This article was nominated for deletion on 17 March 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Notices of previous related discussions:
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Request to an Administrator: In order to give notice about AFD going on at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter, could you please put the following on this redirect page (which i can't do as it is edit-protected):
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->
{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Kirby Delauter|timestamp=20150317191857|year=2015|month=March|day=17|substed=yes}}
<!-- For administrator use only:
{{Old AfD multi| page = Kirby Delauter | date = 17 March 2015 | result = '''keep''' | date2 = 14 March 2015 | result2 = '''no consensus''' | page2 = Kirby Delauter}}
-->
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
with edit summary including "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter".
[see amended request below]
The same notice is being placed on Draft:Kirby Delauter which contains a version suggested to be put into mainspace to replace the current redirect. (For explanation, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter and/or wp:AN discussion linked from there.)
This is just to comply with usual AFD instructions. Thanks! -- do ncr am 20:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
#REDIRECT[[Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government]] {{R from person}}
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled --> {{Article for deletion/dated|page=Kirby Delauter|timestamp=20150317191857|year=2015|month=March|day=17|substed=yes}} <!-- For administrator use only: {{Old AfD multi|page=Kirby Delauter|date=17 March 2015|result='''keep'''}} --> <!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> {{soft redirect|Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government}} {{R from person}}
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please implement request stated at Talk:Kirby Delauter#AFD notice to give notice on the Kirby Delauter page (currently a redirect) of the AFD in process. I ask now by {{ edit protected}} request as the {{ Admin help}} request hasn't worked. Thanks! -- do ncr am 22:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC) do ncr am 22:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
An editor redirected the article and I reverted the redirect just now. To Cirt and/or others: please recognize the status of the current article to be a new start of the article. Please note that all previously posed bureaucratic hurdles have been met, that there is no different venue discussion required by any consensus that applies, and that per discussion at Draft talk:Kirby Delauter#Move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter (since moved to Talk:Kirby Delauter/Archive 1#Move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter), there has been good-faith, legitimate frustration among editors about the repeated hurdles and the previous change-of-venue requirements imposed. (For example editor Cunard noted there: "The admins involved cannot agree among themselves about where to discuss the article draft. One admin suggested an informal AfD. When this was taken to AfD, the closing admin then suggested taking this back to DRV. We've been discussing this since January 2015. Three months!".) All process hurdles have now been met for this re-start to be proper.
Please consider: There is now no requirement to delete or redirect the new article version put in place by Bangabandhu's edit at 03:44, 19 April 2015 (which copied in draft developed at Draft:Kirby Delauter), and there is no consensus established that this version is deficient in any way at all. The version is a proper-process new start of an article in mainspace. It does not represent a mere restoration of a speedy-deleted version. The re-start here was done in good faith as any editor is allowed, and it is a well-considered step, not a rash one. The draft for this re-start was developed gradually at Draft:Kirby Delauter, and the re-start of mainspace article by copying in of that draft as just done was discussed in advance (at Draft talk:Kirby Delauter (since moved to Talk:Kirby Delauter/Archive 1) and at discussion at the Talk page of the closer of recent non-standard AFD).
Procedurally, the way forward for any serious objections to the mainspace presence of the article of this version:
but rather now only
(or to use regular editing processes to improve this article in place, with discussion here at Talk:Kirby Delauter.)
sincerely, -- do ncr am 14:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no policy-based reason to prevent the article draft from being returned to mainspace. {{ db-repost}} does not apply because the deleted content is completely different from this draft. Articles are created on Wikipedia every day without a committee approving or denying submissions. It is unnecessary to gain consensus to recreate an article about a topic that has never been deleted at an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion.Well, I wrote in the closing statement what I believe the correct fora would be, depending on what one wishes to discuss. If you disagree with the original (speedy) deletion, that would need to be contested at WP:DRV. To add another complication: if the new draft is substantially different from the speedily deleted one, anybody can recreate the article with it, and if the only thing preventing this is the protection on the redirect, one can go to WP:RPP and ask for the protection to be lifted. But what you can't do is use AfD, a process intended to ask for the deletion of mainspace pages, to ask for the creation of an article - that turns the purpose of the process on its head. So far, the community has declined to unify all the xFD processes into a single "pages for discussion" scheme, which personally speaking might be a better idea, but as it is we're stuck with using the processes there are for their intended purposes.
All that aside, in this discussion, I can't find consensus for or against recreation. Opinions are roughly divided, and they are about such issues as BLP1E, which is a matter of individual judgment, and not something that I as the closer can decide by fiat. As always, if there's no consensus, the status quo doesn't change - meaning, in this case, that the article isn't recreated. Sorry. Sandstein 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:DRV is not the proper venue for discussion because this has already been discussed at DRV. DRV upheld the speedy deletion which I am not contesting. And DRV can only rule on whether {{ db-repost}} applies (it clearly does not), not on article content.
Kirby Delauter again mentioned in the Washington Post. Nothing to do with the 1E. Wouldn't it be great if their readers had another resource to learn more about him? Bangabandhu ( talk)
For an entry that needs to be streamlined, I think recent edits have made it more unwieldy. I think this belongs in the talk section, or possibly somewhere in the body, but not the lede. Bangabandhu ( talk) 05:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence is original research because the source does not discuss the "newsworthiness" of the council and Delauter. And the paragraph is mostly about Trout Run and isn't about Delauter himself. I recommend removing the entire paragraph, moving it to another article (such as to Trout Run (retreat), or heavily trimming it.Delauter and fellow members of the inaugural Frederick County Council have been mentioned during 2014-2015 in the national-stature Washington Post newspaper among and other newspapers, with their newsworthiness perhaps due in part to the council being new, and also perhaps due to the council having issues come before it that are of wide interest. For example, in April 2015, the council was to vote on a county historical designation for Trout Run, a private and presidential retreat near Thurmont, Maryland that was controversial because it would enable a Scientology-affiliated drug rehabilitation program, Narconon, to open a facility there. Besides being of historical interest for Herbert Hoover and other presidents having fished there, Trout Run is also of wider interest as the filming location for The West Wing's representations of U.S. presidential retreat Camp David, less than five miles away, also within Frederick County.
Cunard ( talk) 19:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 March 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Notices of previous related discussions:
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Request to an Administrator: In order to give notice about AFD going on at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter, could you please put the following on this redirect page (which i can't do as it is edit-protected):
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->
{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Kirby Delauter|timestamp=20150317191857|year=2015|month=March|day=17|substed=yes}}
<!-- For administrator use only:
{{Old AfD multi| page = Kirby Delauter | date = 17 March 2015 | result = '''keep''' | date2 = 14 March 2015 | result2 = '''no consensus''' | page2 = Kirby Delauter}}
-->
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
with edit summary including "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter".
[see amended request below]
The same notice is being placed on Draft:Kirby Delauter which contains a version suggested to be put into mainspace to replace the current redirect. (For explanation, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter and/or wp:AN discussion linked from there.)
This is just to comply with usual AFD instructions. Thanks! -- do ncr am 20:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
#REDIRECT[[Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government]] {{R from person}}
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled --> {{Article for deletion/dated|page=Kirby Delauter|timestamp=20150317191857|year=2015|month=March|day=17|substed=yes}} <!-- For administrator use only: {{Old AfD multi|page=Kirby Delauter|date=17 March 2015|result='''keep'''}} --> <!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> {{soft redirect|Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government}} {{R from person}}
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please implement request stated at Talk:Kirby Delauter#AFD notice to give notice on the Kirby Delauter page (currently a redirect) of the AFD in process. I ask now by {{ edit protected}} request as the {{ Admin help}} request hasn't worked. Thanks! -- do ncr am 22:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC) do ncr am 22:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
An editor redirected the article and I reverted the redirect just now. To Cirt and/or others: please recognize the status of the current article to be a new start of the article. Please note that all previously posed bureaucratic hurdles have been met, that there is no different venue discussion required by any consensus that applies, and that per discussion at Draft talk:Kirby Delauter#Move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter (since moved to Talk:Kirby Delauter/Archive 1#Move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter), there has been good-faith, legitimate frustration among editors about the repeated hurdles and the previous change-of-venue requirements imposed. (For example editor Cunard noted there: "The admins involved cannot agree among themselves about where to discuss the article draft. One admin suggested an informal AfD. When this was taken to AfD, the closing admin then suggested taking this back to DRV. We've been discussing this since January 2015. Three months!".) All process hurdles have now been met for this re-start to be proper.
