Category:Jewish anti-Zionists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| cache| CfD)

Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionists is a category that exists. It's not a POV magnet yet this one was deleted because it is? Also, more votes requested a keep than delete. Comradesandalio ( talk) 23:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC) --> reply

• CfD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_2#Category:Jewish_anti-Zionists

• Comment. Part of the closer's rationale "There is nothing to stop editors from creating cited lists with this material, and that is, by far, a much more appropriate way to include this information in Wikipedia" is contrary to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, specifically "These methods should notbe considered to be in conflict with each other". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Closing admin was correct in his explanation. Consensus is not and never will be a vote count. -- Kbdank71 15:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Consensus is not a vote count, but the closing admin, if he does not agree with the general balance of rational arguments, must join in the discussion and let someone else close. Consensus foes not mean whatever the closer happens to think is the right arguments. The closer is not to evaluate according to his statement: "the arguments made during the discussion must be weighed against any relevant policies and guidelines", but just to discard the arguments not based on policy. We are qualified individually to decide what is or is not policy, but balancing them is not an individual matter. The community, not the admin, decides which policy is controlling and when to make exceptions. Incidentally, the reason I did not participate in the CfD was that i thought the matter was too obviously a keep to need my arguements also. DGG ( talk) 15:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• So you're saying 50 people saying something like "Keep, because it's been verified that Joe Politician humps dogs in his off-hours" trumps WP:BLP? After all, both are policy. The closing admin can and should weigh the arguments made, and should not be pigeonholed into "is it policy or not?". Because then we're just back to counting. -- Kbdank71 16:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn there was no consensus to delete. Admins closing rationale is fundamentally flawed. RMHED ( talk) 16:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Kbdank71. Because there is no way (that I am aware of) of providing a citation to justify someone's membership in a category, it is not possible for this category to comply with WP:BLP. Not opposed to recreating as a list, which can provide citations. Stifle ( talk) 18:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, closer's reasoning is compelling. This is too contentious and too nuanced to be handled by a category. Guy ( Help!) 10:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - discussion did not show any consensus -- T- rex 00:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. (Note: As the closer, it would have been nice if issues with my closing were discussed with me before bringing it here. It also would have been nice to be informed about this review. I just happened to stumble on it by accident.)
  Over the years we have discussed categories very similar to this one and in numerous decisions have decided to delete categories that label people this way. Consensus does not mean counting up votes every time the same issues come up. Closing an argument does not mean just taking into account the opinions of the few people who made comments. We must consider the entire community, and take into the account the precedents of other decisions. To do otherwise would mean that we'd be recreating all our guidelines constantly. Our guidelines may be wrong. If they are, we need to discuss the ways in which they are wrong. The nominator cited the precedents and history that led to nominating this category. The arguments and reasoning that led to those decisions of the past were left essentially unchallenged by those wishing to keep the category. To close the discussion as a "keep" would mean that I was going to ignore the past without good reason. I believe that consensus can change. In fact, there are many established practices that I wish would change. However, I think anyone who is advocating a change needs to present convincing arguments. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Article subject has been the subject of multiple independent reliable articles, interviews, and other sources. User:Orangemike speedy deleted while initial article version was being drafted. Other editor had nommed for speedy deletion earlier, but seemed amenable to waiting for initial draft to be completed with reliable sources, etc. I recreated the article after Orangemike's deletion, left him a talk page message, and left a note on the article talk page asking for community discussion on subject's notability. He summarily deleted article again and protected it. I have asked him to undelete and submit to AfD for proper sense of community consensus. The sources were in notable newspapers and one was published by a major cable television network. DickClarkMises ( talk) 21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment The following sources appear (from a cursory google search) to be independent of the article subject, suitable under WP:RS, and readily verifiable:

(1) Pre-PR sources: newspaper article, newspaper article

(2) Post-PR sources: newspaper article, newspaper article, and TV network bio

(3) Self-published (suitable for establishing non-controversial biographical details like birthday, etc.): auto-bio

• Overturn There was enough coverage in reliable sources provided in the article to make at least an arguable case for notability and thus not a good candidate for A7 speedy deletion. Could see an AFD going either way but is not the clear cut case required for speedy deletion. Davewild ( talk) 21:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn This is the point where it should go to AfD. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Userfy or List at AfD. Either needs more time, or deserves nore consideration and explanation. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Regardless of whether it will survive AfD, it passes speedy, and that's all we need discuss here. DGG ( talk) 15:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• List at AfD, which is, I guess, the same as saying Overturn. I am the editor who "seemed amenable to waiting for initial draft to be completed with reliable sources, etc."; I was planning on re-examining the article today and submitting it to AfD if it seemed appropriate. I don't believe this article can meet the guidelines of WP:REALITY and I believe that the AfD will determine the outcome of this in a fairly permanent way, which is what I would like to see happen -- regardless of the outcome. Accounting4Taste: talk 17:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment WP:REALITY does not have consensus support in the community, and the subject of this article clearly meets the WP:BIO standard for notability, which is as follows: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." DickClarkMises ( talk) 19:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Everyone could've saved themselves a lot of trouble (still could) by just redirecting to Project Runway (season 5), and expanding her listing there. All of her notability thus far has been in connection with her participation on that show. Postdlf ( talk) 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment This assertion, that the article subject's notability is entirely related to the television show, is clearly incorrect, as the sources linked above demonstrate. DickClarkMises ( talk) 18:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Pre-PR, all you have is local coverage of the local boutique she opened. Whatev, if that is enough for you. Postdlf ( talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Postdlf: True or false?: Multiple sources independent of the article subject and otherwise meeting WP:RS requirements existed prior to the article subject's role in Project Runway. The answer is "true." Surely you aren't suggesting that participation in a reality series makes one less notable?!? I was under the impression that our community-created guideline on the topic said Notability is not temporary. DickClarkMises ( talk) 19:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and send to AFD. Enough assertions of notability there to avoid an A7 speedy. Stifle ( talk) 18:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Even if it fails speedy, I can't see any justification for over-ruling a {{ hangon}}, as I understand happened here. That's for the bad stuff, not mere judgement calls over notability. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - per consensus, I've restored the article and removed the protection; I still feel that this is just another NN reality show contestant, and will fail AfD. (At least the number of Pokemon is finite; the number of non-notable reality show contestants is much larger, and apparently infinite.) -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Think About Life (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

I am bringing this here at the suggestion of the admin who closed the AfD, as I have found multiple sources that were not mentioned in the discussion; see below. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Requesting overturn as per the following, copied from User talk:Waggers. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Waggers. Would be be open to restoring this article you deleted? In the deletion discussion no one actually said they had made attempts to search for sources to establish notability. Yet sources exist as follows:

• " Think About Life's Van Pelt Builds Miracle Fortress", Pitchfork Media
• " Miracle Fortress and Think About Life Tour Eastern Canada", Exclaim! magazine
• " Dream team: The pop-culture pick-up games of Think About Life", Montreal Mirror
• " Accidental plan: Things go wrong the right way for Miracle Fortress", Montreal Mirror (it's about Miracle Fortress but has verifiable relevant content to add to Think About Life)
• " Fortress of solitude, Montreal Gazette (ditto)
• " Triple threat, Hour
• " Think About Life: L'Urgence de la Pop", Voir
• " Think About Life: L'harmonie du chaos", Voir

(All of those were found with Google.) There's also (found in my library):

• Dunlevy, T'Cha. "Raw, corny and somehow compelling. Let's Think About Life", Montreal Gazette, p. D3, 2006-06-08. (A 700-word article entirely about the band, with the most relevant content to add)
• Wenzel, John, "15 buzz bands at small to midsized venues", Denver Post, p. F4, 2006-04-30.

Thanks! Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and restore based on new evidence (original closure was correct one based on the AFD). New sources providing significant coverage, which were not found during the AFD, which now appear to establish notability. Concern of the AFD was the lack of sources which has now been addressed. Davewild ( talk) 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and restore looks like good sources to me. I'm actually a little sad that I could find a number of reasonable sources by going to Google and typing '"Think About Life" band' in both news and web. While AfD close was fine based on comments, folks probably should have spent a few more moments before !voting. Hobit ( talk) 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion These sources are more than enough to establish notability and make a half-decent article. Paragon12321 ( talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - these sources appear to meet WP:RS, and establish WP:N. LonelyBeacon ( talk) 22:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and restore based on new sources, notability established.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - I wouldn't have deleted the article if the above sources were included in the AfD discussion. Waggers ( talk) 08:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the admin's closure based on the information available at the time, but now overturn and relist to get a view of the community consensus based on the new sources. Stifle ( talk) 18:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment – Looking over others' comments here, I may be in the minority with this viewpoint, but I think it is improper for an administrator to close a discussion as "delete" (per lack of sources to establish WP:N) when none of the AfD comments explicitly said, "I attempted to search for sources and could not find any." As Hobit pointed out above, sources were easy to find in this case. I don't like encouraging !votes that are akin to WP:JNN ("just not notable"). Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Commando Krav Maga (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Reliable references were added and advert content was deleted per original reason for deletion. All logos have been removed and only factual information remain in the latest article that was submitted Combatsurvival ( talk) 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (nb: I conducted one of 3 speedy deletions post-AfD, not at the original article location, but at Commando krav maga) - I don't think much has changed since the AfD (i.e. addressing notability). The new article was certainly bigger, but contained a huge amount of content but with little referencing (bar the introduction) or indicators as to why it was important, and still seemed rather biased to me. I think any encyclopedic notability can quite easily be covered by a small section in the main Krav Maga article. Ian¹³ /t 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I, also, was one of the admins who speedy deleted the article at the original location. Non-notable, mostly unreferenced/OR. Tan ǀ 39 14:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. DRV is a place to indicate how deletion process was not followed, not to advance new (or repeat the same) arguments in an effort to have the deletion decision reversed. Stifle ( talk) 18:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • DRV is also the place to resurrect articles that were AfDed and now get speeded on sight despite new claims of notability.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 11:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

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

G11 I have revised the article and would like to re-submit, how do I do that? Marcopollo ( talk) 15:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Well, the page isn't salted, so you can just do it. However, I suggest creating your suggested version in your userspace first (at, say User:Marcopollo/Blockdot) so that other editors can take a look at it and make sure it won't be speedily deleted again. Cheers! -- lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 16:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• I've just redeleted the article as it was an advert. Stifle ( talk) 18:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• WP:SPA plus commercial entity equals spam, sadly, as on so many occasions. Endorsing both deletions. Guy ( Help!) 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply