weren't you the one that once proposed that people who, quote, "cry blp!" be subject to blocks? Tarc (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The person in the BLP is neither private nor trying to be private, nor, as far as I know, are there any unsourced negative statements. I'm curious how this article has a BLP issue. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The consensus at both previous DRVs was for restoration. BLP 1-E doesn't apply to a public figure who is part of an event that is receiving lasting coverage. The idea that an entirely new article based on entirely new sources is "substantially the same" as the previous article is absurd. The policies are clear and this article was not a candidate for speedy deletion, no matter how badly Spartaz and Protonk dislike the subject matter. Freakshownerd (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "The consensus at both previous DRVs was for restoration." I'm sorry, is this Bizarro-DRV? The June 14th DRV closed as no consensus to overturn the AfD, which deleted the article on the grounds of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. The July 15th DRV endorsed the close, again on 1E grounds. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you actually read those DRVs, it's quite clear what the consensus was. That they weren't closed according the consensus is why we're here again on the same subject, one that continues to be covered very substantially in reliable independent sources, clearly contradicting assertions that it was a BLP 1-E and making those voting delete and closing discussions against the clear consensus look silly. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read and participated in both, I believe. There was no consensus in either for restoration, otherwise that is what the closing admi would've, y'know, closed them as. What this is beginning to boil down to is not a DRV filed to challenge a G4 speedy, but rather a run-of-the-mill "I didn't like the result" one. We all know how those wind up... Tarc (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, still a BLP1E. Recommend userspace draft. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is to happen, someone else will have to pick up the ball if interested; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking through the logs I see User:Hobit/Debrahlee Lorenzana, which could be a useful starting point if we're serious about it. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can put a good article together, if we're agreed that every admin who has opined that the article is a BLP1E is INVOLVED and ineligible to delete my work or block me for doing so, and I get to put it back have a full AfD discussion (per the past "overturn and relist" DRV consensus that Protonk failed to close accurately)once I'm done. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how it works and you know that Jclemens. Write the draft and bring it here for review. If the consensus is that this now passes BLP1E then DRV will allow restoration to mainspace. Please stop trying to force this through and just follow the accepted processes for dealing with this kind of thing. Spartaz Humbug! 06:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So let me be clear on this: You're telling me that in order to overcome this presumption that any article on Lorenaza can be G4'ed forever after, I must 1) write an article that passes muster, 2) bring it back to DRV, and 3) you reserve the right to block me for anything you perceive as a BLP violation at any step of the process. Just so we're clear, I object to #3 most strenuously. I'm hoping that's not really what you meant. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, where did I threaten to block you? If you see my block log [3] you will see I'm not a blocker by any means but I do hope that you are not going to do anything pointy when the clear consensus here is that this was a valid deletion and that any article should be run through DRV before going to mainspace. I realise that you disagree strongly with the prevailing view here but a consensus is a consensus even if you think it wrong headed. Spartaz Humbug! 11:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no explicit threat--at most, a mild implicit threat by your use of tools to move the restored article out of mainspace, even though I'd truncated it to the "deletion under discussion" template. What I am asking for, and I think I'm close to getting, is an explicit agreement to NOT block me for creating a userspace draft. After all, BLP is BLP in any namespace, and given the vehemence of the arguments here that this amounts to a BLP issue, I am not going to run afoul of such zealotry when it's very clear that normal checks and balances on sanctions do not apply in the BLP space. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the nth time, I didn't use an admin tool to move the article out of mainspace. I clicked on the move button. I did use an admin tool to restore the protection but that was to maintain the status quo from protonk's close of the previous DRV. There is also no implied threat to block you. I don't do implied threats. For god's sake how long have you known me? I am hardly going to block you for hosting a userspace draft when I am also doing that - one that arguably could be G6d as well. I'm very alarmed by the extreme reaction here to normal issues and concerned about bring accused of being about to take extreme steps that are alien to the way that I edit or admin. I honestly suggest you think about this long and hard Jclemens because the level of rhetoric and drama in this thread is wholly disproportionate to the issue in hand and is, im(very humble)o, poisoning the discussion here. You are certainly succeeding in poisoning my good option of your judgement. Spartaz Humbug! 21:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I should also mention that the vehemence here appears to be mostly emanating from you. Please, please ratchet down the drama levels. Spartaz Humbug! 21:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, actually, I saw it as coming from you. You have repeatedly said there is a consensus that it is a BLP1E violation, which is, unless specifically disclaimed, an explicit license to ignore consensus and assertions of good faith. If you want to point outside either of us at the poisoning of the discussion, I'm going to point at the fact that BLP1E has been misapplied in this case. If you don't understand that saying "It's a BLP1E" contains an implied "... and the community has empowered me to delete it or block you if you do something wrong with it", then yes, I can see where my negative reaction might seem disproportionate. BLP1E and BIO1E are fundamentally different issues, and Lorenzana's original coverage probably did fail BIO1E.
    Please feel free to drop by User talk:Protonk and see our discussion on the topic of his prior close. He's said he'll try and post here later, but hasn't yet.Nevermind, he just did. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore The original afd was wrongly closed, dueto the mistaken belief that this was a blp privacy-related issue and that this trtumped other considerations, an error which continues. Using BLP this way is an invalid overextension of the intent of BLP policy, which is designed for the extremely important purpose of makingsure we do no harm with respect to living people, and inapplicable if used otherwise, such as in a n attempt to over-ride the notability requirements. Not News would be applicable, except for the continuing coverage, and the demonstrated extent to which this is seen as a sexual discrimination landmark. To refuse to accept the article unfortunately does give the impression that we are doing so out of dislike for what has been seen in some quarters as the subject's self-opromotion. But since she seems to have promoted herself to the extent of receiving continued national attention, she's notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A BLP1E is a BLP1E is a BLP1E. Nothing has changed since last time. Timotheus Canens (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Except that it's not, never was, and never will be until Lorenaza fails (passes?) WP:WIALPI... which is an integral part of BLP1E. If she's not a low-profile individual, BLP1E cannot apply. BIO1E might, but that's a different measure. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WIALPI is an essay not a guideline, or a policy and does not necessarily reflect policy and practice. Spartaz Humbug! 21:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course it's not. It's an explanation of one clause. If you disagree with it, write a different essay or change it. What isn't in contention is that it is an attempt to clarify what a "low profile individual" is. Please--read BLP1E and BIO1E and go back and look at the differences. BLP1E is to protect Star Wars kid, not Joe the Plumber--which one of these does Lorenzana most closely resemble? Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and everybody should go read up on BLP1E vs BIO1E. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been asked to comment here about my close. PF above says that people should read BLP1E vs. BO1E and he is probably right (myself included). I feel the strongest distinction between BO1E and its BLP counterpart is the non-public figure stipulation. In that respect, this article is on the edge between describing a subject who is ostensibly a non-public figure and one who has thrust themselves into the spotlight. I am very hesitant to claim from my pseudonymous perch that someone doesn't deserve 'protection' as a BLP because they "asked" (one day I'll learn to use single and double quotes properly) to be in the spotlight. That said, I am just as frustrated that my decision in the last DRV is being interpreted as cause to elevate this deletion into the acrimonious and absolutist realm of BLP-mania. In retrospect I should have been clearer that I felt BO1E was enough to support the deletion decision and the first review, but that a reasonable editor could easily conclude that the subject was also a BLP1E. If that sounds confusing/confused it probably is because there is significant overlap in application and terminology. As I said on my talk page, I see my decision as less a prohibition on future discussion than a summary of the debate. I'm still not sure we ought to have an article on the subject, but I don't want to be quoted as suggesting that all future avenues for review are foreclosed. I'll try and return later with some more specific commentary. Apologies for the confusion I have created. Protonk (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Tail of Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no clear consensus for deletion. The image is a unique non-free (as far as I know, it is owned by the Crown so it could be free) image that cannot be replaced by the free equivalent currently available. The free equivalent doesn't convey the information like the original file - it was taken 25 years later and severely tarnishes the image of the disaster - the original photo is iconic to the disaster and well used in media relating to the disaster.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 09:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as closing administrator per my explanation on my talk page. To summarize: free alternative is available; textbook violation of WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8; user failed to address concerns brought up the discussion. With that, I'm off to bed, as it's 3:05 am. — ξxplicit 10:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There is a free image of the wreckage available. Spartaz Humbug! 13:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the FfD discussion you were asked for evidence the image is iconic and how it distorts the event. If you have any such evidence I'd love to hear it. Also, wasn't there a discussion about treating Crown copyright as free for our purposes? Anyone? Hobit (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid reading of the debate. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no consensus established for use of the nonfree image. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the above and Crown copyright is not "free". --Mkativerata (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do apologise - I had internet problems during the discussion (ruddy XT Network!) The current image is of a piece of the fuselage, which is NOT the vertical stabiliser - it is a completely different part of the plane. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide evidence the picture is somehow "iconic"? Can you more clearly explain what the problem is with the free one as far as reader's understanding goes? Hobit (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The free image is distorted - first, can you identify in each image the wreckage as an Air New Zealand DC-10 aircraft if you took it out of context? How do you know the free image it is not a Air New Zealand 767 that crashed in the Southern Alps in 1989? Have a look at this YouTube video of a report on the crash by Television New Zealand in 1999 - the background to the report features a colour version of the non-free image: [4].Lcmortensen (mailbox) 06:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the question " How do you know the free image it is not a Air New Zealand 767..." sums it up, if you can't tell the difference then clearly the impact on the readers understanding is that there is none. You still also don't address the question of evidence that the image is "Iconic"--82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I understand the nom's viewpoint and appreciate the responses, but neither in the FfD or in DrV was there a strong enough reason given to use the non-free version. Our policies on fair-use are quite strict and this doesn't reach that bar. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many of you are actually from New Zealand for one thing - if you are not from New Zealand, you know nothing. I think I would endorse the decision IF someone could come up with a suitable picture lead replacement - the free image is too non-notable and distorted to use as an article lead image. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 03:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need you to provide evidence, ideally via RSes, that the image in question is somehow iconic. If that evidence exists I think you have a good case. If it's iconic nature is just something "you know to be true" then it's not iconic enough for our non-free image policy. Hobit (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. per above. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Found evidence of iconicy - I should have looked here first: The New Zealand Herald's website describes the image with the following caption: "The battered tail of the ill-fated DC-10 lying on its side surrounded by wreckage. The sight of the airline's symbol lying in the snow of Mount Erebus was a shocking confirmation of the disaster." See here: [5] (the image will appear automatically after about five seconds) Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that makes the image iconic, the source doesn't state "this image came to signify the crash" or some such. It's also but one mention. Many images appear all over the place with similar captions, they aren't all iconic. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is the image any different from File:Aa191 ohare.jpg? And can anyone read between the lines? When the image reached New Zealand media, it drove the nail into the coffin that the Erebus disaster was real. In a country of then 3.1 million, it shocked the nation. Only a true New Zealander would understand that. If you need more evidence, I can search through the records at the University of Otago library when I return from the mid-semester break on Sunday 5 September. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS however the key difference there is that there is a claim that no free alternative exists, in this case one does. If the image (and just that image) had that much impact, then it's not unreasonable to expect that reliable sources would have observed the reaction to that particular image - that would make it iconic. DRV isn't a closed door if some significant new material comes to light then further listings can always be made, though I'd suggest that you stay away from the "you lot not being true New Zealanders wouldn't understand..." type lines, they aren't persuasive and add nothing to the debate. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 August 2010

[edit]

24 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yeshiyah Amariel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Nomination on behalf of another user I believe that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yeshiyah_Amariel discussion was closed much too early by an editor who did not provide a reason for the decision. The discussion has gone on for over 2 weeks and more significant information was found... I asked the deleting editor to unto his delete, but instead he restricted my ability to undo it myself and ignored my post to his page. I'm asking that either the discuss be reopened and the page be un-deleted until a real decision without bias and with true consensus be made clear.Yeshiyah (talk) 10:57 pm, Today (UTC+1) Fences&Windows 22:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
Patar why did you delete this page? The perceived views of those stating delete in the last few lines were motivated by Diego Grez to do so and violated meat puppetry.... I'm current starting harassment claims against each... including Grez. You have offered no reason for the decision and there was much more to debate... I ask that you undo your deletion as soon as possible of this page so that the discussion can continue...--Yeshiyah (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because there was a clear consensus to do so. There is absolutely no evidence of a WP:CANVASS violation as far as I can tell (from a quick lookover of his user-talk contributions, and certainly no violation of WP:MEAT. Yes, they supported the same idea, but that's not what meatpuppetry is. They were not random users brought in by canvassing (debunked), nor were they brought in from other sites. They were all well established, with respectively 30k+ edits, 19k+ edits, 24k+ edits, 12k+edits, and nearly 1k edits. So it's been established that they're not coming from offsite. I see no evidence of wrongdoing, and in fact the only thing even mildly suspicious in this is that User:Prestonpayne supported your side of the AfD with his first edit.
I would strong suggest not filing harassment claims against each and every one of them. That would come off as very sour grapes and on your part, and would be of no help to yourself. Also, using such forceful language as "I suggest that you undo..." doesn't help you out either.Struck, user immediately reworded.--Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC) The reason for my deletion should be self-evident: that I found the arguments for deletion (i.e. no independent reliable coverage) stronger than the arguments for keeping the article. If you want to protest, the correct venue is WP:DRV, where there are instructions for filing a deletion review. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC) --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found no evidence of inappropriate behaviour by those who !voted "delete", and found a clear, strong consensus to do so, so I deleted the article, which I still hold to be the right course of action--Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of guitarists considered the greatest (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe that this page meets the criteria for list notability (as it is established in the first AFD). This article was well written with full of sources. The main argument which lead to the article's deletion is that the article's title is a POV one but it can be easy addressed by changing the title not redirect the whole article to its parent topic. I think the closing admin has decided by counting votes, not by arguments.

Lastly, Wikipedia already has the lists such as List of films considered the worst. I think this is an other reason to have a list of guitarists which are considered the greatest by reliable sources. Please restore this artilce. Sorry for my English, it's not so good.AM (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator withdrew.--AM (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I don't know where I can request an deletion review or appeal the second AFD's outcome rather than this place. I'm not familiar with English Wikipedia's administrative system.--AM (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase "DRV is not AFD round 2" refers to the fact that AFD is normally considered final, and there is no appeal. In exceptional cases, where an administrator has made a decision when closing an AFD that violates deletion policy, or has come to a conclusion that no reasonable administrator could make, i.e. one which is "so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it", deletion review is available for a second opinion. As it says on top of this page, deletion review is not to be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So if an article got deleted, I could not do anything to bring it back, in other words, re-create it?--AM (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Barring the above-mentioned level of unreasonableness or some event happening after the closure which changes matters, the deletion of an article is not open to appeal. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I still can not understand. The first AFD's outcome is keep but it was overrunned by the second AFD's outcome. But nothing can overrun the second one because its outcome is deletion which is not open to appeal.--AM (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you can present some event that happened after the closure which changes matters, then that is correct. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I withdraw this nomination due to the lack of policy understanding and language skills to make argument. Sorry all for all inconvenience I have caused.--AM (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hair Transplant Network (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I believe that the Hair Transplant Network meets the criteria for notability. It is notable worldwide among men and women who are experiencing hair loss and seeking support, answers and treatments. While this is a for profit site, it carries no advertising nor does it charge members to join. This article is not meant to be promotional. It simply states the history of the creation of a revolutionary medical website that provides prospective surgical patients with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions and also holds physicians accountable to those patients.

The Hair Transplant Network is an online consumer advocacy community, forum and social network whose mission is to provide valuable medical advice and support to men and women suffering hair loss worldwide. HTN accomplishes this mission by maintaining a database of prescreened, experienced and skilled hair restoration physicians. These physicians must pass rigorous evaluation criteria in order to achieve recommended status. Furthermore, many of the affiliated physicians are considered “rock stars” in their field holding associated patents and authoring definitive texts on the subject of hair transplantation.

I honestly don't see what is missing here. How is this article different than any other article based on a popular online entity? David TTP (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Meadowoods (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted with a single vote as "non-notable C film", however film appears on IMDB [6], has substantial media coverage [7], appears on Netflix, and has its own website [8] Initial deletion should never have cariied through with only a single vote. -OberRanks (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC) OberRanks (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two people opined in the deletion debate, the nominator and one other (which isn't a vote). As no one opined for keeping the outcome is not unreasonable (there is no quorum for such debates). DRV is about resolving problems with the deletion process, not a rerun of the AFD or just because of a disagreement with the result. However to address your points, IMDB catalogues pretty much everything, appearing there isn't indicative of notability and it is generally not considered a reliable source. One review doesn't make for substantial media coverage. Being available on netflix isn't an indication of notability, they'll stock any and every film. I have my own website, doesn't mean anything. WP:FILMNOT defines things like - "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." or "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following..." --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Film has received more than a single review and is widely distributed [9]. Some of the stars in the film are also notable and so, I believe is the director. All that aside, to close an AfD quickly with a single vote was not the proper thing to do. -OberRanks (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again it's not a vote and there were two opinions not one. It wasn't closed quickly it ran the prescribed 7 days. Pointing me to a set of google results isn't that helpful, point out the two or more nationally known critics reviews would be more useful, but not that important. If the article can be rewritten to substantially address the issues of deletion (i.e. you can actually write an article which meets the criteria, not imagined criteria) then just do so (Ask for usification so you have a base to work from if you like). Notability isn't inherited, no midas about here touched things suddenly becoming notable and indeed none of the notability guides says anything about notable directors or actors. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close but relist. This was a proper exercise of admins discretion for what was apparently an "uncontested" deletion request. (however, personally I would have liked to see the "second" have been stronger then a "per nom", I would have relisted it if I saw it before Shimeru did) Question for OberRanks? Why didn't you !vote in the AFD? That would have bought a relist and perhaps a different outcome. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just found out about this after watching the movie last night and coming to Wikipedia to read more about it. I was very surprised to find that there was no article. It was a disturbing film and the ending was well done. I also have no idea what the original article looked like, but I'm sure a proper article could be developed base don material about the film. -OberRanks (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - More input would have been nice, but 2 calls for deletion is enough; there is no fault with the closing admin's action. I'd suggest requesting it to be userfied to User:OberRanks/Meadowoods where you can work on the reliable sourcing problems. IMDB and dvdtalk.com are user-submitted content sites, unable to be used to establish notability. Tarc (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with userification for RS improvement per Tarc. Jclemens (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I userfied the article as suggested, and left a note for both the petitioner and the deleting admin. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List_of_York_City_F.C._Clubmen_of_the_Year (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On recommendation of Dabomb87 and WFC.

On the above AfD, four of the "keeps" where based on the fact that it was a featured list. Of the remaining "keeps", none addressed the content fork point. Then Struway pointed out that the FL-criteria at the time of nomination did not entail the criteria about content forking. The day after a non-admin closed it as keep. I would like some input from non-stakeholders whether this article is a content fork or not, and if not then why. The whole list in it is a subset of a larger list, there is no difference between the information/sortability etc. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 21:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. That the closer accurately read the express, virtually unanimous, consensus can't be denied. The nom is asking for more input on a substantive issue, which is simply a second round of the AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the DRV does not concern itelf with the substance of the above matter, please withdraw this. I do not question the close. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 23:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • the DRV tries to avoid substantive issues, but often does consider them, because correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. In the present instance ,nobody supported your argument, so I do not see how it could have been closed otherwise. The obvious thing to do in a case like this, where there is the possibility that broader attention would have given a different result, is to wait a while, and try again. Normally I suggest waiting at least 6 months or so when the first AfD is as clear as this one. When you do nominate it again, it is highly recommended you notify the people who contributed to the first AfD. DGG ( talk )
  • Comment from closer. Barring a "supervote", I don't see any other possible way this AFD could have been closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant endorse. There really is no other way it could have been closed, but it doesn't seem like the most useful of content forks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – Absolutely no other way to close that AFD; doing so would surely cause the community to exclaim "admin/IAR abuse". –MuZemike 22:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse, could not possibly have ben closed any other way. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nick Thomas-Webster (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I have attempted to answer the deleting editors questions but he chooses only to answer certain ones. In addition he has stated that the only IMDB credits acceptable are those verified by the WGA (I am an actor not a writer) and the MPAA who only rate films not verify content. A review of the request page will show the attempts taken to try and satisfy the requirement for links to external sources. I would be grateful if the conversation and examples to external links could be examined please. Nicktw (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No undeletion - Sorry, the request for undeletion is filled with unreliable sources and others that simply list the name. Read all the criteria of the general notability guideline and WP:ACTOR; minor billing and uncredited roles do not meet the threshold for a wikipedia article. I'd also note the rather obvious self-promotion going on here. Tarc (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't actually discussed this with the deleting admin, you placed a request at Wikipedia:REFUND#Deletion_review_for_Nick_Thomas-Webster where an independant editor responded, not the deleting admin. There are various aspects which need to be covered in order to be suitable for an article on wikipedia and these are covered by various policies.
Firstly all material needs to be WP:V verifiable to reliable sources and primarily secondary sources. Many of the sources you listed don't meet the standard of WP:RS, i.e. as discussed IMDB is largely user submitted content the level of verification done is quite indeterminate. One of the extras you listed is a blog, anybody can setup a blog, i.e. I could setup a blog and start saying "the performance by Nick Thomas-Webster was possibly the worst I've seen...", do you think we should reference that? What qualifies my opinion? For biographical content on you the situation is even worse, on the blog I setup how do you know what fact checking I do to make sure it's accurate (assuming I do any of course). Should wikipedia republish my unchecked opinion and facts?
As you are alive this also needs to conform to the biography of living people policy
It also needs to meet the inclusion standard, that of notability, generally speaking the standard is that the world at large should be sufficiently interested in you that they are willing to write about you (which dovetails with the verifiability policy). The general notability guideline specifies non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. You have problems here as well the sources you've listed are either not independant, not reliable, or trivial (cast listings, bare filmography listings etc. are trivial they say nothing about you). There is also WP:ENTERTAINER as a guide, this is secondary to the guide mentioned above but lists the qualities in entertainment professions which are normally a sign they will meet the notability standard. The article didn't meet those either.
It needs to be written from a neutral point of view
There are many other policies and guidelines for articles, but those are they key ones which you'd need to meet for the article to exist.
Finally wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a brag sheet, as such it is strongly discouraged to write about yourself, see the conflict of interest guidelines. It's usually best to wait for someone else to write about you, which if you are signficant in what you are doing generally won't take long. The other thing to remember is do you really want an article about you? Remembering any article will be written from a neutral point of view, so if indepedant reviewers concur your performances are poor, that will likely appear in the article etc. There are various people who have found that having an article is actually rather annoying. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
14th Transportation Battalion (United States) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This AfD reads like No Consensus to me. The closing admin must abide by the consensus, and if there is no consensus in the AfD then the article must not be deleted. If the closing admin's role is to close the AfD as he/she see fit, then why do we even bother to have discussions? Inniverse (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you have not discussed this with the closing administrator prior to bringing it here? NW (Talk) 04:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did. May I ask why you did not bother to check his talk page before writing the above note? Inniverse (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad then. I scanned the bottom few threads on KoH's talk page, and didn't see anything related to the 14th Transportation Battalion. Since DRVs are usually filed within a few days of the AFD closure, I figured that you hadn't spoken to him yet. My apologies. NW (Talk) 14:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin: Actually, he has brought it up at User talk:King of Hearts#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States) already. I stand by my decision; although the number of votes were approximately the same, the policy-based consensus was on the "delete" side. Regarding your comment "The closing admin must abide by the consensus," it should be noted that AfD is not a vote, and a tied vote does not necessarily mean "no consensus." In response to "If the closing admin's role is to close the AfD as he/she see fit, then why do we even bother to have discussions?" here is my own: If the closer's role is simply to count the number of votes on each side, then why do we even bother to have admins? Bots serve the purpose fine. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This DRV looks to me like another appeal to vote-counting. The delete !votes actually addressed the coverage in sources; keep !votes made vague claims to (inherent?) notability.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, it really does come down to independent, reliable sources. A bunch of third party material, however noble the intentions may be behind the place providing it, does not establish notability. Absolutely nothing but independent, reliable, substantial source coverage establishes notability. I would, however, strongly encourage the editor to use the source material he has (somewhat unique) access to toward the end of improving other military articles. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I was the original nominator. I listed this because a single source not independent of the article's subject does not in itself constitute notability, and it appears from the discussion over the military unit notability guidelines that virtually all of the active Milhist contributors agree with me. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Of the three keep votes (Sadads, AustralianRupert and Bwmoll3) only Sadads actually argues that the article meets notability requirements with the other two essentially boiling down to "I think it could meet notability requirements and so I think it's reasonable to give these arguments less weight. Sadads says the article meets notability requirements but then suggests that it meets it because of research done by centre historians and so these are hardly independent. Therefore I think it reasonable to give this argument less weight as well. Although the three delete votes are worded quite weakly taken together with the (much stronger) statement of the nominator I think these outweigh the three weak keep votes and so there was a clear consensus to delete. Dpmuk (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion requires a consensus for deletion. The delete !voters themselves were very boarder-line ("leaning toward delete"). I honestly believe if you stuck all those !voters in a room they'd agree to keep the article around. Further this type of material should be something that we don't use notability guidelines for. There are plenty of clearly reliable sources that cover the topic in detail. There is a weak consensus that military units of this size should be covered in all cases. So A) I don't see a consensus to delete and B) as a matter of my own opinion I don't think WP:N should be even an issue here. The topic gets 20 book hits (mostly in-passing one highly detailed but not independent). Hobit (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse We do have the right kind notability guidelines for this sort of material--a consistent general agreement by almost everyone working in this area that formations such as this are not normally notable . (For exceptions where one particular formation might be, we have the GNG.) Though we do not go by strict precedent, some degree of consistency is helpful to the users. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Spieprzaj dziadu! (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • Last year Spieprzaj dziadu!, an article I created, was deleted. Yesterday some new information came to my attention that 5 of the 6 who voted to delete it were involved in coordinating their editing outside WP (and they were punished for it) - see here for their names, and here for the AFD on the article in question. It seems to me that this group, pro-nationalist Poles in the main, took offence to an article which showed their late president Lech Kaczynski in a bad light and therefore nominated it for deletion, knowing that others in their group would vote for the delete. I.e., it's highly likely that the AFD was rigged. Having seen the EEML investigation now, it strikes me that the AFD should be rescinded due to this unfairness in the voting process.
I have spoken to the editor who closed the AFD (User_talk:Angr), but he also says that he closed it because the article lacked sources. Maybe there were none at the time (2 July 2009. NB - I'm not sure if there really were no sources, due to missing the AFD because I was not informed of it), but sources did once exist and I presume that they were removed around the time of the AFD, probably by this coordinated group (though this is hard to prove without access to the history). As proof that it once had good references, the article had had the required sources in March 2008 when it was given a DYK.
For this reason, would it be possible to review the deletion and reinstate the article's history? This would allow me to easily reinclude the sources. If anyone still believed the sources to be insufficient, I would then find more. It's worth noting, btw, that the Polish WP has an article on the same subject - which suggests that the topic is worthy of a page. Thanks for your time. Malick78 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think this is best merged into the Lech Kaczyński article, but this is sourced and significant information that should appear somewhere, so I would undelete it for now.--Kotniski (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The EEML members made up a significant portion of those !voting and although there may be a slim consensus to delete even discounting their votes (and discounting them all together is going too far) we can never know how their comments affected other users (some of who may not even have commented because of the existing !votes). Although I think a relist is likely to result in a delete or merge result I think this AfD is so tainted and there's enough doubt that the result would be the same that a relist is appropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/relist - No fault at all with the closing admin's actions...and I rarely if ever call for overturns here...but if this really was tainted by now-banned editors who colluded off-wiki then it needs a clean discussion. A similar thing happened to False Moshe Ya'alon quotation last year, where the AfD was found after the fact to have been tainted by a banned sock, though noone ever got around to refiling another deletion discussion. Perhaps that one is due, too. Tarc (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Agree the outcome is tainted and should be re-visited. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per the above. Sufficient evidence of impropriety in the original AfD to warrant a new discussion. Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Tainted outcome with no fault to the closing admin. —Sandahl (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and relist I suspect that this is going to end up deleted again, but there seems like enough doubt in this case that a rerun is easily justified. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tony Koltz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Ruled no consensus with a poor explanation. Subsequent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfDs with little or no discussion indicates that there is some confusion as to whether administrator judgment can be used when two people commenting give good deletion reasons. Recommend simply deleting the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Closure is reasonable when so little participation has correct. That said, this is clearly going to turn into AfD2, so let's go there. He's co-author of 3 books that appear to be best sellers (in addition to the 2 choose-your-own adventerure books) and those best sellers have seen crazy numbers of reviews including commentary from David Brooks and other wonks. Meets WP:AUTHOR#3 and #4. #3 "Played a major role in co-creating, well-known work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." and #4 "The person's work has won significant critical attention". Examples of coverage of the books as they relate to the real world: [11], [12] and examples of review (including real-world components) [13], [14]. There are plenty more...[15]. This is _why_ we don't generally delete articles with so little participation.... Hobit (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hobit, coverage of the products of the subject doesn't equate to coverage of the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but they the products of the subject can be used to meet WP:AUTHOR yes? Same with WP:PROF I think. So while what you say is true, I don't think it negates my argument. Hobit (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe. WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF, I admit are useful. They are especially useful for predicting whether a decent article can be written, or whether a new article can be improved or is destined to remain sub-standard indefinitely. But in the end, they are indicators of whether it is likely that there exist third party coverage of the subject. Even if every SNG criterion is met, if in the end, no one else has published anything about the subject, then I don't think we can have a reasonable article based on secondary sourcing about the subject. It would be better to mention the author/inventor/developer/researcher/analyst in a section of one of the articles about the thing the person produced. If there is no such product article, I don't think that it can be said that the SNG criteria have been met.
      • I am aware of an alternative argument, that Wikipedia should attempt comprehensive coverage, and that this means having an article on every best-selling author, every ground breaking scientist, every software developer who developed software in widespread use. I am not dead against that, but I think it is a slippery slope to crossing WP:NOR when it means writing articles in the absence of independent secondary sources discussing the subject directly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, I think there is enough out there (from non-independent sources) to write a reasonable, if brief, bio. The question is if we should and I think the SNG in this case indicate his works have had enough of an impact that we should do so. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think that if a subject meets an SNG, we can relax our requirement for at least 1-2 secondary sources to be independent. In this case, I am not persuaded that the subject meets a relevant SNG. What SNG criteria is met? What is one good secondary source, even if not completely independent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing prevents a renomination at AfD . Personally, I would have relisted it a second time, but the results tend to be similar to a non-consensus close. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin: I'm fine either way, but just a note that any prescriptive (as opposed to descriptive) policy-related discussion should be directed to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfDs with little or no discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This is currently a bit of a grey are when it comes to policy and guidelines and, although there has been some discussion, it still effectively comes down to admin discretion and as such this was a reasonable close. As a 'no consensus' close there is nothing stopping a reasonably quick re-nomination. Dpmuk (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but allow an immediate relist per WP:NPASR. Though it's not currently written down in the guidelines, as far as I'm concerned any AFD closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation can be speedy renominated whether or not the closer says so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AfD nom, also noting the absence of significant incoming links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete per the consensus at the AfD. There is no quorum at AfD, and no one supported retention. The arguments for deletion were guideline-based in that the subject failed WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. I have reviewed Hobit (talk · contribs)'s sources above and fail to see how the subject would pass the notability guidelines. As SmokeyJoe said above, coverage of the books does not equate to coverage of the author. Here is a sample of one of Hobit's sources (in it Tony Koltz is mentioned only once): "The book, Battle Ready, is by the novelist Tom Clancy, with General Zinni and another writer, Tony Koltz." A very notable individual, Tom Clancy is listed as the author, while Tony Koltz is listed as one of the co-authors. This does not allow Koltz to pass WP:AUTHOR.

    On a secondary note, I am fine with a relist of the debate to allow more discussion. Cunard (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Clancy has claimed he didn't actually do any significant work on the book btw. I don't think it matters and in any case they are all co-authors. In any case the guideline says "played a major role in co-creating" which would be true of a co-author I should think. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jasmere.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hi. Because this page was deleted before a discussion occurred, I'm not sure if I am posting this request correctly. I believe this page was deleted without a valid reason. I have exchanged a few friendly emails with the admin but have not resolved the conflict. The primary reason cited was G4 (recreation of a deleted page). This version of the page is substantially different than the last page with over 20 new sources. There are 27 sources on this page, all from credible 3’rd parties (no blogs, no company websites, etc.). 13 of the 27 sources are prominent and substantial mentions (several minute long stories) of Jasmere.com in local TV news segments across the country (several of the sources are duplicates and not unique, however). Yes, a few of the sources have just a sentence or paragraph about Jasmere.com, but those are in substantial publications such as the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper and Real Simple magazine. Between the breadth of coverage as well as the depth in numerous sources, I feel this page meets the notability guidelines. I also think that it is not "exclusively" promotional (G11). While one or two sentences could appear promotional, I feel the overall piece is not overtly promotional. And I do believe there are negatives of Jasmere.com, as I have a section dealing with shopping addiction. Lastly, it appears that someone else tried to add a sentence recently, but in the process may have made some of the links to sources not appear correctly. Also, one source is a dead link (it appears twice) as I recently discovered even though it was working fine last week. Thank you very much for your consideration. Jeff Jbernfeld (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was the admin that deleted this article. The reasons I gave in the deletion log were "‎G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". I do not see any reason for regarding G4 as the "primary" reason: in fact I regard G11 as the main reason. The re-created version of the article does not seem to me to be substantially different from the one which was subject to the AfD, except in regard to the sources, which certainly have been increased. ("27 sources" is misleading, as some are duplicated, but there are certainly many of them, whatever the exact number.) The one point about the sources about which there may be most room for disagreement is the value of the television clips. To me they seem to be essentially promotional in character, but I am sure some people will disagree, and I welcome the opportunity for others to express their opinions on this. If consensus turns out to be against me I will accept that. However, I still feel that, even if the sources are accepted, the article is essentially promotional, and justifies deletion under G11. In fact at one point I actually planned to undelete the article, as the sources seemed to be at least borderline for being good enough, but then I remembered that G11 was another reason for deletion. (I had forgotten that, as the discussion that Jbernfeld engaged me in was concentrated on the issue of sources.) The inclusion of a brief two-sentence mention of the concept of "Shopping Addiction" does not remove the overall promotional tone. I am willing to accept that G4 is not certain here, as the sources are distinctly better than when the AfD took place. However, I still think that the article was promotional, and that G4 remains valid. The "few friendly emails " that Jbernfeld mentioned were in fact comments on my talk page. Anyone reading this may like to see that discussion too. Since it may be archived during the currency of this deeltion review discussion I have made a copy at User:JamesBWatson/Deletion of Jasmere.com. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is pretty darn promotional, but I don't think it is "exclusively promotional" or would require a complete rewrite to fix. I think it's a judgment call, but on contested speedies that are in fact debatable I'd prefer we go to AfD for more input, so overturn. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this AfD as consensus to delete. Subsequently the article author contacted me explaining that new sources had emerged, and I had the article undeleted here so that he could use those sources to overcome the referencing and notability concerns. I'm not familiar enough with the subject area to confidently assess the new sources, so I ask for a community discussion on whether recreation ought to be permitted. Thank you for your attention, Skomorokh 04:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The AFD failed due to notability concerns. The method is apparently quite new with the original article solely referenced to the 2009 journal documenting it. Of the references in the updated article all but 2 of them predate the journal. These are not going to be providing coverage of this method. The other two references I cannot see, however they are referenced as usages of the method and appear to be as such. I would doubt these discuss the method itself as the "subject" as WP:GNG requires they are more likely to be discussion of a usage of the method. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by author
  • Thanks for your comments. Following the WP:GNG link you supplied, I read "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." With that in mind, below is what the Neogi, T et al. (2010) article (ref 6 in the Wikip aricle) says (apologies for the length of this quotation; I can supply the PDF, and also for ref 3: please reply to paul.hansen@otago.ac.nz). Please note that the software referred to in the quotation below implements the PAPRIKA (Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives) method (the subject of the Wikip article). Note the references below to 5 additional conference papers applying the method too (these papers discuss the PAPRIKA method as well). Finally, let me declare my interest here: I am the co-inventor of both the method and the software implementing it. Nonetheless, I believe I have abided by Wikip's COI. Best wishes. Paul Hansen.

(Page 2584:) “Since the resulting criteria and their respective categories produce multiple possible combinations of clinical features, decision analytic software (1000Minds [www.1000minds.com]) was used to facilitate the quantification of the relative importance or “weight” for each criterion and category. The decision analytic software program used choice-based conjoint analysis (sometimes referred to as “discrete choice experiments” or “multi-criteria decision analysis”) to evaluate, through discrete pairwise choices, the weights attached to the categories within each criterion. This approach has been used successfully in other projects (4–8), for example to enumerate factors affecting urgency of need for referral to rheumatologists for acute rheumatic conditions. The pairwise ranking employed by this methodology is a natural human activity that people experience in their daily lives. Deciding between just 2 alternatives is cognitively less burdensome, and therefore arguably more valid and reliable, than alternative methods for eliciting preferences to derive the weights. This method is more efficient than others because any pairwise decisions in which one option clearly has higher probability “RA development” (e.g., “high positive serology and _10 joints involved” has a higher probability than “low-positive serology and 1–3 small joints involved”) are not presented for decision-making. Efficiency is also gained by not requiring further discussion when there is consensus. The program can also be administered over the Internet, allowing for the process to be conducted without an in-person meeting when necessary. A major advantage is that individual categories can be modified, such as when new information becomes available, and the weightings recalculated without disrupting the validity of the method or the previous consensus decisions made. …

Based on these discrete choices, the decision analytic software program uses mathematical methods to determine the relative importance, and thereby weight, of each category within each criterion. The process is iterative, such that each successive result further refines the weights derived through prior choice outcomes. The final weights determine the scores assigned to each category, and the sum of the weights produces a total score for each case, from low to high probability. The weights are scaled such that those associated with the highest categories in each criterion sum to 100. Thus, possible scores range from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating a higher probability of developing RA. …

(Page 2590:) Phase 2 [i.e. the study overall] used a new methodology to derive consensus among expert clinicians, which is more transparent and flexible than usual Delphi consensus approaches. This method is also cognitively and timewise less burdensome than other methods, with a high degree of validity and reliability (3). As with all consensus methodologies, the result is dependent on the expertise and information of the expert panel.

References

3. Hansen P, Ombler F. A new method for scoring multi-attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives. J Multi-Crit Decis Anal 2009;15:87–107.

4. De Coster C, Noseworthy T. Improving wait times in the referralconsultation process: WCWL priority referral scores. Proceeding of the Taming of the Queue VI Conference, Canadian Policy Research Networks. 2009 Mar 27–28; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

5. De Coster C, Fitzgerald A, Noseworthy T. Developing prioritysetting referral tools for medical sub-specialities. Proceedings of the Annual Canadian Association for Health Services and Policy Research Conference. 2008 May 26–28; Gatineau, Quebec, Canada.

6. Fitzgerald A, De Coster C, Naden R, Noseworthy T, Western Canada Wait List Project Rheumatology Clinical Panel. Prioritysetting for referrals from primary case physicians to rheumatologists [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58 Suppl:S884.

7. Naden R, Paterson R, Hansen P, Barber A, Ombler F, Stewart R, et al. Assigning clinical priority: a systematic methodology. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Priorities in Health Care, International Health Economics Association. 2006 Sep 20–22; Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

8. Barber A, Doolan Noble F, Stewart R, Wilkins G, Naden R, North D. Prioritisation for coronary artery bypass surgery: can the process be improved? Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Priorities in Health Care, International Health Economics Association. 2004 Nov 3–5; Wellington, New Zealand." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.11.239 (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by the references above, I discovered two additional abstracts in peer-reviewed medical journals that discuss other uses of the PAPRIKA method, which I have added to the Wikip article under discussion (in the interests of confirming notability):

4. Fitzgerald, A, Conner Spady, B, De Coster, C, Naden, R, Hawker, GA and Noseworthy, T (2009), “WCWL Rheumatology Priority Referral Score reliability and validity testing”, abstract, The 2009 ACR/ARHP Annual Scientific Meeting, Arthritis & Rheumatology, 60 Suppl 10: 54.

5. Nosewothy, T, De Coster, C and Naden, R (2009), “Priority-setting tools for improving access to medical specialists”, poster presentation, 6th Health Technology Assessment International Annual Meeting, Singapore, 2009, Annals, Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 38: S78.

Paul Hansen 115.113.11.239 (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation as not a DRV matter. As this article title is not protected there's nothing to stop the user moving this back to article space. It wouldn't be a G4 candidate as there would be new sources added and this means that a) the article wouldn't be "substantially identical" to the deleted one and b) there would have been an attempt to meet the concerns at AfD. Discussion of whether the new article meets our requirements should be at AfD, not here. Dpmuk (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: There is no other forum for developing consensus on recreation; recreating and immediately taking to AfD (or even CSD) would be needlessly adversarial. Skomorokh 14:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you don't need to be doing anything else. When seven days have passed since you initiated the DRV, an administrator will close the discussion and restore the article to the mainspace. Cunard (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gillian Duffy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Gillian Duffy is a British woman and typical Labour Party heartland voter who on 28 April 2010 became the centre of a political storm during the 2010 United Kingdom general election campaign, when the incumbent Prime Minister, Labour's Gordon Brown was caught in an open-mic gaffe labelling her a 'bigotted woman' in private, straight after having a public discussion with her while on walkabout. full transcript here, courtesy of The Times.

All hell broke loose, grovelling apologies were made, Brown's already slim chances were written off, and he even mentioned it first in his opening speech in the third televised leader's debate on 29 April. The gaffe dogged him for weeks, before he eventually lost the election on 6 May 2010, and resigned as Prime Minister 5 days later.

However, Gillian Duffy was vanished from existence (on Wikipedia anyway) in a series of knee-jerk BLP over-reaction speedy deletions of various articles within a couple of days of the gaffe, and in an out of process speedy closure of an Afd of bigotted woman incident. The resulting DRV, which would likely not have even been needed had the Afd run its course, turned out to be no consensus as it turns out, but it was irrelevant by then, no admin was apparently going to fess up and admit infront of the deleters that this had been one giant runaway steamroller.

The general assertions at the time were the classic 1E rationales - the incident wasn't significant, she was a private person, the coverage would blow over within a week. And people used all their powers of sooth saying to support their opinions and actions, despite the fact that even at the time of the incident, the coverage showed this was anything but.

The coverage at the time went well beyond routine news, it was a hugely notable event of the election, as evidenced by the summaries of the immediate coverage of it from The Guardian and from The Times. Such was the interest in her, she was given full biographical style coverage by the BBC and by The Telegraph and by Channel 4. It got ample global coverage as well, even Americans in their haze of domestic insularity got how important she was to the UK election and the interest in it: Gillian Duffy, .... potential game-changer in the U.K. election -Wall Street Journal, 1 May, the only gaffe that got any attention during the campaign -CNN, 6 May

After Brown resigned, it was even mentioned as the last significant event in the BBC's rundown of the "political career of Gordon Brown" published the same day - "And then on the campaign trail, he met a woman called Gillian Duffy...Mr Brown visited her at home to apologise but the damage was done". This is just a few days after the first Afd would have been scheduled to have been closed, had it been allowed to run it's course.

Still, that was then. This is now. So, let's take a look at whether the people voting and deleting in that knee-jerk-fest were better political analysts/commentators/predictors than all those reliable sources, or were justified at being so concerned over her privacy and stating BLP demanded immediate prejudicial erasure of any and all content, such that we couldn't even wait 7 days to judge the impact or coverage.

Well, first, let's address the claims that this would be a flash in the pan event, violating NOT#NEWS, it would be over within a week, with no resulting ongoing coverage of any significance that would mean anyone would want to know anything about the event. First off, we have the basic indicator of Google hits. The incident happened in late April/early May. Yet searching for "Gillian Duffy" delivers 1,160 results for July 2010, rising to 13,200 results for this month, all 18 days of it so far. I even did a random 'last 24 hours' search as I type this, and still got 354 results. And as an aside, when searching for "Gillian Duffy" in Google, "Gillian Duffy wiki" is Google's top auto-complete suggestion. Rather depressingly, due to Wikipedia's blackout, people are resorting to asking WikiAnswers, Who is gillian duffy?.

Now let's address the claims that the event, or her role in the election, were not going to remain significant for the purposes of 1E, making here a notable person, and would not be mentioned in ongoing historical contexts proving long term notability, of at least the incident, but more probably, her. Well, her views are used as a benchmark in coverage of immigration issues by The Telegraph in early June, where it has become known as the "Gillian Duffy question" by The Guardian, with the "Gillian Duffy gaffe" described as having been symptomatic of Brown's "refusal to engage with the issue". All in coverage spanning the entire month of June. Gillian Duffy's encounter with Brown is still described as "one of the defining moments of the election campaign" by Channel 4, over two months on. It is described as "One of the biggest ever blunders to hit Gordon Brown" (in only three years in the job), which "effectively derailed his election campaign" and which "some observers say it was a major factor in him losing", this from coverage over three months on from the incident. Four months on, it is remembered as the "election disaster" by The Independent.

Now to address the claims that she was a private person and deserved simple blanket protection under BLP generally (which was probably about the only legitimate reason that was ever given in the deletion melee). Well, despite the fact that it always was a ludicrous suggestion that with the media explosion and already proven coverage as detailed already, now, well after the incident, she is courting, and receiving, ongoing media coverage. In the resulting Labour Party leadership election after Brown quit, at the end of July she was sought out by candidate David Milliband for a meeting, with the media making much hay of her edorsement of his candidacy. In early August she was guest of honour at a Labour Party constituency event in Rochdale, and began to give televised interviews to ITV about the gaffe. This doesn't sound like she is shunning the spotlight to me.

In conclusion, it's about time this almight balls up was corrected, and people were allowed to create this link. It took me barely two hours to rustle up the evidence above that this is justifiable, it is by no means comprehensive, many many more examples are out there. MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC) MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd prefer we have an article on the incident and redirect the person there, at least for now. The incident is clearly notable and I see no reason not to have an article on it. At present she should redirect to [16]. I can see no reason not to have _that_ redirect in any case. Hobit (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to have a bold !vote weak edorse deletion of article, overturn deletion of redirect to [17], endorse writing event article and moving redirect to there later. Longest bolded !vote ever... Hobit (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Hobit. All those sources are brilliant, and they show that the coverage did indeed continue... but it's still coverage directly related to that one event. Duffy herself would fail BLP1E; on the other hand, the event passes WP:EVENT. So let's allow creation of an article on the event, and possibly redirect her name to that. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - To quote a well-known meme image, "Aw geez, not this shit again". Mick was a rather fanatic proponent for retention back in the original discussions, and I find it slightly disturbing that this sentiment has not abated over time. The concept of "one event" has not changed in the slightest; a woman says something, a live mic catches an unfortunate, candid retort, and then the political fallout. There is nothing notable about the woman other than she talked to a politician. There is not now nor will there ever be a rationale to create an article on the woman herself, or even a redirect. A few interviews doesn't elevate her notability in the slightest. I'd rather see either the Gay Nigger Association of America's or Brian Pepper's article make a return before this. Tarc (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentiment has not abated over time because the abuse of policy back then was such a monumental disgrace to the pedia that it stuck in my mind, and I vowed to do something about it once the inevitable evidence of notability became overwhelming, which it has now, which any clueful editor will easily appreciate now I'm sure. Still, I guess it's something to see that you are consistent. Your fringe and fantastical interpretations of actual policy is as bad now as it was back then. Why don't you actually try reading them beyond the titles this time? MickMacNee (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • More coverage doesn't makes one event into two. She would be utterly unknown if not for a slip of someone else's microphone, and despite a smattering of interviews, does not appear to be going out of her way to grasp onto 15 minutes of proverbial fame. Show a bit of decency and just let it go, already. Jesus. Tarc (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who said there were two events? Please don't invent arguments just so you can give a rebuttal. And 'she would be unknown if she hadn't done the thig that made her notable' is not the brightest of arguments I've ever seen. And sorry, but you are quite mistaken if you think the presumption of privacy aspect of 1E means we only write about reality TV contestants who are demonstrably 'grasping for fame'. It is ludicrous to suggest that someone going to public functions and giving television and media interviews can still be considered a private person in terms of the historical record. Your total lack of perspective in that regard is not going to affect my sense of deceny one bit. MickMacNee (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • One event happened; someone inadvertently insulted this woman on a live microphone. She is otherwise a completely ordinary and non-notable person. Note the "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate" line from WP:BLP1E. You do know what the word "and" means, right? Both of those conditions need to be met; the first one likely has been, the second one certainly has not. There is no more to this story, and no more to this person, than that. That is about as simple as I can explain the matter. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Her role couldn't have been more significant, which is why she has been given biographical level coverage in multiple sources, and why even many months after the event, the resulting political issues are framed as 'the Gillian Duffy question', and she is actively sought out by the media and Labour leadership candidates for her pesonal opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse was and still is a classic BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A classic case of BLP1E. Complete this sentence, "Gillian Duffy is notable for ..." The answer is, of course, she is "notable" for what someone else said about her, and off the record as well. To be notable, you have to actually do something of note or be of interest in your right. Despite the masses of verbiage listed above, none of it - not one bit of it - indicates that Duffy is notable in her own right. The event was, and is, notable because of Brown's actions, not Duffy's and to use that one event as a coatrack to create an article on Duffy is an abuse of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and a breach of the spirit of WP:BLP. This discussion has been picked over many times and the existing consensus to delete remains valid. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1E is not a blanket ban on ever creating articles on people known for one event. The detail given above is more than ample evidence to demonstrate that all principles behind the 'spirit' of 1E - significance, privacy, historical notability, have all been satisfied, and in spades - I managed to find all of the above and write it all up in just a couple of hours. There is much more out there. We can debate where the level is, but if you simply doubt it completely, then you've not read the policy at all, and do not know what a 1E even is, let alone a "classic one". Your idea that this has been picked over many times is simply false, with all the out of process shenanigas and shut-downs that didn't even wait seven days proved that. It has never had a proper discussion, and most certainly not since all the above detail was known, so if you can think that, I would say you have not even bothered to consider what has changed in that respect. And God knows why you even mentioned coatrack, without an actual article to dicsuss that term is meaningless, as you have no idea what the 'coats' are. And whether it's a 'rack' for coats even, is as said, dependent on you judging correctly if it is a 1E or not. MickMacNee (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions can anyone give a policy based reason why this shouldn't be a redirect? It appears there was some debate about this on a now-deleted talk page, but given that she is covered in an article, I don't understand what possible reason there is for not having a redirect. Anyone? WP:BLP1E would seem to suggest it is a good thing. I was going to add the redirect myself but I see it is protected. Also, are those of you opposing the recreation of this article also opposing creating an "event" article as Alzarian16 and I have suggested? It seems to meet WP:EVENT in spades. Hobit (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Policy-based reason against a redirect here on "dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions" - fuller comment below, including links to ANI and to the now-undeleted talk page where this was all debated at length. JohnCD (talk)
      • Those are reasons to consider privacy. I don't see how a redirect harms that given that she is clearly already there by name in the target article. Also, I don't think there was consensous on the talk page nor do I think the talk page was the right place to have that discussion (RfD exists for a reason). Hobit (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No, no, no, no, no. This is a classic BLP1E and mention in Brown's article or that of the election is enough for this. AS the redirect? No strong opinion, but if we do put one up I'd suggest we lock it to prevent abuse. Oh, and the traditional way of presenting cases like this is to produce a userspace draft showing enduring notability. That would be a much better way of getting this changed then a long rant and threats. Flys and honey anyone? Spartaz Humbug! 04:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not have an article on the event (which you seem to be ruling out)? It certainly looks to pass WP:EVENT. Hobit (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My understanding at the time was that it was covered in the article on the election. Surely it's an editorial decision whether this gets spun into a sub article but the focus would clearly need to be on Brown not Duffy. But an article on Duffy - absolutely not unless she becomes newsworthy for a second event. Spartaz Humbug! 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The idea that it is/was 'covered' is not accurate at all. At the time, it was buried under a section called 'April' because people were still trying to pretend their early reactionary sooth saying was still even remotely accurate, even though this was clearly false even based on contemporary coverage. And there it rotted, barely updated because nobody could find it to update it, and where over time it has ultimately been given equal prominence with totally trivial incidents, none of which even had a hundredth of the level of significance or historical impact of Gillian Duffy. It is not just an editorial decision just to split it or not, because thanks to all the kneejerk reactions and subsequent admin actions, any and all proposed titles for content about Duffy but not necessarily titled 'Gillian Duffy' have all suffered the same restrictions of being considered 'recreated deleted material', and/or being protected, thanks to the almight blunt fist that is BLP. Given that the only plausible search term, her name, the one used by all the coverage, has been salted, then for all intents and purposes, unless someone was just randomly browsing the election article, it apparently never happened, and nobody has any reason to wonder what all the coverage detailed above, which all mentions Gillian Duffy by name, is all about. And the relevance of all that material is no longer focussed on Brown or even the election, it has gone way beyond that. MickMacNee (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The coverage relating to Duffy has gone well beyond Brown and the election. It would be bloody ludicrous to include the information detailed above in either of those articles. Totally absurd, a classic case of a square peg in a round hole. If people are so insistent this is a "classic BLP1E", then why don't you have a go at rebutting what I've said with actual policy wording with regards to significance, historical notability and privacy, rather than making simple personal assertions, which don't make a blind bit of difference to the facts of the matter as far as I'm concerned. I did not bother creating a draft first because the previous astounding abuse of the deletion policies on the several prior drafts people wrote about this at the time made it clear that nobody would probably even read it before kneejerking their way to the delete button, so better to get it straight beforehand as to whether future objections are going to be policy based, or more of the same hysterical kneejerking out of some half-clue about what 1E is for. MickMacNee (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you can't be bothered to write a draft you can't be surprised if we aren't interested in overturning the afd. Spartaz Humbug! 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting logic. Unless I waste many many hours writing a userspace draft which may never see the light of day, you won't bother making any policy based arguments. Brilliant. You are an intelligent guy, everything you need to know about how any proposed draft would go is easily discernable from the detailed evidence presented above. MickMacNee (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I think we all know how this is going to play out. There will not be consensus for an article on her, but objections to an article on the event and a redirect from her to it will be limited. Nick, I realize where you are coming from and largely tend to agree about the general case but consider this one boarder line (at the moment, if she continues showing up in the media that would move me to your side). Is there any chance I could talk you into A) dropping the DrV B) writing an article focusing on the event and it's implications and C) having a redirect of Ms. Duffy to the event article? The election article could then have a link to this event article also and we'd have reasonable coverage of both the event and more limited coverage of the person. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support a Gillian Duffy being a redirect to either an article on the incident or an article containing the incident. 1E doesn't apply to the existence of redirects and, for a name well known as this one is, we should have some information on wikipedia. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re the presumption of privacy issue. Regardless of whether we have a redirect from Gillian Duffy to the incident or not, I seriously doubt if her grandkids will be unaware of this incident. It is well reported and well covered and the privacy issue is, imo, a non-issue. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and (as the admin who originally did it) also endorse deletion and salting of the redirect. This was discussed interminably at AN/I here and again here and on Talk:Gillian Duffy (now undeleted - discussion visible in the history) and there was (over Mick's metaphorical dead body) a majority against a redirect.
  • Hobit asked above for a policy-based reason. I cite WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy on "...dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

    For those who find the earlier discussions TL;DR I would like to restate briefly two reasons against a redirect. One can be summarised as "Granny, we looked you up in Wikipedia! What does BIGOTED mean?" The other is that though it was argued that since Brown apologised and retracted, the whole story is not to Duffy's discredit and so no harm is done by linking her to it, that overlooks that he clearly thought she was bigoted, and the resulting comment was by no means universally friendly - a Guardian article headed "Anger at Gillian Duffy, anger at all the people who weren't willing to stand up to her" produced readers' comments such as "She should be the one apologising", "this odious woman" etc. That article will fade off the Google hits quite soon, but a Wikipedia redirect would not. For the rest of her life it would link her to a story about an off-the-cuff remark she made which made the Prime Minister think she was bigoted, and would make some other people, like the Guardian columnist and many of her readers, think the same. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • She's already showing up in context in a number of articles. Anyone searching for her will be presented with a bunch of articles that mention her rather than being directly sent to the one that has the most coverage. I'm not seeing how not having a redirect helps the issue you've raised. The reason we should have a redirect is A) usability B) our policies say we should. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh also, and perhaps more relevant to the DrV, this deletion wasn't handled within policy from what I can see (I'm missing the RfD discussion and the talk page is not only the wrong place for the discussion there wasn't any consensus I could see to delete it in any case). I don't fault the admin who deleted it, but it is certainly an issue. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This theoretical scenario of embarassment by her grandchildren was as flawed and assumptive back then as it is now. Wikipedia is chock full of information about people who did not actively cause their own notability. What's the bar for inclusion in these cases? Well, having a lasting role in British political history is as good as it gets. While she is of course not auditioning for X-factor off the back of it, she has not remained a private person. Because of this, and because the original event was so significant, and because it is now an ongoing frame of reference in politics, she is not dissapearing from Google. Quite the reverse actually. Her granchildren will never be in a world where they are not going to be able to find out within seconds why she is evidently historically notable and noted, even if she never ever tells them. She clearly has absolutely nothing to fear from having information about her on Wikipedia, which will present the facts accurately, neutraly, verifiably, and in historical context. It's hard to see this as prolonging victimisation at all, without a great deal of fear mongering and general unproven assumption. Wikipedia can only document facts, it can do nothing about dubious commentary of the incident at the time, or about Brown's gaffe itself, or even about what readers might think even if presented with all the facts. To somehow pretend that this all goes away as long as Wikipedia pretends in the face of all evidence that Gillian Duffy is not notable or noted, is arrogance in the extreme, and not what BLP's presumption of privacy is all about at all. MickMacNee (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate and transform into an article about the event, which is very notable and may well have changed the election outcome. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being "a victim of another person's actions" is really the heart of the matter here, and it seems to be forgotten by those urging restoration here. For goodness sake the woman didn't actually do anything directly to gain this unfortunate infamy. This is all on Gordon Brown's shoulders, not hers. Maybe we could enlist a certain youtube personality to make a "Leave Gillian Duffy alone!" video. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tarc, that's a fine reason to not have an article on her, but I don't think it's a reason to not have an article on the event. A) there is no policy I'm aware of that would promote such an action and in fact WP:BLP1E actively supports such an article B) she is covered in the mainstream media to the point that adding anything here is a drop in bucket if not a lake and C) your premise appears to be somewhat off as Nick has shown she has actively gotten into the media spotlight. I personally would prefer not to have an article on her as she's clearly a BLP1E at this point (if she writes a book or ends up on a reality we'll talk about that changing), but see not bar to an event article. Or to a redirect for that matter (again per WP:BLP1E...) Hobit (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think I've spoken much for or against an event article, I'm fairly neutral on that at the moment. Though what can really be said about the event other than the blurb that is already in the election article, I have no idea. I am still quite opposed to a redirect from the woman's name, per my own and JohnCD's reasonings. Tarc (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I admit to being lost on the redirect thing. I understand the goal of keeping her name out of things, but frankly it's already in a bunch of articles. The only thing adding the redirect will do is cause anyone searching for her to go directly there rather than getting a bunch of articles in a list and having to read those and click (the first one most likely which leads to the proposed target anyways). As far as I can tell nothing changes other than requiring the extra click. What am I missing? Hobit (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • To say that the incident "may well have changed the election outcome" is, frankly, nonsense. Its impact on the voters (as opposed to the press) is shown by the YouGov poll voting intention figures for Labour on the day of the incident, the next day when there was all the fuss, and the three following days: 27%, 27%, 28%, 27%, 28%. JohnCD (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Pure WP:OR. Much like the curious grandchild theory. MickMacNee (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not OR; verifiable fact. Don't you understand the difference? JohnCD (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The figures are the verifiable facts, that is all. Everything else is you making your own conclusions. And yes, I understand the difference between editors claiming it made no difference, and reliable sources saying it did. MickMacNee (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The figures verify the fact that the incident had no measurable effect on declared voting intentions. Assertions to the contrary are commentators' opinions. JohnCD (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Nope, not even close. OR is OR, even if the editor is using verifiable figures to support their conclusions. RS are RS, whether being used to support facts, or opinions. And after all, whether it had an effect is only ever going to be an opinion, informed or otherwise, unless someone finds an RS of a poll on that specific question. Find an RS that repeats your opinion, and you might have a point, but if it even exists, I'm expecting it to be in the minority. MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The YouGov poll is a reliable source for voters' declared intentions. Its figures show that in the days immediately following the incident there was no fall-off in the proportion saying they intended to vote Labour. If you cannot see that point, others reading this thread can; I will leave the last word to you. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                          • If they see it, let them agree here. I've no issue with that, I've got the WP:OR policy page on my side here. I think you've given them all they need to make a determination as to whether your statements represent a new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources, or whether your assertion that the Gillian Duffy remark "had no effect on the election" is a position that is infact attributable to a reliable, published source. MickMacNee (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think if there is going to be an event article we need a good name for it. _that_ might actually be tricky without creating BLP issues. Hobit (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is BLP1E, but BLP1E name articles should, if the name is already public, always redirect to the appropriate event article. So, endorse deletion of the full article, but overturn deletion of the redirect. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Seraphimblade. There should be a redirect because some people will remember the name, and it should point at a general article about the election campaign and the significance of the incident in it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse Wikipedia has taken a small step in recognising the damage it can do to living people with the BLP1E policy. Especially we don't have articles on people who are unwilling victims in news cycles. This woman has courted no publicity and is not in herself notable. Sure the incident has significance for the election campaign (although, I think not much) and should be mentioned there. But story is about Brown, not Duffy. Basically, MickMacNee (and a small number of others) don't like our stance on BLP1E or NOTNEWS and so they picks at scabs. Enough. No to the article, and no to the redirect. Since Duffy is only notable because of the election, anyone looking is going to be looking for it, not her, and know the two are connected.--Scott Mac 13:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To quote from above: In early August she was guest of honour at a Labour Party constituency event in Rochdale, and began to give televised interviews to ITV about the gaffe. She's not exactly unwilling at this point. Even ignoring that, the only impact of the redirect is a navigational aid to get you to the article you'd be looking for. I agree to no article about her, but there is one article that discusses her (well actually a few) and having the redirect isn't a BLP issue. BLP1E even tells us to make it. Do you have a policy-based reason for not having a redirect? Hobit (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't buy the argument that any of that elevates her into publicity-seeking status. If it were a book tour or a run around the paid lecture circuit, I'd probably change my mind on that. As noted above somewhere, her "fame" comes because of someone else's fuck-up. (I was going to make an analogy to how if you wanted to find out more info about George Allen's "macaca" incident, would you search for the guy who filmed it...only to find that that guy actually has a goddamned wikipedia article Facepalm Facepalm Which will be going to AfD shortly. Tired of this idiot 1E cruft). Tarc (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you missed it Scott, but the evidence flatly contradicts your statements, for example, from the Daily Mirror a whole two months after the incident: "But after meeting Mr Miliband she said she was coming back to the fold – and was happy to back the shadow foreign secretary to be Labour leader with her union vote. The endorsement came after he went to visit Mrs Duffy at her home for a chat. The gran said: "He’s a really nice man and obviously very intelligent but also down to earth. I think he would be a great Prime Minister." She added: "I felt David really listened to my points of view and shared my concerns on the issues that matter to working people."[18] That is not an article about the election, it is not an article about Brown, it is not evidence of someone who is shy of publicity, and it is not evidence that she is not notable. She is notable enough to be sought out by the favourite for the Labour leadership race, and have her opinions on what makes a good PM be quoted in national newspapers. If you want to talk basics, "bascially", there is a hardcore of BLP activists on this site like yourself who make snap decisions, engage in prediction and sooth saying, in a wish to take the fundemental principles behind BLP and extend them far far far out of all proportion into the scope of the historical record, even if it leads them to make statements that are provably and patently wrong once the facts from reliable commentators emerge, both at the time, and months later. They claim to speak for the 'victims', but the real victims here are the readers who are being lied to and having their political history airbrushed infront of their very eyes. They are effectively acting as editors in the newspaper sense, rather than the encyclopedia sense, and are making (or distorting) the news, rather than accurately and neutrally reflecting the news and historical record, and it is an abuse of our fundemental mission. MickMacNee (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your post rather makes my point. You don't like that the community is slowly coming around to a much stricter view of our responsibility to living people and you're trying to fight it on all fronts. So, because of an incident an election-charged media tried to draw out a soap-opera story about Brown and the poor pensioner, you want to write her biography? That's certainly a facet of the election that ought to be recorded in a discussion of the election, and how the media handled it, but it does not make her personally notable, nor does it mean we have to take a tabloid-esque prurient interest in Duffy and her relationship with the Labour Party. We are an encyclopedia not a news aggregater, and what is encyclopedic here is the phenomena she represents in terms of British media and politics, or (perhaps) what the incident illustrates about the character of Gordon Brown. We just don't need to do "the life and times of Mrs D." to inform our readers about that. It must not be a case of "where the Sun leads, Wikipedia will follow" - we are better than that! (And whatever we think, we will not use people's lives as a means of making a POINT in some philosophical inter-wikipedia discussion. If you want to change a policy direction, then open a policy discussion, NOT a review of some woman's biography. --Scott Mac 15:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Scott, to me at least the key point is that the community hasn't come to the point of having a policy against redirects in a case like this. Can you point to any consensous about redirects and BLPs? Hobit (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      "Point me to the place where is says...." is generally not a strong argument. The fact is that there is far more scrutiny, and questioning, of such things, and the old arguments "well this is cheap, and policy doesn't prevent it" are not so convincing when we are talking about living people as (regrettably) they once were. --Scott Mac 16:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      We'll have to agree to disagree I guess. If you're claiming that the community has come to a point where redirects like this should be deleted, I'd expect there to be some discussion on that point... Hobit (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm wondering about that too. I understand the logic of the 'we don't need to write her biography' argument. But, a redirect that points to wherever the incident is discussed doesn't seem outré. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      No policy change is required. The over-reach and agenda driving of 1E over and above what it mandates is on your part, not mine. How on Earth any sane person take a dispationate look at all the evidence presented above, and remotely describe the coverage as just a 'soap opera' is completely beyond me. It is not Heat Magazine covering this, it is The Independent, although I'm sure you will start redefining those RS as tabloids for the purposes of BLP v2.0, I've seen it attempted before. It's your spin, your agenda, your paranoia, and it's your problem if the policy and the evidence don't support your appeals to emotion and distortion of the evidence. This is not simple news aggregation of one incident's coverage, it went beyond that months ago. She is a frame of reference herself now. Not a celebrity, not a victim, but a significant part of British political debate, and in particular, the problems of the Labour party in the post-Blair era. You are simply blind to bullet proof evidence of that, like the examples given above in RS, which have absolutely nothing to do with either the election or Brown anymore. The election is over and he has gone, yet Duffy is still considered relevant and noteworthy. If you disagree, then actualy pick one of the sources and rebut it, rather than simply talking in vague terms which have been manufactured in your head to support your idea of what the reality is, rather than the actual reality supported by the actual evidence. You give me a rational and objective explanation as to how the reporting of her meeting with Milliband, or the coverage of the immigration issue, or the problems of Labour reconnecting with voters, or anything else, that has come months after the event, is "tabloid-esque prurient interest". I never sourced The Sun once, I used The Mirror for convenience for being first to hand, but it's all been similarly considered notable and reported in the highest quality coverage you could ever hope to find. It's not about documenting 'the life and times of Mrs D' (although again, you flatly ignore RS's actually doing this), it is answering the question 'who is Mrs D. and why is she continually being referred to in coverage of British politics?'. 'What occured to give this person continuing and apparently significant status in British politics'? etc etc. The exact sorts of question readers expect Wikipedia to be able to answer, without lying to them, or offering up lame excuses based on imaginary threats, or amazingly, pretending she never ever existed, and if she did, it was just because of the stoopid tabloid meedja and their stoopid trashy reporting. MickMacNee (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      "She is a frame of reference herself now" - what does that actually mean? She's a granny who met a PM and got the sharp end of his tongue. She illustrates something, so use her as an illustration in the relevant articles: that's not "pretending she never ever existed", it is telling the history in context and in proportion to its significance. No one is pretending she never existed, or erasing her from the relevant articles, we're just not wanting to create mythical "frames of reference" around people's private lives. That's what newspapers do, because there readers (or some of them) are too thick to understand the issues without reducing it to anecdote and neo-celebrity. It isn't so much that we are not a tabloid here, it is that we are different from newspapers of whatever quality (see WP:NOT). We are an encyclopedia, recording the "second draft" of history. That means we record facts in context, and don't simply record a string of "here what happened on Thursday" stories, or use particular people as "frames of reference". The frame of reference here is the political issues, the media style, the election, and the rise and fall of a Prime Minister, not who Mrs Duffy is, or what she thinks of Mr. Milliband this week.--Scott Mac 18:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      It means that her name is now associated with a political issue, and problem for Labour, as evidenced by the sources. I'd detailed this to death, it should be easy to pick up. And I think you make far too much assumptions about what would be in any proposed article, I for one would not be writing this in the style you seem to think people would. But that's an editorial issue, it is not a justification for deletion and salting. Any second draft of history that portrays Gillian Duffy as only relevant to Brown or the election, and actively prevents people finding out about her role and relevance, will simply be innaccurate and discredited by the wealth of alternative evidence, like real reference works. She was maybe a 1E then (although we have plenty of articles to even disprove that), but she is not now. People who think that the only way you extend beyond being a 1E is by virtue of a second totally unrelated event, just haven't understood the policy. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      No. She ought not to be the subject of an article, because she is not "a frame of reference herself". She is NOT the subject of what is relevant here, she is the object, being used as a point of interest in the political and media discussions. Thus, we record her in content in our articles on those events and discussions. Why? Because outside the politics and the "Brown story" she is not notable. There is nothing notable about her other than "Brown did this" or "Labour were in an election" or "here's how the media treat people". That's the whole essence of BLP1E - not making the object into the subject. Newspapers (even reasonable ones) tend to do the opposite - they tell the big story by anecdote and human interest. We are not a newspaper - not even a good newspaper.--Scott Mac 18:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      She is not simply a point of interest, her real life and her real opinions are very much the subject here, as well as her already notable role in the election, which is why she gets continuing coverage herself, and not just being continually namechecked as an anecdote. Your apparent contempt for the entire news media seems to be what is driving your judgement as to what is a 1E or not, rather than the measures actually detailed in the actual policy - privacy, notability, historical significance. MickMacNee (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
!voter BLP Redirect Event article
MickMacNee (nominator) overturn overturn create (I think)
hobit weak endorse overturn create
Alzarian16 endorse overturn create
Tarc strong endorse endorse neutral
Andrew Lenahan endorse ????? create
Mattingbgn endorse ?????? ??????
Spartaz endorse neutral "editorial decision"
RegentsPark endorse I think overturn create
JohnCD endorse endorse oppose I think
Freakshownerd endorse I think? overturn I think create
Seraphimblade endorse overturn ?????
Sam Blacketer endorse overturn ?????
Scott Mac strong endorse endorse opposed to creation I think.
Nfitz overturn (I think) overturn ?????
Stifle endorse overturn ?????
JoshuaZ endorse (implied I think) overturn ?????
I think this reads far more into the debate than is here. We are reviewing the deletion of Gillian Duffy. And it looks to me like there isn't a consensus to overturn that deletion (which there would need to be, given this is a BLP). That's really as far as it goes. Some people may have commented on other connected issues, but there's been no full discussion here, and in any case DRV's focus is narrowly on the legitimacy of the deletion. This ought to be close as "deletion endorsed" and that's it for now.--Scott Mac 23:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has already rejected an "event article" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigoted woman incident. If someone wants to bring that to DRV, we can discuss it separately.--Scott Mac 23:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion shows that an event article is now reasonable. This doesn't mean it won't be brought to AfD of course, I've no doubt it will. That said, I _think_ the table correctly labels the various opinions. Hobit (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This DrV clearly _can_ discuss the deletion of the redirect, and I'd say there is consensus to overturn that one, especially as that deletion was done out-of-process from what I can tell (not at RfD and no clear consensus to delete on the talk page discussion...) Hobit (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This debate is confused as to what it is talking about - which makes the discerning of opinions on that table highly dubious (it imputed views to me on matters I've never considered). As far as I can see, this is DRV of the deletion of Gillian Duffy although some people are talking about the article some about the redirect (I've never expressed a view on the redirect, so again the table is quite wrong). The event article was condemned by a healthy consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigoted woman incident. If you think that closure was wrong, then I suggest you bring it to a separate DRV. There's not enough discussion of it here (and the closer hasn't been informed) for this DRV to overturn it in passing. (I make no comment about whether it ought to be overturned or not).--Scott Mac 08:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think the DrV can certainly address what goes in place of that red link above. At the moment it seems people prefer to not have an article, but would prefer a redirect. Also, your statement "Enough. No to the article, and no to the redirect" is what I based your opposition to the redirect on. Hobit (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the deleter of the redirect was notified of this discussion some time ago and has indicated support for the redirect [29]. Hobit (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry. I'm willing to concede: 1. that there's (although it isn't that clear) a consensus to have a redirect to the election article 2. the non-existence of a BLP is clearly upheld. 3. There's insufficient discussion either way to determine an "event article". The Afd of the deletion of the "Bigoted woman" event article thus stands (it hasn't been reviewed here, in truth), although I note closer didn't close the door on further consideration. The deleted I was referring to was that of the "event" article.--Scott Mac 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The early closure of that event article Afd was taken to DRV here, where it closed as no consensus, whereby any new 'event' article would not be subject to speedy deletion, and instead would require another Afd, done properly this time. [30] MickMacNee (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn In particular, overturn the deletion of the redirect. There should be either a mention or a discussion of the incident somewhere and having a redirect to that from her name is consistent with standard practices for how we handle BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Manny Machado (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There are lots of articles about minor league baseball players from the last two MLB drafts that have less information and less reliable sources than this page did and those pages have been kept up. I think this page should be undeleted because he meets WP:GNG. He has signed a professional contract. The deleter hasn't replied to my message about the page. The deleter said that the situation with Machado had not changed since a different page was deleted two months ago, but this time the article was put together with good information with references from him being coverd nationally by places like The Miami Herald and Sports Illustrated. ¿Ice? (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh....Isn't that the point of Deletion Review. Someone disagrees (doesn't like} with the outcome, so they come here for a second opinion and a review?--Jojhutton (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that's sarcasm, but if it isn't, see the notice at the top of this page: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. Equally, this process should not be used to point out other pages that have not been deleted where your page has — each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits." JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone do a temporary restore of this article please (both the AFD version and the G4 version). I think the concern here is with the G4 deletion rather than the last AfD and given the G4 criteria we really need to see the version that was deleted at AfD and the recent version that was deleted to see if this was a valid G4. Dpmuk (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I did the second speedy deletion. The new article is completely different to the old article, with different references. However the major claim, that he was picked third in the draft remains the same, and the issues expressed in the AFD have not yet been resolved, in that he still has not played. I am quite willing to userfy the deleted articles as a userspace draft if someone asks as the article does not harm the encyclopedia. If I do so I will note it here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Per the G4 deleting admin comments above the page was not "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" (G4 criteria) as per the own comments it was "completely different" to the AfD article and so not sufficiently identical. I read the "this excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies ..." part of the criteria to mean that if the article meets any of the clauses it's not eligible for G4. Yes the reason for deletion may still apply but it's definitely not substantially identical, especially given that it has two sources that were only published after the AfD so can't possibly have been considered, and therefore it wasn't eligible for G4. Dpmuk (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (ec) The outcome of the deletion debate was not clear "delete". In my opinion this player meets WP:GNG - he has currently signed a $5.25 million contract with Baltimore Orioles [31], which is quite unusual for an amateur. The article was reasonably well written and referenced. There should be an exception in the rules, this is a disservice to our readers. But I know nothing about baseball. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD. Not quite similar enough for a G4. The AfD close was correct at the time, but the new article is sufficiently different (both in terms of content and sources) to suggest that another discussion is necessary. Whether or not he's notable I'm not at all sure. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy New sources and WP:ATHLETE specifically allows inclusion via WP:N, so those new sources may well be enough to overcome issues from the last AfD. I do wish admins would overturn debatable speedies and list at AfD when there is a reasonable request. Hobit (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the AfD, I'd also say there wasn't any policy-based consensus for that deletion. Things like "not drafted yet" as a reason to delete is an IAR delete argument as no one argued he doesn't meet WP:N and several argued he does... Hobit (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After I restored it I forgot to remove the G4 tag, and it got deleted again. Now it is at User:Icealien33/Manny Machado after userfication. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per most of the above as sufficiently different to be ineligible for G4 deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't this be up for a new AfD instead of it becoming a redirect, or am I missing something? -- Ice (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 August 2010

[edit]
  • The Cartoon – No consensus. Besides the same old DRV stuff here (the "endorse" !voters saying "not a vote, within admin discretion," the "overturn" !voters saying "admin ignoring the consensus"), the "overturn" side raises the question about deleting just one episode out of so many, while the "endorse" side discounts that argument as WP:WAX. A few scattered arguments involve, among other topics, the amount of sources in the article and possible inadequacy of the debate. Therefore it is best to relist on AfD. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Cartoon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted even though the vote count was 3:2 in favour of keep.

In deciding to delete, the administrator's reasoning was:

"The result was delete. While the pure votecount is evenly matched on each side, Herostratus's comment is pretty much a delete !vote, and vinciusmc/meshach's proofs by assertion fail to impress. I have considered this closure carefully and will not be amending it; feel free to DRV if you disagree. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)"

However, Herostratus clearly voted to keep:

"Keep. Cruft. We have articles on all the other Seinfeld episodes, it appears. Future generations will doubtless thank us. Herostratus (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)"

Further, if the article on The Cartoon is deleted, shouldn't articles on other individual Seinfeld episodes be deleted? Isn't there an important issue of consistency?

Addendum (20 Aug 2010): In discounting the statement "We have articles on all the other Seinfeld episodes", the administrator overlooked or ignored a permissible WP:OSE - "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia."

Rainjar (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • AFD is not a vote --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So why does the admin refer to "The result"? Rainjar (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The discussion ends in a result/outcome/whatever you want to call it. Using the word result is not synonymous with being a vote. Football matches end with a result, they aren't a vote either. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So why bother to interpret Herostratus's comment as a delete vote in direct contradiction to the express vote? The referee at a football match records the final score. He doesn't interpret it as he would like. Rainjar (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • He refers to the bolded sentiment, which it appears was meant to be sarcastic. My reference to a football match wasn't supposed to be a direct comparison to AFD merely that the word result doesn't imply anything about voting. Really you can argue about if it's a vote of not as much as you like, it's long established that AFD isn't a vote and that isn't going to change here. For example Template:Not_a_ballot was created getting on 5 years ago to explain this concept to newcomers. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The aim is to reach a consensus isn't it. A 3:2 majority in favour of keep clearly isn't a consensus to keep, but it's hardly a consensus to delete either. My criticism is of "the administrator's reasoning". Rainjar (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The standard is laid out here and is that of a rough consensus. Saying 3:2 majority isn't a consensus is again try to boil this down to a vote, which it still isn't. If I state delete because it fails to meet policy X whilst someone else says keep, then if policy X is agreed by the broader community, my sentiment of delete is not just about my view at that point in time but has a broad community consensus from the formation of policy X. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • So a "rough consensus" is reached by ignoring an express vote and interpreting the comment that follows the vote as the admin wishes. If the recourse is to policy, what about the broader policy of consistency, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's comment below? "[T]here's very certainly no good reason to reopen the not-long-enough-dormant TV episodes battling. And per WP:OSE, no reason to delete a single article from a comprehensive set unless there's cause shown to re-examine the global question" See also the comments by Robofish, Ron Ritzman and Kotniski below. Rainjar (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • How many times can it be said to you that AFD is not a vote. Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE#Deletion, moving and featuring. Yes if I say "Keep - the articles crap doesn't meet any of our policies but I think it's nice", then yes an admin should weigh the strength of that, the strength being that it's a sound reason to delete it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • As I said earlier, my criticism is of the admin's reasoning. It is the admin that stated that Herostratus's comment was "pretty much a delete !vote", ignoring the express "Keep" vote. Not me. Rainjar (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Your criticism is that the admin didn't treat it as a vote, but that correct since it isn't a vote. He said !vote (i.e. not vote) the bolded sentiment shown is secondary (at best) to the opinion expressed. Final time of saying it, you can argue about it for as long as you like, but that's the way it works and has worked for many many years. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There were two indisputable keep !votes, both saying it met WP:N and two !votes that were indisputable deletes, both essentially saying the coverage is trivial and based purely on these four votes I think a no consensus close would have been appropiate. However, Herostratus's !vote is an interesting one as it could be interpreted a number of ways but personally I think it adds strength to the delete vote. Using the term "cruft" clearly suggests that the article shouldn't be kept (as I've never seen cruft used anywhere other than a delete argument before) while the rest of the !vote seems to be sarcastic comment on the fact that we have articles on many other episodes and so should keep this one. If this were a proper keep vote I would discount it as a "other stuff exists" vote but as I discuss above I interpret it's more as a sarcastic vote and so as a (weak) delete vote. The nominator, although saying it was a procedural nomination, also suggested that they didn't think the sources were sufficient to meet our notability requirements. Thhe nom's comment along with Herostratus's !vote clearly, in my opinion, push the consensus in favour of delete (although I think a no consensus close would also have been within admin discretion). Dpmuk (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So why does the word "Keep" appear in the quote of Herostratus's response Rainjar (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As stated by Stifle below it's the strength of argument not votes that count and I interpret that vote as contributing towards the strength of the delete argument even if that's not what the user intended. Dpmuk (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So an admin can not only ignore the consensus, but interpret the views of others any way he chooses. Your arguments become more bizarre with each statement. Rainjar (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If an admin is to interpret consensus they have to interpret the views of others, AfD is not a vote but is based on the strength of argument. In any argument people can make a mistake and accidentally make a comment that supports the other side more than they side they're supporting. This appears to be what happened here and usually it may be clarified by further discussion but that didn't happen here so the admin, as they are meant to, based their decision on what was in front of them as we have to end the discussion somewhere.
          • All that said even if we almost completely ignore that vote (which I think is reasonable if it is a keep vote as it amounts to a other stuff exists argument) I still think a delete vote was within admin discretion given the nominators comments where they said they don't think the current sources are good enough.
          • Finally all the comments about articles appearing on the rest of the series amounts to a other stuff exists argument. Yes, the current situation isn't idea but I'd suggest that many of the other articles should end up at AfD as well. TV episodes can vary in notability so it's probably appropriate to hold a separate AFD for each one (as here) but an argument for keep based on the others existing should be given very little weight as one has to go first. Otherwise we're in danger of allowing a walled garden - it would be precedent for any one to set up a whole bunch of articles and then say one shouldn't be deleted as it left a gap. Dpmuk (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • In discounting the statement "We have articles on all the other Seinfeld episodes", the administrator overlooked or ignored a permissible WP:OSE - "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia." If the comment was ambiguous, wouldn't the proper step have been to seek clarification, and not merely to interpret the comment in a manner that suited the administrator? If the view is that only a few episodes are notable enough to merit a separate article, then, as Ron Ritzman says below "Wouldn't a better approach be to start a discussion at Talk:Seinfeld or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Seinfeld about expanding the episode list articles to include short summaries and then turning most episode articles into redirects?", rather than seeking to delete individual articles, leaving one or more gaps in what would otherwise be a complete set. Rainjar (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, in my opinion seeking clarification isn't the correct thing to do. We have to draw the line somewhere - what happens if the editor doesn't reply for days or someone else comments in the meantime. Admins have to make the decision based on the discussion at the time of the close. While I agree that OSE can occasionally be a valid keep reason I don't think just saying an unqualified other stuff exists is. Saying other stuff exists and it's nearly all notable is a valid argument because then it would be odd not to have one. In contrast a plain OSE argument could be used to support an article on something where none of them are notable (as I explain above) so needs to be more reasoned to support a keep - plain OSE argument are regularly given very little weight at AfD. Dpmuk (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what an arbitrary line it has proven to be. As for how much weight as OSE argument should carry, it appears to me that the illustration used in the WP:OSE is weaker than in the present case. Rainjar (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Herostratus and Colonel Warden. I don't have a strong opinion about whether there needs to be a separate article for each Seinfeld episode, but it doesn't make any sense to have an article for all except one. Also, it was deleted without any consensus. Helvetica (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Overturn - Although I was too late to comment, I would have commented to keep the article, as I believe that movies, TV shows, and books are their own sources. But given the arguments at the time of closure, Stifle decided that the delete arguments out weighed the keep arguments, and I concur. It wasn't a poor close, but I wouldn't be against reopening to make sure. After looking through the citations, this should really be reexamined. Those citations were not as ambiguous as we were led to believe.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is looking a bit like the situation in the AfD where someone's !vote was reversed from what he said. You write endorse, then imply you'd quite favour reopening, which is overturn. Can you clarify? (I mean, we're not evaluating the admin here - we can believe that the admin took a perfectly reasonable decision at the time, while also believing that it's best for the encyclopedia that the issue be reopened.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would go out on a ledge and say that those citations were not as ambiguous as we were led to believe. They seem to be right on, and confirm the information in the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC I think the book provides enough coverage (including a plot summary) and some of the other articles are strong enough to make the claim that WP:N is met by the sources in the article credible. No one specifically explained why they weren't, so I don't see how those !votes can be discounted. In general when an admin is dealing with a majority !voting in a way they disagree with AND those !votes are at least reasonable the admin should !vote rather than close. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to the vote count was 3:2 in favour of keep - if we look numerically (which we don't, as AfD is not a vote), the nomination is a "delete", so the "vote count" was 3:3. Also, I feel that the argument that this would be the only episode redlinked on the list of episodes is not a valid reason to overturn the closure - perhaps that's an indication that some/all of the episodes' articles should be considered for deletion? I make no further comment on this issue. Incidently, Stifle userfied it to User:Meshach/The_Cartoon, so it can be viewed there. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, as there was clearly no consensus to delete here. While some would say this is within the closing admin's discretion, I don't think such a bold move was appropriate; given that List of Seinfeld episodes is a featured list, and that (as Herostratus pointed out) all the other episodes have articles, I think a stronger mandate (i.e. more input) would be needed in order to make a new precedent by deleting this article. No objection to relisting this one to try to reach a broader consensus. Robofish (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as per Robofish. There certainly wasn't any consensus to be found at the AFD, and there's very certainly no good reason to reopen the not-long-enough-dormant TV episodes battling. And per WP:OSE, no reason to delete a single article from a comprehensive set unless there's cause shown to re-examine the global question. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to agree with Tarc's sentiments here. Why nominate only one episode? Come to think of it, why start with nominating any of them at all? Wouldn't a better approach be to start a discussion at Talk:Seinfeld or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Seinfeld about expanding the episode list articles to include short summaries and then turning most episode articles into redirects? (except the obviously notable ones like The Soup Nazi) The way it is right now, this leaves a big red hole on our coverage of episodes, especially if this AFD result is used as a precedent for nominating other Seinfeld episodes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said. AfD was the wrong forum for this in the first place (as is usually the case when the issue is not the inclusion of the information, but the giving of a separate page to a topic). --Kotniski (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, within admin discretion; however, I don't have a problem with restoring it, basically per Tarc and Ron Ritzman. Timotheus Canens (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If by exercising "discretion", an admin can interpret an express "Keep" vote as a "Delete" vote, delete an article on one episode of a long running and popular series while leaving articles on the other episodes untouched (all of which episodes are a featured list on Wikipedia), and ignore a relevant WP:OSE, then perhaps the scope of the discretion itself needs to be re-examined. Rainjar (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So Stifle misinterpreted Herostratus' comment - something that often happens online when you write a sarcastic comment without noting it. Calling something "cruft" isn't what someone who supports keeping usually says, and how, exactly, is the closer supposed to figure out if the "keep" is sarcastic or not?

        It's not a defective close, but a defective debate. For that reason I'm happy with it being restored. But frankly, WP:BLUDGEONing about everybody who endorsed the close is not helping your case. At all. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        • There is a separate issue as to how "discretion" is exercised. I have raised it elsewhere, where it may be more appropriate to do so. I have not gone on about "everybody who endorsed the close". I have dealt with the argument that the decision was within discretion, which appears to be the principal argument. On a separate note, a debate is a debate. It can be a good debate or a poor debate, but I cannot see how a debate can be "defective". If anything was "defective", it was in the application of the process. Rainjar (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. The people arguing for keeping the article did a poor job of defending the article's notability, so I won't blame the closer too much for deleting the article. However, I agree with Hobit that the position of keeping the article has some merit, and that a consensus to delete the article was therefore not present. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Robofish.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Robofish and Sjakkalle. A poor debate which not surprisingly led to the wrong result. Not really Stifle's fault, but the close looks to be outside of consensus. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse As obviously within the discretion of the closer. Protonk (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to non-consensus, which was the clear result, obvious to 890% 80 or 90% of the people here. But what really bothers me is not the mistaken close, but the attitude in an admin saying "I have considered this closure carefully and will not be amending it; feel free to DRV if you disagree. " As for me, I'm perfectly aware that no matter how carefully I consider I might make an error, and I never make an admin decision that I will not reconsider. I know the odds are against any self-presumption I'm the most careful admin here, but even if the closer thinks he is perfect, he should recognize both that nobody else is likely to agree with him, and that a priori it's extremely improbable, to the extent that it has never yet been the case with anyone. Myself, I'd think anyone would want to have the opportunity to change their mind rather than experience a deltion review like this one. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    890%? Are some people here sockpuppets, so the actual number of people commenting here is less than the number of accounts commenting here? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC) fixed my typo. Sorry. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, I don't understand your problem with an admin saying "I have considered this closure carefully and will not be amending it; feel free to DRV if you disagree." If, when his decision is challenged, an admin reconsiders it carefully but still believes it is right, what would you have him do? You seem to be saying that he must amend his decision if challenged - you surely don't mean that? JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think DGG's objection goes to the closer's preemptive refusal to consider objections as a general rule, as expressed here [32] and restated in the close under debate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I understand, I had not taken in that those words were actually written pre-emptively in the AfD close under discussion. JohnCD (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn to no consensus – Those first two "keep" !votes were correct as far as the sourcing is concerned (which I can verify). Discounting the one "keep", which was either sarcasm or otherwise an application of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it boiled down to whether or not the sources given in the article were valid and hence established notability. That being said, none of the arguments brought forth in the AFD were very good at all or developed enough, and neither came out on top. –MuZemike 18:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and severe trout: Textbook case of admin super!voting and deciding the fate of an article by his own whim. A consensus to delete for sure did not exist. It was a "no consensus" at worst. Considering a keep !vote, (even if ambiguously sarcastic), as a delete, is the icing on the cake: the closing admin should have at least asked what that meant. --Cyclopiatalk 21:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - the article should be kept. There was clearly "no consensus" in the discussion; for the closing admin to say otherwise is unsupportable. The closing admin must follow the decision of the AfD. Why do we bother to have AfDs if the closing admin just follows his own judgment? We would save ourselves a lot of time if we just appoint this admin to be the sole judge of wiki-worthy articles. Inniverse (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several comments above excusing the administrator for the outcome of the AfD on the grounds that the debate/discussion in the AfD was poor. If the debate/discussion was poor, isn't that all the more reason for the administrator to be more careful in "interpreting" the debate/discussion, in the exercise of "discretion", and in the reasoning in reaching a decision? Rainjar (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - the article should have been kept. There was no consensus to delete and the Notability is demonstrated by the other episode's articles / the subject matter. meshach (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but should be restored anyway The close, based on what was brought, and strength of arguments, was correct. As others noted, AfD seems to be the wrong place for this to have gone. There needs to be some sort of centralized discussion regarding Seinfeld episodes, a mass nomination of non-notable episodes, or .. what. Picking off individual episodes seems to be the wrong way to go about it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Steven Slater – Move to JetBlue Flight 1052, and relist on AfD. I have gone back and forth through this discussion, and I have found so many different arguments that it is difficult to find a consensus. Normally, when I close a DRV as "no consensus," I would relist it on AfD, but here it would be counterproductive to do so since the original AfD (and this DRV) was already so long. And that would be the case here, if we were not dealing with WP:BLP1E. Most of the "endorse" reasoning is based on the individual's failure of BLP1E, which after two debates has been reasonably cemented. However, quite a few "overturn" !voters believe that the topic should be covered in an article about the event; some "endorse" !voters have called the event a violation of WP:NOTNEWS, but in this regard the "overturn" side is stronger. Therefore it would be beneficial to open up a clean AfD on the event without worrying about BLP1E. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Steven Slater (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted in spite of the fact that there was no consensus to delete. Most of the people voting to delete cited WP:BLP1E, but, as others pointed out in the course of the AFD, their arguments were more based on the title of that policy than its full text. The policy itself states that if an event is notable (which this one clearly is) but a person is only notable for that one event, then "it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." So if this were the case then the article should have been moved to an article for this incident. But the policy goes on to state that "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." And a good number of arguments to this effect were made during the AFD discussion. Finally, in the beginning of the paragraph, it states that "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual..." It was argued in the AFD that there is a strong likelihood of continued notability, with offers for book deals, reality tv shows, movies, etc. And just in the past day or so it's been reported that he has in fact been offered a reality show [33]. This article states that he's "Hollywood's most wanted." [34]. A quick browse through recent Google News will reveal other similar articles. Anyway, it boils down to the fact that there was no consensus to delete; there are good arguments based on WP policy to not delete; and those voting to keep did not ignore the policy, rather they looked at the same policy and came to a different conclusion based on the evidence. Therefore, I propose that this deletion be overturned. -Helvetica (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - "I don't like the outcome" is not a valid DRV rationale. The closing admin seemed to find the deletes made a stronger case than the keeps. This person is only famous for one event, an event of no lasting significance (man swears up a storm, insults customers, and quits, whoop-de-doo), our drive-by 24/7 infotainment media has a short field day with it, and he's trying to cash in on his 15 mins as quickly as possible. None of this is encyclopedic enough, it is worth a mentino and a rediect to JetBlue Airways#Incidents and accidents , and that is all. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Helvica says "This article was deleted in spite of the fact that there was no consensus to delete" - thats right , AFD is not a vote. As per Tarc, there are no valid reasons to continue the same claims here at DRV for another week. Off2riorob (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as within admin discretion. DRV is ot a place for re-argument of the issues but a place (in this instance) to review whether the close was a correct close. Having read the AfD, I read the debate as being somewhere between Delete and No consensus, but I think it could have been closed as Keep, No consensus, or Delete depending on your exact reading of the debate and so any of those closes would have been within admin discretion. Dpmuk (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Endorse - User:Helvetica use of the magic word vote in the very first line leads me to believe that he is unaware that consensus is not a vote, but based on arguments by various editors. The arguments used to keep the article, mainly WP:BIO and WP:RS tend to always be superseded by WP:BLP1E, and WP:NOTNEWS. The closing admin made a rationale and informative closing argument on the page. Although it doesn't surprise me at all, that this is here now, all arguments need to stay focused on the close, and not on why the article should be kept.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If you look at the AFD itself, you'll see a lot of people on both sides using the word "vote." Maybe it's not technically correct, but what word do you prefer for the one bold "delete" or "keep" or whatever that each editor makes? And if they're all just arguments, then why can't the same user make multiple "keep" or "delete" votes. And why do so many people insist on flagging (non)-votes by IPs or new accounts as having few or no previous edits? And why is the term "consensus" even used when this denotes something larger than a majority in favor of a certain position. It seems pretty clear to me that, in spite of all the claims to the contrary, there is at least a definite element of voting in the AFD process, even if some people don't like to admit that. This isn't particularly surprising, as Wikipedia is an ever-evolving institution, so it's to be expected that certain policies, guidelines, and conventions might contradict one another. -Helvetica (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If an AFD was simply just an up and down vote, then it wouldn't need an experienced editor (in this case an Admin), to close these discussions. Anyone could do it. Administrators are admins because it has been determined that they are knowledgeable enough to follow the basic principles of policy. In most instances, ip or new accounts do not have enough experiance or knowledge to be able to decide whether an article is worth keeping based on policy, and want an article kept because they like it. That is why their comments are sometimes disregarded. Wikipedia is not a fan site. I have no doubt that many fans came to wikipedia to raed the article and saw the banner, and decided to participate in the discussion. That is fine, as long as they are familiar enough with wikipedia policy to make a policy informed decision. Most I am afraid are not.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question(s): If the relevant issue for the deletion is the BLP1E policy, (if the AFD is not over-turned) does anything preclude the creation of an article about the incident itself, which would not be a biography of a living person? (There were a number of people in the AFD who proposed such a solution.) And if this is possible, could the content of the deleted article be temporarily undeleted and moved to a subpage of my user space, so that the whole thing wouldn't have to be re-written from scratch? Thank you. -Helvetica (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, article creation is taken on a case by case basis. If you feel that the event is notable, then a page may and could be created. It most likely will go through the same AFD process, but results differ. I personally feel that there is enough coverage in the redirect to satisfy notability. I would suggest using your time to improve the Jet Blue article where it refers to Slater. If more information comes out or his notability increases, then the Slater page could be recreated.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - The opener of this DRV has now started to notify other users that vote commented to keep and has also notified the Article Rescue Squadron of the DRV. Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I have been following this closely and the keep arguments are all around notability and GNG which are subordinate to BLP1E. There was a defence put forward that this was an especially notable person totranscend BLP1E like, for example, Joe the Plumber. That argument is, however, utter rubbish because Joe was on the news worldwide - I even heard of him in Denmark - and was a defining moment in one of the most significant elections there has been a long long while. And Steven Slater? He is a bloke that got drunk and made a fool of himself. BLP1E most certainly applies and this was the correct close. Spartaz Humbug! 14:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was obviously no consensus and the closer failed to follow the guidance of WP:DGFA by not respecting the policy-based arguments of the numerous experienced editors who wished to keep the article. In such cases of reasonable doubt, the guideline emphatically states that articles should be kept rather than deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGFA isn't policy. CONSENSUS is and requires admins to measure arguments against policy. We have a hierarchy and admins rightly discount arguments based on guidelines if they are trumped by arguments based on policy. That's what happened here. Spartaz Humbug! 15:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Good call on Mkativerata's part. Horologium (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The summing up ignored arguments made by me and Helvetica that this had the notability of "a proverb lighting rod". Until Steven Slater, the frustrations (and discussions about them) of workers in the airline and other industries in this recession lacked a dramatic incident to "hang themselves upon". Such notability is not trivial. Due this kind of notability, this individual and incident will figure prominently in course discussions in the coming academic year on industrial /labor relations, sociology of work, and the economic effects of recession upon Americans. Deletion creates the serious risk that students seeking information about this individual will not find it where they expect reliable information--Wikipedia-- and as a result will be forced to turn to less objective sources. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is "Ignore all rules". The WP:BLP1E rule was created to avoid problems in regard to temporarily newsworthy but quickly forgotten individuals. It is being applied here bureaucratically. --LittleHow (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to base most of your reasoning on things that will happen. Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball and if things are going to happen in the future, then let them happen. Until then this is still only One event.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There were just as many people who were using their crystal balls to state emphatically that this guy wouldn't remain in the headlines for more than a day or two, and that the article should be deleted because of that. Why weren't they called out on their crystal ball usage? Why were their votes arguments given more weight than the folks who said we should wait and see what happens with this guy? –BMRR (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it would matter either way. It was closed on the merits of what the subject has done now, not in the future. As the closing admin didn't use any of this as a reason for deletion, it would be moot to continue discussing it.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not a crystal ball gazing to note that this guy and his actions will be discussed in the Fall in colleges and universities in courses on industrial relations, the sociology of work and the economic effects of the recession. Teachers cite events and people that illustrate issues that are most familiar to students. If colleges start, as they are scheduled to, teaching industrial relations etc then Steven Slater is going to be class discussed. That is not crystal ball gazing unless we have reasons to suspect the imminent end of higher education and such courses. We know this is going to happen because that is how he already being discussed such as here in Businessweek and here in Slate. This discussion puts Slater in a context that is the subject of many kinds of educational course. Students are going to write about such issues (as they do each year) using the most relevant and notable cases that illustrate industrial problems etc as already discussed in these pieces.--LittleHow (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is not a crystal ball gazing to note that this guy and his actions will be discussed […] Steven Slater is going to be discussed […] — In fact, speculating on what sources will exist at some point in the future is very much the canonical form of crystal ball gazing. Uncle G (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, good close, correct decision where a temporarily newsworthy but quickly forgotten individual is concerned.  pablo 15:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, closure gave strong rationale based on the discussion, and arguments presented to overturn seem to be rehashing the AFD discussion. DRV is not AFD#2. I do note that there is possibility of Slater becoming notable in the future - there's word he's getting a reality TV show as host, which clearly will push him over that line, but that's still crystal-balling it. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - This was an incorrect reading of WP:BLP1E. BPL1E could only have been used if there were an article on the event. However there is no article on the event itself. The event is clearly notable given the WP:NOTE overriding rule that it "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." This should have been more a question of the article name. Editors of the article focused on the event rather than Slater's biography. If it had been named Jet Blue air rage incident of 2010 or some such there probably would not have been an afd debate. The event is complex. Fleshing out this complexity in the Jet Blue article will create WP:undue weight issues. Redirecting an article which was extensively sourced is an incorrect interpretation of WP:BLP1E since there was no article on a notable event to begin with. There is widespread difference of opinion on this matter (this is the longest afd I ever saw). In such cases where the opinions seem to be evenly divided the correct response would have been "no consensus" or redirecting it to a standalone article on the event.Americasroof (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own close. Regarding an article on the event itself, I've expressed my views on that here. WP:EVENT generally requires an event to have impact and coverage; no-one in the AfD or in this DRV has made a compelling claim to "impact" without peering into a crystal ball. In any case, it's a matter for a different article. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The nutshell of WP:Event says "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." A simple check of google news shows that it is still in the headlines even today. You are making a crystal ball argument in reverse. You're saying you think that it won't be notable in the future but you don't know that for a fact either. This matter was closed prematurely based on an unsupported crystal ball that it will not be notable in the future. Since there is wide difference of opinion on what lies ahead the matter should have been closed as "no consensus." By all Wiki standards for third party coverage, the event is notable. Americasroof (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (1) "Nutshells" are not guidelines; (2) no keep !votes made a supportable case that this will have lasting impact or coverage - pointing that out is not crystal-balling in reverse; and (3) you are commenting on an AfD that never existed for an article that never existed. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The incident trumps BLP1E and it's now covered at JetBlue Airways#Incidents and accidents. Depending on follow-up regulatory repercussions within the industry, it might get its own article; for now JetBlue Airways Flight 1052 is just a redirect to the JetBlue article. We already have established practices for how to handle aviation incidents; see WikiProject Aviation/Notability#Accidents and WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout. A dedicated group tracks this stuff: WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. These resources include formally defined "incidents" like this one; not just true accidents. Meanwhile, Mr. Slater is still covered by BLP1E. If he someday gets a TV show, writes a weekly column or runs for Governor of Alaska, we can then give him an article. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse That's a BLP1E. The redirect to the appropriate section in Jet Blue is plenty. I can imagine an article on the incident if coverage continues over an extended period of time (say a month or two). On the person only if something else major happens (a best-selling book for example). Hobit (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now neutral. I think BLP1E does apply here, but the sources below do indicate that this may be a one event significant enough to bypass that. That said, I'm having a hard time with believing that having a bio of this person will improve the encyclopedia in any way. Hobit (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, probably doesn't matter, but I'd strongly support an event article. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closing action. The admin did an admirable job explaining both sides of the issue and sided with policy which is BLP1E. Slater is already starting to fade as his 15 minutes of fame/infamy is running out. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No one's brought up anything that wasn't addressed in the closing comment or effectively rebutted it. I hate to say it, but I expect we'll be hearing about Steve Slater again in a year or two, but not in a good way. I think he's going to take the end of his 15 minutes really hard. We may want to re-address then. - Richfife (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closer provided objective rationale for his/her decision based on policy while wading through the vast amount of recommendations made. The majority of the DRV statements recommending overturning the closing decision amount to a simple rehashing of the AfD. Time to put away the crystal balls. The incident is appropriately presented for your viewing pleasure at JetBlue Airways#Incidents and accidents. If in the future, the hopes and dreams of Slater come true and he becomes notable beyond this one event, an article may be possible. Until then, he can rest easy at the JetBlue Airways article. Cindamuse (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This isn't Brian Peppers here. Policy was misapplied as Helvetica states above. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I thought it was an exceptionally well-reasoned close. A substantial portion of Helvetica's reasoning is pure crystal ballery, and the incident is adequately covered at the JetBlue article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Well reasoned. I'm extremely impressed with the rationale. I wish all administrative decisions were as well thought out. PvsKllKsVp (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Also speedy close per the 10 minute rule, to forestall more irrelevant opinions in either direction on whether we'll see him on the news again, and generally stop the madness. (New rule. You're welcome, Wikipedia!) --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: There was no consensus to delete. Overturn this close or I'm deploying my wikislide and grabbing some brewskis whilst you suckers kill everything fun about the project. ALSO, there was no consensus to delete and admins are not SuperVotingGods.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse very much within the spirit of WP:BLP1E, which exists mostly for articles just like this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Steven Slater is not being purged from Wikipedia. The incident is summarized in JetBlue and Flight attendant. If he achieves fame for something else, then that does not preclude an article in the future. patsw (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Two reasons.
    • Policy issue - A reading of WP:BLP1E shows that instead an incident article should have been created. I believe a 3rd way was emerging which didn't seem to have opposition and would have complied with existing policies. By just deleting it, editors were prevented from retriving the content to create an incident article which provided more detail than is justifyable on the JetBlue page. I see no evidence that this third way was considered in the deletion closing decision.
    • Technical Issue - Though I feel the closing admin acted in good faith, I am perflexed by this, and confused as to why there is a posting on the closing admin's talk page notifying him of the AfD and saying he was editing the article - if this was the case (I do not see such edits) should that editor be recused from then closing the AfD?
  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.198.90 (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to respond to the two points. To the first, there was no consensus to move the article to an incident article. Some suggested it, but doing so as an administrative action would have been unsupportable on the consensus. In any case, such an article would still have to pass WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, and I think the case for it is questionable. To the second, I had not edited the article or the AfD before closing it; I'm not sure what talk page message you are referring to.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closing admin gave a very good, and very accurate account of the keep/delete votes, and pointed out that the "keep" opinions, while numerous, were weak; by contrast, the "delete" opinions were mostly based on good policy. It's great that Slater may get more publicity, and it will be of great interest to gossip columns for quite a while, but this kind of "bad day at the office" stuff is not in Wikipedia's scope. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, with a note that those saying BLP1E means an article must be created on the incident are incorrect - an article on the event is still subject to WP:NOTNEWS, and an article on the event would still be subject to our BLP policy. Quantpole (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse. Perfectly correct closure. People notable for one just event should not have a Wikipedia article. Nobody will remember him in a year's time. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reviewers of this deletion may not be aware, as the article text is deleted, that Slater's account, i.e the initial significant coverage has be shown by the passengers and investigators statements to be untruthful and Slater no longer is willing to discuss his initial account of the incident. That event itself had no consequence other than Slater's arrest. patsw (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Whether someone in a newsworthy/notable event was telling the truth initially or not is absolutely irrelevant to notability the AFD or to proper following of guidelines and policies in this deletion review. It is right up there with "IDONTLIKEHIM." Edison (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not citing his fabrication of his original story as a reason to endorse the decision to delete. I was explaining that significant coverage was predicated upon his account being confirmed as being one of professional flight attendant versus inconsiderate, potty-mouth passenger yielding up a working class hero. Since it turns out to be a drunk and crazy flight attendant versus an imaginary female passenger story, yielding up a unemployed guy with a large pending legal bill, any WP:CRYSTALBALL view that his Fifteen Minutes publicist will ultimately yield fame for him is (1) not likely and (2) not a reason to overturn. patsw (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and move to JetBlue Flight 1052 (reluctantly). The BLP1E concerns are valid enough, I agree there should not be an article on Steven Slater as he was only in the news briefly for a single incident. The incident was unusual, but was not of such momentous impact that the person behind the incident becomes so notorious that he deserves a biography. However, the article as I read it was not a biography at all, it was an article on the incident. If the article had been titled after the flight number, I don't think we would be seeing this discussion over BLP1E at all. Personally, I am sceptical as to whether this incident deserves a separate article, it is borderline NOTNEWS, and personally I am OK with having it covered in the JetBlue article. However, I could not read out from the AFD any consensus that an article on the incident should be deleted, and as such my vote is to overturn, and then resolve the BLP1E issues by retitling the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for eloquently and succinctly expressing the the hot button issue here. Moving it to JetBlue Flight 1052 would definitely address my concerns. I think editors made good faith effort to flesh out (and properly source) the story but did not entirely understand the naming conventions as they focused totally on the event and not the person. At some point you have to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Given that the debate which is biggest I've ever seen was pretty evenly divided, the closing has to be judicious. The closing by the admin deleted the article entirely. Somebody else then subsequently redirected it to Jet Blue. Restoring and renaming the article would definitely solve a lot of issues.Americasroof (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Close was an accurate reading of the policy-based consensus. Wait a few months and try again if the coverage persists for whatever reason. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was no consensus to delete. Privacy issues should not be a significant factor here because the subject has hired a publicist and is now trying to keep himself in the public eye. If nothing comes of these plans, the article may well warrant deletion in the future ... but not when the subject is still being featured frequently in the news. (7,006 Google News hits in the last day. [35]) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse policy-based consensus. No question this fits the exact letter and spirit of the policy, which has the highest endorsement by Wikipedia's organizers and even the rule of law. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse Votes for deletion were based on policy, mainly BLP1E votes to keep were on WP:ILIKEIT & WP:CRYSTAL. While the incident is notable, the individual isn't notable enough to warrant a full article. GainLine ♠ ♥ 16:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: because of the immense depth of coverage, and per the RNC ad. The fact is, Steven Slater exemplified the feelings of a populace at a particular moment Purplebackpack89 23:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "bold stand" and the wordy essay that accompanied it were both totally unnecessary. Sometimes, it's better to let things blow over; but even when there's a need to take a stand, it can be done in a professional manner. I'm not sure what's gained when an administrator makes statements like "This debate has been unduly affected by a large number of poorly reasoned 'votes'". How many people does that refer to? Fifty? Sixty? Why would you feel the need to insult that many people? Now, I don't whether the the WikiMedia Foundation will lose a contribution, or even so much as a dollar from Mkativerata's comments. But the service depends on the good will of a lot of people, including those who might deliver what you believe to be poorly reasoned arguments. While we sometimes might step on toes, we should avoid stomping on them. Mandsford 02:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "bold stand" and the wordy essay that accompanied it were both totally unnecessary. — You'd have preferred the more usual uninformative "The result was delete."? That's just daft. Explanations of an administrator's thinking in a closure are good things, as evidenced not least by the fact that this discussion hasn't been, as is all too often the case, a festival of guessing how the closing administrator came to the decision that xe did, based more on editors' stances on the outcome than on the administrator's actual thinking. And a rationale that is poorly reasoned (such as "Steven Slater is a hero." and "it will without a doubt add another law to the Patriot Act", to pick two examples that have nothing to do with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in the least) is a rationale that is poorly reasoned. It is not an insult to point this out. Indeed, it's quite proper to point out when rationales are poor and have no basis in policy, especially in order to encourage better, policy-based, ones. Your argument here is poorly reasoned. Uncle G (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This debate has been unduly affected by a large number of poorly reasoned 'votes'"; or instead, "Some comments on the keep side weren't persuasive because they weren't grounded in the guidelines, specifically because...". A little diplomacy doesn't cost a lot. We can all reflect on our words more carefully sometimes, right? I think that was Mandsford's point. --Bsherr (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bsherr is correct; there's a difference between the exchanges between two editors who are acquainted with each other, and in one administrator telling a group of people, in effect, "you guys are full of it" (other letters optional). Does it bother me if Uncle G says to me that my argument is poorly reasoned? No. I've traded comments with him for quite awhile, he's responding directly to me, I can take it as well as I can dish it out. On the other hand, if Uncle G puts on the deputy sheriff's badge and starts telling half the participants in a large group of people that their comments are poorly reasoned, daft, etc. yeah, that would bother me. I saw in Newsweek recently that 2009 saw a trend in more people leaving Wikipedia-- in the sense of logging off and contributing nothing further-- than in joining it, in part because of the hostile climate. A little diplomacy doesn't cost a lot. On the other hand, tactlessness is a not good tactics. Mandsford 14:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "One off event?" We've already seen a Republican Party campaign ad based on this event and an offer for a reality tv show, so it hardly seems to have "sunk into obscurity." On the contrary, it's already had a measurable impact. I can sympathize with you not liking there to be a famous person with your name though (especially if you think he's famous for something stupid.) I've got the same name as a famous person too, so I got teased a fair bit as a kid. Look on the bright side though - at least you were all grown up by the time there got to be a famous Steven Slater :-) -Helvetica (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see any such campaign, but then I do not live in America (also I cannot verfiy such a campaign, please provide a link). As to the offer of a TV show, yep its an offer and it may not come to fruition. Also AGF. The coverage is not all fairly trivial show some major coverage in say the last 24 hours.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Links to coverage of the RNC ads: [36] [37] [38]. Those are just a sampling. You can google for something like: RNC ad "Steven Slater." (RNC is "Republican National Committee.") -Helvetica (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You all take yourselves way to seriously!! What the hell is anyone even talking about. Wikipedia has lost exactly what it purported to become, an accessible, easily verifiable, easily understood open source of information. You all now have your own language, caste system and politics. Ridiculous. Leave the article alone. Isn't the information saved on server somewhere forever anyone. So this is really a big waste of time, isn't it? Get a date already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.68.22 (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Many keep !votes not based on policy, BLP1E. He's notable for this one thing (which is more notable as a whole, due to the media and public reaction). —fetch·comms 00:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I must disagree with the close of the AfD, as I feel there was a large consensus to keep the article. At the time of deletion, I can understand why some would continue to argue for WP:BLP1E, but let's look at the coverage he's generated since.
  • This guy's come to represent angered employees during a troubled economy. The way we're building, I'm disappointed that the consensus was read as such. In a few months, when Slater's sitting there with his reality show and he's into his twenty minutes of fame, I'll be saddened to see that Wikipedia was unable to get past itself and create an article on someone who so clearly defies WP:BLP1E. Nomader (Talk) 02:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To this one can add making this an Urgent Recreate
      • Subject of more than a dozen video songs – phenomena analyzed in the New Republic in The Ballads of Steven Slater
      • A news topic researched by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and found to be the top one of four of its New Interest Index in the last week and described not in terms of the incident but its resonance Flight Attendant Saga Resonates.
      • 17,000+ viewers have seen the deletion notice replacing the article since it was removed who would have come to it to find out something about Steven Slater and instead found something about Wikipedia deletion policies.
      • WP:BLP1E specifically includes the word generally “we should generally avoid having an article” and so notes exceptions can occur.
      • WP:BLP1E also notes “the context of a single event”— much of the coverage is not about a single event i.e. Flight 1052 but a story that has resonance with general issues about work tensions in the recession. Reflecting this, when the article is recreated one would expect it to have a section on comments made about this resonance in addition to the actual incident. Since the article of Steven Slater would not be solely about a single event, commonsense suggests it is not applicable to make a BLP1E deletion of it based on it being about a single event.
      • Wikipedia specifically has the fifth pillar "Wikipedia does not have firm rules/ Ignore all rules” so commonsense can prevail where unusual cases such as this occur.
      • The article should be immediately recreated otherwise its deletion risks becoming itself a news story bringing Wikipedia into disrepute "Wikipedia editors cannot see notability tree in notability wood".--LittleHow (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia vs the English language "To pull a slater" has entered the English language. For example, giving examples not from transient blogs but proper newspapers:

The phenomena is sufficiently established that this use of Slater as a word has been discussed in The Globe and Mail column on language Hate the job? Pull a Slater. Or a Baxter: The JetBlue incident and its attendant linguistic consequences. As explained there:

The glee with which people have seized upon “pull a Slater” illustrates how badly the vocabulary of the workplace is out of balance. When bosses fire people, they have a large and colourful lexicon to draw upon: dismiss, lay off, downsize, let go, dump, give a pink slip to, show the door, terminate, discharge, cashier, kick to the curb, declare redundant, release. Japan has the bracing expression “kubi ni naru,” which, according to Anne H. Soukhanov, has the figurative meaning of being fired and the literal one of “becoming a decapitated head.” Yet for those who quit their jobs, there aren’t many terms on offer beyond resign, give notice and, particularly in Britain, ask for your papers.

One definition of something having "notability" is that people make note of that thing in the words they use. Steven Slater has gained that notability -- this as shown above is not only in actual sources of usage but also secondary comment upon this language change. Whether this usage sticks and enters the dictionaries is unknown but it is powerful evidence of him having a real notability in the world outside Wikipedia. Why is the article of this person with real world notability still under appeal?--LittleHow (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trendy name-dropping in opinion columns aren't really going to move this to meme status, sorry. This person is only known for one thing; quitting his job in a highly-visible huff. Come back in 6 months or a year if a "Pulling a Slater" autobiography hits the NYT bestseller list. For now, he's about 14.5 minutes into is 15 minutes of fame. And please, drop the "not having an article beings Wikipedia into disrepute" argument, that is just patently ridiculous. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat, WP:BLP1E specifically includes the word generally: “we should generally avoid having an article”. The wise creators of the policy thus recognized exceptions for not having articles for people "only known for one thing" will occasionally occur. But this is by side the point. Steven Slater is now known for many other things as noted above including inspiring a political ad, having pieces written about the songs written about him, and now turning (with comment upon the phenomena) into a word. The latter cannot be ignored since it is a good test of notability as it shows that people in the real world feel a need to note the existence of Steven Slater when they talk and write about events and issues.
As to whether not having an article brings Wikipedia into disrepute the unsigned comment by 67.85.68.22 expreses the situation well: "Wikipedia has lost exactly what it purported to become, an accessible, easily verifiable, easily understood open source of information. You all now have your own language, caste system and politics. Ridiculous."--LittleHow (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I seem to be embroiled in 1E discussions day in and day our around here, I'm familiar wit the text, thanks. :) In my opinion, and that of many others apparently, this does not rise to the level of an exception. All of what you cite is just more of the same, and a bit overblown IMO, all originating from the same "he quit his job" angle. Joe the Plumber became, and was soundly ridiculed for, becoming a reporter for Pajamas Media following his famous Obama confrontation. That's what is missing here; Slater doing something else notable. Opinion columns turning a funny phrase or the RNC name-dropping him in an ad are not "something else". Tarc (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is whether WP:BLP1E is a rule of thumb or a criteria.
The rule of thumb interpretation of WP:BLP1E looks at the general Wikipedia guidelines for something being notable. This identifies this not in terms of things and events in themselves but their noteworthiness as identified in people's reactions -- that people have "have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it" and "the attention a subject has received". But there is a problem when this is applied to living people in the news: near invariably that attention is temporary. Since Wikipedia is not an an indiscriminate collection of information some rule of thumb -- more than one event -- is needed to quickly filter out all those people who get one day or one week news coverage and then fade into obscurity. But as a rule of thumb, there will be exceptions--hence the careful phrasing "we should generally avoid having an article".
The criteria interpretation takes the notability of living people to be specifically about them--in this case the criteria of the number of things-- one or many -- they have done. As an criteria it excludes any consideration of the kind of reaction a person might have gained in regard to doing one thing. They may have gained attention from across the globe, thousands of media reports, become a word in the language, have songs written about them, be the subject of political ads, and become a folkhero. That does not matter. Without a second physical event, they do not meet the criteria. Nor does it matter that most of the coverage has not even actually been about the primary event but how that event exists in people's minds-- as folkhero, resonant identification, as cue to depth analysis that put previously ignored issues in work and service customer relations into a new context-- no kind nor quantity of attention that has spun off that event is relevant -- only its singularity or not.
My view is that
(1) WP:BLP1E is a rule of thumb (the fifth pillar--no rigid rules),
(2) that those that do not consider Steven Slater an exception should provide examples of what of would count as exceptions since if this is not one it is difficult to imagine what would be an exception, and
(3) that he is in fact not notable for any event-he is instead notable for what people have massively, globally, and diversely read into something.--LittleHow (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just about said all that I am going to on the matter, honestly. I want to raise the bar for inclusion in this project, raising it beyond what the idiot drive-by media mentally masturbates over 24/7, so my "rule of thumb" for when one-trick-ponies cross the threshold into notability is exceedingly high. A guy that tells customers to go fuck themselves as he quits resonates with the downtrodden workforce. I get that. I get that a political party is tapping into this popular gestalt to score points. I get that OpEd writers who likely dream of telling their own managing editors to go fuck themselves have banged out "pulling a Slater" with wink-wink-nudge-nudge glee. I also get that 1 year from now, no one will care who "Steven Slater" is. I want to document what is encyclopedic, not every scrip and scrap of pop culture minutiae. Tarc (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"1 year from now, no one will care who 'Steven Slater' is." You can see into the future? Can you tell me which numbers I should pick for the lottery? ;-) –BMRR (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda figured "in my opinion" is implied there, but since you asked, 4 8 15 16 23 42. Tarc (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia inclusion is neutral to personal likes and dislikes otherwise Wikipedia will end up like Conservapedia. It is acknowledged that the individual has high notability and that this has gone far beyond the event -- that it "resonates with the downtrodden workforce", that his notability is such that can be exploited by a political party in an ad, that his name has become a word. The problem is that this notability still does not reach an "exceedingly high" theshold. As for a Steven Slater article adding to Wikipedia documenting "every scrip and scrap of pop culture minutiae", three sentences earlier it was noted that he "resonates with the downtrodden workforce" which is not pop culture minutiae.
The only good argument is that no one will be talking about Steven Slater in a year's time. But very little of the commentary is actually about Steven Slater as it is about other issues that he provided an occasion to discuss: the stresses of people in the service industry; customer relations; the experience of being an airline passenger, even as noted in The Times of India --his notability is truly globe -- what makes a folk hero. These concerns it be can confidently predicted will still exist next year--unless there is a dramatic end to the recession, the way we travel and work, and so these reasons why the issues raised by Steven Slater and his actions matter to so many people. Moreover, professors of journalism and sociology and economics in top universities such as Columbia University and George Mason University (see the Times of India piece) are now commenting upon Steven Slater in terms which have nothing to do with the actual events on that aircraft but the concerns about which they publish in regard to what makes media notability or a "bandit hero". The reaction to him is being treated in academia as a phenomena -- a sure sign that type "Steven Slater" into Google Scholar in a year or two's time and you get academic papers either mentioning or about him.--LittleHow (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well then we can wait a year and recreate the page them with proper sections about cultural and social impact. It is also aknowledged that he may in fact have no impact and that this may be a notehr slow nwews day story, The jury is out. Also even if we do find academic iinterest we do not know what that will be. It may be papers with titles like "the invention of celebrity" or "interlebrity, vicarious fame in thye internet age" in which they discuse why non-notable evetns become cult status and whether or not this is dure to deliberate manilpuation or represents a desperate need for heros. the fact is we don't kn ow.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last thing I have to say on this is that my position on this is not based on "personal likes and dislikes". We were talking about the "rule of thumb", which is subjective. Being subjective, I just have a higher threshold for what should be an article and what should not. It is not a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Tarc (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a regular new story itself and that is increasing upon its problems [42][43]. A year from now the inability to create a Steven Slater article will be a poster child in such reports of what the anonymous edit by 67.85.68.22 above noted observed and I quote again : ""Wikipedia has lost exactly what it purported to become, an accessible, easily verifiable, easily understood open source of information. You all now have your own language, caste system and politics. Ridiculous.""--LittleHow (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So in a years time there will be papers writen about him, but we won't have enough to write articel. Eithee this will be still notable in a year (which would mean there would be material to use in an article) or he will not be (the point many of us are making, this is a flash in the pan silly season story and nothing more). it can't be both.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, you state above that your position is based upon a desire to raise the bar for inclusion in WP. This presumably means that, according to present standards, you think that this article would be included. But the present standards are the standards on which we operate. I further do not agree with the statement that policy necessarily trumps guidelines, . The statements in a "policy" are intended to be interpreted by the statements in a "guideline". There is no policy or guideline that does not require human interpretation and judgement. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Although it's probably futile at this point, and although the evenly matched number of voices will, (ironically) probably result in "no consensus to overturn", studying the administrator's rationale indicates to me that his conclusion was made on his own interpretation of WP:BLP1E, rather than on the question of whether this would move beyond WP:NEWS. It appears to me that the original intent of WP:BLP1E was to avoid writing entire articles about people whose connection to an event was only tangential; the illustration provided in WP:ONEEVENT is of Rodney King (the acquittal of the police who arrested him became the 1992 L.A. riots) and of George Holliday (witness), the person whose videotape was the critical evidence in the case. Both are one event people. One is demonstrably notable; the other is little known, and yet he still redirects to an article about King. The one event rule was never intended as something to cancel out notability acquired under WP:GNG. We don't say to Sully Sullenberger, "yes, you landed a crippled airliner on the Hudson River and saved everyone, but that's only one event". The administrator's rationale, as I read it, is that no matter how much attention Steven Slater receives, he will never be entitled to an article because he is only notable for one event. History is filled with people notable for one event. The one event rule was never meant to be read so strictly that it would cancel out other factors supporting notability. While there is a legitimate question of whether Slater would become historically notable (and none of us know), deciding this one on WP:BLP1E was incorrect. Mandsford 14:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Much new significant coverage since the AfD as indicated by Nomader that his own television show is in the works. WP:BLP1E clearly states it applies to "low profile" individuals which this person certainly is not.--Oakshade (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was no consensus to delete in the first place, and subsequent coverage has indicated that the notability is continuing. Our guesses that notability will not continue in widely publicized instances like this have, like this one, a tendency to be proven wrong by events. A failure to evaluate the information correctly is an erroneous close. (I suggest we consider amending the one event guideline to clarify this, that in case of doubt, we include the article. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Agree with rationale as given by DGG (talk · contribs), in comment, above. -- Cirt (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. As much as I am wanting to endorse this just on the basis of encouraging administrators to provide detailed explanations of their thinking, at contentious AfDs, as Mkativerata did so well here... but in the end I find DGG's rationale for overturning very compelling. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
KRMS (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

On Aug. 13, RHaworth speedily deleted KRMS, with rationale "A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject".

Discussion with RHaworth prior to Deletion Review
Discussion with the deleting administrator was pursued, but this pursuit was futile. I approached RHaworth on User talk:RHaworth#KRMS speedy deletion and attempted to convince RHaworth to restore the page with the arguments I'll now present below. However, RHaworth was entirely unwilling to discuss the rationale for speedily deleting the page beyond a rhetorical question. Instead, RHaworth offered several alternatives that seemed questionable to me, as they seemed to compound RHaworth's error. (As an aside, are RHaworth's proposed alternatives and decorum consistent with the judgement expected to be exhibited by administrators? I was very surprised by the course of my exchange with RHaworth.) Regardless, RHaworth's responses indicated discussion was futile, leading to this deletion review.

This deletion was in error because:

1. KRMS is not an A7 eligible subject because, the the most commonly understood sense, it is a product/service, not a company
Consider an illustrative example: A person drinking Coca-Cola is not drinking a cool, refreshing corporate enterprise, but, rather, of course, a soft drink. That is why Coca-Cola and Coca-Cola Company, provided they are both notable, may exist separately. The former is not subject to A7, and the latter is. Listeners of radio stations are listening to a prduct/service, not a company. WP:PRODUCT states that articles on companies should include information on their products/services, but does not provide for speedy deletion of separate articles about products. Here, Viper Communications is the company, and KRMS is the product/service. The KMRS article did not discuss the corporate structure of the radio station, did not mention the officers and directors of its corporate entity, did not include information on its revenues and earnings, nor any of the other information frequently in articles on companies. Instead, it mentioned the radio station's broadcast frequency, power, and programming, supporting the assertion that it is an article about the radio station as a product/service. It was not an eligible subject for A7.
2. KRMS is per se notable under Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media
It states, "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." Wikipedia:OUTCOMES is a summary of widely accepted precedents in Articles for Deletion discussions. The very existance of this AfD precedent suggests that radio stations have been the subject of AfD discussions, and thus could not be speedily deleted under A7. Even if A7 applied, such a radio station would satisfy importance because it also satisfies notability per this precedent. KRMS is a high-powered station with its own programming, and thus fits within the precedent. Thus, even if KRMS were subject to A7, it is notable, and should not have been deleted.

If the speedy deletion is in error, the only acceptable soultion is for the article to be restored, and for proper process, such as a proposed deletion, or an AfD, to occur if requested (though I would not, and I think it would not likely be successful). As I understand, it would be unacceptable to simply recreate the page, because this does not restore, as would be required, the page history. --Bsherr (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You've devoted an extraordinary number of edits and paragraphs of discussion to exactly 1 sentence of content. Think what could have happened if you had devoted all of that time and effort, expended writing the above 6 paragraphs and the lengthy back and forth on the user talk page, into writing article content instead. Perhaps there'd be 6 paragraphs of article by now. And you want editors to expend more time in this discussion, a closing administrator to spend time closing it, and the whole rigmarole of an AFD nomination with yet more time and effort expended by editors and administrators, over this 1 sentence of content, you say? Uncle G (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely we should devote a few minutes to this process, to correct a heavyhanded error. The deleting admin should have checked AFD outcomes rather than inappropriately applying A7 to an article which would very likely have survived AFD. Which active 1000 watt AM station in the US was the last to be deleted in AFD? Any? Speedy is not a sly and idiosyncratic pocket veto over the consensus of other editors as to what constitutes notability. Edison (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some editors design esoteric userboxes, some decorate their user pages, and some write joke essays and templates. There's a debate right now at TfD about whether it's appropriate to welcome back an unbanned user with a cookie template. And some editors want to discuss how a speedy deletion criterion could potentially be applied or misapplied to up to 16,000 stub class and unclassified radio station articles. I don't judge how editors prioritize their work on Wikipedia. If you think this is a waste of your time, you're not obliged to spend it here. But I thank you for not publicly judging and belittling the good faith efforts of those that do. The one person with the power from the beginning to stop this at any time is the deleting administrator, who can very simply click restore, without having to ignore any rules to do so. But you don't criticize that person, perhaps because what you're really doing is taking a side? I presume you have good intentions, Uncle G. If you have concerns about the utility of some types of deletion reviews, why don't you bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Deletion review? --Bsherr (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OUTCOMES specifically isn't precedent, wikipedia doesn't have precedent in such debates as concencus can and does change (And WP:OUTCOMES is merely someones interpretation of the reasons why articles were kept, not necessarily the reality of why the opiners turned out and kept those particular articles). It certainly isn't a guide to notability. Even by your own notion the article doesn't meet that bar, since WP:OUTCOMES doesn't merely say existance of radio stations, which is all your one liner defines. It certainly doesn't mention generation of it's own programming etc. The concept that because something of type X has been subject to an AFD so therefore anything of type X cannot then be speedy deleted is a nonsense, plenty of bands have been through AFD, speedy deletion still applies to the many garage bands created here every day. Other than that per UncleG the time spent so far could have recreated the article with more detail on the stations including a more obvious claim of significance. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A radio station is a company or organization and therefore qualifies under A7. The nominator is welcome, and strongly encouraged, to just recreate the article overcoming the reasons for deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn but I'd urge the nominator to consider the need for this DRV. Speedy deletion is specifically meant to be for uncontroversial cases where the deleting admin can be certain his article would be backed by the community. Although I don't agree with point 1 above I do agree that point 2 raises enough uncertainty about whether this would certainly be deleted at AfD that a speedy was inappropriate, especially given that the speedy had been removed and per our deletion policy "if there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions". That said I'd ask the nominator to consider just starting the article again from scratch and withdrawing this DRV as there seems little point in going through the whole procedure of a DRV just to restore a one sentence article. Dpmuk (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Speedy deletion criteria was used properly in this case; everything else is simply "I don't like the outcome". Recreate the article in userspace, this time more fleshed-out and with citations to demonstrate notability. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask, for those who consider a radio station a company or organization, are all specific products/services also companies or organizations? An example that comes to mind is a TV channel like ESPN 2, a product/service of company Disney. Is ESPN 2 itself considered under this rule a company? If products/services are considered companies/organizations, becuase, to me at least but I'm sure to others, this isn't intuitive, there would be value in clarifying A7. (To me, the reason to continue this deletion review is to determine exactly what the bounds of A7 are.) --Bsherr (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The deletion was contrary to numerous policies including WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE and WP:BITE. The threshold for A7 is lower than WP:N and is intended to exclude complete non-entities, not broadcasting stations which, by their public nature, have obvious significance. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Article asserted that its subject was an over-the-air radio broadcast station, which is clearly an adequate assertion of significance to survive A7. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The article asserted KRMS was a broadcaster. That is the assertion of significance which makes CSD A7 criterion not applicable in this case. patsw (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy The topic doesn't quite fit under A7 as Bsherr points out. I disagree with Stifle and don't see how it can be considered a company or organization in this context. Further, as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and patsw point out being an over-the-air broadcaster is an assertion of notability. I've yet to see an FCC-licensed broadcaster deleted at AfD. Just not good A7 material for those two reasons. I do have significant sympathy for Uncle G's comments however and I'd hope that once restored the nom would find the time to improve the article to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The article in its entirety basically amounts to an announcement that a radio station exists. The DRV nominator claims notability based on incomparable precedent and WP:OTHERSTUFF rationale. The nominator claims that the article was an inappropriate speedy delete under the A7 criteria, believing the radio station is not an organization. KRMS radio station is a legally recognized subsidiary organization of Viper Communications, Inc. in the state of Missouri. KRMS as an organization hires employees, participates in job fairs, files EEO reports, complies with the FCC, pays taxes, holds a business license, is a member of the Camdenton Area Chamber of Commerce, and endorses community events and business conferences. My ice cold Coca-Cola can do none of those things. The nominator of the DRV claims that the article is not about an organization, because the article did not discuss the corporate structure of the radio station, did not mention the officers and directors of its corporate entity, did not include information on its revenues and earnings, nor any of the other information frequently found in articles on companies. Maybe the article should have. It would at least have made a thorough article. S/he wants the article restored so that proper process can be followed to delete it. To paraphrase, the nominator states that the intention of this DRV is to test the boundaries of the A7 criteria. Is this really a proper use of DRVs? S/he doesn't like the deletion under the A7 criteria. This article was appropriately CSD-A7 deleted. Any claims that this radio station is not an organization is a weak argument and defies corporate law, common sense, and all logic. Cindamuse (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to the last, would you claim that ESPN 2 is an organization? Why or why not? If not, how does it differ from this? I think the analogy I like best is that Coca-Cola is different than The Coca-Cola Company even though they both have basically the same name. I don't think A7 should apply to TV or radio stations no matter if their parent company holds only them or holds many stations (or other things). Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not here to offer an essay on WP:OTHERSTUFF, I am here to review the deletion and recommend action pertaining to the article noted above. As such, you may view my remarks above as it pertains to the task at hand. Cindamuse (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • All right then, I'm asking you to justify your statement that "Any claims that this radio station is not an organization is a weak argument and defies corporate law, common sense, and all logic." I'm arguing that not all stations are clearly organizations in the sense meant by A7 and providing examples of things that would seem not to be. Could you explain why this one is? Hobit (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I gave my thoughts before, but I have to correct misinformation. KRMS is not "a legally recognized subsidiary" of any sort in the state of Missouri. Mahaffey Enterprises is.[44] That's the name of the subsidiary that delivers KRMS, the product/service. Mahaffey has the power to hire employees and make payroll. Viper's name is on the EEO reports and FCC license. KRMS is a call sign, a channel, a product or service, in the same way that a can of cola is. Even if KRMS were the name of a subsidiary, feel free to speedy A7 KRMS (corporate subsidiary). While I'm writing, please allow me to address just a few other points. I used examples only to illustrate. ("Imagine this were Coca-Cola, ESPN 2...", not "Because of Coca-Cola, ESPN 2, ...). Although Hobit put it more directly, I'm sure that's Hobit's intention too. And, why shouldn't the implications of this decision on the guidelines (CSD) be relevant? Deletions aren't decided capriciously. We have guidelines. Questions of how those guidelines should be interpreted now, and thus going forward, are not relevant here? I'm not testing the bounds of A7, I'm asking them to be defined through this situation. I do appreciate all of your insights, no matter whether I agree or not. --Bsherr (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All FCC-licensed broadcasters have A7 significance.
No one goes through effort and expense of getting a established as an FCC-licensed broadcaster insignificantly. I will stipulate that it is a poor article, but that's not the A7 criteria for a speedy delete. Any experienced editor could (and should) added some info on the station and a link to some independent coverage. Such improvement would have been equal to the editing effort to speedy delete it. I agree with the above editors who added WP:BITE as a criticism of the process this article experienced. patsw (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I temporarily restored it for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How about restoring the content and not just a blank article for the deletion review? Edison (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll need to check the history to see it. This type of undeletion is standard in DrVs. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn without any statement about whether or not it is itself actually notable, saying it's a broadcast station is a clear indication of significance. It's appropriate to bring a Del Rev, rather than just rewrite, because admin errors should be corrected. I've had decision of mine reversed here, and I 've learned from them. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn In countless AFDs, federally licensed broadcast stations which originate a portion of their programming have been found to be notable. The article should have gone to AFD if the nominator doubts that it meets those criteria, or if he feels that such licensed stations are not notable in general. Just stating in the article that it is a 1000 watt AM station and that it creates some of the broadcast content is a statement of notability, making an A7 CSD improper. Edison (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Seems to have recived some coverage as a radio station. AFD should be restarted.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, list at AFD – Probably doesn't meet A7, but I would still question if the relevant notability guidelines are met, however. –MuZemike 18:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kateryna Kozlova (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The result should be No Consensus since there is only one delete vote on the Afd with no further comment. The subject passes WP:TENNIS/N given that she has won a title in an ITF $25,000 tournament. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 10:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you follow the directions above and contact the closing admin first? If not, was there a reason? Given the nature of the discussion and your claim about meeting the tennis guidelines I think you'd have a solid chance with the closing admin. Hobit (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should've contacted him first. How to withdraw this review anyway? Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 13:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 August 2010

[edit]

14 August 2010

[edit]
  • Missiology – Consensus here is that Jclemens should not have done what he did, so the closure is vacated; however, there is no consensus here to force a new AfD (or a relist). Any editor may list this article at AfD for a new discussion, if they so choose, without regard to the old AfD. – Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Missiology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Submitting myself for peer review of an IAR action. The topic of "missiology" is sufficiently well known and documented that I saw no reason to keep an afd on an obviously notable topic open. I promptly improved the article what I deemed to be an appropriate amount to demonstrate that the original nomination was entirely without merit. If the community believes that the encyclopedic value of closing and then improving an obvious case is outweighed by the value of process, then I will undo my close. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm curious why this particular subject is so significant that you couldn't do the usual thing of improving the article and then noting the changes on the AFD for other users to review. Its more consensual and effectively we are substiting a debate at AFD about the merits of the article for a debate here gazing at the process of the AFD close... This does rather smack of a supervote. Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the article is particularly important--I'd never run across it before it came up on DELSORT Christianity--but it is unquestionably not a neologism, any more than, say, chaos theory might be. While it was obviously unknown to the nominator, any person competent in the domain will immediately know that the nomination is objectively unreasonable--and that's the key difference I see between this and other topics that I think need keeping: I do happen to be a domain expert, and don't have any particular personal investment in this or similar articles. To that extent, if it is a supervote, it's intended to be an impartial and encyclopedic one. Jclemens (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article wasn't expanded overwhelmingly well - most of the new refs are used as primary sources (eg "Academic degrees specifically in missiology are granted by any number of theological schools and seminaries, including Fuller Theological Seminary" is linked to a webpage of the Fuller Thelogical Seminary). Anyone who does article rescue - a commendable act - runs the risk of the community rejecting the improvements. Those who may still want to see the article deleted could see this as an act of closing an AfD early to safeguard one's work. Having said that, I'd !vote keep. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I added some primary sources, but only academic ones, under the reasoning that anything in which Boston University grants a doctoral degree in is unquestionably not a neologism. There's absolutely no question in my mind that 1) the article should be further improved, and 2) there are enough additional sources with which to do so to satisfy the most hard-core deletionist. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a need to throw this back to AfD, although next time this happens you could try contacting the delete voters on their talk pages and explain that you have overhauled the article in question. If their objections are due to notability concerns they will likely return to update their votes. ThemFromSpace 04:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep closed but don't endorse I'd say that the close was inappropriate. If any editor asks that the discussion be reopened it I think it should be, but otherwise don't see the point in relisting at this time. Hobit (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you expound on your reasoning a bit more? Do you think, based on what you see of the sources, that there's any reasonable justification for deleting this article? Or do you think that any time one author slaps an AfD on an article, and one or more other editors endorse that nom (thus clearly foreclosing the speedy keep criteria), that should remain for a full seven day listing? (Obviously, my personal reasoning favors the former rationale: no objectively reasonable deletion => no reason to not close the AfD). Would your perspective change if I'd done the adjustments, and then asked another admin to review my improvements and immediately end the AfD? Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trout slap Jclemens. You do not close an AfD like that. You either close according to the debate, or you add your own opinion and let another admin close it. Repeat such an action and you should be banned from making AfD closes. If you think your close deserved review, you shouldn't have made it in the first place. Fences&Windows 13:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes you think I didn't close it according to the debate? Given that every single delete !vote either lacks a policy basis or fails to reflect reality, the net "score" is 0 deletes, 1 keep, a clear rough consensus to keep. If you don't believe me, go research missiology yourself: It's a bona fide subfield of religious studies, has been around for decades, has tons of sources, etc. The reason I posted here has more to do with people remembering what IAR is for. It seems to be that there's some level of discomfort with the fact that I intentionally abrogated process when following process could not possibly help improve the encyclopedia, but I have yet to see anyone look into the topic and suggest that my assessment of the topic's notability and encyclopedia-worthiness were in error. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's called Appearance of impropriety. You know it wasn't a problem, I know it wasn't a problem but, to someone on the outside, it may look like you're shutting down a debate you're heavily invested in. That's why it's ill-advised for an admin to close an AfD on an article they're working on/involved in, even if it's a SNOW closure. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not support the close. Extending all grace, in my opinion, the manner in which the discussion was closed shows a lack of integrity. It also reveals a clear POV, particularly in light of the statement above that claims that the !votes failed to "reflect reality." That is a subjective statement that the closer is not able to determine on an individual or community-wide basis. The IAR was used in this instance to essentially say to other editors, "I don't care what you think, I'm gonna do what I wanna do, just because I am all-knowing and my opinion is the only one that matters. And I can get away with it by claiming the all-powerful Ignore All Rules rationale." It's disheartening that this took place on article residing within the Christianity category. In my opinion, someone needs a shark slap rather than a trout. No harm; no foul. And it's certainly no life crisis. Just please don't do it again. Cindamuse (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • All WP:ABF'ing aside, have you actually looked at the article, the sources added to the article, and the sources which can yet be added to the article? If the sources are as incontrovertible as I say they are, your statement has a lot less weight than if you can look at the sources and say "it's simply not as clearcut as you said it was." Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • My comments above clearly address inappropriate actions taken in prematurely closing the discussion. I'm not interested in responding to tangents that divert the focus from the issue at hand. Cindamuse (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate the close, but don't relist automatically. If a non-admin had done this, I would have reverted them on sight... but I'm not sure what good automatically going back to AFD will do at this point. However, if any editor desires to return this article to AFD, this keep close should not enter the debate at all. Courcelles 15:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. If an AFD had 3 WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFULL "keep" !votes and one "delete" !vote solidly grounded in policy and the closer closed as "delete", we might give him a barnstar for weighing comments against policy and not just counting snouts. Why shouldn't the same be true if the situation is reversed as it kind of is here? If Jclemens felt that the lone "keep" !vote was more sound then the deletes, then wouldn't a "keep" close be a valid exercise of admin's discretion? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh, I never got any barnstars for closing against numbers but maybe that's because I'm an evil deletionist. Your argument would be valid Ron if Jclemens hadn't closed it early and hadn't worked on the article, thereby making him involved. I don't disagree that it was a keep and the delete votes were not very well grounded in policy but IAR is for when the usual way of doing things doesn't work and I don't see any evidence that allowing the discussion to run the full week would have resulted in it being deleted. Process is supposed to be important and I don't see that process had to be sidestepped here. Spartaz Humbug! 03:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, completely missed the "early" part. In this case the best course of action would be to make his improvements and leave it open. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chronology note 1) I closed the AfD as uninvolved, as outlined above: I'd never worked on it, never worked on any similar article, and had no history with any of the AfD participants. 2) To demonstrate the obviousness of the uninvolved close, I added a bunch of stuff. INVOLVED cannot be logically triggered ex post facto by editing an article after the administrative action has been exercised. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see Peterkingiron's keep as particularly well-supported, as it was written before Jclemens closed the AfD and added the sources. It gains a bit of weight if/when Jclemens writes a comment like "I have added sources supporting Peterkingiron's comment". Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Someone added a "delete" !vote to the AFD in question after it was closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not endorse and vacate. The sources seem sufficient on cursory review, but Jclemens cannot simply declare them so. Jclemens could have easily argued for a no consensus or keep with normal participation. Aside from the AfD template on the article, I don't see how the early close improves Wikipedia or saves discussion time, per WP:IAR, WP:BURO, and WP:SNOW. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two things: 1) I've already agreed to reopen the AfD should the consensus favor it. 2) Yes, I do actually consider removing the AfD notice from a facepalm-worthy nomination to be improving the encyclopedia, in that it reduces the time we look unprofessional for even considering deleting the topic in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep closed but don't endorse. Clearly, this is a valid topic to be covered within this encyclopedia. However, at the time of the close, there was not a consensus in favor of that position. There was also possibly a substantive argument against the article in that two AfD participants said the article appeared to be promotional of a certain web site. It would have been far better for Jclemens to first improve the article, then participate in the AfD as a !voter to say, "This is a legitimate topic that this encyclopedia needs to cover, and I have already improved the article to establish that." This way, it would have been possible to develop a consensus to keep the article, maybe even a snowball keep. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen, you don't "snowball" debates that don't have a clear and unambiguous majority, and you certainly don't close something (especially an IAR, out of process close) that you've clearly picked a side on. Very poor judgment. Reopen the AfD, let it run its course, and above all, let someone uninvolved judge its outcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly agree with the poor judgment, but feel that there isn't a snowballs chance this will get deleted. I'm not a big fan keeping out-of-process actions, but I can't imagine this ever getting deleted given the current state of the article. Do you see any policy-based reasons to delete it? If not, why reopen? Hobit (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know if I do. DRV is to look if the close was proper. I saw several people who did apparently see reason to delete it, and who at the time of the close had not changed their position. Whether or not I happen to agree with them, I think the debate should be allowed to run its full course given that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Fascinating. So you don't think the fact that each !vote in favor of deleting the document is demonstrably and indisputably incorrect is a good reason to disregard them? While I'm all in favor of consensus on matters of opinion, there's no need to check consensus to determine whether white is black or 1+1=2. You speak as if I've "chosen a side" in a debate... when there never was a debate or a legitimate disagreement. If what I did must be characterized as choosing a side, then it is of the "I believe that 1+1=2" variety. Seriously: go read up on the topic, and come back here and reiterate your criticism when and if you find anything debatable in the content of the close, rather than the process.
        I find myself dismayed with the battlefield mentality expressed by so many in this DRV. I came here on my own initiative and said "I IAR'ed, did I get the outcome right?" and almost every comment has focused on the IAR'ing rather than the outcome. This concerns me more than reopening the AfD would, because that's a single debate on an article that everyone here (who's commented on that aspect, at any rate) agrees would be kept. Misunderstanding IAR and BURO is a bigger threat to the long-term viability of Wikipedia, I'm afraid. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Quite honestly, from a quick look at it, I'm not entirely sure it would be. There's probably a decent chance, but the nominator, at least, still quite clearly supports deletion. Most of the sources added just use the word in passing, and do not cover the subject, but instead are, for example, programs and that type of thing on it. It's far too close a call to say the delete arguments were "demonstrably and indisputably incorrect". I've seen articles with sourcing like that deleted sometimes, and kept sometimes. Regardless, though, you shouldn't have made the call. If you'd just let it run its course, and you're as right as you think you are, opinion would've quickly changed to keep and we would never have had this discussion. Sometimes, it's just best to have a little patience and let things run their course. If you're sure you're unambiguously, without question correct, why not let the AfD run? Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As an addendum, someone who has clearly chosen a side (such as the AfD nominator or someone trying to save the article) should never close an AfD. Someone neutral and uninvolved should be the one to determine which side's arguments are "legitimate". No matter how right you think you are, if you're involved, let someone else make the final call. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Jclemens, could you explain your reference to WP:BATTLE? I think you should have expected this discussion of process, which is pretty common at DRV and is mentioned in passing in DRV's header. I'll point out this excerpt from WP:SNOW (a specific application of BURO and IAR): "The clause should be seen as a polite request not to waste everyone's time." – not to imply that this DRV is a waste of time, but I don't see any time saved here. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. It appears as though the level of the dispute in this discussion is directly tied to User:Jclemens continued assertions of his personal point of view in this deletion review ("I don't think;" "it is unquestionably not;" "obviously unknown to the nominator"; "any person competent in the domain", etc.) The statement "I do happen to be a domain expert", clearly indicates that the individual considers his opinions to be of higher validity over those of others and in doing so, has disregarded the process of the AfD. There is a clear conflict in interpretation of WP policy and guideline stated in this review. Numerous comments in this review have overwhelmingly stated that the closing actions were inappropriate, yet User:Jclemens continues to divert attention from the obvious breach of etiquette. I'm afraid "every comment has focused on the IAR'ing rather than the outcome," due to the shocking disregard for the recommendations of others in the AfD, as well User:Jclemens inability to accept responsibility here in this review. A little humility goes a long way. Cindamuse (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 August 2010

[edit]

12 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sarey Savy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The singer is weakly notable as of now but, i'm sure that together as Wikipedia we could keep on building the article. I believe the singer has placed in a major music competition but, no references for that although according to WP:MUSIC reason number 7 the singer "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" according to Anthem IMF one of The world's biggest music competition where he is the ONLY singer from Washington the official Anthem website. On the homepage homepage of Anthem's IMF Savy is also a featured artist. The website attracts over thousands of people which tells you the singer's name is becoming non-trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamer2089 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment I can't see any feature by following the second link and the first just gives a name, it's going to be difficult to write a verifiable article with just a name. The first link shows they have won a city round of the competition, it doesn't say they were the only entrant in that city nor that there won't be subsequent winners from cities also in Washington. Regardless I doubt it's what WP:MUSIC had in mind for criteria #7. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a box titled Featured artists, which has a set of picture of different artists (not text hence a simple text search won't find them) which doesn't appear to click through to anything nor tell me anything beyond the name, city and state. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and do not permit recreation- the original AfD from 2008 could not have been closed any other way. DRV is supposed to be for overturning AfD discussions that were closed the wrong way; if the discussion was closed correctly at the time but circumstances change afterwards (such as the subject becoming notable) then you'd normally just create a new article. However I don't think anything has changed since last time. I can't find any sources beyond wikis and myspace type things. Also, this discussion makes me very reluctant to recommend recreating an article about this person. Reyk YO! 19:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close nominator has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Tarun marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On 15.04.2010 Mr.Radiofan had nominated the article- Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi for its deletion on the ground that the notability of this subject was not clear. On 22.04.2010 Mr.Ranakiri had suggested the re-writing of this article from scratch followed at least by one verifiable WP:RS source. And,Mr.Boing! said Zebedee had on the same day even offered to copy edit it to bring it in line with WP:NPOV and WP:MOS provided it survived the Afd process.

My article was deleted on 30.04.2010 by Mr.Sandstein who upheld the nomination made by Mr.Radiofan and the observations of Mr. Ranakiri.Of course,at my request Mr.Sandstein had later on very kindly userfied the article so that I could improve it for its eventual restoration to the main space. Since then I have worked on it,rewritten it from scratch, taken care of the neutrality and notability aspects, and have even sought a deletion review on 26.05.2010.I have tried to act on Radiofan's suggestions and reduced the article's length.For establishing the subject's notability I have clearly made a mention of eight secondary and tertiary sources that address the subject in detail, which sources are all reliable i.e.they allow verifiable evaluation of notability, and are independent of the subject who finds significant coverage in these reliable sources. I have based my article mainly on these eight sources.Those sources are:-

1)Budha Darakhat - book written by Dr.Zarina Sani M.A.Ph.D. of Nagpur University, published in 1979 - entirely devoted to the aim of examining and evaluating the life and works of Zia Fatehabadi with the intention of identifying his contribution and place in Urdu literature. She was not a relative or disciple of Zia Fatehabadi.http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Sani_Zarina_34069371.aspx

2)Zia Fatehabadi – Shakhs aur Shair – published in1977 and reprinted in 1983 - A collection of essays written by Malik Ram and several other noted literary personalities examing and evaluating the different aspects of the life and works of Zia Fatehabadi with the intention of identifying his contribution and place in Urdu literature.http://books.google.com/books?q=zia+fatehabadi+shakhs+aur+shair&btnG=search+books

3)Detailed editorial write-up alongwith many rare photographs, on Zia Fatehabadi’s life and works in Aaj Kal, Feb.1986 issue, Vol.43 no.7, published by the Govt of India Publication Division Urdu.

4)Zia Fatehabadi Number – Obituary Issue of Hamaari Zabaan Oct.1986 Vol.45 no.37 published by Anjuman-e-Taraqi Urdu Hind (Delhi) – contains numerous articles and views alongwith many rare photographs.

5)Obituary Issue of The Monthly Biswin Sadi Oct.1986 Vol.no.10 published by Biswin Sadi Publications (P) Ltd.- contains editorial write – up with rare photos.

6)Zia –e- Urdu, a special issue published by Saphia Siddiqui in Nov.1981 – contains several aricles written by noted Urdu writers of Britain on life and works of Zia Fatehabadi, with photos.

7)Zia Fatehabadi’s Thoughts – article written in English by Nilanjan Mukhopadhayay published in The Sunday Statesman 17.08.1986 issue alongwith photo.

8)Doctoral dissertation (1989) of Dr. Shabbir Iqbal M.A.Ph.D.of Mumbai University.

Additional information not made part of the article but essential for knowing the subject better:-

I do have in my possession certain books and articles written by the subject and written by others on the subject, they are all in Urdu. It is not possible for me to translate all of them to be placed before you. You have already cautioned me that I am not to conduct an original research but to stay neutral and simply establish his notability based on incontestable reliable sources. This I have done faithfully.

As is evident from the little material before me the subject had gained an eminent position in the Urdu literary circles and field, and also in his official life. His contribution is distinct. But, as has now become known the subject was by nature a reserved and publicity – shy person, he was not in the habit of projecting his own image and works, preferring to remain aloof, therefore, did not mix freely and mostly avoided attending poetry symposia etc. Yet, he was asked to be the Chief guest and preside overseveral seminars. Thus, the first Presidential address contained in his book," Masnad-e-sadaarat se ", was delivered on 27-01-1952 at Presidency College, Chennai, and the last one i.e.the 25th, on 19-06-1982 in Sapru Hall, Allahabad, as the Chief guest of Anjuman Ahal-e-adab. I have also been told that in his official capacity he had remained on the Board of Directors of some commercial banks as a nominee of the Reserve Bank of India and had also gone abroad as member of Government delegations. In fact to the Sunday Statesman (17-08-1986) he had talked about his strict service condition which did not give him liberty to publish his own works freely. It is only after his retirement from service of 35 years that a great bulk of his writings came to light. He had really rued the time he had lost.

As is reported on P.25 of " Aajkal " Feb.1985, we learn that on 06.03.1976 Zia Fatehabadi was conferred the title of " Siraaj-e-Sukhan " by " Adaaraa Bazm-e-adab ", Kamti,Maharashtra. 0n the same page the fact of the publication of " Muzaameen-e-Zia " (essays of Zia) and " Zia Fatehabadi ke khatoot " (letters of Zia Fatehabadi) has also been recorded but so far I have not been able to lay my hands on these two books and therefore do not know when they were published or by whom though I have included them in the main list.

Zia Fatehabadi's first poem was published in " Chaman ", Amritsar, in the year 1929 heralding his appearance on the Urdu literary stage. His first essay was published in " Adabi Duniyaa ", Lahore,Drama number of 1935 and his first short story " Andhere " in " Asia Weekly ", Agra in 1946. During 1935 and 1936 his translation in Urdu of " The trial and death of Socrates " was published serialised in " Monthly Asia ", Meerut and " Monthly Kanwal ", Agra." Aajkal " reports that he had also been a member of the Managing Committee of the Delhi branch of " Anjuman-e-Taraqi Urdu ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarun marwaha (talk • contribs) 04:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication of this article was the right step here and the article still needs more work before being moved into the main article space. While this subject may meet notability guidelines, the references in the current article are a confusing mess.--RadioFan (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a problem with systemic bias—we cover subjects well-known in English, but our coverage of even German or French topics is patchy and our coverage of non-European language topics, such as the one being considered here, is poor. Most Wikipedians lack the knowledge to assess articles of this type and I believe that input from another Urdu-speaking Wikipedian would definitely be helpful.

I agree with Radiofan when he says the subject may well meet notability guidelines, but it's somewhat hard to tell from this userspace draft. To me, those references appear ambiguous because they aren't in a conventional format specifying the work by ISBN. Quite correctly, and as requested in WP:V, Tarun marwaha has given us translations of foreign-language material, but the formatting of this is also unconventional; and the article is written in flowery and florid language quite different from the plain words style we're accustomed to on Wikipedia.

Generally I would say that once the references are formatted conventionally and the more literary wordings simplified (e.g. "breathed his last" → "died"), and subject to input from an uninvolved Urdu-speaking Wikipedian who can confirm the accuracy of the translations and the reliability of the sources, I would have no objection to this article being moved to mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 11:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The flowery language is a big problem here and it continues to be a problem. I worked with this editor a bit a few weeks ago on this article and made similar suggestions but the problems remain. If some reliable sources can be identified clearly, preferably those available online and in English, others could help edit this article but at present it appears to be one editors efforts only. So in short we've got at least 3 editors other than the originator (perhaps 4) who feel that the subject mater could meet guidelines and who are willing to help bring this article up to Wikipedia standards but we still lack clear reliable sources.--RadioFan (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP THE ARTICLE. I know nothing on the subject matter; BUT I did a simple search in "google books" and the guy is VERY NOTABLE in the Urdu language. What seams to be the problem? Many articles are not written in correct Wkipedia fashion and they exist. This guy is notable and shoud have an article. Callelinea (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a deletion discussion, the article hasn't been deleted, it has been moved under the original editor's user account for further refinement. This discussion is about whether or not the article is ready to be moved back into the main article space. If you read above I think you'll find that we are all in agreement that the subject likely meets notability guidelines but the current article isn't ready for main article space yet. There are concerns about the non-encyclopedic tone of the article and about the verifiability of the references. If you have specific references you feel would help create an article that meets notability guidelines, please share them here. Also if you do know someone who knows something of the subject mater, please point them here as someone with some expertise is needed here.--RadioFan (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sir,

I do not know whether I am permitted to contact you while the review is on. Please forgive my intervention. As I understand, presently the main concern is about the non - encyclopedic tone of the article and in particular about the verifiability of the references. Please consider this fact, the article placed before you has been my first attempt to post an article on the main space and I do admit I have erred and also learnt a great deal in that process.

Firstly speaking, I had drafted this article in accordance with the kind of English I had happened to learn at the school-level at which stage impressed by Dickens and Doyle I had become fond of using compound and complex sentences. As it truely is, I am not a regular writer of English prose, and therefore, I am not conversant with the different English styles, needs, etc. This will take some time.

Secondly , I have already said that the references I have drawn and relied upon are from the various books and periodicals which I could procure from the people who knew the subject and had kept preserved those published materials. And now, I assure you that the translation of the citations done by me is correct and there is no reason to doubt its truthfulness.Only because the published material relied upon by me,whose complete particulars I have clearly provided in detail, are not online while they do exist, please do not conclude that the article is lacking clear reliable sources.Hereat, I must once again say that the article is certainly based on reliable third party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact- checking and accurracy, and this person was indeed the subject of (still readily available) published secondary and tertiary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject.Please forgive me for writing such a long note.Thanks. Regards.Tarun marwaha (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to mainspace Everyone accepts that the sources provided cut the mustard & we do not have any policy that says that notable articles must be perfect before going up. All the issues raised are not germane to whether we keep the article. AFD is not for cleanup and neither is DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 05:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and move to mainspace. Whatever was the case in the past, the article is now fine for general editing. Thincat (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Meh, we have wikis in other languages than English for a reason, y'know. The article is a rambling, stilted mess written by an obvious non-native English speaker, and I highly doubt that any fact-checking on the sources will be, or even can be, done by anyone here. "Inaccessible/poor references" was the reason given for the AfD close, and no rationale (apart from the usual "keep everything!" howls) has been given as to why that should be overturned . Tarc (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Tarc,Sir,

I have found your derisive statement - a rambling, stilted mess written by an obvious non-native English speaker absolutely disgusting. I was not aware of the ACTIVE COLOUR PREJUDICE current amongst certain highly rated esteemed members of Wikipedia Community. I am disappointed,to say the least. I am now wondering as to what made me venture into Wikipedia's exclusive area obviously meant only for native English speakers.Now,it matters little whether the article remains or not. I shall henceforth no longer take any interest.You will do me a favour by deleting it alongwith all its other traces.Also, I had posted an article - Seemab Akbarabadi and worked to improve Meeraji you may undo these contributions as well.Goodbye.Tarun marwaha (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please do not leave. Everyone is free to express their opinion, but the opinion expressed by Tarc is only his personal opinion, and does not represent the opinion of everyone here. I agree some of the language he used was uncalled for, but your language in reply was as well. It will be much more productive to remain here, and improve the article--and the others also. I advise you, though, that though our clear policy is that we accept references in any language, it would be well to provide at least some sort of indication in a footnote for what the reference says, such as a key quotation of a few words; we English speakers do need some help with such things. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.DGG, Sir, Please forgive my outburst. Please accept my sincere apology. What really put me off is Mr.Tarc's opening sentence whereby he seems to ask people like me to stay away from English pages. I have since toned down the article and also added explanatory lines to the references. In any case, Wiki guidelines state that if all other aspects are deemed okay then Poor writing which term includes Poor formatting, should not be made the reasons for deletion of an article, deletion also means keeping the article away from the Main space. The remedy is clean up, this can be done, with the article remaining on the Main space itself, either by its author or by any one more experienced. This is what I have all along been emphasising, Mr. Thincat is of the same opinion and so are you. Haven't I rewritten and reformatted the article Meeraji which is on the Main space. Thanks. Regards.Tarun marwaha (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry Tarc wrote in the manner he did. Moreover, I think most of what he wrote in terms of Wikipedia policy is wrong and your understanding of policy about deleting articles is correct. However, articles can be (and are) sometimes subject to severe criticism and this has to be endured. As I expect you know, personal attacks on other editors are not allowed (but are sometimes overlooked, for better or worse). Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to mainspace per Spartaz. Hobit (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to mainspace – perhaps Tarc was having a bad day. The person seems clearly notable and editors who find the prose stilted or rambling are free to do a spot of copy-editing. (I expect that English written in the subcontinent varies from the Queen's English, just as American English does.) Occuli (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment. A number of Wikipedia editors seem to think that the English Wikipedia should be the preserve of native English authors and take offence at the notion that useful information can be provided by people with a less than perfect command of English but a sound understanding of the subject. Thanks to DGG for sticking up for content and inclusivity in more than one sense. Opbeith (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mark Prator (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Page not autobiography, all items verifiable, and on Wiki website for years. Undelete requested. 96.252.210.178 (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Absent some serious sourcing here. The consensus of the discussion was that this was an inadequately sourced BLP and as such the clear outcome of the discussion was to delete this. Spartaz Humbug! 16:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (see below)- Aside from the nominator, only two people participated in the discussion. One was a comment, which attempted to provide sources, which wasn't addressed by the later delete voter. I know there's no quorum for AFD discussions, but with only one person other than the nominator arguing for deletion, and one person making a reasonable argument against it that wasn't addressed, I just don't see how there was any consensus to delete the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Overturn to no consensus- since looking back, my statement seems to support that more than it does a relist. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Spartaz; it's not viable to keep relisting time after time and AFDs deserve some finality. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD doesn't have a quorum and since it was already relisted twice it's hard to reasonably imagine a third time would have really changed everything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus as per Umbralcorax. In addition, closer should have given little weight to the nominator's !vote, since it was based on a defective GNews search. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Despite the meagre participation, the end result is correct as this person is only name-dropped once in each of the 5 links provided by Bearian in the AfD, as would be fitting a fill-in band member. A no consensus will just lead to a 2nd AfD where the result will be the same, so invoke a bit of WP:IAR here and call it a day. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, perhaps incubate though? I hate discussions with this little input and would normally push for an overturn to NC. However, it looks like it meets the requirements of WP:BLPPROD and so shouldn't have been around for so long anyways. I strongly suspect this article can be written (the guy has too long of a resume to think otherwise) and would prefer to see it moved to the incubator if possible. But I'm unable to find any non-trivial RSes and can't find a part of WP:BAND he can be verified to meet. Hobit (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, it's too old for a BLPPROD. Still, an utterly unsourced BLP seems best to keep deleted. The sources I can find just aren't enough to come close to WP:N. 23:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ken Zaretzky (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

"It was suggested to me by the administrator that I follow this procedure. He statedas follows: Perhaps Ken Zaretzky does meet our notability guidelines. I would advise you to bring the matter to WP:DRV. You should detail exactly how Mr. Zaretzky meets the criteria at WP:CREATIVE, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. If you could provide links to back up the listings of Mr. Zaretzky's accomplishments, that would also be useful. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)"

"This was in response to my communication to him which was: "Hi Nuclear Warfare, I assume that you are an administrator. Thank you for your work with this article. Ken Zaretzky is a very important figure in the ADHD Coaching Field. How do I either appeal the deletion or get some help writing an article on him that will pass muster? I actually believe the citings were pretty good but maybe the article neeeds to be written differently. Thank you, in advance, Yesimhuman (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"There isn't a lot of coverage on ADHD Coaches at all, however in that field Ken Zaretzky, MCC is one of the very most notable. Here is what is out there. A newspaper article or two that he is quoted in. A magazine article about couples with ADHD in which he is the only coach quoted. Another magazine article about how an ADHD Coach can save a relationship in which he is quoted extensively along with a couple he was working with. Half of the couples quotes had the word "Ken" in it. 2 or 3 Radio Shows he has been on. There have been many more but I would have to search those stations archives to get the MP3's of those appearances. He was known for years as the "couples Guy" among ADHD Coaches and has given talks on that at both CHADD and ADDA (The worlds two primary ADHD Organizations) conferences on coaching coupled where one or both have ADHD and reports of those talks would certainly be in those two organizations Website Archives. He gave a presentation on ADHD Coaching at The International Coach Federations International Conference a couple of years ago (In St.Louis) That is the worlds leading Organization for coaches and some notice of that would be in the ICF's Website archive. He wrote a book on Coaching practice Development and he has given talks on that all over the country. Many of the reports of those talks will be in the organizations that hosted his talks website archives. He is the Co-Founder (Co-founding Father) of the ADHD Coaches organization. There is a link to a page in that organizations newsletter in which the president at the time referred to him as that. He is also a founding Board of Directors member of the Professional Association of ADHD Coaches which is a credentialling Organization and he is listes as that on thier board of directors page. There is a segment of a television show which has aired many times on PBS stations internationally which is on ADHD Coaching which features him as the ONLY coach and shows him working with a client. Also out of about 15000 Coaches credentialed by the International Coach Federation only about 600 hold the MCC credential (the highest) of them only about 6 are ADHD Coaches. He Also gave a talk on ADHD and Sleep Disorders titled "jetlag for Life" at the ADHD Coaches Organizations first international conference a reference to that is still on thier website. Wouldn't that establish notability for an ADHD Coach? Aren't different fields measured by different standards? What I am saying is that in HIS field he is one of the two or 3 most notable. If he isn't notable enough then the whole field gets pretty suspect. Shouldn't he be measured for notability in relation to the field he is in? He did found or co-found BOTH (This is quite proveable) organizations in his field. I could probably come up with more but most of that (not all) was cited in that article. For an ADHD Coach that is about as good as it gets. But if you were to ask ANY ADHD Coach and many life coaches the Question "who is Ken Zaretzky?" you'd get an answer without any hesitation. THAT is pretty notable within his field.

Can't notability for a professional be determined in relation to his profession? Please take a look at the citings if you could in the last article and let me what more would be needed (I thought that notability had been established within his field pretty well) and tell me what else would be needed? I'm sure it's out there and if I know what to get I'll get it. Thanks again in advance, Yesimhuman (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)"

In addition to the citations that were in the original article I have located several more articles which back up most of what I have stated above. Please note that not all the "backup" still exists on the web. I will however give the following additional links and citations and what assertions they support. I do believes this very clearly and compelingly supports Mr. Zaretzky's notability within his field (ADHD Coaching)

This is a citation from a peer reviewed paper which was presented as a talk a the the Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorder (CHADD) international conference held that year in Nashville, TN

Zaretzky, Ken. "COACHING COUPLES" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Children and Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Renaissance Nashville Hotel and Nashville Convention Center, Nashville, Tennessee, Aug 27, 2004 <Not Available>. 2009-05-26 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p116616_index.html>

This same talk was given by Mr. Zaretzky at the CHADD conference the following year in Dallas however I was not able to locate a copy of that paper (almost identical) on the web. That talk was also presented in 2005 and in 2006 at the Attention Deficit Disorder Association (ADDA) conferences in Tucson Arisona and Orlando Florida. Sadly ADDA did nut maintain an archive of thier prior conferences, There is however a tape recording of his talk given at the ADDA conference in Tuscon (2005)for sale by a company that recorded all talks at the conference for ADDA.

it is located at : <https://www.ncrsusa.com/cgi-bin/store/search.html?id=It4jzpzI>

Mr. Zaretzky has given a many talks and workshops all over the country on His book on Coaching Practice Development titled "How Its Done 101" Which was cited in the original article. Sadly, once again many of the organizations where he presented this do not keep archives. However several do. I will provide linke to the announcements or reviews as follows: (Please not that he spoke three separate times at The International Coach Federation- New York City Chapter ICF-NYC, ALL of which are referenced below.)

ICF-NYC August 2006 http://www.icfnycchapter.org/newsletter/aug06_mid.html ICF-NYC September 2006 http://www.icfnycchapter.org/newsletter/sep06_mid.html ICF-NYC October 2006 http://www.icfnycchapter.org/newsletter/oct06.html

Georgia Coach Association (GCA) April 21 2007. This reference comes from the blog of the then president of GCA which at the time was thier only web presence. kttp://halliecrawford.com/careerblog/2007/resources-career/georgia-coach-association-april-2007-meeting-in-atlanta/

New Jersey Professional Coaches Association (NJPCA) February 2009 is a photograph of Mr. Zaretzky's Appearance http://www.njcoaches.org/PhotoGallery.html and thier february newsletter containing an announcement of the presentation: http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs026/1101240925981/archive/1102452980329.html

Also documented and verifiable is his "How It's Done 101" presentation given at the Philadelphia Area Coaches Alliance (PACA) on Thursday, 5/21/2009 in Plymouth Meeting, PA : http://www.philadelphiacoaches.org/monthlydinnermeeting_may2009.html

HE also presented at the ADHD Coaches Organization in May of 2007: http://adhdcoaches.org/circle/from-the-president/

There were three radio shows cited in the original article. In addition he has made numerous appearances on other radio shows. Most frequently on Ann Babiarz radio show on WRLR AM The remainder of the citings and links were in the origional article. If you need copies of them please let me know and i will provide them immediately.

The primary reason why I disagree with the decision to remove the article on Mr. Zaretzky is that he IS in fact very notable in his field. He known nationwide and indeed worldwide. This clearly wasn't understood in the deletion discussion. As I stated there, he isn't notable for being in the beatles, or for having been a presidential candidate or for being a sports figure. He is an ADHD Coach. he has co-founded BOTH of the professional organizations in his field. he is published, quoted in at least one major market newspaper. Was quoted in one article in a general circulation magazine and quoted very extensively (nearly every paragraph was either him, or his clients talking about what he has done for them.) He was the subject (along with his client) af a segment of a PBS documentary show which has been shown on PBS stations all over several countries (answers TV). He is a regular invited speaker on his field at coaching organizations all over the united states. He has presented papers at international conferences a number of times. and the ADD test he created is linked to from hundreds of websites.

I respectfully appreceate your review and look forward to hearing your decision Yesimhuman (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse; DRV is not for re-examining the subject, it is only for examining if the close was correct, and the closer correctly weighted the comments regarding the lack of signficant coverage of the subject; the given sources are generally passing mentions or trivial. Of course, this does not preclude the re-creation of the article if better evidence of notability can be unearthed. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the nominator please summarize his reasoning why the deletion process was not followed? Stifle (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Doesn't meet our inclusion threshold. Being quoted in the context of something doesn't make the individual notable. That happens when there is detailed coverage specifically about the person being quoted. This close looks like a good interpretation of the discussion against our standards. Spartaz Humbug! 16:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per lack of evidence that deletion process wasn't correctly followed. There's a reason that the DRV main page says in bold black letters "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, But the key word in there is simply -- if you disagree because there is mote evidence, or that the evidence wasn't considered fully, or was misevaluated by either the participants or the closing admin, then I consider that a DR is in order. WP is NOT BUREAUCRACY -- and I suppose we need an explicit statement that it is NOT COURT, and that we are interested in improving Wikipedia , not in seeing that rules get followed. A deletion discussion that leads to a clearly wrong outcome was improper--if the fault was in the contributors to the discussion, the admin shouldn't have closed it without a better discussion. An admin deleting (or keeping} an article that clearly shouldn't be delted (or kept) is making an error. But I don;t consider it clear that an error was made in this particular case. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said , there is no reason not to write a new article that will showthe notability more clearly.

  • Comment I think with the new references the case could be quite strong. I also recognise that I am inexperienced at this sort of writing, formating, etc. I'd really be quite satisfied with it being improved. Earlier NW seemed to offer to help me write one that will use the resources better. If that offer still stands and it's ok with the administrators to redo the article I would like to accept it. Could you help me write a better one?

Yesimhuman (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you! I have a friend who is a very good writer. She has agreed to write the article (in userspace)and I would really appreceate you looking it over when she has finished it. Thank you again for your kind offer!

Yesimhuman (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Esenthel_Engine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was removed supposedly by not having enough external sources, I disagree, there are plenty of information regarding Esenthel Engine in the internet.

Being mentioned in the Nvidia PhysX Info website - http://physxinfo.com/news/1120/esenthel-engine-updated-with-physx-sdk-2-8-3/ the leading news provider about the most popular physics software Nvidia PhysX among game engines, http://physxinfo.com/news/3170/weeklytube-issue-37-physx-video-overview/

Listed in the Khronos Group consumer list - http://www.khronos.org/consumers/product_details/esenthel-engine/ , http://www.khronos.org/consumers/category/C58/

Noted in iDevGames the most popular Mac OS X & iPhone game developer community since 1998 http://www.idevgames.com/news/esenthel-engine-now-supports-mac

OpenGL.org http://www.opengl.org/news/esenthel-engine-supports-opengl-on-mac/

Besides the engine is pretty popular among game engine related portals, such as Mod DB - http://www.moddb.com/engines/esenthel-engine

DevMaster.net - At this date ranked as being #10 most popular commercial game engine in the Devmaster Engine Database - http://www.devmaster.net/engines/ , here - http://www.devmaster.net/engines/engine_details.php?id=600

I even found some interview about Esenthel on 3D-Test news portal - http://www.3d-test.com/index.php , here - http://www.3d-test.com/interviews/Esenthel_1.htm

And also there are more and more games based on Esenthel, 2 MMORPG's - http://jtdd2.moliyo.com/ and http://hzm.moliyo.com/ , and other - http://shivergames.com/lucius/?page=videos Silverbyte (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion was based on lack of proper sourcing. To meet the general notability guideline you need multiple independant reliable sources covering it in more than a trivial way. Most of what you've listed above are trivial mentions they are just news announcements etc. Being used in games isn't non-trivial coverage. The best one you seem to have in that lot is the 3d-text interview, being an interview it isn't ideal since it lacks the independance part of the criteria. You need more sources (at least one) covering the engine in a non-trivial way. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD could have been closed no other way. Including the nomination there were four delete !votes all clearly grounded in our verifiability policy and notability guideline, and no keep !votes. Nothing is stopping the recreation of this article if it is recreated with verifiable, reliable sources that show notability. Given the concerns expressed at the AfD I would advice anyone thinking of recreating the article to first create a userspace draft (possibly be asking for userfication of the deleted article) and then seek the advice of an experienced editor, before moving back to main space, so as to avoid G4 speedy deletion. Dpmuk (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Harvest (time tracking software) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Draft : User:Srinath10/Harvest_(time_tracking_software) The original page was incomplete before deletion. It lacked content, and contained few notable sources. Since deletion, I added several secondary and reliable sources to demonstrate significant coverage of Harvest (time tracking software) at the request of administrator in charge of deletion Arbitrarily0.
Because of a unanimous consent to delete, Arbitrarily0 further requested that this page go through deletion review to achieve a counter-consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinath10 (talk • contribs)

  • Allow new article creation. AfD was closed properly. However, Srinath10's user draft improved on the version deleted via AfD. I would not delete this article under G4 were it already created; it should be allowed into mainspace. If it's still felt not to be notable, it can be listed for a second AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet The userspace article is unreliably referenced and contains material that is not about the software in order to try and fluff out the references. The intro is sourced to blogs. The second section, DIY UX, is referenced to a blog and slideshow presentation given by an employee. The third section is about the company, not the software. It contains a reliable source but it is not about this software but some other project of the company. The further reading section looks like it has material from RS, but WP:N: "not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation" and "announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined". I haven't examined them but I don't see where this article has demonstrated anything more than existence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Not a DRV case so allow recreation but advice against. This doesn't seem to be a DRV issue as the original deletion is not being contested, and as the title is not protected they're perfectly entitled to move this back to main space without first getting permission. I also think the changes to it mean it wouldn't be a G4 candidate as the page is "not substantially identical to the deleted version" and so excluded. That said I'd advice against creation at this time as it's nearly certainly going to get deleted again if taken to AfD. Dpmuk (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation--I think the NYT article is enough to demonstrate notability DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The two own Iridesco, a Web design company, and their greatest success so far has been a project called Harvest — online time-tracking software designed to help small businesses keep tabs on billable hours, expenses, invoices and projects." That is the entirety of the NY Times mention. It is not enough. The NY Times article is not about Harvest, it is about a web page about clocks and the article mentions in passing that they also wrote this software. That doesn't demonstrate notability. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 August 2010

[edit]

7 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List_of_charismatic_leaders_as_defined_by_Max_Weber's_classification_of_authority (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article is a spin off from charismatic authority and was not synthesis of sources when it was created years ago, but carefully referenced to reputable sociological sources that used Weber's definition. So it should be reverted to a much older version instead of deleting.

Please note that if any person that is used by Weber himself cannot be used in a list then it would be hard to give clear examples to the moder reader in the article charismatic authority.

It is true that different sociologists use loser criteria than others but then I think we should to limit the list to people who can be referenced to two or three reputable sources at minimum to keep only the undisputed and clearest examples.

Andries (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin – I honestly do not know how else I could have closed the AFD. As I said on my talk page, the closing admin's job is to determine the consensus in the discussion (in this case, for deletion) and not to judge the content; if an admin ends up doing the latter, then he/she may as well !vote instead. –MuZemike 21:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that but why did you not warn the person who created the article (~i.e. me). I know the history. I know that it was not a synthesis of sources when I created it years ago. Andries (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Whilst I think the closer is incorrect to say this pushes a particular POV, he is totally correct that this is a synthesis, and that it presents POVs as facts, and he's certainly correct that consensus supports that conclusion. Max Weber's classifications are something we can and do document. However, that some particular leader meets those criteria is always going to be subjective. Simply saying "oh, but a reliable source states x meets these criteria" doesn't solve that. All we then have is a "list of people some source thinks meets the criteria". What happens if another scholar disagrees? No, a list is not appropriate here. Because ultimately, the judgement that x meets criteria y needs not just sourcing but attribution. We need to say "according to z, x meets criteria y" - that type of thing can be discussed in an article, but can't be used to make the binary decision as whether something belongs on a list. An article about Weber's classification can show how certain people have applied it, without implying whether its rightly or wrongly applied to a given individual - but a list implies that someone's subjective judgement is a fact. That's not what we do. The delete decision is the only possible outcome.--Scott Mac 21:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a scholar disagrees then I think a person should be taken off the list. Following your reasoning no example other than the ones used by Weber can be used in the article charismatic authority, because it more or less equal to having a list or how the list was originally conceived. Andries (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But here in Wikipedia, we tend to state scholary consensus as facts, so I do not understand why this is suddenly not allowed for the list. Andries (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is misleading. Of course articles can discuss examples, because articles can say "here's how scholars have applied these criteria: In the view of Professor X they apply to Dictator y. However, Dr B's book suggests that... ". That's fine, there we record the judgement of scholars. However, lists don't really discuss things, they assert that something is something, on the basis of a particular source. That is, they tend to present a subjective assessment as a fact, and that is in itself misleading. Convert the thing into an article discussing how Weber's criteria has been applied, and I don't have a problem. (Oh, by the way, that a particular source indicates one scholar judges someone to meet the criteria does not indicate a "scholarly consensus".)--Scott Mac 22:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the list was split off from the article because other contributors objected to giving examples in the article. And then why did you not propose to merge instead of delete? The deletion makes merging impossible. Andries (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to "suggest a merge". We are reviewing the close, which was (for the reasons I've given) correct. Whether the material could be useful to editors at another article, is a matter to discuss with them, not here. If you get a consensus that the material can help with a merge, I'm sure an admin will userfy the material to allow you to proceed with that.--Scott Mac 22:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will request this article to be userfied and then use the excellent early sourcing of the list to improve the article Charismatic Authority. Andries (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily undeleted to view article history DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I actually !voted keep on this, but, looking at it again, I think I was wrong there. It's too much SYN, and might serve as a bad precedent. This sort of article is not an appropriate role for us. The way to do it would be as a list of Weber's own examples, which really should be in the article about him. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is not about Weber, but about a concept introduced by Weber which has gained wide acceptance among sociologists. I think that Weber used very little examples, so I think some examples by others can and should be used. But if this not okay then let us at least try be consistent. One of the reason why the list was split off from the article was because it was related to cult/NRM controversies and some editors did not like that. Andries (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as "I disagree with the close" is not a valid reason to file a DRV. Consensus was determined, editor's opinions were evaluated and weighted, not bean-counted. Nothing wrong with closing admin's actions. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I probably would have voted to keep, but the consensus considered the issues raised and was for deletion, particularly those votes cast after the AfD was relisted. There's room for this content elsewhere, but consensus was that it was not in a standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. An orthodox close considering the core policy issues weighing in favour of deletion. Scott Mac's reasoning above is compelling.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, couldn't have been properly closed any other way. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. This essentially come down to whether this article was original synthesis and the consensus clearly suggests it was. From pure counting the majority thought it was original synthesis and additionally specific concerns about how this list could ever be anything other than original synthesis were not refuted. I think there would be some support for a list just based on Weber's own picks but nothing is stopping the creation of such a list since it would be ineligible for G4 given that it would not be substantially identical (although of course it could still be deleted at AfD). Dpmuk (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Endorse. Per all the above endorses. Time to close this out IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – User:Andries has asked me to userfy the article (see User talk:MuZemike#Can you userfy?). I don't see much a reason not to, unless anyone has any objections. –MuZemike 18:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the material is, as he suggests, to be used for an article rather than a list, I can see no issues.--Scott Mac 20:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article userfied as requested. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Redefinition of the Metre in 1983 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no consensus to merge or delete and a majority to keep. Results were 8 - keep, 7 - merge, 4 - delete.

The article covers a very specific and fundamental redefinition of the metre that is too detailed for inclusion in either the speed of light page or the metre page. The subject of this article is indeed very relevant to the two pages mentioned above, but contains too much detail to be included in either. This article started in the 'speed of light' page but was split because it was getting too detailed and causing unnecessary friction between editors of that page over how much detail to include. It is as relevant to the 'speed of light' page as it is to the 'metre' page but the merge to 'metre' is being proposed simply because the speed of light page happens to be much longer than the 'metre' page currently.

If this is merged with the 'metre' page it will cause disruption and argument there over how much detail to include. It is WP's objective to include all the world's knowledge in an accessible fashion. Merging this page will not help with that. This page needs to be expanded to explain the experimental, practical and philosophical reasons for this important change to metrology and standards. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This doesn't need to be here; deletion discussions can either end in "delete" or "not-delete". Changes between the many varieties of "not-delete" can be discussed on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with Stifle, but this case looks like it could go on forever and ever (it is the breakout of a long running ArbCom case). I'll not object to closing this as the wrong forum, but if it stays here I say that there was no consensus to do anything and it probably should have been closed as such. Uncle G's arguments were really quite strong and if I were closing I'd likely have seriously thought about closing as keep. Hobit (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus: The only consensus was that the current setup isn't ideal. There was no consensus on whether to merge and delete, or whether the topic warrants a small introduction in metre, followed by a full article here. I consider the !votes that mention length to be weak, as the appropriate consideration is the balance of the article. That said, I acknowledge that one deleter and one merger did make relevant points on why the article should be deleted on weight grounds, while a couple of keepers did likewise in arguing against a merge. "Overturn to no consensus" would normally mean nothing. But if this really is destined for ArbCom, I consider "no consensus" as a more balanced reflection of the fact that there is agreement that something needs to be done, but disagreement as to what. --WFC-- 14:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the ArbCom case except that it was Brews Ohare who recently started adding excess detail to the speed of light article to make some kind of point. Although Brews may still be trying to push some obscure point, some other editors considered that the detail on the 1983 definition change was worthy of its own article. This is not a POV fork, it is an extraction of excess detail from a too-long article into a specialist article. This is exactly how WP should work. The material is too specialist for the meter article where there will be pressure to have just a summary. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, apologies for mentioning ArbCom. Please note though, this is not a second AfD, or a merge discussion. If you clutter this page with AfD arguments, the chances are that someone with a different POV will respond to your points. In that event, the chances of the decision being overturned will reduce. Regards, --WFC-- 00:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn to no consensus which seems was the clear result. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin I accept that I made a mistake here (I am a fallible human, after all) - I am happy to have this overturned to no consensus. I was partly influenced by the fact that from 01:04 Aug 1 to 13:46 6 Aug, there were 3 'merge' recommendations in a row with no responses from the 'keep' contingent, but looking at the AfD again, No consensus would be a more accurate result. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to non consensus The arguments for retention were perfectly valid and were provided in both equal number and strength of argument. There was no consensus here for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus – I myself would have !voted to merge back into the Metre article, but I have to agree that there was no consensus here. –MuZemike 01:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the closing admin's agreement, we seem to have a consensus here to Overturn to no consensus. I see no reason why this topic needs to continue, since a closing admin is allowed to revisit his own close and no one here has opposed it. Jclemens (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • E. Matthew Buckley – Relist. Support for endorsing the outcome is weak at best, and the closer himself would not object to a relist. Meanwhile, overturning to delete is unreasonable, considering this: if the "keep" !voters simply had not participated, the result would not be "delete," but rather relist since no one other than the nominator !voted "delete." DRV is not AfD round 2, so our purpose here is not to directly decide the fate of the article, but rather evaluate the propriety of the close. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC) – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
E. Matthew Buckley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Received three keep votes in the AfD discussion , two of which were cast by SPA editors of the article in question (User:Christieag and User:GammaScalper) and the other gave a "weak keep" without a clear rationale. After one week, it was closed as a keep. The closing admin said they would not be offended if I listed it here to try to obtain a relisting. (Checkuser found that that sockpuppetry was inconclusive / unlikely.) Christopher Connor (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn I took on the task of stripping out the resume cruft and when I got down to brass tacks, I wasn't that impressed. It seems like the notability of the sources have been vastly overstated. What I see is someone who had a solid but not overly successfulnon-notable military career (albeit as a fighter pilot), tried his hand at acting and somehow managed to land a couple of minor roles, decided to leverage his "fighter jock" status into a motivational consultant career and talked his way onto a trading floor where seems to have failed to produce any sort of results and again fell back to motivational speaking in the form of an "on-air" personality, failed again, moved to Boca and started a one-man "trader training" shop (oh, and by the way he couldn't be bothered to read his employment contract and decided to sue when his former employer reminded him what "non-compete" means). His "regular commentaries" at TheStreet.com are literally shouted down in the comments. Here are a couple quotes from a recent article:

i do not understand what this article is about. it appears to be a random attempt to place words together to garner a paycheck.

I doesn't really bother me much that I, too, feel neither more informed nor entertained after reading this unfocused piece. But the interesting question, Whiz, is why bother to write this at all if there is no financial incentive - if it's not self-promotion, a need for attention and recognition, or just shilling your services as a speaker, I'd actually be curious to know - for the moment at least it doesn't seem you are motivated by love of writing, especially since you don't seem to take to criticism too well. The old guys from the Muppet Show would be far more charitable than I am, so if you feel compelled to berate another reader instead of taking criticism seriously, perhaps you can stretch your ad hominem maneuvers to take this into consideration.

Here is an actual para from the article being criticized and I can see their point. I've read this five times now and I have absolutely no idea what it's supposed to mean.

First of all, the Boca Raton Costco parking lot is an experience not to be believed until you experience it. Veteran NASCAR drivers would quake in terror at the asphalt monster that takes no prisoners and allows no mistakes. In a scene out of Cocoon, seniors either drive like today is their last day... or their first day. A blinker might as well be a dog whistle... And don't even think about placing your items on the belt within 30" of that senior couple in front of you. The plastic guardrail will come a slammin' down with enough force to remove an appendage. Like the employee was going to charge you for my case of wine and power bars or I wanted you somehow to snake that 100-pack of Depends and Metamucil. Well...I actually may need that come to think of it.

The only reason I was half-way leaning towards thinking the subject was notable was the claim that Buckley was a "regular commentator" at a well-known online financial publication. However, this drivel just does not bear that claim out. I think the "Keep" was precipitous and I would urge a closer review of the actual materials that support this article. Ronnotel (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your potted biography above is not a valuable or relevant contribution to a deletion discussion, and on the very borderline of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. I strongly suggest that you edit it out. Your argument can stand without a personal analysis of the article subject. A person with a pseudonym on some other WWW site may decide to act like Statler and Waldorf in discussions. We aren't in the business of doing that. Uncle G (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly agree. You seem to take personal offense to the subject for some reason and your incendiary comments are to be questioned: 'fighter jock' (your term and not a term pilots use or find endearing), 'not overly successful military career' (can you provide us with a commonly accepted metric of a 'successful military career'? It appears that you believe flying a $40 million aircraft in combat sorties over southern Iraq does not meet your criteria), 'failed again' (I'm not sure what your personal or professional metric of 'failure' is but apparently the subject meets your criteria), 'failed to produce any results' (again, no mention of how you come to this conclusion or what your basis is), you then neglected to mention that at the trading firm 'he talked his way into' that he was a founder and the CEO of [www.onn.tv the Options News Network]. You also describe his columns as 'drivel' without showing the positive comments I see on his columns on this site - which clearly outnumber the negative. Apparently you didn't read these or chose to ignore them:

Great article, i love how matthew uses his military experience in his trading strategies. I look forward to reading his future articles.

I love his enthusiasm in this article , anyone looking who is interested in trading, in my opinion, should follow his philosophy to trading, discipline. I will be applying what i learned from this article starting today, and will be reading it everyday when i wake, before i begin to trade. I even signed up to receive special e-mail alerts when he writes a new article. This is a must read for anyone who is currently trading in this volatile market. This will be my philosophy from now.

There's a reason many of these columns were categorized as Op-Ed; some people agree and some people disagree. Here are several more comments you decided not to share and instead used the phrase 'literally shouted down'.:

Matt, Great comparison to the Ready Room. I've often told my junior officers that honest and sometimes brutal feedback that comes out of the debrief is the best thing for them and the team. It can improve both. I know during my time in the Navy and specifically Naval Aviation, being open to and reflecting upon honest feedback has made me a better Aviator, Officer and Leader than I ever could have been on my own. Thanks for the article and keep 'em coming.

I like this article. Its concise and to the point. Bank executives did illegal things, they need to pay for it. None of the fluff excuses I have been reading on this site about why GS is in the cross hairs. Its not why SEC is going after them but weather they did anything wrong which is important. None of the other articles give any concrete evidence for GS' innocence just SEC and govt bashing.

Excellent and truthful post!! Thank you!!

Great commentary. "Knock it off' would be great for our country and the cynic in me says that is why it won't happen. The political class continues to play with fire.

Great presentation, fresh way to look at problem.

Finally you take an ill informed shot at the subject by saying 'he couldn't be bothered to read his employment contract and decided to sue when his former employer reminded him what "non-compete" means.' I personally believe a managing director and CEO know exactly what their non-compete agreement says and if you had taken the time to read the case that is referenced you would have a clear picture of the plaintiffs argument instead of your obvious bias for the defendants. By filing a federal lawsuit the subject is asking a neutral party to decide the merits of the case. It appears you've already decided the case without looking at any evidence; this is certainly not a neutral stance on the subject and calls your motives into question. As a 'software/trading professional' in Chicago your obvious bias and vitriol on the subject would lead a reasonable person to conclude you have an interest in the proceedings, are possibly employed by the defendants, or may have worked with the subject before and are expressing personal views.
I agree with Hullaballo Wolfowitz below. Issues with the previous nomination for deletion were addressed through the normal editing process and resolved. The nominator has an blatant bias that questions his or her motive. GammaScalper (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of responses. Yes, I may have some intemperate language above and I'll have a look at refactoring. It's true that I am uninformed regarding the details of the contract dispute and I'll withdraw that comment. Instead of "not overly successful" to describe his military career, I should have used the term "non-notable". However, I have no "vitriol" - my impression of the subject has been entirely informed by what I learned as I scrubbed the article for resume cruft. However, my critique of his writing abilities, based on the sample I pulled, stands. Mr. Buckley's writing does not appear to have gone through even a rudimentary editing process and it leaves me wondering just what the relationship is between him and TheStreet.com. Finally, Gamma, I'm curious what your sourcing is for this edit. It seems like whomever made this contribution would have to have access to Mr. Buckley's ribbon case. Ronnotel (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete it as unremarkable The refs just don't hold up at all and the AfD discussion was marred by two SPA accounts. Looking at the contribs of editors involved in some of the articles around this guy reveals a whole bunch of self-promotional advertisements masquerading as articles. Tactics like including himself in the credits of an afterschool special as a major part, when IMDB puts him "below the fold" of the credits list makes it obvious what the intent here is: to fluff up a guy who makes a living as a motivational speaker. None of this stuff, companies or the people involved is anything out of the ordinary and they meet our speedy delete criteria for bios and companies. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Overturn to no consensus/Relist or IAR and delete. Certainly can't see a keep consensus here based on sterngth of arugment - one keep is basically other crap exists and look at IMDB, one weak keep is there are lots of references and the final one is here is my definition of notability and they meet that. On the other hand there also wasn't a strong enough delete consensus in that debate so I can't fault the closer for not deleting. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by closing admin: I chose to keep rather than relist because my feeling was that the article was improving, and I didn't think consensus to delete was likely to emerge. The non-SPA "weak keep", an experienced editor, commented mainly on the tone and said "If someone could start cleaning it up this whole deletion discussion would be unnecessary." But I have no objection to a relist. JohnCD (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2010 (*UTC)
  • Endorse; I might have closed as no-consensus rather than keep, but the outcome is the same. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No arguments for deletion except those of nominator, whhich mainly focused on matters which could be addressed through normal editing practices. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Slightly surprised by the above two endorse statements. A relist is appropriate here as there wasn't enough consensus for a delete or keep. Nor was a no-consensus appropriate due to the lack of participants. A relist would have given time for more editors to participant and there may have been a consensus to delete after another week. My arguments in the AfD were that the "refs are spammy" implying few unspammy refs exist and that "None of them constitute substantial coverage". These issues cannot be addressed through normal editing. Indeed, the article has now been gutted of the unsourced and badly sourced material which likely played a part in people thinking this is a notable subject (WP:MASK). Now it is a stub with four sentences, none of which indicate notability. One of the SPA editors now says "The nominator has an blatant bias that questions his or her motive". How ironic. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or permit immediate renomination--which a close as non-consensus would have permitted--the outcome is not identical. The consensus at the AfD was keep, but it was only so because not enough people noticed, another indication that AfD's reliance upon a few people who choose to appear is not a good way of making decisions. (the only suggestion I have for avoiding that is to find a way to persuade more people to appear with respect to articles where they're neutral.) An argument "he is the only person to have combined X (which is not by itself notable ) with y (which is also not by itself notable) and Z (which again is not by itself notable)" is nonsensical and is imo usually characteristic of COI autobiographies--which this may or may not actually be, but its just as bad as if it were. Doing nothing notable in any number of areas is not notability. (This is very different from adding up different indications of notability in the same area, which is a valid and customary method of showing notability.) An AfD closed because of the agreement of any number of blatantly non-policy based opinions is not a proper close. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete or relist- I agree entirely with DGG here. The keep votes were pretty weak and not policy based, and the issues raised in the nomination were conspicuously not refuted. Reyk YO! 19:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse or Relist The consensus among those who participated was for retention and the close properly reflects that. A relist may well obtain a broader reflection of community consensus on the subject. Alansohn (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OVerturn to delete; if keep (or delete) votes do not bring up policy, they should not be considered. If those votes not considering policy were not considered, this was a clear delete. Ironholds (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This essentially comes down to two issues, notability and spam. Firstly when it comes to the notability argument, both the original deletion rationale and the relevant 'keep' votes are weak, the 'delete' essentially saying none of the sources are sufficient without explaining why they are not, and the 'keeps' essentially saying that they were, again without giving reasons. The final keep vote (that of Christieag) appears to mainly be trying to refute the spam concerns. Given that we only normally delete for spam if an article is really spammy I think it's reasonable to give more weight to the notability issue where there is a sight consensus in favour of keep, than the spam issue, where there is no consensus. Although I'd have preferred a relist there was enough participation that closing the AfD at this stage was a reasonable decision and whether to close as no consensus or keep was, in my opinion, within admin discretion. Having said all that I notice the article is in a very different state to that at the time of an AfD so I think that if any editor decides to speedy relist this at AfD then the relisting should be allowed to stand. Dpmuk (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how a declaration that "None of the sources constitute substantial coverage from reliable sources" is a weak argument with regards to notability, and neither was it refuted in the debate. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe equally weak would have been a better phrase. The nomination effectively just said I don't think the sources are enough to meet WP:N, equally the keep !votes just said they thought they were, hence the arguments are of equal strength in my opinion. "Weak" may be too strong a word but neither are particularly strong as neither do an analysis of the sources. You say that your argument wasn't refuted in the debate, which is correct, but neither was the keep !votes assertions refuted that they were enough. Dpmuk (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete or relist. I apologize for improperly voting on the AfD - I didn't know I was not eligible by virtue of being an original author of the article. The article as it stands now following all the deletions due to non-notability or improper sources hardly says a word. I think it would be better off listed on another site. Thanks to all for the education. Christieag (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry, it was perfectly proper for you to !vote (the ! in front is a negation sign meaning "not-vote", because the debate is not decided by counting). The article author is not only permitted but encouraged to contribute to a deletion debate - the {{AFDWarning}} template the author gets says "Your opinions on the matter are welcome" and means it. JohnCD (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yaki Kadafi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:NOTE Illuminati hater (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According the talk page it was originally deleted for not being notable enough. However, there is plenty evidence to the contrary.

1. News reports about his death: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yh8zvlQoRc

2. He was the sole witness to the murder of tupac. http://ca.eonline.com/uberblog/b33767_witness_tupacs_murder_killed.html

3. Solo post-humorous content is still being released and sold on amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Son-Rize-1-Kadafi/dp/B000KD0BE2

4. Even though he died at the young age of 19 he has appeared in the following songs/albums (most of which went goid or better): http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/7068994

5. Online biographies of him litter the net from reputable sources. A quick google search found the following: http://www.last.fm/music/Yaki+Kadafi, http://www.thugz-network.com/Outlawz~Kadafi.php, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1435452/bio

6. The french version of wikipedia contains an article on Yaki Kadafi:

http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaki_Kadafi&ei=OpJMTI2ZJ4L6sAOuj-xI&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=17&ved=0CGAQ7gEwEA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DYaki%2BKadafi%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DM0m%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Div (translated to english)

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaki_Kadafi (original)

7. The deletion discussion doesn't indicate a high-level knowledge of Kadafi or hip-hop in general. An impartial review by individuals who are more knowledgeable of hip-hop is required.

As a final note, I would be open to creating a new article should the old one not meet certain standards. However, I do not wish to create a new one only to have it deleted (as the last couple attempts from various members) using the flawed original judgment as a basis.

Also the original deleter indicated he would unavailable to answer questions via his talk page which is another reason I requested the review.

  • The article was deleted a year and a half ago and is not locked; my usual suggestion in this case is that you recreate the page overcoming the reasons for deletion. Do make sure that you include citations to reliable sources; the above items do not appear to be reliable. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Stifle. but I;d suggest doing so on a user subpage--there were 3 G4 speedys for attempted re-creations and if put back directly in mainspace, there might well be another. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Agraceful (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

At the time of deletion, they were considered non-notable. However, now, both Chris Roetter and Romance on a Rocketship, the alternative name of Kasey Smith, have their own pages. The band should meet criterion #6 of WP:BAND for containing two individually notable members. In addition, bassist Rick Griffith was in another band, and would result in three notable members if this page is re-enstated. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 16:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This deletion review should probably focus on the more recent G4 deletion carried out by myself. I deleted it because it did not add reliable sourcing that was the main point of contention leading to its deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agraceful (2nd nomination). However, there is an apparently net-new claim of notability based on WP:BAND #6 ("Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles."). The question then becomes: does that new assertion trump the lack of multiple sources raised in the AFD and protect it from G4 deletion? –xenotalk 16:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my own personal opinion, please do not take this in a way that I am trying to defy authority or insult xeno's intelligence, for I respect xeno greatly. However, if the page has met a criterion of notability, doesn't that overpower the lack of reliable sources? For example, Miss May I has the issue of being notable per criterion #2, which overpowers the lack of reliable sources there. I know I'm using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, but I thought this was a good example of a page overpowering G4 and the lack of reliable sources, which could or could not be found over time. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist. As a non-admin I can't see the deleted version or it's history but from the cached version I can't see anything that would make the new argument above obvious so I can't fault xeno's original decision. That said the article was deleted for lack of notability and there's now been a new assertion of notability. I note that the two articles used in this argument have only been created since the AfD so the argument couldn't have been debated at the AfD, which in my mind now makes the AfD, and any G4 coming from it, invalid. Although the reasons given at AfD was the lack of sources we generally hold that articles meeting one of the more specific notability criteria are notable even without the sources, and so I think this new assertion is valid. That said I think we need to be careful we don't create a walled garden as I'm not sure those two artists are notable either, hence I think a relist is most appropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 August 2010

[edit]

Note: I have been in contact with Blurpeace, and he has acknowledged his error in restoring the page in which I accept; this was a matter of a lack of communication. Apologies for wasting the community's time on what looks like an easy mistake. –MuZemike 01:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brian Quintana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Requesting review of my own AFD close. After closing as delete (as I thought the rough consensus was pointing towards deletion), I userfied upon request of another editor. Then today, another editor went over my head and placed the article back into the mainspace without any further improvements that would have addressed the issues at the AFD. I consider this a challenge of my AFD close and hence is requesting the community review my close. –MuZemike 20:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • support the close was in line with policy and all I see here is an attempt to run around policy to keep this article. This is all very odd. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closing action. No evidence of WP:N was established and today's arbitrary action is an end-run around multiple AfDs. Kudos to MuZemike for placing this AfD at deletion review upon notification that the article had been recreated today. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original close-as-delete, the analysis of poor process in the recreation, and the delete-as-unimproved-recreation even if the process isn't relevant. DMacks (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tough one. While I deplore the end-run around process, I remain of the view I expressed in the AfD:- the delete arguments appeared rather weak and forced to me, and I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't have a biography of this gentleman.—S Marshall T/C 21:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Restoring the exact same article that was deleted at AfD because it "seems to meet our notability guidelines" appears to be an oversight on the restoring admins part. Brandon (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close: I voted to keep in the last AfD and think the guy is notable enough for an article. I think he's another example of editors not wanting an article on someone they think is unseemly or not deserving, instead of based on whether he is notable. We sometimes flub our standards and apply them inconsistently in these cases where the press coverage is in a middling range. That being said (as a commentary on why the article is being fought over), the admin's close was consistent with the editor consensus as expressed in the AFD discussion. I don't agree that admins get a supervote in closing AfDs. I am not sure why this article was moved back into mainspace, but I don't think it was necessarily done by an admin who wanted to see the article remain but rather just be dealt it.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Unless there is more to this story than we are all missing, the close was unimpeachable and binds the fate of the article unless it substantially changes. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to argue the merits as to if it should have been reposted or not. I happen to feel the person meets the bare minimun of being notable. He has had at least two large articles done in national press (The Advocate one of them). Do a name search on him and he has numerious articles on him (all unfavorable). The article should be kept. Callelinea (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then may I ask why you didn't !vote "keep" in the AFD about a month ago? I mean, I'm trying to AGF as much as I can here, but I feel like I'm getting sandbagged and blindsided. There was a userfied copy of the page, and if need be (though if I knew it wasn't going to be improved, I would have moved it to the WP:INCUBATOR instead, but my crystal ball is in the shop undergoing repairs). All I ask is for somebody to let me know what is going on; I'm always willing to help if you give me a chance to. I don't like it much when somebody runs circles around me because they didn't like an AFD decision.
That being said, if any improvements come that establish notability, then I won't oppose it remaining on the mainspace. However, I will note that how this came about is not the way to do things. The key to basically anything on Wikipedia is open communication, in which the lack of I'm expressing my frustration. –MuZemike 21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not vote on it, because I was in Cuba at the time. Additionally, I know the subject personally, and even if I was here not sure if my vote would of mattered. I don't care for the person, but that does not cloud my judgement on the article. But since I do know the subject, many editors would feel that I should excuse myself from the discussion.Callelinea (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know the subject? ----moreno oso (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was a friend of Pedro Zamora and am a friend of the Zamora family. I met Mr. Quintana when Pedro was dying during his visits there. And have maintained contact with him, the Zamora family and Judd Winick since then. Callelinea (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine; I was just wondering. Another "keep" rationale could have mattered, but I understand if you weren't around. –MuZemike 00:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bonnie Bailey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Desire to recreate, overturning previous AfD per lack of consensus or evidence not fully considered. Administrative nomination per comments on article talk-page. DMacks (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse original closing action of delete. Fails WP:MUSIC then and now. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, there were no reliable sources so there wasn't much to discuss about. The chart seems to be some compilation in a website, not an official chart; it doesn't make clear what data is being used and how, and it warns that it's preliminary data with errors. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, deleted for lack of notability, no sign that anything is different, no good sources either. Hairhorn (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as recreator) For the record, I would not argue that this article warranted deletion based on the state of the previous version. But this article has been completely rewritten from the version reviewed at the previous AFD which I think makes this review mute. I think the more fair thing to do would be to send it again to have another go at AFD in lieu of deletion review, and sorted into the music category where a new consensus can be reached whether this person passes WP:Music. As discussed on the talk page, I would argue this person passes WP:Music #2 - Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. There are not one but two references that state this fact and I believe them both to be reliable, i.e., http://www.everyhit.com/about.html state they are a nonprofit/nonadvertising "UK Top 40 Hit Database" (must enter "Bonnie Bailey" in name of artist field, and "contains the word"); and although unsure of this website's origin, http://www.zobbel.de/ have extensive statistics. Cheers. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording of WP:MUSIC is that they may be notable if they meet the criteria, not that they are, the criteria also goes on to state at the end for bands individual members aren't directly notable because of the band in this instance I would sugget that is the effect which would apply here. Additionally the notability guidelines are only one aspect, WP:V from WP:RS are others, the links to chart listings can only verify that fact and that fact alone. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, IMO, this discussion should be at WP:AFD where I could argue some of those aspects. This place is to dispute the original deletion of this article which is actually not disputed (save for the fact decision was based on the nominator + one comment). This is a recreated article, which is allowed given its new content, and being it is a new article discussions regarding notability and verification should be at AFD in the music category where more specialized peers can have a look at the new content. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless an update substantially addresses the reasons for deletion then a G4 would be valid, in my view these changes don't substantially address the original deletion for the reasons I outlined above. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've now restored the previously-deleted page contents into the article history so everyone can see the state of the article as of the original discussion and judge whether it's got substantially new content or claims to overcome G4. I actually would have speedied it outright at the time of its recreation (comparison of that with previously-deleted one) and I still think it meets that, so the primary question here (and why it's here) is whether there really is enough new claims here to avoid/overturn my G4 judgement. If there are no new substantial claims of notability, then it's a waste of time to re-AFD it, since previous discussion was presumably advertised in the usual places. DMacks (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bitcoin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Overturn: Disputed decision by an administrator not involved in the discussions. Belief in consensus to keep. Article presently moved to User:Message_From_Xenu/Bitcoin. Two users (myself and Xenu) have independently motioned for deletion review. prat (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Query I read it that prat is trying to suggest he is an uninvolved admin who is now disputing my decision but it appears that he actually created the article in the first place [45]. Is this interpretation correct? not correct sorry Polargeo (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see why the "delete" was such an unreasonable close in that instance. The "delete" arguments seemed much better grounded in policy and much more in accordance with usual custom and practice, while the "keep" arguments did not seem in accordance with Wikipedia's main purpose; the "keep" side seems to have been under the impression that Wikipedia's deletion process is a democracy. "Delete" would certainly have been a typical outcome of such a debate and I don't see any arguments against that outcome that I find compelling.—S Marshall T/C 15:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. DRV is a place to express how the deletion process has not been followed, not a place to object to an outcome with which you disagree. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I would note that it is commonplace to discount opinions which appear to be from single-purpose accounts or users who were solicited from outside sites.

Stifle (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Administrator correctly discounted barrage of opinions solicited outside of Wikipedia. Miami33139 (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it a problem to involve the wider community, when quite clearly the strength of arguments rather than their volume is supposed to be the deciding factor? prat (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse weighing arguments and discouting socks/meats isn't just what closing admins are expected to do, it's what they're required to do. Close was correct, and this DRV is entirely baseless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand how can you believe that the article does not belong on wikipedia, despite the fact that it is a real system with demonstrably above-average media coverage for a software project at this stage of development, even after many users have spent time improving it and very similar articles exist, and real wikipedia users have requested it to be kept? prat (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse correct outcome based on discussion. i.e. ignoring bald assertions of notability, calls to ignore the basic policies, confusing use of the software with "non-trivial coverage", crystal balling etc. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to non-consensus. The admin deleted based on which set of arguments he thought the better supported. This is inappropriate. The most we admins should do in closing is to discard the completely non-policy based arguments--it's the community which decides which argument is more important, and better supported, & they show it at the AfD. A new AfD uncontaminated by spa's would be a good idea, and might lead to a valid delete opinion. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it may be your opinion that comments from SPAs/IPs should be given equal weight as long as they cite valid policies, this is not an opinion held by the community in general. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who decides who 'the community in general' is? If the community's opinion is desired, then canvassing should be allowed, but only arguments (not quantity of 'me too') should be considered in a decision. prat (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. If this article is deleted, I have lost my faith in Wikipedia and will resign as an administrator. prat (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Key arguments to keep were: 'its a real system', 'the system is at forefront of a field with significant academic research', 'real users have requested the page be kept', 'there are very similar articles that have not been deleted, such as Ripple monetary system'. prat (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've struck your additional bolded sentiment, as the nominator you've already stated your sentiment once, you don't get two shots. Your willigness to resign over this is of little or no bearing on the matter.
      • DRV is not afd part 2, so there is no need to restart the original arguments but to response. (1) "its a real system" - the threshold for inclusion is not existance (2) "the system is at forefront of a field with significant academic research" - that may make the field in itself notable, but you don't get notability by association. (3) "real users have requested the page be kept" - and real have opined it should be deleted (4)"there are very similar articles that have not been deleted.." is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I'm quite suprised that as an admin you can't see how weak and non-policy based these arguements are, particularly as the "Key arguments". --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, sorry I'm not too familiar with this process as I've never had to deal with it before. I guess essentially I am an inclusionist ... this rings a bell ... how anyone could be against including significant content is beyond me. The extremely similar Ripple monetary system article I mentioned is not even as complete as Bitcoin! This is the problem with deletionist sentiments ... what do you want to do, suddenly weed out all software articles based upon some abstract criteria of notability that's based on mainstream / physical media coverage? This makes no sense. Sometimes it's worth taking a step back instead of trying to pretend that we have an all-encompassing set of rules that is going to always resolve a situation correctly. Even Jimmy Wales has admitted this, see peer reviewed journal: "The crux of the battle between ‘inclusionists’ and ‘deletionists’ is over what subjects should be considered ‘notable’ for purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia … I would not say that the policy itself is really part of the problem. Rather, it is open editing policy and the ‘consensus’ policy, and how they are administrated, that I identify as the more likely culprits [he means the instant and anonymous editing of articles] … . Wikipedia’s governance is so diffuse and dysfunctional, that even they don’t know how to describe it … I was interested to see that Jimbo Wales [nickname of Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia’s founder] effectively admitted … that Wikipedia’s policies were essentially made up as they went along." prat (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • To the above I would also add the following quote which IMHO hits the nail on the head: "There’s also a lot of bluster and bullying goes on when the deletionists crop up. Throwing acronyms around sends a signal to newbies that they’re not welcome. If you Twitter about a deletion debate, you’re accused of canvassing and booed off. Anonymous accounts and new users are often regarded with suspicion as potential sock puppets (NOTE: this happened to Bitcoin). Most people find it hostile and intimidating, and perhaps even a bit childish, but the deletionists don’t care. They’re so obsessed with making Wikipedia what they think it should be that they’ve completely lost sight of the end users." prat (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are making a big assumption as to what my (or others opining here) sentiment actually is, personally I wouldn't label myself with either a deletionist or inclusionist tag, I don't find either particularly useful or compelling. I suspect the vast majority of wikipedia editors also wouldn't label themselves with either, they frequently seem to be used as a pejorative to label others. There are certainly times I believe a topic/thing to be worthy of inclusion but the sources etc aren't up to scratch or whatever. I have several options (1) find better sources etc. (2) be happy in my belief it warrants inclusion and know that it won't take long for the world to take note (3) Open a broader discussion on the general merits and attempt to get the guidelines/policies changed - ignoring them on a case by case basis isn't helpful it means we are constantly having the same debate. Finally I also believe that there is a need for an inclusion standard/criteria without it and any old crap getting into wikipedia damages it's credibility and usefulness as a resource. Experience tells me that simple rules are the best, those which require huge amount of interpretation, loads of nuances and expections etc. are generally problamatic and please no one. However simple rules also don't deal with the edge cases very well. I also accept that wherever we place the line someone will be unhappy as to why it isn't an inch further back and arguing for such movement. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Good points. I am all for simplicity, too. Deletion should be a last resort for things that clearly ARENT encyclopedic. Deletion should not even be a potential outcome for articles such as Bitcoin which describe real world systems. prat (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


3 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mohsen Emadi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I nominated this article for deletion, and after a long debate it was deleted, and again it was restored. Now, I surprised when I see that Beeblebrox just kept it. Honesty I don't have any personal interest here, despite being the subject of many personal attacks by the creator of the article like this. I think that my nomination was not refuted and after all, the creator (who is a SPA user) couldn't find any reliable source for the article. Note that when the discussion was relisted, 2 established users voted, and both were in favor of "Delete". Otherwise, how do you read this 2 comments?

ISBN numbers are the standard identifier in both the publishing and library community, and are well accepted in Wikipedia--to the extent that they comprise the input to WP:Book Sources, a page which provides for non-promotional linking. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's clear that the article should be deleted.Farhikht (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own close The previous DRV was closed with a decision to relist with a closing statement that Consensus here is that further discussion is required to reach a clear consensus There were two additional comments that did not specifically say they thought the article should be deleted and did not provide solid policy based reasons for doing so. WP:GHITS is generally not considered a valid deletion argument, and the user did not mention if they searched in Spanish or Persian, the languages this author writes in, or just English. The other comment about ISBN numbers seems to be a criticism of the fact that ISBN numbers for everything written by this person are included in the article. That is not a reason to delete either as they can easily be removed. So, I saw little to no value in those comments and felt I had little choice but to find that there was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be very harsh to censure Beeblebrox for that close. There really is no consensus here, and I do not see any pressing reason why it is so necessary to delete this material.—S Marshall T/C 19:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did some clean up. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse as I would have found it very hard to delete that article. It's a less than satisfactory state of affairs. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article is well referenced and I see no satisfactory reason for deletion. The original language of the author is Persian, a simple Google search (in Persian or in English) shows more reference, news and lots of citations of his works in different Persian literary journals.--Transcelan (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment From the beginning of previous afd the article had about 18-20 references and it has 18 more references now. Also, the SPA question did not prove anything. --Transcelan (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Master of Malt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A page about the independent bottler Master of Malt.

  • The page is factual and is referenced multiple times with links to popular blogs, websites and newspaper articles as well as a book reference.
  • The information is valid and noteworthy because the company has been awarded and critically acclaimed by multiple, notable critics and competitions. Not only that, Master of Malt also had a significant impact on drinks retail with its sample service - exhibiting disruptive innovation to the spirit retail world - which has been referenced with links to multiple blogs and articles.
  • The undeniably noteworthy Stephen Fry has cited one of Master of Malt's whiskies as his favourite.
  • Scotch whisky is extremely possible the world over, and the number of true independent bottlers is quite limited, making each one important in the context.
  • My work on Wikipedia will include full, detailed articles on all known independent bottlers of Scotch whisky, which I hope to complete over the next two years.

--Huckleberry113 18:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment take a look at reliable sources, blogs generally aren't reliable sources. http://www.whatdoesjohnknow.com/ quite possibly is a RS, but the coverage there is trivial. What this needs to meet is the general notability guideline, being covered my multiple independant reliable sources in a non-trivial way. The number of independant bottlers is irrelevant, if the world thinks they are important (no matter how many or how few) they'll write about them in independant reliable sources. It's not your or my opinion which counts. Nor is it's Stephen Fry's, he doesn't have a midas touch rubbing notability off onto everything he touches. That said I'm not convinced the article (as in the cache) is unambiguous advertising (the criteria used to delete it), though I doubt it'd survive a full deletion discussion in it's current form. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Huckleberry113, you're going to run into problems creating separate articles on each independent bottler of Scotch—Wikipedia's mind-numbingly bureaucratic processes would prevent it. But there's another way. Why not write an alphabetical List of independent bottlers of Scotch whisky with one or two paragraphs about each bottler? Individual items on a list don't have to meet all the criteria for a separate article and all the information would be in one place. Userfy to the nominator if he so requests, please, in order to allow the creation of such a list.—S Marshall T/C 19:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Let's just get this out of the way right up front. Do you, Huckleberry113, have anything which might be described as a conflict of interest regarding Master of Malt and/or whiskey in general? A clear yes or no answer, please. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (82.7.40.7 and I are of similar mind. I shall distinguish us by using the singular form of the noun. ☺) I agree that it's debatable that the speedy deletion criterion applied. But, conversely, I can see how this can be seen to be advertising. If one uses only sources that are advertising, puffery, and self-promotion (In this case, the article was sourced, bar three sentences, solely to the company's own WWW site. Previously deleted incarnations were sourced to the same WWW site and to company press releases.) then one is very likely to get an article that is advertising, puffery, and self-promotion. There's a right way to write such articles, and this wasn't it. Write in the right way, Huckleberry113, and you'll find it easy to determine which drinks bottlers are actually known and documented and belong in a neutral verifiable encyclopaedia that is not a business directory; and which exist to the world outwith them only as advertising, self-promotion, and directory listings, and don't. Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion with leave to recreate an article of a satisfactory standard. Uncle G's advice is very good. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do believe, and I think we're in agreement, that some of what was on the page is notable. If someone were to reinstate it, could they strip out anything other than what is notable - I think this seems a fair thing to do in the name of Wikipedia.
  • No I have no affiliation or connection with Master of Malt, or Scotch Whisky (apart from enjoying the drink very much). I just care a great deal about this page because I spent QUITE some time on it, and whilst I accept that it would have been worth my while to read notability guidelines, I do believe that some of what was on the page deserves to be on Wikipedia.
  • If someone reinstates it, strips it back to its bare bones, leaving only what is irrefutably notable, I would be happy to add further, more notable references (including some from national UK newspapers).

--Huckleberry113 10:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.48.32 (talk) [reply]

    • Endorse but allow recreation Ok, then, here's my opinion. I don't think that the last deleted version of the article would have passed an AFD, but I do think Huckleberry113 is a good-faith contributor and that the subject has merit and can become a proper article. Sourcing probably won't be too tough, there's even a Whisky Magazine which I got an issue of in the mail last year somehow. Huckleberry113 should choose between either proceeding with a list article as S Marshall suggested, or having the previous article restored to his userspace to bring it up to scratch with sourcing and cleanup. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Andrew Lenahan. I would prefer the latter. If you restore it to my userspace, I will bring it up to scratch, and you can check over my chances to make sure they meet notability guidelines. The Whisky Magazine one was certainly one of the references I had in mind!

--Huckleberry113 18:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please could someone reinstate my page If someone could reinstate my page, I would be happy to alter it so it meets usability guidelines.

--Huckleberry113 16:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Love Me (Beyoncé Album) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A single-sentence stub about a musical recording: "Love Me is the fourth studio album of Beyoncé." I came upon this article while cleaning out CAT:CSD; it was tagged for A7 and A9, but I declined: A7 doesn't apply to music, while A9 only applies to music by redlinked artists, and Beyoncé Knowles is the performer for this album. Soon afterward, NawlinWiki deleted the article on A1 grounds; while it was a very short article, the context was clear. I've asked NawlinWiki for reasoning, and was told basically (1) it should have been an A3 speedy; but please note that A3 doesn't include articles with substantive infoboxes, which this had; and (2) that it was deleted under WP:CRYSTAL; but please note that it's not a valid reason for speedy. Nyttend (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was one source - an MTV interview with Beyonce's producer, where he basically said "Yeah, we're making an album." He did *not* say that it was called "Love Me". Therefore, there is no source for the only proposition stated in the one-sentence article. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

    I'm minded to think that we can keep deleted as a delete outcome at AfD would be inevitable, per WP:BURO, unless we can verify at least the title and the existence of this album in a reliable source, in which case we can list this at AfD. I do agree that none of the CSDs technically applies, but there is such a thing as IAR speedies, and in this particular case I don't think the article has a snowball's chance of surviving an AfD. T. Canens (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse for the reasoning given by Tim Song above (was about to say something similary but got edit conflicted). No CSD criteria apply and WP:CRYSTAL is not a CSD criterion. But I don't like overturning deletions that were out of process but where the outcome was plainly correct and an AfD could not go any other way. There are some sources floating around (largely blogs) speculating on Beyonce's fourth album, but certainly nothing with a title. --Mkativerata (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no realistic chance an AFD would achieve a different result, and because, let's face it, it's silly to debate even once, much less twice, over an 8-word "article". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I think there's an emerging consensus that this was an out-of-process speedy, so I'd be grateful if the closer would refrain from using the word "endorse"; one of DRV's principal purposes is to ensure that the deletion process is correctly followed, and it wasn't. I also don't see why it was so desperately urgent to delete the article that it was necessary to ignore the formalities. A minnow for NawlinWiki, but I agree that there's no point sending it back to AfD where it would be snow deleted.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Deletion was out of process and so incorrect but the article doesn't stand a chance at AfD so there's no point reversing it. As per S Marshall I would also like to see the closer of this DRV use something other than endorsed. As a non-admin I can't see the page history so I don't know who created it but if they're a newbie I would also like to see a note on their user page pointing them here and explaining what's happened so they hopefully won't be scared off by a page they've created being deleted out of process. Dpmuk (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD As noted above, this speedy was out of process. If the only argument is that we can't find sources, let's have the AfD so maybe someone can. DrV really shouldn't be endorsing out-of-process deletions, otherwise we just get more of them. Hobit (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted As nominator for CSD. "Love Me" will be the next album by Beyoncé Knowles[1]Source of MTV in October 2009, that anywhere says "Love Me". An infobox (including a Knowles' image, genres (pop, R&B [since it's Beyoncé]), a release date [unsourced], a recording date [2009-2010, the only reliable in the article]) and that's it. If you believe that this deserve re-creation, for re-deletion, well, recreate it! although is very stupid. It could easily fail {{db-hoax}} as fancruft. TbhotchTalk C. 01:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as the article doesn't stand a chance at AFD. Obviously once there is more information about it than "it'll be released sometime" the article may be recreated without further ado. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ciara Bravo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe now, since the creation of this page a while back, that this celebrity has gained enough noterity to be placed on wikipedia. I have provided links of numerous articles and interviews that have been focus around her, if you have an concerns Ciara Bravo link 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 04:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 August 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin disregarded the discussion, and, indeed, does not appear to have read it. The closing statement did not contain any review of the discussion or an assessment of its outcome, but a statement of the admin's own concern regarding the article. Disturbingly, the admin did not address the arguments of one of the discussion's participants (user:Ryan Paddy), who expressed essentially the same concern as the admin, but nevertheless advocated keeping the article. The only acknowledgement by the admin that there even was a debate was in his statement "The debate is moot. NPOV is non-negotiable." Frankly, this is pretty insulting to the debate's participants, especially the slight majority who advocated keeping the article, who were presumably aware of Wikipedia's NPOV policy yet did not think that the debate was moot.
Even more disturbingly, the admin stated after the close that he "hate[s] such articles [as this and Criticism of the United Nations] as simply an indiscriminate list of one-sided attacks" [50]. If the idea of AfD being a community decision is to mean anything at all, admins with pre-set positions on a particular type of article should not close discussions on articles of that type, certainly not while openly ignoring the discussion, and should be reprimanded when they do.
Finally, I suppose its worth noting - if only because this DR will inevitably and improperly set off a new discussion on the merits of the article - that a procedural problem with the AfD alleged by user:Freakshownerd was never substantially addressed; and that some of the arguments for deletion, such as the nom's main contention that the article confused between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, were based on assumptions that can easily be shown to be false.
Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer's remarks. This DRV begins by assuming bad faith, and calling me a liar. Not encouraging. I've already told the appellant, that I considered the debate and the discussion carefully, and the close was not an easy one. Not least because however one closed this, given the strong POVs held on such issues, it was almost inevitably going to come to DRV - and the closer was almost certain to be bad-mouthed. That in itself says something about the problem with this type of article.
  • Afd isn't a vote - particularly when a core policy is at stake. The key part of the nomination was "POV fork of Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations and is written in such a way to suggest that the United Nations is antisemitic". The question only is can such a POV be "cured" by better content, or is it inherent in the article itself. Being a POV fork is beside the point - the question is no "how did the article arise?" The question is "can the article be fixed to comply with NPOV?."
  • user:Ryan Paddy (who's articulate views I considered at length) suggested it was a POV fork, but rightly (imo) saw that as irrelevant. However, he then stated the article should "present both the allegations and the counter-arguments, however that is a content issue so not relevant at AfD". I viewed that as mistaken. An article about "The UN and Jews" might be able to neutrally account for BOTH sides of the argument - recording alleged biases in both directions. However, this article simply invites participants to list allegations of anti-Jewish bias. The suggestion that it can be balanced by providing "counter arguments" for each allegation is misplaced, because the article's format inherently rules out all discusison that isn't a response to allegations of bias in one direction.
  • OK, cut to the chase, does anyone think Wikipedia will ever have a balanced article with a title like this?
  • NPOV is not negotiable. An article which intrinsically will never be neutral (and, incidently, will always be trouble) must be deleted. It is as simple as that. I am happy to undelete the content to allow an article with a proper, balanced, scope.--Scott Mac 20:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh? I certainly didn't call you a liar, and I don't believe you are. I am inclined to think, based on your comments and until seeing some evidence to the contrary, that your close was heavily influenced by your pre-set position regarding this type of article; I don't see this as bad faith, but as a serious mistake made in good faith. Your new comments reinforce my contention that you closed the AfD based on your own opinion of the article and not on the result of the discussion. (I'd be happy to debate your argument that an article like this is inherently incompatible with WP:NPOV, but this isn't the appropriate place. Why don't you join the next AfD discussion as a participant?) I'm glad that you've responded to my tentative suggestion of turning the article into The UN and Jews, which I proposed on your talk page. I think if that suggestion is to be implemented, the first step would be to restore the article, but I should state for the record that I for one don't think at present that this is the ideal solution. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you came to my talk page, I informed you I took "some time considering the article, the debate, and the implications of our NPOV", yet you state I "disregarded the discussion, and, indeed, does not appear to have read it". I can't see that as anything but an assumption of bad faith. As for you accusation that "your close was heavily influenced by your pre-set position regarding this type of article", well, I could perhaps assert the same about you. Pre-set positions on Jewish/Israeli articles are part of the problem here, and why I predicted a DRV regardless of the close. And, yes, I have a pre-set opinion articles which inherently breach NPOV.--Scott Mac 21:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be precise (correct me if I'm wrong), you have a pre-set opinion that all articles whose topic is "criticism of...", "allegations of...", etc. inherently breach WP:NPOV and should be deleted. Most of the participants in the AfD disagreed with this opinion, and Ryan Paddy elaborated on why. His comments were one of the things in the discussion which you could have referred to in closing, or at least acknowledged, but you referred to nothing. I didn't mean to say that you disregarded the discussion inside your own mind, but that you disregarded it in the action of closing. And again, I don't think this was in bad faith; even now you seem to be genuinely unaware (or unconvinced) that this is a problem. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh? Can we stick to the topic and not my views "pre-set" or otherwise? The question is, am I correct that this is inherently POV? If I am, then my close is the only possible conclusion.--Scott Mac 21:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you're not correct. Ryan Paddy elaborated on why. I'd be happy to elaborate myself in a more appropriate forum. In any case, that is not the question. The question is whether there was a consensus to delete the article. There clearly wasn't. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The fact that no-one felt the need to address Freakshownerd's comment is more a case of it gaining no support/traction in the discussion rather then evidence of a flawed discussion. This is a troubling nomination because of basic assumptions of bad faith on the part of the closing admin. I see nothing wrong with this close. Spartaz Humbug! 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was no assumption of bad faith. If I said anything indicating such an assumption, please point it out and I will cross it out. Also, since Freakshownerd's comment is not the central issue here, do you have any comments on the list of problems I mentioned regarding the close? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. OR seems to be to be just as strong a reason to delete this as NPOV (it might be possible to have a neutral article that discusses the allegations in a fair and balanced way but this isn't it). I say OR because it brings a whole bunch of allegations from separate sources together rather than using any sources that discuss the actual subject of the article in a comprehensive way. In any case, admins have latitude when there are core policies at play and this close was within that latitude. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who says that admins have that latitude, and in what AfD are "core policies" not at play? WP:DEL states that "the deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so." There was clearly no such consensus, so the page should not have been deleted. It's that simple. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the deletion guidelines: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." NPOV and OR are policies (as opposed to our notability guidelines). --Mkativerata (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Sigh* Yes, and looking at the strength of the arguments and underlying policy, it's clear that there was no consensus to delete. Furthermore, there wasn't even an attempt to argue that there was. Zero analysis of the various arguments, zero "X's position was logically fallacious because...", nothing. Jesus, if this is what it's come to, why bother having AfDs. We should just say openly that the admins will decide the fate of articles by fiat, the inclusionist and deletionist admins can duke it out between themselves, and it would save the rest of us a lot of time. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I feel this DrV was raised in good faith. The closer clearly stated their own opinions and didn't discuss the arguments themselves. Given the !vote count leaned toward keep, this seems like a real problem--the closer should address the arguments made, not provide their own reasons for deletion. At the same time I suspect there _was_ a closing statement that could have gotten us to delete and I think Stifle correctly identified the right thing to do here. None-the-less I'm going with overturn to NC as I think that was the result of the discussion even after weighing the strength of arguments (which frankly were largely weak on on the delete side). I'd also be happy with a third party reclosing this debate with a closing statement that addresses the actual debate. Hobit (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Bad-faith assumptions made of the closing admin, and all this amounts to is an "I don't like the result". No missteps or wrongdoing on the closer's part, policy was cited correctly to support the deletion. Case closed. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I've split my comments into sections given the length of them.
    • Procedural irregularities. I don't agree with the argument that this AfD had procedural problems. Changes to an article are allowed during an AfD and although the changes made may have been more extreme than normal they were reverted before the vast majority of the !votes so cannot have impacted them. Messaging one person in an attempt to improve an article and/or to get a second opinion is most definitely not canvassing, asking several editors may be, but asking one edit who a user thinks may be able to help out is a legitimate attempt to improve an article.
    • Keep votes. Three keep votes were all based on brewcaster's argument, unfortunately however they do not explain why they think this is not a POV fork and give no reason why the article should be kept, merely trying to discount some possible deletion reasons. Therefore I think it necessary to give little weight to these !votes. Ryan Paddy while giving a good, well-reasoned argument also admits that they've not had a chance to study the sources properly, while Gilisa and Jiujitsuguy appear to be appealing to a notability argument without discussing sources or explaining properly how it meets the notability requirements (e.g. by stating who such comments are by and where they appear). Broccli just appeals to the arguments already given and as I've just explained I find none of them compelling. I struggled to understand Biophys as I fail to see how having this in a seperate article is less NPOV than having it in a more overarching article that gives context and possibly counter-views. Alansohn gives a good argument based on our guidelines.
    • Delete/Merge votes. All of the delete !votes appeal to NPOV and that the current article cannot be saved with some suggesting that this topic is best dealt with in another article so as to maintain NPOV. One !vote specifically states that a fork from that article is unnecessary.
    • Summary. I find that delete was a reasonable close for this discussion. One reasoned keep !vote (that of Biophys), that does not rely on notability, is countered by several of the delete votes. Therefore essentially the argument appears to come down to whether the notability arguments outweigh the NPOV arguments (both of which have similar number of supporters). I think the NPOV clearly outweigh notability given that the former is a policy while the later is only a guideline and that many of the notability arguments are quite weak (being little more than "I think it's notable"). I feel a merge closure would also have been reasonable but the closer has specifically said they'd undelete for this purpose. Given the NPOV argument I find their decision to delete this article until such time as it can be properly merged to be quite reasonable. Dpmuk (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment. I do however think the closer could have worded their close better. They do seem to give their personal opinion and the "The debate is moot, NPOV is non-negotiable" comment is particularly worrying as part of the point of as AfD is to get a consensus on whether a policy has been breached (as this is a decision for the community not a single admin). That said from the first two sentences of the close and their comments here I believe this to be a case of bad wording rather than a bad close. Dpmuk (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Admin closed the afd inconsistent with the discussion therein, based on analysis not put forth by any of the commentators. He should have !voted instead of closing it under his personal rationale. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- I agree entirely with Dpmuk's lengthy and well-reasoned analysis. I also agree with Tarc that there don't seem to have been any procedural mistakes. Good close. Reyk YO! 19:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse-I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the debate was "moot", but the close was correct. Most of the keeps seem to center on the idea that the subject is itself notable. That may be, but this article covers it very poorly. As it is (or rather, was when deleted), the article is so one-sided as to be simply unsalvageable. Neutrality is an editorial issue, I grant, not normally something calling for deletion. In this case, though, the article is so far gone that it simply can't be brought into line with WP:NPOV without being almost completely rewritten. However, if this were to take place in a userspace draft, and the new version was NPOV-complaint, I'd not oppose recreation with that version.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Dpmuk's arguments are sound. And we need to be very, very, careful about articles like this, which just beg for WP:COATRACK contributions. PhGustaf (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, although I !voted for merger, Scott Mac's closure was in line with policy as well as the argument. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Nonnie (Singer) – Closed as premature, this clearly isn't the way to go about a DRV. I have left the nominator a note with some polices and guidelines and they are welcome to open a new DRV as and when there is a policy based reason to look at this. – Spartaz Humbug! 13:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nonnie (Singer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

<Unsourced/Resourced> SharkEmpress01 (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A full bio has been added by the FamousWhy site, which only includes notable people, and pending bios on both Allmusic and popstar.com --> http://people.famouswhy.com/nonnie/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by SharkEmpress01 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm I can follow this link which allows anyone to edit that bio, it's user generated content a therefore doesn't meet the standards of a reliable source. I can also submit new articles there as to if they only include notable people they don't specify any standards so it's pretty much impossible to judge them against wikipedia's standards --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you personally tried submitting an article? Unlike Wikipedia the site must review the content before posting it on the website. (SharkEmpress01 (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've already covered that in my initial response: "they don't specify any standards so it's pretty much impossible to judge them against wikipedia's standards" - just exhibiting some control doesn't make all the people there notable by wikipedia's standards, nor can we determine if they actually do any signficant fact checking. e.g they may just check the person has a website saying they are an artist and making sure the page matches their myspace profile. i.e. it could be little more than a proliferation of a primary source, we wouldn't accept such material. Or it could be the person themself submitting an article in order to "advertise" themself, that wouldn't be the world taking note... Your comments here about the process there and the "pending bios" suggest indeed that you've just submitted them. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as I have said before, the articles are checked. Concerning the other bios, that information was posted on one of the Subject's fan pages and by her manager Tim White. Lastly, I would rather discussions such things with an admin or a user that has not be accused of being a sockpuppet and other Wikipedia violations. :) Regards (SharkEmpress01 (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • As I alreafy explained "Checked" is just a vague wave, it means nothing without understanding the nature of that checking, it certainly doesn't mean they automatically meet wikipedia's standards. As to your final point, well that's bad luck, if you don't want a broad range of opinions, then don't bother asking questions. The person giving the answer is irrelevant, it's the substance of the answer relative to wikipedia standards which matter. False accusations have no impact on my ability to understand wikipedia standards and indeed in any debate (apart from any with you it seems) have absolutely no bearing. FWIW you are happy to discuss with an admin, which is pretty handy since I think most of the accusations of sockpuppetry pointed to me have been to be the sockpuppet of various admins... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. "Famouswhy" does not sound like a reliable independent source, and based on the content of the article there she does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. If the forthcoming albums trailed there actually appear, she may become notable, but at the moment it looks like a case of WP:UPANDCOMING. JohnCD (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_August&oldid=420278902"