Please consider: There is now no requirement to delete or redirect the new article version put in place by Bangabandhu's edit at 03:44, 19 April 2015 (which copied in draft developed at Draft:Kirby Delauter), and there is no consensus established that this version is deficient in any way at all. The version is a proper-process new start of an article in mainspace. It does not represent a mere restoration of a speedy-deleted version. The re-start here was done in good faith as any editor is allowed, and it is a well-considered step, not a rash one. The draft for this re-start was developed gradually at Draft:Kirby Delauter, and the re-start of mainspace article by copying in of that draft as just done was discussed in advance (at Draft talk:Kirby Delauter (since moved to Talk:Kirby Delauter/Archive 1) and at discussion at the Talk page of the closer of recent non-standard AFD).
Procedurally, the way forward for any serious objections to the mainspace presence of the article of this version:
but rather now only
(or to use regular editing processes to improve this article in place, with discussion here at Talk:Kirby Delauter.)
sincerely, -- do ncr am 14:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no policy-based reason to prevent the article draft from being returned to mainspace. {{ db-repost}} does not apply because the deleted content is completely different from this draft. Articles are created on Wikipedia every day without a committee approving or denying submissions. It is unnecessary to gain consensus to recreate an article about a topic that has never been deleted at an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion.Well, I wrote in the closing statement what I believe the correct fora would be, depending on what one wishes to discuss. If you disagree with the original (speedy) deletion, that would need to be contested at WP:DRV. To add another complication: if the new draft is substantially different from the speedily deleted one, anybody can recreate the article with it, and if the only thing preventing this is the protection on the redirect, one can go to WP:RPP and ask for the protection to be lifted. But what you can't do is use AfD, a process intended to ask for the deletion of mainspace pages, to ask for the creation of an article - that turns the purpose of the process on its head. So far, the community has declined to unify all the xFD processes into a single "pages for discussion" scheme, which personally speaking might be a better idea, but as it is we're stuck with using the processes there are for their intended purposes.
All that aside, in this discussion, I can't find consensus for or against recreation. Opinions are roughly divided, and they are about such issues as BLP1E, which is a matter of individual judgment, and not something that I as the closer can decide by fiat. As always, if there's no consensus, the status quo doesn't change - meaning, in this case, that the article isn't recreated. Sorry. Sandstein 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:DRV is not the proper venue for discussion because this has already been discussed at DRV. DRV upheld the speedy deletion which I am not contesting. And DRV can only rule on whether {{ db-repost}} applies (it clearly does not), not on article content.
Kirby Delauter again mentioned in the Washington Post. Nothing to do with the 1E. Wouldn't it be great if their readers had another resource to learn more about him? Bangabandhu ( talk)
For an entry that needs to be streamlined, I think recent edits have made it more unwieldy. I think this belongs in the talk section, or possibly somewhere in the body, but not the lede. Bangabandhu ( talk) 05:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence is original research because the source does not discuss the "newsworthiness" of the council and Delauter. And the paragraph is mostly about Trout Run and isn't about Delauter himself. I recommend removing the entire paragraph, moving it to another article (such as to Trout Run (retreat), or heavily trimming it.Delauter and fellow members of the inaugural Frederick County Council have been mentioned during 2014-2015 in the national-stature Washington Post newspaper among and other newspapers, with their newsworthiness perhaps due in part to the council being new, and also perhaps due to the council having issues come before it that are of wide interest. For example, in April 2015, the council was to vote on a county historical designation for Trout Run, a private and presidential retreat near Thurmont, Maryland that was controversial because it would enable a Scientology-affiliated drug rehabilitation program, Narconon, to open a facility there. Besides being of historical interest for Herbert Hoover and other presidents having fished there, Trout Run is also of wider interest as the filming location for The West Wing's representations of U.S. presidential retreat Camp David, less than five miles away, also within Frederick County.
Cunard ( talk) 19:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)