Essjay controversy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)( AfD 2 March 2007)( DRV 5 March 2007)( AfD 7 March 2007)( AfD 12 March 2007)( AfD 1 May 2007)( AfD 24 September 2008)

I don't know how to do this, but if you click the afd button, it takes you to the first, the AFD i'm talking about is this one Essjay controversy (5th nomination). Closing administrator did not allow me to respond to discussion, expand on rationale, and called me a troll. -- Segragate account ( talk) 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as closer; notwithstanding the lack of credibility of a single-purpose account created for the admitted sole purpose of nominating an article to deletion, there is not a single shred of policy that would support deleting this article. It is properly verified, supported by numerous independent reliable sources, and of undisputed notability. I stand by my original closing rationale that the nomination itself is either an attempt to make a point or outright trolling. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

That is an argument you should have presented at the AFD. Your not neutral. Since when did anonymous users not get to discuss these things? Just go ahead and semi protect the entire AFD area if that is the case. I had to create the account cause the software would not allow an IP to to a AFD. Segragate account ( talk) 01:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

What, exactly, makes you under the impression that I am not neutral? I have never been involved in the Essjay mess (at that time, I was only doing the occasional edit here and there and was completely unaware of what was going on behind the scenes), I have never interacted with Essjay, I have never been involved in the prior AfDs and I have never edited that article. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Because you stated //your// opinion. You stated why you thought the article should be kept - instead of only procedural close grounds. Segragate account ( talk) 01:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Proper closure. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• The list of AFDs in that AFD is itself incomplete; the first AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay, but it was interruupted by the first DRV due to an early closure as delete when no consensus for deletion existed. I'd say that this closure was sound. Even given the chance to try again here, you didn't bother to actually expand on your reasons for deletion or give us a first one with a shred of credibility. This AFD had no chance of success. GRBerry 01:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and speedy close The AfD 24 September 2008 (5th nomination) did not set out any Wikipedia policy reasons for the deltion. -- Suntag ☼ 01:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. There are, quite simply, no grounds for the article to be deleted (and no reasonable objection to that fact in the original nomination). The discussion would have undoubtedly been closed as keep, thus making any discussion unnecessary. The close was appropriate, and I will say that, per above, this review remaining open for days on end is also a waste of our time.   user:j     (aka justen)   01:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok. I accept this. Segragate account ( talk) 02:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist 2 hours and 4 minutes and 3 participants is not sufficient for speedy close, particularly when one participant opined to that effect, and it was pointed-out that for a good portion of that time it was not even on the log yet. The closing summary seems to indicate that the speedy close was used to suppress the voice of a requester of questionable suffrage in the venue. No attempt was made to voir dire the requester as to their interest in the article or process. The statement that the article causes harm and has no global (eg: outside of wikipedia) notability was not adequately discussed to provide an understanding of the context in which the requester made the request. If we do not understand the request, we can't really answer to it very well. This should have been allowed to run for 24 hours and at least 5 participants. Since consensus can change, and new information can become available, we need to be careful not to misuse the speedy close option. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Actually, no, consensus cannot override policy— that includes the deletion policy. —  Coren  ^(talk) 02:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

What part of the deletion policy says we can not discuss deletion of articles? I missed that bit. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Syn ergy 02:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Reopen AfD, which should always be what we do with these when people object. A speedy close assumes it's either uncontroversial (which it isn't if people complain, like here) or a nomination made in bad faith ( which isn't obvious in this case). So, while I cannot fault the closing admin anywhere, an objection after the fact should result in reopening the AfD. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 02:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse WP:SNOW applies. Does anyone here think that the article will be deleted? Ever? Hell no. IF not, then why would we bother opening an AfD again and letting it run 5 days. Protonk ( talk) 05:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy close. Reopening it so that another two dozen people can vote keep is process wonkery. Stifle ( talk) 09:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Nominator can't even spell segregate, let alone policy... Guy ( Help!) 13:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn but start new AFD. Periodic AFDs (i.e. once every year or two) are reasonable. Telling people "consensus has already been determined in the past, go away" is, to me, an anti-consensus thing to do. If we're so sure what consensus is, what's the risk in validating that claim every once in a while, if others aren't convinced? Nobody has to participate in the AFD if they think it's a waste of time headed for an inevitable keep. -- Rividian ( talk) 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• overturn/list new AfD per Rividian. We lose nothing by having a new AfD. It will almost certainly be a strong keep and then we won't need to think about this hopefully forever, mmkay? JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC) endorse close Thinking about this more, the result is clear. It is very clear that this meets our notability criteria and it is very clear that the consensus is just that. We shouldn't have to go over this again. JoshuaZ ( talk) 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  How much stronger than AfD 4 (50 keeps, 3 merges to 5 delete) do you feel this needs to get before we stop bothering trying repeatedly to delete the article against unsupported by policy, exactly?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coren ( talk • contribs)

Possibly the user was not saying that we should repeatedly attempt to delete against policy, but rather we should put in a good faith review upon request to determine if deletion per policy is warranted. Circumstances can change, articles can change, new information can become available and consensus as to whether it is per policy or not can chabge. Oh, and policies can change, too. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Honest question here. How would policy change to delete an article with 50 footnotes (most of which to secondary sources that cover the subject) that has been promoted to a good article? Protonk ( talk) 19:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• • More or less yes. But I've already changed my mind. The probability seems sufficiently low at this point that I'm not inclined to really want another AfD at this time. JoshuaZ ( talk) 17:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There has to be closure eventually. DGG ( talk) 00:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Lifebaka is right that generally SNOW/IAR closures should be overturned if challenged since their rationale is that they are effectively unchalengable. However, we also shouldn't give vexatious SPA's a veto over debates. If someone wants to make a calm and fully reasoned argument for deletion they can, but this is not the way to go about it. Eluchil404 ( talk) 02:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allow status quo for now, but in future, assuming a reasonable argument for nomination is made, we should allow it. We don't declare ever that an article is above AfD after multiple keeps, even after 17 of them, and it's a good thing, too. If someone could make a reasonable argument that deleting a long-established article would be supported by policy, we ought to let an AfD run (at least for a day or two). AfDs that are clearly trolling should be closed at once (I'm not saying the one in question is an example), but if they are filed in good faith they should run for a while. Chick Bowen 02:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Coastal and port cities and towns ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache)

(Can't figure out how to link it - CfD was Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 14#Coastal_and_port_cities_and_towns

Decision should be set aside as invalid and a community discussion initiated. There is no evidence of anybody having been consulted or this CfD having been notified to any of the projects affected, and its implications have caused severe disruption on the Australian project and doubtless on others. The push for standardisation to the extent that nonsensical categories (eg "Port settlements in ___") are created because some country somewhere on earth doesn't use the term "city" or "town" while another does, is not so important that we cannot move forward in a more sensible and considered way with these things and not make a mockery of ourselves to our readers, or be chained by the opinions of five individuals. (As an aside, this discussion suggests the outcome would have been very different had it been notified - already six users have indicated they disagree with the opinions raised.) Orderinchaos 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

(Just to clarify I'm happy to see it relisted and go through proper process, although I would prefer an overturn and a discussion at some visible place such as Village Pump.) Orderinchaos 03:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Honest question: Are you proposing a change to how XFD works? I think with the sheer number of discussions in a given day, the Pump would get unreadable quickly. -- Kbdank71 03:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

No, I am proposing that major changes that affect multiple projects should go to some sort of consultation first, where a compromise that works for all or most is hammered out. CfD is not meant to be an exercise in social engineering, it is meant to be a place where categories are discussed. Mass noms such as the one we are reviewing here are an abuse of the process. Orderinchaos 05:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I certainly agree that the existing routines for carrying out a renaming discussion for an entire hierachy is deficient. I do not object to a relisting, however, you are commingling disparate issues. As Kbdank71 points out you are arguing with a systemic deficiency. That is an issue for which the present forum is not primarily intended, however, you are by now probably experiencing what I have already realized, that Wikipedia lacks certain forums or maybe better, it lacks a culture among its editors for using forums efficiently for discussing certain types of issues. I have addressed some of the problems of the present complex in a post at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board. You state that umbrella nominations such as the one at issue constitute "an abuse of the process". That makes me the abuser since I made these nominations. Do you think it is appropriate to define the issue in this way? From my perspective, I have simply availed myself of the procedures that are in place. I find it unreasonable that I should be blamed for Wikipedia lacking adequate routines for this sort of process. __ meco ( talk) 09:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It is a little disconcerting to read that you blame me or whomever for not having brought the issue in front of a larger forum, and you exemplify this by naming the Village Pump, when this issue was in fact brought up at the Village Pump where neither yourself nor anybody else have payed any attention to it. __ meco ( talk) 09:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Not all of us have Village Pump in our watch list and only go to that page when we need some help. Bidgee ( talk) 10:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

When listing an article at AfD, it is common practise to notify the creator of the article. This does not appear to have happened in this case. With such a mass listing with consequences that a reasonable person could have foreseen (and indeed you did have enough foresight to see this; hence your raising of the point at the Village Pump), it seems to be extremely negligent to have made no attempt to notify interested parties. The mass listing and lack of notification seem to me to fit clearly within "abuse of process"; wiki-lawyering defences such as "I have simply availed myself of the procedures that are in place" notwithstanding. The hyper-defensiveness of some editors involved in this entire mess is astounding. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Relist Overturn deletion (as per Hesperian and The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist) - neither a city nor a town is the same as a settlement nor are they the same as each other and there are clearly understood distinctions. This renaming and deletion has caused disruption and the category is no longer useful - there will be too many places put into the one category - Australia as a country is mainly settled on the coast and we have a long coastline - the distinction was useful. -- Matilda ^talk 00:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Relist. As far as I can tell, the usual procedures were followed here, including the use of notification templates; so I can't fault the nominator or the closer. But be that as it may, very few people commented on the original listing, and now that their decision has been put into force, a hell of a lot of people are wishing they had known about it. Hesperian 00:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It is normal on CfD to not have a lot of editors discussing when there is consensus. Many discussions are closed with no comments since silence is a clear indicator of support. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, five contributors is often sufficient to judge consensus; but in this case, with various forumssome editors now screaming blue murder over the outcome, there must be some doubt over whether the result really reflected consensus. Hesperian 02:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • The depressing fact that there is actually more editors in a local AWNB discussion than on a worldwide CfD, and yet the latter is claimed to be "consensus", really points to the flaws in the process. In my opinion any serious controversy over a seemingly uncontroversial close should be an automatic relist. Orderinchaos 03:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Clearly there was no violation of process and the results reflected consensus. The name chosen in what is used in the appropriate naming convention so that as a parent category, it is neutral as to the various dialects of English. The discussion appears to have been properly posted and the decision was one that is supported by the discussion. I don't see valid grounds for a reversal of the decision. I will also add that the name was chosen as one that not only works but is also short. It avoids having category names that use multiple combinations of various terms including city, town, township, village, municipality and who knows how many others. A result like that would clearly not be an positive state for the encyclopedia. I should also note that the discussion allows for the fact that below the country level there are likely to be variations. Can anyone state that there are no port settlements of any type in Australia that are not a city or a town? If that is the case, then maybe the solution is a simple as allowing Australia to have a slightly different form at the country level. If that is the case, there is no need for a DRV. Even if there are exceptions in Australia, is that a reason to create a different parent category? Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I am not sure that the parent category is the problem - this CfD had very many categories underneath it and without relisting, it is difficult to discuss those subsidiary category changes. -- Matilda ^talk 02:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Is there a specific issue or a limited set of categories that have a problem? Seems like only editors from one country have a problem with their project not being notified and not liking the outcome. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Quite aside from the fact that "port settlements" has no meaning and is uninformative in English, whereas "port cities" has a long-established meaning. Another piece of evidence that this proposal had very little input to begin with. Orderinchaos 06:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Clearly there was no violation of process and the results reflected consensus.. It is not at all clear that the result reflected consensus. Sometimes, often even, the comments of five contributors are sufficient to judge consensus; but in this case, with various forumssome editors now screaming blue murder over the outcome, there must be some doubt over whether the result really reflected consensus. Hesperian 02:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Various forums? ^{citation needed} -- Kbdank71 02:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • • If you don't class AWNB as a "forum" then the AN/I isn't a "forum". Right. Must be just a discussion page. Bidgee ( talk) 03:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • [1] [2] [3] Hesperian 02:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
        • The same people saying the same things in different areas can hardly be called "various forums". -- Kbdank71 03:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
          • Refactored, since it's an issue to you. Hesperian 03:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as closer. Nothing wrong with the close. Per Vegaswikian, if the AWNB wants their own category to be different, so be it. -- Kbdank71 02:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • "So be it"? This from the person who has repeated speedily deleted some of the Australian categories under G4? [4] Hesperian 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Recreation of deleted material: A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version Yes, that's what happened. Someone was being disruptive by repeatedly recreating a category that was deleted via a deletion discussion. G4 absolutely applies. If you want to overturn the decision, DRV is the correct forum. But I'm not sure what that has to do with my endorsement above. -- Kbdank71 03:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • So what you meant was "if the AWNB wants their own category to be different, so be it... except that I'm not going to let them." Hesperian 03:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
        • No, what I meant is exactly what I said. -- Kbdank71 03:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
          • Which is impossible to reconcile with what you did. Hesperian 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Exactly who is recreating deleted categories and which ones? Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
        • and those who the deletion affected notified (IE: The projects)? No. Bidgee ( talk) 05:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist I agree with what Matilda has said. I also see issues that no one on the projects knew about this (CfD) which meant that there is no true consensus. I also do see issues with the use of settlements (which can mean cities, towns, villages, even small Aboriginal camps/community's would be included in one category which would be a rather long list within it where as having "City", "Town" type categories work for Australia since the lists are still longish but way shorter and easier to use, where as "settlements" isn't easy and doesn't work). Bidgee ( talk) 03:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist - Local usage in Australia would never see the ports and their adjacent communities as settlements - in the lead paragraphs of the articles affected they are actually specifically identified as Port Cities - creating new category titles that do not fit into local usage is a misuse of the category name - Satu Suro 04:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment Part of the issue is that sweeping changes to category nomenclature was made through a CfD that by its nature attracts little attention. It is clear that given the result, there is not consensus for these renamings and the categories should be restored. Decisions of this magnitude need more discussion than using the opinions of five people. It is common courtesy, at the least, to inform a national project if you are making major changes to their category structure. This quote in particular concerns me "Right, because telling someone "I know you wanted to do this, but it doesn't make sense so I'm not going to do it" is a great way to get dragged to DRV. Hence, I don't do it." DRV is a legitimate process and avoiding notifying others of your changes to avoid DRV is hardly in the spirit of openess. How many other changes have been pushed through by this editor under cover for fear of having his/her actions reviewed. Note I don't think relisting is a vaild option for two reasons
• Changes of this magnitude that affect so many categories should be discussed at the village pump, not at CfD
• The proposed renaming should be done on a category-by-category basis rather than as a mass rename. The proposal attempts to create a simple global solution for what is in reality a messy local reality. Each nation and sub-national entity has different arrangements for classifying towns, cities, settlements, localities, etc. and imposing a global solution will not work.

Finally, fair warning to all. I consider creating an RfC to seek further comment on the result of the CfD and DRV and the actions of the participants involved is warranted. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 04:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• What also concerns me is that the very editor who closed the CfD and deleted the category did the very thing in January 2006 [5] [6]! Bidgee ( talk) 04:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Very interesting. This diff is interesting too. Agree with Matt's points, as this is not the first time this sort of thing has been done. Might need to go through the last year's CfDs and find any other questionable noms that have gone through less noticeably, too. Orderinchaos 05:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  The current closure aside for a moment, finding that one of the most prolific closers at CfD may have closed similar discussions, and then claiming an "aha moment" is just this side of ridiculous. - jc37 06:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Somewhat of a specious argument - we're starting to see evidence (and I've been emailed some as well) that there's a fair bit of gaming going on in addition to that already raised here involving the users concerned. Some users have clearly identified CfD, a low participation area, as a way to get radical changes in through the back door, claiming their own personal opinions as "consensus" and misusing the speedy rename process when they fail to achieve consensus at CfD. It should make for a very interesting RfC, and maybe even a reform of the CfD process will result from it - I certainly hope it does. Orderinchaos 06:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  "Low" compared to what? Just because a particular discussion that you (or some other person) may wish to see discussed, doesn't mean that others are interested in discussing it. This is true of any XfD. The number of members in a discussion varies based on who's interested.

  That aside... Gaming? Who? The closer? Not a chance. (And my comments were in regard to the closer. I haven't delved into this particular set of discussions yet.)

  "Specious"? I went through Logical fallacy, and found quite a few that apply here. And yes, I will be happy to reiterate how ridiculous I think it is to try to suggest a "pattern", when looking at the edits of someone who, nearly daily, closes dozens of CfDs, and find two that he closed which may be similar, and to suggest that this is an "aha moment". And here's another word: Balderdash. - jc37 07:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Apart from getting their bot into a revert war, and some bad faith remarks suggesting they structured their actions to avoid scrutiny at DRV, I was not referring to the closer. The gaming relates to other CfDs, but involves the same participants. In one particularly blatant case they snuck through a speedy rename recently on a whole bunch of categories on a proposal identical to one rejected at CfD by a clear majority some months ago. The proposal was based on a weakly justified (and as it turns out from reliable sources, false) opinion - we're now trying to get that one fixed. Yet the same participants imply the project editors and volunteers (many of whom have FAs to their credit and have put years into improving this thing) are acting in bad faith when we try to take measures to make good the damage done by their ill-thought-out actions or raise questions about process. Orderinchaos 08:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It's now 8 am in Europe, and since I went to bed at 1 am a monumental debate has been developing. Since other editors have raised meta-issues here, I'm gonna do the same before joining the discussion as it currently stands. The issue is that people will tend to stay away from a debate if they perceive it to be well under way already, i.e. people don't want to miss the beginning of the show. Obviously, the above has taken place during prime time for Australian editors and I'm sure, just as the Australians missed the original CfR (Categories for Renaming) discussion, most of the world has probably missed the start of the present discussion. Perhaps some sort of a summary box at the top of some voluminous discussions might be a useful implement? __ meco ( talk) 06:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Prime time? I initiated it at 8:25am in my time zone, it's not yet a time when people have gotten home from work and etc (in fact, it was pretty close to US peak time when I did so.) I would also argue that a "snowball" effect occurs - people won't want to be the first to speak but if they see others doing so they'll reply and comment on the comments, so to speak. Orderinchaos 06:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Relist As per the request and details provided by the nominator, and subsequent comments. Sorry I must also note that this appears to be a far too enthusiastic and thus eye-brow raising closure, defence and call to arms by Kbdank71. Perhaps if you could consider that it is common courtesy and common sense to alert the appropriate project to pending changes such as these, and so even if that wasn't done this time, this is a worldwide community project and it should be treated as such; and even more especially by administrators with the experience to know otherwise. Therefore I strongly support a relist so that we can see what ensues after a much more informed discussion. What is there to lose? Only face. What is there to gain - a stronger and more reflective consensus! -- VS ^talk 07:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist as in the original request from Orderinchaos - The earlier debate did not consider how much trouble deleting so many subcategories would cause, so we need to debate the restoral of these categories. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist per Orderinchaos and Matilda. Sarah 14:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist it would have been reasonable to give wide notice before proposing extensive changes. The 5 days is appropriate for individual items, but not for things like this. DGG ( talk) 00:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Question. If this is relisted, what exactly is to be relisted? It appears that the Australia categories are an issue. Are there others? If most of the changes are not contested then why relist a large number of categories? Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It's the whole thing. The wording of "port settlements", which is effectively a neologism, was just poor to start with - what is a port settlement, a settlement *by* a port or a settlement *in* a port (like some sort of houseboat thing) or what? Are we suggesting a port can exist in an "unsettled" state? Given that a port is by nature industrial/commercial, where does "settlement" come into its functions? There's no clear meaning and it certainly wouldn't appear in any RS beyond some sort of historical or colonial context. A port city, however, has a specific meaning in English. Also the issues with world cities like Mombasa, Kenya being called a "settlement" instead of a "city" is borderline insulting (think CSB here). Moreover the wording was only supported by one editor very late in the debate (meco) and not commented on by any others. I personally favoured an overturn and then that would allow British editors to have British categories renamed, US editors to have US categories renamed and so on if they wished to do it that way. If it was relisted I think perhaps this sort of contextual breakup of the nomination would be advisable. Orderinchaos 02:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

A non-Australian editor, who has contacted me by email, wants to know if the CfD group are intending to rename a certain category, to which two of the affected Australian cities and several of the others belong, to "Host settlements of the Summer Olympic Games". I felt this question addressed admirably how ridiculous this obsession with not mentioning cities in categories has become. Orderinchaos 12:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

snicker :-) -- Matilda ^talk 13:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Relist. Broader discussion needed. Clearly many people have a problem with this change and so commonsense says it needs to be reviewed. This is not a criticism of the close, but WP:CCC. Moondyne 06:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist on a country by country basis as the issue is clearly different for each country. Gnan garra 14:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist settlement? Good god. What a trivial discussion that need'nt have been had, towns and cities are perfectly ok. Consensus is clearly not established. Timeshift ( talk) 17:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Vegaswikian. If needed, the Australian ones could be renominated where the concerns addressed above could be directly addressed in solely an Australian context. It's not an issue that should require a deletion review. The concept that "no one was notified" is ridiculous. There's no requirement to notify WikiProjects when XfDs are started—the WikiProject bears the burden of keeping tabs on the content that they include in their project. For individual editors—if you care about the name of a category, put it on your watch list. Categories aren't edited much, so usually the only edits that will show up for you are CfD nominations. That's why the requirement that categories be tagged exists. This is essentially a case of a WikiProject caught off guard, but every time that happens we can't have a reversal of what has been validly decided under current WP procedures. As I said, if desired, we can have a a new nomination for the Australian ones. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

As stated above, the problem is not simply with the Australian ones - there was some process issues but in addition, neologisms like "port settlements" which, when the CfD is examined, were not contemplated or commented on by more than one editor and make Wikipedia look ridiculous to readers. This is one of the big downsides of poorly consulted changes, and it wouldn't matter who was making the changes, without that sort of feedback, such decisions get made. It happens in companies, it happens in governments and political parties, it happens here. As stated above and elsewhere, we have 6,000 categories in our project, and due to occasional MediaWiki failings, it's not as safe or robust as one might imagine (2/3 of all entries in a category I specifically watch for BLP violations once disappeared in several installments over a few days from my watchlist without my knowledge, and I know of several other editors who have had similar problems - generally the larger your watchlist the more likely the software is to bung it up). There is actually no requirement anywhere in any policy or guideline to tag articles to a project (in fact, WikiProjects are broadly ignored in such, much as Premiers, Prime Ministers and political parties are generally ignored in constitutions), although it's a good idea for all sorts of reasons and one I support. Orderinchaos 23:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I have well over 6,000 categories on my watchlist, and I get about 1 category tagged for a CfD edit every two weeks. Really, it's not a great burden once you get them on your list. You could even have a dedicated account just for watching them. WikiProjects need to take responsibility for watching their own content and not place the burden elsewhere. If they can't handle the load, them's the breaks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

How does this address the MediaWiki issue I highlighted? Orderinchaos 23:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Watching a category has nothing to do with the contents of the category. By watching a category you will be notified if someone tags it for CfD. That was my only point. It's an easy way to be notified of CfDs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

What does this have to do with a MediaWiki fault which occasionally makes entire sections of one's watchlist disappear without warning? A "category" to it is simply a differently tagged article - there's no Basic Law that stipulates it's only mainspace articles that can disappear. Essentially, anyway, your entire proposal is an onus reversal - advocates of change should take responsibility for the change, not the people who have to deal with their unfortunate circumstances and are not forewarned. Orderinchaos 23:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Lol. There is no "proposal". It's a suggestion. You are creating "onuses" where none exist. There is no onus to notify a WikiProject. Period. There is an onus to tag the category, which can be detected with a high degree of accuracy by putting it on your watchlist. If you'd like there to be a requirement to notify projects, that's another story, and one that can't and won't be resolved here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

(ec) A prudent editor seeking changes on the scale of the ones made here would at least look for a broad consensus (i.e. more thn just the usual gang) before making the changes. "This is essentially a case of a WikiProject caught off guard, but every time that happens we can't have a reversal of what has been validly decided under current WP procedures" is wiki-lawyering and process-wonkery at its finest. A poor decision has been made, but hey, all the steps were folowed so it has to stand! Do you really believe this is good for the encyclopedia? Can't you see that a process leading to such poor decisions should be addressed? Do WikiProjects really need to be "on guard" against these types of changes or wouldn't it be better if editors proposing these types of changes made a conscious effort to seek a broad consensus? -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 23:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It would have been simpler to just re-nominate the Australian ones, as I said above. To start a deletion review instead looks more like wikilawyering to me than simply asking the closing admin if it would be alright if you could renominate the Australian ones due to concerns in the project. And yes, WikiProjects (or at least someone in them) should be on guard for changes to their content; that's one of the reason watchlists exist, and they are very simple to use. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

How does that fix the African, Asian, European and many other categories though which have been misnamed by this ill-considered proposal? One editor's offhand comment, not acknowledged by a single other person, becomes encyclopaedia-wide mayhem? Agreed that this is not good for the encyclopaedia, and the above user should stop trying to pretend this is an issue which *only* affects the Australian articles or project. I've had feedback in the last 48 hours from many other parts of the world that they're glad someone is doing something about this. As for "simply asking the closing admin", they were already using their bot to attempt to revert-war by the time I even found out this issue was occurring. Orderinchaos 23:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

How do you know it was "ill-considered"? I think that suggests an insight into the mind of the nominator that we should try to avoid. Everyone can have an opinion on the proposal, but your opinion isn't necessarily objectively true. I find nothing wrong with the result, personally. That's my opinion. You obviously disagree. I guess you should have watched the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I was referring to the process, not the nominator. Hypothetical here - If I came up with a proposal in some far-off place, didn't have the experience or breadth of knowledge necessary to anticipate all circumstances, and am joined by a few editors who normally work together and have similar gaps of knowledge, then my proposal is ill-considered. It's not an insult to say that. I've come up with a few particularly bad ones in my time here - thankfully because I notified appropriately, people got to hear of it quickly and I got the weight of "WTF?!" responses from people who knew more than me and I backtracked accordingly. That is what I meant in my use of the word - I apologise for any other interpretation that could be rendered. As for objective - "port settlements" is a neologism (or more properly, a protologism since it is not in wide use in any community). If we had it as an article, it would be deleted per WP:NOT. Orderinchaos 23:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for clarifying; I misunderstood your use of the word, obviously. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Response about watchlists - I have edited as of today 7171 distinct pages, Orderinchaos has edited 16,125 distinct pages, other active Australian editors ahve similar edit counts (this isn't a boast it is about practicalities) - it is difficult enough to keep track of the pages we have edited let alone those set up by other people. The Category:Coastal towns in Australia was set up by RedWolf ( talk · contribs) following a CfD in April 2005 - not an Australian editor, apparently on an extended wikibreak according to his userpage though from his contributions seems be a currently active editor. Given he has had an extended wikibreak at least sometime, it is quite likely the page would no longer be on his wathclist and even if it was, given the manner of creation, I assume he is not going to be as interested as those that were actively using the category. RedWolf joined in 2003 and has edited 38,670 distinct pages - do you really think watchlists of more than 38,000 pages are the answer? Reliance on the use by individual editors of watchlists seems an inappropriate solution to this issue. Why should sensibly named, long established categories be treated this way. Articles I can understand, you have them on your watchlist, but categories used by many editors but which the page itself is not usually edited is a much more problematic page type and needs to be treated differently.-- Matilda ^talk 23:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

For categories alone—yes, it's a practical solution because they are edited relatively infrequently. I'm not talking about articles in Wikiprojects. It would be quite easy to have a special account that just watches the categories in a Wikiproject. I could give you stats on how many categories I have on my watchlist and how many edit changes total happen per week, if you want. It's not a large number. And as I said, there are way less than 1 CfD-related taggings per week. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

"For categories alone—yes, it's a practical solution because they are edited relatively infrequently." No it's not a practical solution since our watchlists has thouands of articles and images and adding more clogs up the watchlists and even slowing them down (IIRC, Wikipedia recomends that watchlists should be no more then 2000) plus also it's possible for it to still be lost within the watchlist since articles are edited all the time and some of us are also busy and don't have time to look at everything in the watchlist at one time. Bidgee ( talk) 11:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Given that there is way less than 1 CfD related tagging per week, surely it would not be an onerous task for the tagger to ensure, if the proposal was in any way likely to be controversial, it is notified widely. This attitude of "If you are not watching, then bad luck" does not seem to be in the spirit of a collaborative project. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 00:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

[EC] It is your last sentence Matt that also concerns me the most. Are there two projects here (1) CFDtagpedia and (2) Wikipedia? Is it impossible for the editors of the first pedia group to simply agree that there is a problem with their process? Can they not walk away and publicly comment an intention of letting projects know of future changes directly to the project page. Is that too big for them or too big a task or does it make them cringe in fear of showing publicly that things could be done better?-- VS ^talk 00:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I never suggested there was no problems with the current process. I'm simply providing a suggestion for how you can keep up with the changes within the current process requirements. This forum is not for proposing a new process. I'd be happy to contribute to such a discussion in an appropriate forum, however. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

You run into a few problems. "if the proposal was in any way likely to be controversial" is in the eye of the beholder, and could probably apply (or not apply) to every CFD, depending on the editor's point of view. "Notified widely"—what does this mean? I agree that it's courteous to "notify widely", but different editors will have different ideas about what is enough in what circumstances. Do you tell the creator? All Wikiprojects that have a tag on the talk page? Do you include Wikiprojects that you suspect would care, even if they don't have their tag on the talk page? Do you use village pump? Right now, the only requirement is tagging the category. I'm simply providing a suggestion of how you could be notified of every CfD for a category you care about under the current CfD requirements. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Most are either routine or limited in scope from my quick inspection of current CfDs, so this is unlikely to be a problem. The main problem from our point of view with CfDs is the only way to check them is a manual process - they don't appear on the front page of CfD, they don't have separate article locations such as AfD does so can't be transcluded onto DSA, etc. Orderinchaos 00:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

"routine or limited in scope"—again, in the eye of the beholder and entirely subjective. (We simply don't know what editors will be upset about what changes. As an admin who closes some CfDs, I have received some pretty nasty ex post facto complaints via email about changes that I thought would have been entirely uncontroversial.) Anyhow, it sounds like you have problems with the current process, which suggests you should propose some changes for the process. But that's not what this forum is for. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict) One inkling as to how upset people might be - don't like that term - perhaps it would be better expressed as how much of an impact a change might have, is how populated are the categories. Category:Coastal towns in Queensland has 43 towns, there are 57 town in the South Austrlaian category, there are 32 towns in the Victorian category - not sure why there are no cats for the other states - perhaps they are already settlements. Coastal cities has 31 articles plus 4 subcats ... If there is significant population of the categories, I think that is an indicator that the use of the category is widely established, and as before because one does not edit category pages when using them, it is very likely they are not on editors' watchlists, alerting the project(s) which is/are significantly impacted seems a good idea. Part of the point of this discussion in my mind is not what we have done, but how could we work better togethr in the future. -- Matilda ^talk 00:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with your comments above, Matilda. Just to be clear, I personally am in favour of notifying WikiProjects in CfDs of this type, and would find it courteous and helpful if nominators did so. However, it's currently not mandatory (nor would I support it being so), so it's difficult for me to see how we can fault the nominator for not doing it in this instance. I'm not "wikilawyering", as someone else has accused me of, I'm just trying to give the editor the benefit of the doubt. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I withdraw the wikilawyering comment and apologise. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 00:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - the cfd has ended up with a rename that screws up all the related category trees - eg Category:Port cities in Canada was correctly a subcat of Category:Cities in Canada whereas the renamed Category:Port settlements in Canada is not (as a settlement is not nec a city). So I would say that there was a consensus, the close was in line, but the result is chaotic. Occuli ( talk) 00:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I'm not going to do anything but endorse the close, but I have a couple of comments regarding this debate. There's a fundamental lack of good faith in all parties going on here. This was seen to be a wider issue, people did try and drum up more interest in them, but no-one seemed interested. People closing debates can only close what is in front of them, and screaming blue murder because of that helps no-one. What would be more beneficial is if all sides got together and worked out the best way to name these categories, rather than arguing about the result. Consensus can and is allowed to change, and for the record, G4 was initiated only to apply to article space, I've trawled the archives on this and I'm confident on that assertion. However, the fact that it is a general rather than an article space clause conflicts with that fact. The issue of G4 and how it applies to category space and the fact that consensus can change needs a complete review to avoid these deletion reviews which may cause and foster bad blood. Also, there's currently a bot in trial which will notify wikiprojects of xfd debates on project tagged categories, see User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts. Hiding T 11:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hip Hop Is Dead Movement (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) 1 Del, 1 weak Del, 1 presumable Del by nom.

There was unanimous agreement that NOR applied, but the weak Del-discussant said in part

However, it looks like someone didn't just blatantly make up these quotes, and we might be able to find them with a search or something.

which is the closest the discussion came to addressing the core question,

can this topic become an acceptable article?

and no one acknowledged the mandatory role (before a Del finding in this case) of some research to evaluate whether the "quotes" offer hope for verifiable content.
Result should have been called with

No consensus in AfD sense bcz of low quality (viz. irrelevance) of arguments presented; restart discussion with instructions to address the deletability of the topic, not the removability of the current content.

-- Jerzy• t 19:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment you seem to have that the wrong way around. AFD determines deletion of current content, not topics. If the reasons for deletion can be substantially addressed the topic can be recreated without any issue (By which I mean new content addressing those reasons, not just merely an assertion that they can be addressed and recreating identical content). -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks, TF; i'm pretty sure that reflects a policy change in the last 4-5 years, but i haven't been looking for such changes in AfD, so you're presumably right.
    -- Jerzy• t 02:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC) & correct placement error, 02:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    
• All three opinions on that article stated that it was original research that was the problem with the article; with no dissenting views or arguments, that's a valid deletion. Endorse Tony Fox (arf!) 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Okay, if that had been closed as anything other than delete, it would've been so blatantly wrong. A unanimous delete opinion of the participants is pretty well always consensus. Besides, without someone actually providing sources for the quotes (which I'll admit I have not searched for) there's no reason to overturn. Searching for sources for it is suggested, but has never been mandatory. So, endorse the closure. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 00:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "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". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle ( talk) 09:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, it's not clear why this request was even made since the article was an unsourced essay about a one-man neologism with no dissenting opinions at AfD; create a new sourced version if you like but this fails policy. Guy ( Help!) 13:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion as per AfD and WP:NOR. Would this be suitable for wikiquote? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Pakistani cricket forum deleted as non-notable. Author then contacted me to question the deletion. Because this article went through the full AfD discussion process, rather than being simply speedied or prodded, the matter must be discussed here first. I have no vote either to keep deleted or undelete. Author's original comment:

Dear Sir,

Could you please let us know why our page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakpassion was deleted.

I see the discussion speaks of "Notability". Could you please suggest what type of evidence you seek for this?

Pakpassion is among the leading provider of Pakistani cricket news and Pakpassion articles and interviews are quoted by many major news agencies who have a page on wikipedia.

Thanks

Regards Wazeeri JIP | Talk 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn most recent G11 deletion. The spam issues could've been taken care of by removing some text instead of deleting the entire article. As for the notability issue, it seems like there are enough sources on the most recently deleted version to maybe make the general notability guideline, so I'd like to see another AfD for it. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ++ 17:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse This was deleted at an AFD in 2006 over sourcing and decent sourcing that discusses the site rather then quoting fans that use it has not been provided. There are clear COI issues and the article reads like spam to me. I have no objection to a userfied version being worked on and presented here for review but I can't really see the point of overturning a G11 speedy if the sourcing issues have not yet been sorted out. I'm willing to review if more detailed sources are provided Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "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". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle ( talk) 10:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the original deletion, unless proof that a proper article will be created instead of advertising spam. If the result of this discussion allows the article to be re-created, it must be eligible for another AfD in the future if it turns out to be unencyclopedic. Incidentally, the original deleting admin in 2006 is no longer active on Wikipedia. JRawle ( Talk) 14:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment G11 is a criterion without really workable demarcation lines, as compared to the others. I'm surprised more of the deletions under it are not brought here. I have no opinion on this one, except we should let them keep trying. DGG ( talk) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - spam, non-notable. -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. No evidence of notability as per WP:N or WP:WEB. It is unlikely that a forum would be a topic suitable for an encyclopedia. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

When I bump into mentions of prominent people in fringe areas (UFO's and aliens, in this particular case) out there on the interwebs, I usually pop over to WP for an overview. If I don't find one, sometimes I'll contribute one. In this case, there once was an article on him, but it's been deleted, which precludes contributing. Seems likely to me that he's notable enough to merit an article (>29,000 hits on Google, for example). Perhaps we could temporarily undelete it and get the article into keepable shape? Granted that much of what he has to say is, at best, questionable, but WP has plenty of solid policies that allow it to talk about questionable claims (and counter-claims) without appearing to endorse them. What sayeth the community? Waitak ( talk) 14:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Given the flippant nominator's rationale given at the AfD, and the A7 ("does not indicate why its subject is important or significant") speedy deletion reason I agree that this could be undeleted. If Waitak and others then aren't able to make a keepable article using the 29,000+ Google hits, then we can delete it again. Alternatively, copy to user space and await recreation when Waitak has improved it sufficiently there (drawback being that he would have to do that alone, as others might see fit to contribute if the article existed in main article space). __ meco ( talk) 15:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - There is some info at scholar.google.com. There is a mention in July 2004 Skeptical Inquirer magazine. Per the November 2004 Skeptical Inquirer article, Burisch real name is Dan Grain, so reliable source material might be found under that name as well. I don't know if undeleting the article will overcome the A7 deletion. How about get a draft article into keepable shape then undelete the article? -- Suntag ☼ 16:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Um... the article when it was deleted, was, to put it in a word, crap. There are no sources. It's a few sentences. That's it. If someone feels that it's recreatable and can meet guidelines, then please do put a draft together in userspace, and come back here for discussion. Endorse the A7 deletion way back when. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse original deletion - raw googlehits are not a meaningful metric. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I can't comment on the original article, obviously, because I've never seen it. What's policy? Is recreating it kosher? If the article as it stood was unworthy of WP (hey, it happens!) then it seems to me that starting from there is better than starting completely from scratch... If the article's that bad, maybe somebody wouldn't mind emailing it to me so that I'm not commenting in the dark...? Re: Google hits: I agree, but note that the reason I came here for this in the first place is that I've read about the guy in several other places, and wanted to see what WP had to say. Waitak ( talk) 18:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I'd be glad to do that but you don't have e-mail enabled. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• My apologies. It's enabled now. Waitak ( talk) 01:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Sent. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• If the editor wants to remake the article and it would be substantially different from the deleted versions, s/he can just do it. If you are sure that the sources you have in hand show notability then create a new article. If you aren't sure, then start with a userspace draft and ask for a second opinion once you think it might be ready. DRV isn't strictly necessary here but if it helps us help you write a good new article, ok. :) Protonk ( talk) 06:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Thanks, this is just what I was looking for. I'd be perfectly happy to make a new article, but I didn't know what policy is toward doing so. The only downside I can see of just creating a good article is that we'd lose the history, but that doesn't seem like it would be a great tragedy. Waitak ( talk) 15:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "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". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle ( talk) 10:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The directions under Temporary review say: "you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted". After reading through the other cases, that seemed like the most applicable. Waitak ( talk) 15:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Asking the deleting admin is not only faster, it's more courteous. Endorse deletion per Guy below, but allow recreation if sourced. Stifle ( talk) 10:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • My apologies for any appearance of discourtesy. It was certainly not intended. Finding out what's policy and getting it right first go is challenging sometimes. I'm grateful that WP:AGF applies to efforts like this, too. Waitak ( talk) 16:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, allow sourced re-creation. The orignal article was abject nonsense; once cleaned up it failed WP:CSD#A7 and would also now fail WP:BLP. It was three years ago, so let's WP:AGF and see what the requester can write. Guy ( Help!) 13:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation, with care. Clearly a notable subject. Be very careful to stick with reliable sources and WP:NPOV. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The AfD for this article started off with four delete votes when the article was in bad shape. After I improved it and voted keep, two keep votes followed that had better reasoning behind them than the delete votes. I confronted the admin who closed the AfD, but he does not want to un-delete the article, so I have no choice but to come here. [7] [8] The article should not have been deleted, as the subject meets notability guidelines, and the sourcing is adequate. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 04:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• History undelete please so we can review the deleted article. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 13:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

•  Done. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 16:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I could really go for an overturn and relist here. Nearly all the delete comments revolve around the lack of sources, which was fixed later. So we need to get a wider consensus on the new version. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 16:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The deletion focused on the lack of reliable sources, not the absence of any sources. AfD closer MBisanz subsequently wrote:

  "Even after you added sources, people still indicated that I'm not impressed with the accumulation of minor competitions and webzine coverage that's being used in this article., as that was the same viewpoint taken prior to the content changes you made, people still felt the sourcing was of too low a quality to keep the article."

  Seem like properly exercised discretion was used in the close. No restriction on recreating if close reasoning is overcome. -- Suntag ☼ 17:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • And I brought up that only ONE person said that, and his point of view went directly against the notability guidelines. [9] MBisanz has even told me that he is a "rampaging deletionist". [10] -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Erm, that link is over 9 months old, so I forgot to use a <sarcasm> tag all that time ago? MBisanz ^talk 19:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, consensus was validly interpreted at the AFD. Stifle ( talk) 10:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • At the very least, there was no consensus. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 15:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Looks like we disagree on that. Stifle ( talk) 10:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Bishop Brigante is a multi-talented hip hop musician and actor. Not only did he release a single on iTunes Canada, but he also made a significant appearance in the movie Narc. He acted in two hip hop-based TV series, Platinum and Drop the Beat. [11] He has Peruvian ancestry, and collaborates with local reggaeton artist Fito Blanko. Recently, he's been getting significant exposure on the popular website worldstarhiphop.com [12]. Lastly, he's releasing his debut album entitled The Poker Face soon, and his hip hop group, known as S.L.U.G., is also releasing a double CD very soon. He's definitely notable. [13] Blackjays1 ( talk) 18:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Proper AfD. Attempt a recreation in userspace before coming back here. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Could you explain why you think the AfD was so "proper"? -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 00:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • OK. I re-read your comments here and at AfD. The early run of "delete"s has a strong effect, but you say the article (referencing) changed substantially. Your comments were not answered substantially. The closing admin didn't address your points and was excessively brief. Overturn. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• With respect to BlackJays1 the deleted article does not contain any substantial independent reliable sources and by our usual measure of notability this bloke is not there yet for a wikipedia article and some of your comments suggest that SRYSTAL is an issue. The discussion has a clear outcome and two/three keeps after improvement does not mean a base close if the article still lacks decent sourcing. I'm not seeing any meaningful argument that the merits of the sourcing were not considered at the article or any thorough rebuttal of the lack of sourcing. As such I endorse the close but am very open to discuss further sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

This is for the deletion of "Kent Walls" He's hosting a show on Fox Sports. I just watched him today on FSN. Why is he not listed on Wikipedia? Fox College Sports to premier the 2008 FCS Tailgate Tour.

Completing DRV nom for Kai.robertson ( talk · contribs). Article has been deleted twice: once an expired prod and once as A7. Eluchil404 ( talk) 03:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• List at AfD - Amherst native covers tailgating side of college football has some bio info that can be used in the article. It might not be enough, but AfD can decide that. -- Suntag ☼ 13:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - it was a three-paragraph autobiography, and claimed he was on some sub-sub-sub-channel of Fox. Does that constitute notability in an era of 1000+ "networks"? -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• It might meet WP:A7 important or significant. -- Suntag ☼ 16:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn most recent deletion and list at AfD. Recreation of the article == contesting the PROD, so the next step is to take it to AfD. However, I do highly suggest the nominator have sources ready before the AfD starts, or it will probably be deleted again. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 16:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "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". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle ( talk) 10:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  WP procedure tends to confuse people. DGG ( talk) 01:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  • • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable request. Stifle ( talk) 21:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• List at AfD, as is appropriate for any resonably contested speedie. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply