Khorne (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Clearly no decisive consensus to delete this article, which was nominated by a block evading sock account, and given that the article has been redirected, request undeleting the edit history, but keeping the redirect as a compromise. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 19:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion We've already established at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 21 (twice) that this is not sufficient reason to overturn. Pagra shtak 20:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Restore history due to merge. While the stated nomination is still not a sufficient reason to overturn, GFDL compliance is. Pagra shtak 20:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It's not just that the block evading User:Killerofcruft nominated the article, but also if you look at the discussion that considerable amount of editors in good standing argued to keep. It may not be a vote, but such strong support does suggest a lack of adequate consensus. Plus, I'm not asking for a "keep" closer, merely undeleting the history and keeping the redirect in place. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Why do you continually bring that up? The editor's former username has no impact here. It was already made clear that the block evasion has no impact here, yet you felt the need to bring that up as well. The "good standing" of editors has no impact here. A long-time editor can make a bad argument, and a new editor can make an excellent argument. The closing admin made it very clear in the closing statement that almost all keep opinions "did not address the policy-based issues raised". Please stick to the pertinent facts and quit trying to distract us with these irrelevant issues. Pagra shtak 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • It matters, because it suggests that the account's purpose in nominating the article is highly suspect. And the facts are that the keep arguments presented valid reasons for at least causing a no consensus closure and again if the article is good enough to redirect than undeleting the edit history and maintaining the redirect is a fair compromise. After all, the "delete" arguments included such comments as "Consolidation to a single article" (a merge and redirect rationale) or claims of being " unnecessary" (an argument to avoid as it is mere opinion what is and is not "necessary"). The word does it at least a couple Google news hits, as well as mentions on Google books and Google scholar. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 01:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
        • I'm curious. What do you suspect the nom's ulterior motive was? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion Complete merger. Consensus was judged by appeal to policy and guidelines. The status of the nominator ex post facto has little to do with the community decision. I can't comment on the propriety of a history recovery and subsequent redirect. Protonk ( talk) 20:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Updated to note evidence of an attempted merger by Snidely Whiplash...errr, I mean Allemantando. Unless of course we are going to revert that because he's horrible and evil and awful.  ;) Protonk ( talk) 15:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion, per the discussions of July 21. As for the history-only deletion, a huge chunk of it is the same as what can be found at [1], plus there's some more content from [2]. -- Stormie ( talk) 21:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • We should then redirect to those articles. It has to be technologically possible to redirect to other wikis, no? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 01:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I don't believe it's possible to do a redirect to another Wiki that behaves the same as an internal Wikipedia redirect (i.e. smoothly takes you to the page on the other wiki). You can do a "soft redirect" which gives you a page like French proverbs, and a while ago I tried to get some discussion going about more widespread use of them - one thread can be seen here. I never encountered much enthusiasm, though, and there was definite resistance on the grounds that Wikia is a for-profit company (a fact which I couldn't care less about, given that the contents of Wikia wikis is GFDL-licensed). -- Stormie ( talk) 04:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Hmm just found this RFD discussion on such a redirect. -- Stormie ( talk) 05:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Restore history per the merger (maintain the redirect). The closing admin's argument is cogently given, i.e. none of the "keep" arguments (barring one of them) addressed the issue of notability of the article, but appealed to "usefulness", gave "other stuff exists" arguments, or vague generalities asserting notability without evidence to support this claim. (Of course, one editor also voted "keep" twice.) As stated above, the previous DRV's of July 21 concluded there were no compelling reasons to reverse or relist those nominations based on the status of the nominator, as the reasons for nominating those articles weren't addressed in the AFD or fixed in the articles. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Just to reiterate, I am only asking for an undeletion of the edit history and keeping the redirect in place. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 01:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion; obviously valid closure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • If it was "obvious", it wouldn't be up for review. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 07:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Obvious means different things to different people. Stifle ( talk) 08:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion Given the lack of consensus in the AfD, I think that restoring the history, but keeping it a redirect for the time being, is an excellent suggestion. -- Ned Scott 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, obvious consensus to delete. With respect, LGRdC's repeated listings here when deletion discussions on fictional topics don't go his way are beginning to be disruptive. Stifle ( talk) 08:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Not opposed to undeleting the history for the purpose of merging. Stifle ( talk) 08:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I'm finding these closes disruptive, especially when there is no obvious consensus to delete and when the nominations are made by block evading socks originally named User:Killerofcruft of all things, which is why I am listing them here. Are you opposed to those who repeatedly nominate articles for deletion when earlier discussions closed as keep or no consensus? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 08:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorese a relist I agree that this was nomination by a clear SPA, intended to delete as many articles as possible, probably as a good hand/bad hand account. The work done by such a disruptive account should be undone, and discussions started over free from the consequent prejudice. DGG ( talk) 08:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think a discussion was prejudiced by the nominator being an SPA. If the SPA had nominated an article on a truly notable subject for deletion, it would have been kept by consensus. Stifle ( talk) 11:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion the keep opinions did not address the problems of the article. The fact that the nominator is a block-evading SPA isn't relevant given that there was consensus to delete without them. Hut 8.5 12:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Even though the nominator of the article was a sock/banned user/whatever and discounting his opinions, the consensus of the AfD was still to delete. I don't think that these sorts of nominations need to be necessarily overturned or relisted, but only reviewed in case the information causes the consensus of the discussion to change ('course, if it was that borderline it probably shoulda' been no consensus anyways...). I'm completely willing to userfy this article for anyone interested, however, and I think it might be useful to merge slightly more of it to Chaos (Warhammer). Cheers. -- lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: AfDs may not be a vote, but for sake of argument, we had two arguing to redirect, ten arguing to keep, and only seven arguing to delete. Two of those arguing to keep produced some sources and even the nominator and some others saying to delete actually indicated merge/redirect locations/possibilities. In no way can that possibly be so decisive of a consensus to delete that we can't undelete the edit history, but maintain a redirect. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 18:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • So now it's not about the nom, you just don't like the close. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 19:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • You just don't like the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 20:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • No, I don't. But where do you see my "endorse deletion" here?
        You've shifted your reasoning (and stated goal!) a number of times. The close was against the nose count but we don't count noses. The close was against your argument because the closer didn't think it held any water. The nom was a blocked user but we don't overturn AFDs because the nom was blocked for unrelated reasons. And above all else, you came to DRV for a userfy when you could have left a note on pretty much any admin's talk page (and even if they said no you could have asked someone else). - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
        • No, I am not asking that this article be userfied, but that since it's redirected that the contribution history also be undeleted, but that the redirect stay in place. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 01:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • You say it's not a vote, but then you treat it as such—"only seven" for delete. It only takes one. Do we need to go down the keep arguments? First: "Keep I personally find having seperate articles is fine, because I hate having to look at somthing that I don't want to..." WP:USEFUL. Second: "Keep - It's a good article." WP:ILIKEIT. Third: "Keep - What's wrong with having fictional content on Wikipedia?" WP:HARMLESS. Fourth: "Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience..." WP:VAGUEWAVE in combo with WP:JNN. I could just as easily say "Delete per Wikipedia:Five pillars (no notability to a real-world audience..." with equal effect. Fifth: "Keep - Are there any independent sources for the Hobbit entry?" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Need I go on? Pagra shtak 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • And, to be strict, there's "only" nine 'keep's since once editor voted twice. I mean no disrespect to said editor, but should both those votes should be discounted as (s)he couldn't "be bothered" to check that (s)he had commented already? I mean we can keep going back and forth like this for ages. Could this be closed yet? --Craw-daddy | T | 20:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • I see no reason why this shouldn't be closed as undelete edit history, but keep redirect at this time. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 20:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • We can do the same for the deletes that are merely the reverse of the above, which is why they are challenged enough to allow for a redirect with undeletion of the article history. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 20:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Not all of the delete comments were compelling, no, but as I said—it only takes one. Here is my own comment from the AFD in question: "Delete—The article has no reliable secondary sources to assert notability. I have not been able to find such independent sources. Thus, I must conclude that this article does not satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability. Many of the keep statements are assertions of usefulness, but do nothing to address the concerns of the nominator and are not grounded in Wikipedia policy." Go ahead, tear it apart. Pagra shtak 21:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
        • I am not saying the close should be "keep", but that we should respect the redirect and merely undelete the edit history leaving the possibility for a merge available should anyone wish to do so and allowing for the public who argue in RfAs to see the edit history that as far as I remember was not libelous content that must be hidden from public view. Given all the keeps and varied nature of them, I see no real reason why undeleting the edit history and keeping the already in place redirect could be a problem. And as one hopefully final comment about the whole blocked editor thing, why in some instances, such as say here in an article I nominated for deletion, a blocked editor's comment is removed from the discussion, and yet we're not willing to discount blocked editors elsewhere. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 21:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
          • We are. Even if you discount his opinion, there are still other delete opinions. You can't throw them all out. It looks like this whole thing is moot due to the merge now in any event. Pagra shtak 13:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The decision to discount the anonymous and non-policy-based opinions was well-within accepted practice and standards for closers. This left a majority of opinions for straight "delete" and a minority recommending "keep as redirect". The final call was within reasonable admin discretion. I find no process problems in the discussion nor any new evidence here that would justify overturning the decision. (To address one of the comments above, DGG is a solid editor. I'm willing to give him/her the benefit of doubt that the double-vote was an oversight. That factor does not change the conclusion, however.) Rossami (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Again, I am not asking for an outright overturn of the close, merely, undeletion of the edit history for the sake of possible future merges, but maintaining the redirect. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 00:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, I read that. You really don't need to tell me again. It didn't affect my opinion the first time. Repeating the same argument over and over won't change it either. Rossami (talk)
      • That's unfortuante. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 00:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Per Lifebaka's evidence about the merger presented below, overturn to redirect in order to preserve GFDL attribution history unless someone want to go through the trouble of a history-merger. Rossami (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. While I might have !voted to 'keep' this one myself (not being able to see the article, I can't be sure), the closure looks valid to me - the 'keep' arguments presented were mostly pretty weak, while the 'delete' ones mostly conformed to Wikipedia policy. If you want access to the history of the article in order to merge it (or rewrite it into a version that would pass AFD), that can be done by making a request to any administrator, but it's not necessary to undelete the article to do so. Terraxos ( talk) 04:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It is necessary per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 04:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - if there is useful content that could be used to flesh out the entry on the redirect's target page (ie conduct what is basically a merge) then undeleting the history sounds reasonable. This is particularly the case because the GFDL requires the history of contributions to be available, so performing what is effectively a merge of the content from that article without undeleting the contributions would probably violate that. I did not take part in the original AfD so I'm not sure how much worthwhile content was there; it's quite possible that little or none of it is worth saving anyway. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 09:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Aw hell, I shoulda' looked at the history sooner. There was a merge, by the nom of the AfD. Looking at the current article, some of the content is still around. So, while it may make some people kinda' mad, I gotta' go restore the history for GFDL reasons. This doesn't change my !vote above, but I think Le Grand Roi has gotten his wish on this one anyways. Cheers, everyone. -- lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 13:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, looks like he went to AFD (improperly) because the redirect kept getting reverted. Pagra shtak 13:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• While I cannot agree with the nominator's reasons for seeking an overturn, Lifebaka's quite right that we need at least to restore the history per GFDL. Eusebeus ( talk) 23:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - close was correct, that the nominator is a sock is again, irrelevant. I have no opposition against a restoration of the history for GFDL concerns. sephiroth bcr ^{( converse)} 22:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Pokémon types (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd nomination) closed just as additional sources were found and therefore I at least request userfying the article in question to add these sources. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 19:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment by the closing admin: To be more precise, the AfD closed before a number of links were posted on my talk page by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Accordingly, I can't see which procedural error in my closure we are supposed to review here.  Sandstein  19:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• • The discovery of new sources is why I am asking it either be relisted or userfied. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 19:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Userfy. Sounds fine to me. I looked at the first four sources provided, and they look pretty good to me. The second and third (the first two Google books hits) are kinda' trivial, and the fourth (third Google books hit) is a false positive (uses the word type to mean the different Pokemon themselves) though. The first looks good from the abstract, but it's a private system so I can't see it. Hope you don't have too much on your place, Le Grand Roi, though, considering I just userfied two other for you. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 19:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, if we're gonna' do that I suggest only userfying part of the history; over 2700 edits worth of undeleting and moving twice will be kinda' annoying, it'd be easier to hist-merge later I think. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 19:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Don't worry, as I have been helped in my other userfied ones, and have had success (see here, here, here, and here, for example) with others. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 19:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment There was a sentiment that the scope of the article was too detailed. Why can't these sources be used at Pokémon game mechanics#Pokémon types instead? Pagra shtak 19:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion There is no reason an admin cannot provide the deleted material since its not copyvio/BLP/private. LGRDC can work on it in his userspace or offline, and bring it back here when he is confident it should be an article. MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorse deletion Unless the first source (from the ACM) is all about pokemon types (it might be, I'll read it in a bit), the rest comprise coverage far too trivial to base an article on. Either way, the deletion review nomination does not present sufficient cause for overturning the decision. Presumably any admin can userify the material. Protonk ( talk) 20:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• All three of the sources are referring to species of Pokémon, not Pokémon types (which are broader element-based groups of species). None of the sources actually address elemental types of Pokémon. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment Ok. I downloaded the ACM source. Eh. The author confuses individual pokemon for pokemon types (in other words, Charizard is a "type" to that author) and it is a 3 page laffer (two f's) about IT support staff. Certainly interesting and unique enough to be mentioned in the main pokemon article (or--for example--in an article on Slowpoke, if one exists), but doesn't relate to pokemon types in the fashion that the deleted article did. Protonk ( talk) 05:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Userfy I don't always agree with Le Grand on what is notable, but he has surprised me in the past. I would have no problem with at least allowing a draft to be worked on. -- Ned Scott 08:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Userify until we can properly decide without the stress of an afd how to handle this material. I think for those non-expert in the game covering the material to the level in that deleted article--if done accurately--is relevant content for a general encyclopedia , appropriate for knowing what others are talking about. DGG ( talk) 08:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion the additional sources are generally superficial and wouldn't have made any difference to the AfD result. I don't see how Userfying text in order to attempt to improve it is anything to do with the actual result of the AFD. FatherJack92 ( talk) 11:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• I think I could support a userfy here. The article's a bit of a mess, so restoration isn't really a runner. Stifle ( talk) 13:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• userfy It does no harm, and this would be a fine article if good sourcing can really be managed. Hobit ( talk) 01:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Another comment I am not at all opposed to userifying this, but couldn't we do that without a DRV? Protonk ( talk) 01:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Restore article; it's a notable topic and sources have been provided. Failing that, userify. Everyking ( talk) 04:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  Could you point us to the sources that address the article's topic (rather than text searches that happen to use the article title as two consecutive words)? Because I'm not seeing any. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 11:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Deletion No real potential established and the AfD closure was in order. Eusebeus ( talk) 20:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion - closing decision was mainly based on WP:NOTGUIDE which the additional of new sources has nothing to do with -- T- rex 00:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The additional sources made it no longer a guide, which is why it should have been kept. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 03:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • You keep mentioning those "additional sources", when they're nothing but works that use the word "type" and "Pokemon" in proximity, rather than anything that actually refers to this topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 03:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • When they appear as "Pokemon types", i.e. as the same phrase, then that is more than simply close proximity. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 03:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Those sources are not about the subject of this article. What part of that don't you understand? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 03:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
          • Sources that cover Pokemon types can be used on article titled "Pokemon types." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 03:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
            • Unless they're using the word "type" in the general English sense and not the specific meaning of this article. I find it difficult to believe that you read and understood the article you're defending, because you're showing a willful disregard for what it said. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 03:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
              • Then, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 03:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
                • Well, you can disagree all you want, but the fact remains that you're wrong, that you have either not read and understood the sources you cited or not read and understood the article you're trying to save. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 03:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
                  • And of course, I think that you are wrong and I am beginning to see these inaccurate comments as being not really productive and thus you can have the last word here and elsewhere if you really want, but I am not going to entertain some of this further. Have a pleasant night and weekend! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 03:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
                    • However you think or feel or whatever your opinion is, the fact remains that those sources are referring to species of Pokémon ( Pikachu, Bulbasaur, etc.) as "types", whereas the article was talking about elemental categories of Pokémon (grass, fire, electric, etc.) which include many species. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 07:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - the subject of the article is never adequately addressed in the sources that have been provided. Types of Pokémon are distinct from the individual species of Pokémon. I've played most of the Pokémon games, and there is a big distinction between the two. sephiroth bcr ^{( converse)} 21:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I would be willing to accept as a compromise undeletion of the edit history, but keeping the redirect for the time being. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 21:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I am all for keeping this a redirect -- T- rex 00:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

George Colbran (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

I request a review of the deletion of the George Colbran article. There was no decisive consensus for deletion, with a number of editors voting to keep. Some editors had expressed a desire to change their votes from "delete" to "keep" if new and relevant information could be added to the article. Seconds after new info was added, the article was deleted. There is still more work that could be done on the article.-- Lester 05:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure There was a rather strong consensus to delete, and the closing admin correctly read the consensus (the AfD had actually expired two days before it was closed). Orderinchaos 05:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The closure seems in line with the debate. Chillum 05:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. Closer's actions and comments seem to be as per the consensus. Moondyne 06:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. Close seems to reflect consensus; if you think you can improve it, there's nothing that keeps you from userfying it and bringing it back for a restoration once you've made significant improvements. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Celarnor. As it stands, the deletion was accurate. Request userfication and continue your work. Syn ergy 06:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse...I can't see how there's a lack of consensus here, unless you're operating under the theory that the votes in capital letters count more or something like that. Deletion Review isn't AFD part 2. User:Synergy had a good idea: ask for a copy in your userspace so you can work on it so it can be included later on when notability can be demonstrated. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 07:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Question. The debate was in favour of deletion, but Colbran does hold a Medal of the Order of Australia, which the debate didn't really discuss. Does that rank as a 'notable award'? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It was by a few - OAM isn't terribly notable. Look at the example they give on the page (some guy who helped young mothers at a high school). The higher orders such as AO or AC are genuinely notable (see for example Anthony Mason (judge)). Orderinchaos 12:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • No-one is claiming that OAM is in the same league as AO or AC. But that isn't the question. The question is, is it notable? According to Australian Honours Order of Precedence it clocks in at number 50. And it's not like the OAM is his only claim to fame. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Here is a list of Order of Australia awards in the Queen's Birthday 2008 honours - the OAM starts a bit less than halfway down the page. It's a pretty long list, and there are lists like that twice a year. I couldn't support the idea that an OAM provides encyclopedic notability in and of itself. -- Stormie ( talk) 23:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. There was plenty of support for deleting the article and plenty of time for the proof of notability to be improved during the AFD's run. Stifle ( talk) 11:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure/deletion per nom, consensus of the AfD, and Orderinchaos' OAM/AO/AC mention above. This is yesterday's news. Timeshift ( talk) 12:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Consider userfying. The cached version contains several references that look like they might only be passing mentions, not reaching the level of "significant coverage in secondary sources", but an interested editor might be able to demonstrate notability in the lead far better than was attempted in the deleted article. Be wary though of non-independent editors and non-independent sources, noting that the subject is a businessmanan and aspiring politician. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. The debate was conducted and closed fairly and appropriately with most arguments citing lack of notability. WWGB ( talk) 01:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - clear cut. Eusebeus ( talk) 20:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Public Information Research (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD 1| AfD 2)

Before anyone freaks out: This is not a request for undeletion

How can we have four articles, Google Watch, Wikipedia Watch, NameBase, and Scroogle, which are all products/projects/whatever of PIR, but claim PIR itself isn't notable? From an organizational standpoint, the information that was on PIR was.. well.. crap. I don't think we should undelete that article. However, if you were to merge content from those other articles, or at least give them some form of summary that would lead into their full articles, you'd clearly have good content with the necessary sources.

I can't stress enough that this isn't about Brandt or causing drama, or anything like that, but this AfD leaves a lot of lose ends. In any other situation, say a company with multiple notable products that had articles, I doubt we would have even considered deleting the company article. Even if there wasn't really anything to actually say about the company itself, it wouldn't make sense from an organizational standpoint. I really believe that the participants in the AfD were too focused on how to steamroll the AfD for fear of drama to consider these very basic concepts. I don't mean that to insult anyone, but it's true. None of us want this to be a headache, the content sucked, so you keep your eyes forward and run for it. It's pretty clear that is what happened from the AfD discussion.

We don't want drama, and we don't want the crappy article that PIR was. Some of those four articles I mentioned probably shouldn't even be full articles, but we don't even have a logical merge point. So here's my proposal: Allow a brand new draft for the PIR article in userspace, most likely with merged content. Given the nature of the PIR/DB situation, I figured it would be best to make a formal request for a draft. I'm not sure if DRV has been used this way in the past, but I couldn't think of a better discussion venue. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd be more willing to nominate most if not all of them (have to look at them on a case by case basis) for AfD rather then encourage yet another article on this. The AfD was clear that PIR is NOT notable under WP's core policies. I don't think at least a couple of the articles mentioned above qualify either. SirFozzie ( talk) 04:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not convinced the AfD showed that PIR was a topic isn't notable. I think the AfD showed that we had a crappy PIR article. PIR actually passes WP:CORP, but like I said, the version that went up for AfD was.. crap.

In any case, my logic here is in anticipation of those four articles getting AfD in some point in the future. Individually, PIR and at least some of those four don't have much in the ways of valuable content, but collectively I think we would have something reasonable. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion, allow recreation if it deals with the issues in the AfD, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Seriously, If you think you can recreate the article up to standards, addressing the concerns brought up in the AfD then all the power to you. I however agree more with SirFozze that the other articles are probably in need of scrutiny. This deletion was just fine. Chillum 04:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Apparently you didn't even read what I wrote, especially the bold letters at the top. I am not challenging the close of the AfD. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• I read it, no need for big bold words. You did mention other articles existing, I responded to that. You also mentioned a brand new draft of PIR, I responded to that. Despite your lack of challenge to the close, other people are challenging it so I am endorsing it. Chillum 05:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Then what is the point of bolding "Endorse" and citing OTHERCRAPEXISTS? I even point out that some of them probably should not be articles, because they are "crap". My argument is that collectively they might make a much better article, not that they justify each other's existence. Making these kinds of comments gives the wrong impression of where this discussion should be going. It needs to be very clear that this is not an undeletion request. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Ned, while I am the first to agree you are not requesting deletion, another editor is in this very same debate. I am responding to that. Sometimes a debate goes beyond the scope intended by the initiator. My response is not an attack on your nomination, in fact I support your idea of creating it in the userspace in a manner that deals with the concerns in the AfD, no prejudice against recreation. I bolded Endorse because it is traditional to do so, I chose that word because someone was supporting overturning it. Chillum 05:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Fair enough. Sorry for snapping at you. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oh no problem, it is all good. Chillum 06:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and restore article -- Public Information Research was the subject of an extensive article in Online magazine [3], as described in the comment by Squidfryerchef at the end of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Information Research (2nd nomination), but not considered by editors supporting deletion, since the source was provided after all comments supporting deletion had been made. When this article is considered in conjunction with the sources provided in Google Watch, Wikipedia Watch, NameBase, and Scroogle -- also not extensively reviewed at the second AFD -- it is clear that there is sufficient coverage of Public Information Research in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. While the nomination may "not [be] a request for undeletion", this is. Please feel free to freak out :) John254 04:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• That citation you gave is an excellent example of a "trivial mention". It in no way makes it clear who the author is, and by reading the content I am led to believe it was written by the group being described. It reads "pamphlet" or "press release" style, it does not seem to be an independent or reliable source when it needs to be both. This was precisely the issues regarding the sources that led to the deletion in the first place. Chillum 05:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• The claim that the Online article "was written by the group being described" is conjectural and proof-by-assertion. Attribution to an individual author is not required to establish reliability when an article appears in a reliable source. Furthermore, favorable, yea, even laudatory material is not unreliable per se. John254 05:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, are you saying that you don't need to know who the source is to determine if it is a reliable source?? Of course you need to know that to know if it is a reliable source. Just because it was published in a magazine does not mean it is not an editorial, or a paid piece, or a press release, or even reliable. A publisher is not an author, it may be in a magazine, but who wrote it? I am saying it seems like it is written in a self-aggrandizing fashion, I can't prove it, but I don't see any proof it was by an independent party either. Chillum 05:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• It just shows a preview of the article on that page. What the heck, I'll risk the spam of the free trail and see if there is anything more to it. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Well the portion in the preview seems like it was written by a marketer, not a journalist. If the rest is different, or at least makes clear who wrote it I can reconsider. Chillum 05:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• As far as I can tell, there's nothing more to it. The free-trail of HighBeam.com doesn't show anything more, nor can I even find PIR being mentioned in Online's past issues [4]. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply