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

This appears to have been deleted with little explanation. riffic ( talk) 21:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion very easily. You really should have discussed this with the deleting admin before bring it here. It is a very clear case of why we need G3 vandalism speedy deletions. The entire article read "LIBRARYS ARE FOR PEOPLE ON SMACK". Davewild ( talk) 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note from deleting admin: It was vandalism, and G3; I could have given whatever clarification was needed. I'm recreating the top edit as I saw it; perhaps then it can be speedily closed. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• comment Oh, I didn't realize this was the case, as the history was zapped as well. I thought the original page might have been related to the Openfire xmpp library 'smack' as indicated on the disambig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• comment Would it be possible to unprotect this, so I can update the article and have it describe the xmpp library instead? http://www.google.com/search?q=smack+xmpp&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official 33,400 google hits riffic ( talk) 22:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Redelete but unprotect. This was clearly vandalism and appropriate to speedy-delete but it had only been created once. Protection that early was overzealous. Any legitimate article can best be created from a clean edit history. Rossami (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Nintendo Ultra 64 Sound Format (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

A previous AfD for this article was closed by a non-admin whose closure and decision to Keep did not reflect consensus. At the time of closure, Keep had more bolded terms, but bolded terms alone do not reflect consensus according to Wikipedia guidelines. Several keep proponents supported an approach which would merge this article into Nintendo 64. Most opinions did not follow Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:N and WP:RS, and also failed to demonstrate a need for WP:Ignore all rules. The muramasa ( talk) 16:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Quite a few issues here. First, you are correct that Oo7565 shouldn't have closed it, since it is way not obvious enough for the accepted times for non-admin closures. Second, the close doesn't accurately reflect consensus, as the nom stated. A no consensus would have been more accurate, but in this case I'd prefer to overturn to relist, reopen and relist the discussion. Also, you really should have brought this up to Oo7565 before listing this request here, since it is highly recomended that you do so in the DRV procedures. This is not itself grounds to remove a DRV, it is very rude. I'd like to remind Oo7565 not to close any deletion discussion except when guidelines say it is acceptable to do so, since they very often end up here. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• • Oh, I apologize for not bringing the issue up with Oo7565 first. I will be sure to read over the rules more thoroughly in the future before posting here again. Thank you for your time. The muramasa ( talk) 15:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• comment if i should have not closed it i am very sorry about that i look it it it look like i could closed it i will look closer at what people say on the afd next time i am very sorry again Oo7565 ( talk) 22:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• i guess as an non admin i did not know i could close it with no consensus i thought i could only close it with a keep again sorry Oo7565 ( talk) 22:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• To be honest I think that on an immediate "vote"-count a keep seems near enough to the obvious result. After review I would endorse the closure, although perhaps make it a no-consensus rather than a keep outcome. Stifle ( talk) 11:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, but... As a process issue, I would overturn the closure (I've horked up a NAC before and I felt really bad when realizing it), but reclose as keep or no-consensus (or relist). The delete !votes didn't really mount an affirmative case aside from the nominator, just responded to comment from keep votes. I know we aren't counting heads, but in measuring arguments it would be hard for me to judge a half dozen 'defensive' arguments (questions and rejoinders) against what appear to be novice keep !votes. I believe strongly that arguments should be kept even when the person making the argument doesn't know what to appeal to. The inclusion of the IEEE reference (which when read, suggests a merge to PSF is appropriate, as only one line is devoted to USF) should be taken as an attempt to appeal to policy--if the user does not cite the policy specifically we shouldn't diminish his opinion on that basis. Protonk ( talk) 05:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment I can also email or post an excerpt of the ieee source to someone if the contents of that source would sway their close of this discussion. Protonk ( talk) 22:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Request for deletion reason Engineer4life ( talk) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• The deletion log cites WP:CSD#A7, failing to make a claim of importance or significance. I doubt this would survive AFD, but I believe the section "Notable achivements" as a whole certainly rises to the level of a claim. It seems likely at AFD the decision would be to merge the material elsewhere. GRBerry 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• List at AfD and show the contributors a little more respect. The cached version contains three references supporting notability. This lifts the article to well over the standard that can be considered speediable (not even worth a seconda look). -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle ( talk) 11:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  presumably because it is not required that he do so. On the one hand choosing to go there offers the hope of a quick solution, but if someone has doubts that there will be a favorable response, why waste time waiting for one? If we wish to change the policy, we can do so. We should simultaneously for consistency forbid listing for afd or speedy or prod without notify all significant authors DGG ( talk) 00:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  I don't see anything saying it's optional. Indeed, the page also says "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look. Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable request. Stifle ( talk) 14:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  This is an invalid argument, because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. GRBerry 02:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  I don't think I agree with the bureaucracy comment. The purpose of DRV is to challenge deletion decisions where discussions with the deleting administrator have proven unfruitful. Listing a discussion here and going through a five-day process when a five-minute discussion with the admin could have cleared up the problem seems like needless bureaucracy if anything. Stifle ( talk) 09:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  If the closing admin is notified of this discussion, they can review it and reverse themselves immediately. No requirement for a five day process. If they aren't willing to do so, then we just end up back here again after making the nominator drop through two extra hoops. Opine on the substance of the matter instead of trying to introduce extra paperwork. And if you can't find notice on the acting admin's page, drop them the notice yourself ... which is why the DRV notice template is worded without assuming it will be left by the person opening the DRV. GRBerry 13:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Santa Fe River Trail (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Undelete to expand Una Smith ( talk) 05:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Doesn't appear anything to undelete. The delete reason was for a redirect and the cache appears to show a redirect to itself. -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 06:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Does a history exist? If so, that needs to be undeleted, right? -- Una Smith ( talk) 06:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion but allow re-creation with actual content. 82.7.39.174 is correct; there was never anything on this page but a redirect to itself (and a category, Category:Trails in New Mexico). If this is a notable trail, please feel free to go ahead and write an actual article about it. In fact, you can start doing that now, without even waiting for this deletion review to close. Since no actual content existed in the earlier version, there's no need to undelete the history. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The intent was to redirect pro tem to an article where this topic was a section, while showing the topic in the category page. Is there a better way? -- Una Smith ( talk) 07:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, redirect it to the article where there is such a section, instead of redirecting to itself, which is merely an error. There was no history. GRBerry 12:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Bridget Mary Nolan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD| AfD2)

This page and a number of other similiar pages were deleted as being against WP:BLP1E. The articles are referenced and mainly written in a neutral manner. They are part of enduring commentary in Australia, especially major newspapers. WP:BLP1E doesn't directly apply as there is no main article on the person in the biography. The discussion made no real attempt to address this concern other than stating that keeping the article is a breach of privacy. At the very least, the article should have been renamed to the event. Assize ( talk) 03:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure (deletion) - Admin picked the consensus correctly (FYI I opined to delete it). Every interesting crime attracts commentary in major Australian newspapers - Wikipedia is not a news recording source - Peripitus (Talk) 04:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment But doesn't that fact make the topic notable under WP:N, which is what notability is all about, ie. what secondary sources have found interesting to write about. A lot of Australian history is based on newspaper reports. Assize ( talk) 07:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion looking at the AFD the closer made the only possible closure based on the discussion in the AFD and this argument was raised in the AFD where consensus disagreed with it. Davewild ( talk) 07:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion Consensus of the discussion was clearly to delete, and that consensus was based on valid reasons that are reasonably well supported by community consensus. GRBerry 12:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The consensus in this discussion seems clear. The nominator made his/her case during the discussion and was unable to persuade the community of those arguments. I see no new evidence nor any process problems in the second AfD discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, if you look at the AfD from a consensus perspective, the consensus to delete is clear. And if you look at it from a policy perspective, per WP:BLP1E it is even clearer that the articles should not exist. I have no idea what you mean by "WP:BLP1E doesn't directly apply as there is no main article on the person in the biography," it most certainly does. While it may sometimes be appropriate to merge an BLP1E "biography" into another article, it is by no means mandatory. -- Stormie ( talk) 00:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I should have said "event" instead of "person". My understanding of WP:BLP1E is it is to prevent redundant biographies on people, when the person's background should be covered in an article on the main event. Hence the wording in bold "Cover the event, not the person". Since there is no article on the main event, the article could have been renamed or merged. I accept that just about everybody voted to delete, but the discussion revolved around about having negative biographies or that criminal events aren't notable, which arent' against WP policies, as long as they are neutral. In fact one editor agreed that WP:BLP1E wasn't an exact fit. If you can't engage editors in a debate on these issues in an AfD, then AfD just becomes a vote rather than working out how to fix an article, which is what this Afd became. Assize ( talk) 04:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • BLP1E is to prevent unjustified "biographies" on people who are only notable for one event, and thus are unlikely to ever contain any genuine biographical information. If the event is notable, a merge & redirect is appropriate, but it would take quite a bit to convince me that an instance of statuatory rape was an event which was notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we're not exactly talking about The Great Train Robbery, are we? -- Stormie ( talk) 22:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Ah, but the Great Train Robbery was only one event as well, and only notable because newspapers picked it up. Assize ( talk) 13:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Surely you jest. It wasn't "only notable because newspapers picked it up", it was notable because for 43 years it was the largest robbery in British history. -- Stormie ( talk) 01:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply
          • Yes, it was said with a twinkle in my eye. Thanks for a proper debate, I don't agree, but at least this time I felt it got a hearing. Assize ( talk) 03:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorse close I'm not at all convinced that these should have been deleted due to BLP1E (and was thinking about these AfDs but they were closed before I had made up my mind enough to comment. A depressingly common occurrence). In any event, the consensus for deletion was clear and as I've discussed on prior occasions, we need to go with community consensus when dealing with BLP-penumbra issues. The consensus here was to delete. JoshuaZ ( talk) 04:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Got a fair heairng at AfD, consensus was clear. Comment: We have a higher standard of minimum notability for negative WP:BLP cases. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle ( talk) 11:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Yes. As I had done a deletion review once before, I went straight to the Steps to List for Deletion Review. In hindsight, I should have read the whole thing first. Assize ( talk) 12:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you. Endorse closure. There was a consensus for deletion, and if anything, we should be more careful than less careful when dealing with this kind of article. Stifle ( talk) 14:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

To be expanded; multiple redlinks Una Smith ( talk) 03:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• It was prod'd, not AfD'd, so as far as I can see, there's no need to go through DRV. If not, well, it strikes me as notable enough for an article. Guettarda ( talk) 03:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply