Artivist Film Festival & Awards (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

I rolled over a non-admin closure of this debate. By the numbers, there was in fact only the nominator who supported deletion, while six other editors disagreed. My thoughts on the matter are neatly summarised in the close, however another editor has (quite cordially) asked for a review. That discussion is here. I'd prefer not to pre-cook opinons by saying anything more. Over to the peanut gallery! brenneman 14:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I've not actually deleted the article, the request for review came before I did so, I've placed {{ tempundelete}} instead.

• With reluctance which I will explain I endorse the amended closure as delete. Closure means we have to assess the discussion rather than look at the tally of !votes, and we must also form an opinion on the article itself. The problem is that this topic ought to be notable. The article asserted limited notability, but from awkward sources. Googling for reliable sources shows none at first glance, so it is unlikely that the article can be rescued yet. But this is bizarre, because it is a notable festival (intuitively). It's just that intuition is no good here. I definitely support re-creation with good sourcing, but I have to support the technical rationale for deletion. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 14:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I have to disagree. I think putting intuition over the technical rule is fine, and even required. That's why Wikipedia doesn't have laws, and one of its rules is to ignore all rules. We're supposed to do what's best for the encyclopedia, whether or not it happens to strictly agree with policy. Policies are reflective, rather than prescriptive. Or at least, they're supposed to be. Equazcion •✗/ C • 14:50, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • From WP:POLICY: "adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia". Equazcion •✗/ C • 14:55, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand your position. I view this one as borderline, unfortunately I see it as on the delete side of the border. As the article stands at present, relisting it for further consensus (for example) would not be useful, unless at least one, ideally more, substantial sources can be found. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 15:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I just want to call attention to the discussion here, where I explain my reasoning fully. Rather than copying them here, I hope everyone takes a look there and considers my arguments before !voting -- cause those basically constitute my uh... nominatory rationale. Equazcion •✗/ C • 15:05, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)
• Restore As the non-admin closer, I clearly read all arguments, did some additional searches through some newspaper databases and easily found valid commentary, found other WP articles referring to this festival, and determined that it was either a keep (or as an absolute minimum no consensus therefore keep). Relisting made little sense, as there was certainly no consensus to delete at the time. Arguably, the article needs work - but we have a million more that do too. I will stand clearly by both my non-admin closure, and by my recommendation to restore this article to Wikipedia. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 15:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  Let me add: I was not involved in the article or AfD in any way - I am a 100% neutral party, and indeed, I've never even reviewed a movie as a journalist, let alone not really caring about film festivals as a whole. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 16:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Restore Firstly nobody other than the nominator thought it should have been deleted, in that circumstance I think only a very clear policy violation could justify overturning those opinions. In this case the reason for the closure is notability which is a guideline (not a policy) which are meant to be treated with "common sense and the occasional exception". Given the clear views of those who took part in the AFD they clearly felt this was the time for that exception. What the admin could have done was overturn the non-admin closure and then relist the AFD with a clear opinion that they considered that it should be deleted due to failing WP:N and see what other opinions come forward. Now I have done a bit of searching and come up with this article from the Los Angeles Times, this article, this article, this article, none of which are press releases and there seemed to be more available. I certainly think they are sufficient to establish notability so even if you agree that the closure as delete was correct I think this is new information that should overturn that decision. Davewild ( talk) 16:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I was the editor who nominated the article. I've gone through the AfD and I still think this is not near anywhere of being properly sourced. There are only two reliable sources mentioned in the AfD, and they're two very short Variety articles ( [1], [2]). I stick with my opinion that these aren't sufficient for establishing notability. WP:NOTE cleary states we should look for "significant coverage", and articles with barely more than 100 words don't fall in that category, in my opinion. Regarding the sources mentioned above: The Valley Star is a student newspaper and Worldchanging.com doesn't exactly seem like the pinnacle of journalism. I don't know if there's anything more in the LATimes article, but it says it's in the "calendar" section so I'm not sure if it's anything more than being listed as an event. The Epoch Times source seems to be what we're looking for, but it's still only one source, and one from 2005. If this film festival was truly notable, wouldn't you expect coverage to increase instead of decrease? -- Peephole ( talk) 17:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment The new sources are laudable. They should be added to the article if the deletion is overturned or a new version if endorsed and re-created. We do need to be very clear that we are discussing the closure of the AfD here, not re-running the AfD. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 19:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Ah, apologies, I'm not that familiar with DRV. I'll strike out my rehashing of the AfD. About this DRV, all I can say is that I'm glad an admin took the time to go through the arguments, instead of simply counting the "votes". Which I see all too often and isn't how the deletion process is supposed to work.-- Peephole ( talk) 19:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I think I might take some offence to that ... as explained above, I did not count votes, I weighed the arguments, and looked for additional sources. There certainly was nothing "non-ambiguous" about it when looked at the through the neutral eyes of a longtime (albeit non-admin) editor. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 14:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Comment Oh no, no. I wasn't talking about you in this case, just some admins in general.-- Peephole ( talk) 16:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The simple fact is, the debate was all hot air and did not address the fact that the nominator clearly had checked the purported sources and found them wanting. If anyone wants to have an article on this all they need to do is provide reliable independent sources - as the deletion debate showed, all they have produced so far is reprinted press releases and PR puff. Better sources may well exist, but wihtout them it is absolutely correct to call this as delete, since the keep !votes simply did not address that, relying instead on WP:BIGNUMBER, invective and arm-waving. Guy ( Help!) 19:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and keep. When nobody other than the nominator supports keeping deleting an article, there's no way that it can be called a consensus to delete. Stifle ( talk) 20:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  Stifle, i think you meant "supports deleting", above. DGG ( talk) 21:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  Right. Fixed. Thanks. Stifle ( talk) 09:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Isn't consensus supposed to be reached on the basis of arguments rather than numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peephole ( talk • contribs)
    • Arguments and people agreeing with those arguments, yeah. That's what the word "consensus" means. If decisions were to be made by one person choosing the option they think is best, it would be called something else. Judgment, perhaps. No offense intended to the closing admin. Equazcion •✗/ C • 22:52, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to non-consensus I did not participate in the original discussion, and looking at the article now, I think it's borderline. The article does not seem clear about the actual dates when the festival is held, but is appears that the most recent one was from Oct to Dec 2008/. There seem to be no media references to that provided here yet, only to earlier years. There does in fact appear to be no consensus about how to deal with this article, and that seems like the most reasonable close; perhaps there will be clearer sourcing in a month or two. I agree there is no point in relisting it now. I agree that this was not the sort of unambiguous discussion that a non-admin should have closed. DGG ( talk) 21:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  With all due respect DGG (and I do mean that) based on the quality of the arguments, the overall discussion, and the additional reading I did, I believe the response was truly unambiguous or else I would not have closed. I contemplated "no consensus", but IMHO, consensus had become in favour of keep. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 11:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Restore - Why delete? the page is neutral and informative. Chendy ( talk) 22:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This point is for a deletion discussion. This is a review of whether the discussion was closed properly, not a discussion about the deletion of the article. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus — I trust in the non-admin closer's ability to find non-web sources (to avoid FUTON bias) to improve the article—something that wasn't readily discussed in the AFD (instead, we get the "blowing of hot air" as mentioned above, which, in turn and IMO, partially invalidated the reasons to keep). However, there was also no consensus to delete as the nom and admin who originally overturned to delete had argued. MuZemike 01:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion closure per DGG. I don't think that quality of the arguments is such to support completely ignoring the perponderance of keep votes. Eluchil404 ( talk) 01:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to "no consensus". Nobody but the nominator was arguing for deletion. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 06:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion and restotre article. I had been working on it and poof.... it disappears. A film festival with apparent and growing notability is to be cherished on wiki.. not tossed out like old trash due to a single opinion as to "quality" of the current offering. That's what the AfD discussion was doing... talking about how it could be improved, not dumped. And if it ain't returned, Userfy the sucker to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Artivist Film Festival & Awards and I'll bring it back in a few days all shiney and new. Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The article hasn't actually been deleted yet, just blanked and protected. I've userfied it for you from the history. Equazcion •✗/ C • 07:36, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks. If its deletion is upheld, I will then only ask that one of us gets the histories. If deletion is overturned, then we can both shiney it up. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• So, can we have the article back, please! -- Roberth Edberg ( talk) 07:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Patience laddybuck, it took St. Christopher Patrick more than a day to rid the Emerald Isle of snakes. Equazcion •✗/ C • 07:47, 10 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    • It was St. Patrick, actually. Stifle ( talk) 09:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Eh, just knew it was a saint. Heard it on Family Guy once. :) Correction made. Equazcion •✗/ C • 09:22, 10 Feb 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep or relist. Clear consensous. Arguments may not have directly addressed deletion reason, but given the weight of the voices on this at the least it should have been relisted or kept rather than deleted. Hobit ( talk) 18:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Very, very reluctantly endorse. I would have voted to keep if I had been in the discussion, since I've been able to find some articles that are significant and clearly not reprinted press releases, but as the article stood, the sourcing wasn't reliable. Almost all of the top hits in Google News were from Marketwire one way or another, so I might have closed it the same way myself (except that it pushes a couple of my buttons, which made me look harder).-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I just want to point out that these "reluctant endorses" really bother mean. They say to me "I think this article should be kept but hey what can we do, rules are rules". The problem with that manner of thinking, on Wikipedia, seems obvious, at least to me. Equazcion •✗/ C • 17:28, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)
• Relist. Endorses are correct that these sources aren't sufficient (and others should note that Google News includes press releases that do not qualify as independent sources per WP:RS); however, this close is outside of our norms and the situation is not clear-cut enough for WP:IAR to apply. If it is relisted, the closer of this debate should make clear that opinion here tilted strongly toward sources being insufficient. Chick Bowen 01:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment So, we're going on 7 days now... Just saying. Equazcion •✗/ C • 08:29, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
• Relist But endorse overturning of nac. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The article was correctly deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Castillion. However, Bodul has just made his professional debut for AFC Ajax, which means he meets WP:ATHLETE. For that reason, I request that this article be undeleted. Aecis·(away) ^talk 13:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Restore Reason for deletion in the original AFD is no longer applicable. Here is another source showing that he has now played for Ajax. Davewild ( talk) 13:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• My belief in the import of process is only slightly weaker than that of Obuibo Mbstpo, but even I can't imagine that anyone should object to your undeleting straightaway here. 68.248.238.194 ( talk) 19:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Permit recreation. There was precious little in the old article though. Stifle ( talk) 20:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Closing admin If there is new data that shows notability (I think there is), then it should be created. MBisanz ^talk 21:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The deletion debate from May 2007 was closed without seeming to take into account the rather strong evidence produced by User:Jpatokal late in the debate. I just came across this, and I think the proper course of action would have been to relist for further comment, since Jpatokal's points remained unopposed, and consensus wouldn't have been established then. I've posted on the closing admin's talk page, but he is currently away from Wikipedia Paul_012 ^{( talk)} 09:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• The text of the article was:

  nan is a Thai pop musician.

  nan achieved instant stardom in Thailand with her infectious hit "Hula Hoop" in the summer of 2003. Promptly translated into English, the song had moderate success elsewhere in Southeast Asia as well.

• Jpatokal and Wisekwai were the only substantial contributors. Might I suggest that if you can find some references that verify the claims of notability raised, you recreate the article starting from the above? Stifle ( talk) 10:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• I agree with the above. This was essentially deleted as a non-article, a new, properly sourced version should be acceptable. Guy ( Help!) 19:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Hmm. This is probably beyond me. If others agree that there's a Snowball's chance to improve the article then I'll be happy to withdraw the request. -- Paul_012 ^{( talk)} 08:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I think we can close this with the understanding that recreation of a proper, sourced article is permitted. Stifle ( talk) 09:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. An earlier version also mentioned the artist's supposed real name, but other than that, there was no significant content that could get lost if it was properly recreated with references. - Mgm| ^(talk) 09:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:North_Cyprus ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache))

• Support recreation: Proofs:
• 1: All NC's official public organizations adopted new change. For example, The Ministry of Tourism of NC prepared a web site that used "northcyprus" in the address ( http://www.northcyprus.cc). Also, the private organizations are obliged to use the new form of name and hence web sites addresses of the privates were changed accordingly. For example: http://www.northcyprus.com , http://www.northcyprus.org etc. Also, almost all private companies completed the name change: For example: The Shipping firm Fergun: http://www.fergun.net Here, in this site, just look at the title page of the web site.

• 2: There is a quick adoptation of the new name: when you just google ( http://www.google.com.tr) the "North Cyprus" and "Northern Cyprus", the following hit numbers occur: "North Cyprus": 1 450 000 and "Northern Cyprus": 815 000. But, don't forget to use quotation marks (" ") when googling since only in the quotationed case, the reality is seen very neatly.

• 3: Dear Friends. You have very rightful for confusing, since one foreigner can easily confuse this. The usage is like that: Long Form: "The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" and the Short Form: "North Cyprus". You regard the word "Northern" in the long form as a proof of "Northern Cyprus" everywhere. That's false: http://www.kktcb.eu/index.php is the Official Page of Presidency of North Cyprus. Just look at the menu above there: The links are: President & Presidency & Press Office & Documents & Contact & NORTH CYPRUS. The legal name change is clear in the menu.

• 4: Answer to The Objection "non-US laws are not binding on Wikipedia": CIA Factbook and Freedom House Reports of USA also uses "North Cyprus". Answer to The Objection "Similar to Myanmar/ Burma": There are different countries that adopt Burma, and some others that adopt Myanmar. In the Case of NC, there are no synonyms of NC like that and EU documents also refer to the state as "North Cyprus" as well. Answer to The Objection "smell sock": The sockpuppetry is completely irrelevant of the issue discussed here. Follower of light ( talk) 17:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • If you feel that the Category:Northern Cyprus should be renamed, you've come to the wrong place. If you want a page to be renamed, you should go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. You can read how to request renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Procedure. Aecis·(away) ^talk 17:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply