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

The entry for writer Greg Prato was deleted because a Wiki person said Greg only wrote 2 self-published book and does not require a page. I feel this is entirely false, as Greg is a long-time writer for Allmusic, Rolling Stone.com, Billboard.com, Classic Rock Magazine, Record Collector Magazine, etc. As I explained earlier, if you do an internet search for 'Greg Prato,' many of his articles, reviews, and interviews come up, which means he is an established/recognizeable writer (he is also listed as one of the main writers for the Allmusic Wiki entry). Additionally, Greg has a book coming out on April 1st via ECW Press (which is not self-published). Also, Greg has penned liner notes for several DVD releases by rock groups.

• Restore Wow. Not close to A7. Chubbles ( talk) 21:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment. As the deleting admin, I didn't think this was close to something that would pass a full AfD — two self-published books, a forthcoming small-press book, and some unspecified web and magazine articles didn't seem like a clear claim of notability to me. But I wavered on this one and I won't be offended if it's restored. Of course, in that case, I think it should be taken to an AfD. In the meantime, I've restored the article so that participants here can see it. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• I agree with Chubbles that it has enough claims of notability to pass A7. I agree with David, however, that it would not pass an AfD. David: do you have any objections to this DRV being closed now as overturning the A7, followed by an AfD? seresin (  ¡? )  22:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • No, that would be fine with me. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

A Rocket to the Moon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

I deleted this page myself as a nn band. I tagged it with A7 but what I should have done was tag is as a recreation as the article had gone through an AFD. It was pointed out on my talk page that "Hi, I saw A Rocket to the Moon was A7'ed. This shouldn't have happened, as the group is signed to Fueled by Ramen [1] and has hit the Billboard charts. [2]" I don't know if this is enough to undelete the article, so I bring it here for your wise considerations Theresa Knott | token threats 21:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Restore as initial instigator...The group's not at this point a legitimate A7 target and the charting meets WP:MUSIC, which should invalidate a G4. Chubbles ( talk) 21:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• In the version of the article you speedied, there was a lot of "will be performing" and "will be releasing an album", but no current claims to fame, apart from charting on Top heatseakers, which wikipedia tells me is a sort of leg-up chart for artists who've never reached the real national sales chart yet. Keep deleted. -- fvw * 21:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It serves as a sort of "new artist" chart, for groups which have never made the top 100 of the Billboard 200. It's not therefore illegitimate, any more than, say, something like the Top Blues Albums chart (some artists who debut at or near the top of the Blues Albums charts don't even make the Billboard 200). It's certainly an indicator of widespread popularity that's not anywhere near A7 territory. I'm not opposed to the prior article having a rewrite; the Allmusic entry I listed above is a good source; here's an in depth interview which notes their nationwide tour with Cute Is What We Aim For, Automatic Loveletter, and Secondhand Serenade; they've also been announced for the AP tour with Hit the Lights, Family Force 5, and The Maine, another nationwide tour. [3] The main problem with this article isn't the notability of the band, but rather seems to be that the article itself was crappy. Chubbles ( talk) 22:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• The version Theresa deleted was less-sourced and had fewer indications of notability than the version that was deleted by the December AfD. Therefore, the article did not negate the reasons for previous deletion, so could have been deleted under G4. Dig magazine is a student magazine, I'm not entirely sure they qualify as an RS. The Alternative Press article isn't significant coverage; it's just a listing of concert dates. The Allmusic biography could grant notability; I'm not entirely sure what their criteria are for just writing a biography, however. Allmusic also has not reviewed their album ( Your Best Idea, which should be deleted or redirected to the artist article depending on how this DRV is closed), which could be telling. I am minded to agree with fvw about the notability-granting status of that chart. However, given the sources provided here that Chubbles believes grant notability, and that AfD-goers might agree with him, I suggest that the article be recreated with those sources. A CSD/PROD/AfD after that would not be precluded, and this DRV would have no bearing on any eventual deletion consideration. seresin (  ¡? )  22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion of that article, as it met G4 if not A7. As ever, no bar on creating a new article that overcomes the problems with the old one. Stifle ( talk) 10:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Overturn per the following reasons:

• Serious concerns about WP:ATHLETE

a) Guideline doesn’t specify that the teams have to be affiliated with FIFA.

1. The Tibet National Team is the highest soccer organization for Tibet.

2. The players have competed in international matches, including two with FIFA affiliated teams, 1.

• Concerns about WP:BIAS and lack of sources to establish notability.

a) Data provided by the own Chinese government shows that in 2002 the number of registered dial-up Internet users in Tibet was only 4,000, 1

b) Restrictions on journalists, 1, and Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China.

c) Lack of participation: Wikipedia is blocked in some countries due to government censorship, and editing through open proxies, the most common method of circumventing such censorship, is prohibited by Wikipedia policy.

• Concerns about multiple articles in one AfD without discussing individual merits of each subject.-- J.Mundo ( talk) 19:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Articles also nominated for deletion:

Tenzin Tsering (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenzin Tsering)

Passang Phuntsok (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tenzin Namgyal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lobsang Wangyal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tsering Wangchuk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gonpo Dorjee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dawa Tsering (footballer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kunchok Dorjee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dorjee Tsering (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ngawang Tenzin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nyima Gyalpo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tenzin Dhargyal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tsering Chonjor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dorjee Wangchuk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Karma Yeshi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tseten Namgyal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lobsang Norbu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sonam Rinchen (footballer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tenzin Tshepel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Endorse closure - there is a consensus to keep clear in the AfD, the arguments to keep had mroe to do with politics and less to do with policies. The key here is verifiability; that any of these players have even played in a game for the Tibet national team can not be proven. The sources presented cover the Tibet national football team, not the individual players. Stack nomination was the only viable option in this case, there were 19 article which were substantially the same, with none even playing for a professional club side, which would have allowed them to meet the very inclusive WP:ATHLETE. Your own figures indicate that it would be almost impossible to verify any of the (little) information presented within the articles, we can't keep 20 players who may or may not have played for Tibet as well as an amateur club side. The sources provided above do not even cover the players.– Toon ^(talk) 21:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• 'Closing Admin endorsing closure: I will respond to the points raised below:
  • Serious concerns about WP:ATHLETE

None of the players deleted in this AFD reached the standards required at WP:ATHLETE.

• • Concerns about WP:BIAS and lack of sources to establish notability.

A lack of sources to establish notability means that we don't have articles about said subject. You can't throw WP:N in the bin just because you can't find sources. By that reasoning, I could invoke teapot reasoning - I can write an article about any subject, and simply claim that 'systemic bias' means that no reliable sources exist.

In addition, the team you talk about is not based in Tibet, but is instead based in India. There is nothing stopping any other newspapers from writing about the team, and therefore the team itself is indeed notable. But no-one is writing about the players themselves, and in any case, the team have never played at a fully professional level, so the point is moot. They still don't meet WP:ATHLETE.

• • Concerns about multiple articles in one AfD without discussing individual merits of each subject.

An important concern! But there was only one subject being discussed here: whether or not players of the Tibetan football team are notable according to WP:ATHLETE or WP:BIO, or indeed WP:N. The answer is no, they are not. Some players were kept, because they were indeed notable. Most, however, were not. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 22:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion It doesn't matter what WP:ATHLETE does or does not refer to. None of the players have any evidence to prove they have played at any level. We can't have articles on players who "might have played but I'm not sure because I can't find any proof." Secondly none of the articles had any independent, non-trivial sources so they fail WP:N. Peanut4 ( talk) 23:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per Peanut4. – Pee Jay 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Arguments for keeping all seemed to be based on the notability of the team for which these people may have played, rather than for the players as individuals. Deletion arguments were based on the players not passing WP:N or WP:BIO with significant coverage in reliable sources, or WP:ATHLETE by playing in a fully professional league or at the highest level (i.e. the Olympics or recognised international matches) of the amateur level of their sport, and even failing WP:V with no confirmation that any individual had actually played rather than just being in the squad. Policy- and guideline-based consensus was clearly for deletion. Phil Bridger ( talk) 01:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. No procedural error has been made, and the closing statement makes sense in light of our policies and guidelines.  Sandstein  06:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This campaign to keep these players smacks of soapboxing Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - the claimed notability of these players rests solely on their having represented Tibet. Ignoring all the other questions about whether or not playing for Tibet counts as "proper" international football, the fact remains that nobody has been able to provide evidence that any of these players have actually ever taken to the field in a match representing Tibet. It appears they were called up to a squad/training camp, sure, but that is in no way the same thing, they may have been cut/dropped out of the squad for any number of reasons. Surely even the most inclusionist editor wouldn't claim that "having been named to the squad at some point" is sufficient for an article..... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Didn't we go through this last week? Sceptre ^{( talk)} 08:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Yawn, here we go again. The decision to close this debate was the correct one as it was demonstrated that all of these players failed WP:ATHLETE (they haven't played at a fully professional level), WP:BIO (very little in the way of published sources about any of them, and believe me I did look), WP:N (none of these players has achieved anything of note) and WP:V (the sources supplied do not confirm that they have ever played at international level, just that they were selected for the squad - this is not good enough to confer notability). Further, the claim that there is very little internet access in Tibet is meaningless as all of these players are based in either Nepal or India, both of which have full internet access. If the sources don't exist to establish the notability of the players, the Chinese government's strict censorship laws can't be used as an excuse to skip around established Wikipedia guidelines - we can't have one rule for Tibetans and another rule for everyone else. Also, I notice the source provided at the top of this DRV claiming that all of these players have played against 2 FIFA nations is false - the story is about France wouldn't allow Tibet to play on their soil, and how they are playing a friendly tournament against other non-affiliated teams in Hamburg. Bettia  (rawr!) 09:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and consider speedy closure. DRV is not AFD round 2 and the consensus is clear. Stifle ( talk) 10:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, Consensus based on policy appears to have been established in AfD. Further, no procedural error on part of closing Admin. Usrnme h8er ( talk) 13:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion no procedural error was made in closing the AfD. Consensus to delete was well established. Jogurney ( talk) 14:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• You know what, close this dam thing. So many policies and guideline that common sense has been lost. I truly believe in "process bias", Wikipedia is not the free encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia of the ones that have access to it. I hope someday a kid in Tibet, Napal or India will have access to a computer and be able to write an article about his favorite football player from his national team just like our WP:FOOTY members. -- J.Mundo ( talk) 15:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Please don't be so dramatic. This article already exists (even though it's a very rough stub). Maybe the emphasis should be on finding the sources first, then writing the article. Jogurney ( talk) 15:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Please, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Everyone has a right to their opinion. -- J.Mundo ( talk) 15:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Fyi, that was a comment about the content of your post - sorry if it wasn't clear. Jogurney ( talk) 17:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• I still find it credible that the players are notable, as players of any national team normally are. I wont repeat my other keep arguments already stated at the first AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamding Tsering. However, I took the effort to call the manager of the Tibetan National Football Association Mr. Kalsang Dhondup in India this morning (European time). He had not received my e-mail of last week, also posted at the first AfD. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he was unaware of the existence of Wikipedia. He was very kind however, and listened patiently to my hopelesly complex requests of notability, verifiability, etc wikispeak. In his opinion the team is known by about 90% of the exile Tibetan community and he would say by about 50% of Tibetans in Tibet (criteria appears to access to radio). I have now retransmitted my e-mail to him. Perhaps he could lead me to verifiable sources. For his convenience, I offered that he just e-mail it to me, and I then relay it to Wikipedia. It's probably a long shot however, and I doubt if it would ever satisfy the desire of the crowd above. I'm tempted to share J.Mundos desillusion on this matter. Power.corrupts ( talk) 15:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure We have been through this all before and there is only one clear outcome. Power.corrupts: I see you have the heart to try and established notability. But alas it's about multiple articles, each player has an article with limited to no information. Which clearly fails multiple WP's This can easily be fitted into the main Tibet team article. That is the article which should be developed before all others. You should concentrate your time on that rather than trying to keep failed articles. Govvy ( talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The significance of principles sometimes guide my waste of time, more than the significance of the articles themselves. And a sprinkle of equal opportunity, to taste. ;.) -- Power.corrupts ( talk) 09:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

no reason given for deletion, and never given a proper review. Articles should not be deleted indiscrimately SPNic ( talk) 04:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note:This isn't the actual title of the original article, but I couldn't type the right character. 75.105.224.214 ( talk) 04:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• The article in question seems to be -eşti which was deleted as an expired prod with the reason Copied to Wiktionary on 12-06-2008 though that reason was not copied to the deletion log as is reccomended. Eluchil404 ( talk) 06:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Do we need to discuss this any further? Material has been transwikied and is in the correct place. Deletion of the material here is generally automatic. The actual information hasn't been deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Well, at least I know the reason now. I guess we can close this discussion. Thanks. SPNic ( talk) 14:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Contest_Proposed_Deletion Mmxbell ( talk) 01:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The speedy deletion tag was posted when I had only posted one paragraph, it was not finished. Since then, I have added plenty of information to fit Wikipedia's guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability_(music). Namely: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries..." You will see I included articles from national press, including The New York Times, URB magazine, Remix magazine, The Boston Globe, and more. It should definitely be safe from speedy deletion at this point. Can an administrator please remove the notice?

List of terms of endearment (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) ( AfD2)

There were two comments that supported keeping outright; the first did not refute the argument that it's an unmaintainable list, and has remained (for a year, since the last AfD) an unverified dumping-ground for any term a person wants to add. The second ("useful, encyclopaedic list") had no basis in policy at all. While merging may have been an option, the article did not need to be retained to do so, as those who supported merging only recommended merging "common" ones, for which the article history is not needed. Merging uncited material is also not a good thing. So I request that the AfD be overturned as an outright delete, or redirected back to the parent article, so that cited terms may be merged when editors can find the time to do so. seresin (  ¡? )  00:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Overturn to delete (without prejudice). Hard votes are as follows: 7 delete, 2 keep, 1 merge heavily reduced, 1 improve or delete. That tally alone would show consensus to delete. As seresin noted, the two "keep" votes were very weak, while the "delete" votes shared common policy-related characteristics; that the article was indiscriminate, unmaintainable, nonnotable, and just doesn't fit a niche in the encyclopedia. Both "keep" votes amounted to WP:ITSUSEFUL. Both of the fence-sitters (DGG and ChildofMidnight) acknowledged that no list would be better than the current list. Several mentions were also made about moving the information back into the parent article and rewriting the list from scratch, but those can be done after deletion. Themfromspace ( talk) 08:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Two of the deletes you count are not deletes. One is a delete or improve, which is not a delete, the other is a rework in user space to improve and reintroduce, which is not a delete. Ottava Rima ( talk) 18:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to Delete. I'm simply not seeing any other consensus there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• This was a reasonable close, because almost no one at the AFD provided a reason to delete that was based on actual policy. (Contrary to what Themfromspace suggests, being "unmaintainable", whatever that means, is not a violation of policy. The list is moreover not "indiscriminate"--the criterion of inclusion in the list is, of course, being a verifiable term of endearment. And being "nonnotable" does not apply to lists at all.) Michig was the only AFDer who alluded to actual relevant policy-- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary--and even pointed out that Wiktionary already has a category of terms of endearment. But you can't delete with a consensus of one. Juliancolton's close should be sustained, and I suggest that future discussions to redirect or delete this list focus on whether it violates WP:WINAD. 160.39.213.152 ( talk) 15:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete, which was a pretty clear consensus. Stifle ( talk) 15:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. No clear consensus to delete. Nothing to suggest that the deletion process has not been followed by closing administrator. -- J.Mundo ( talk) 17:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- I don't see much of a consensus to delete there personally. Umbralcorax ( talk) 17:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - A reasonable closure, though I might have personally gone towards delete. Juliancolton's argument that that there was no consensus to delete is certainly a valid one though. Many of the editors that participated in this AfD suggested that the list should be reworked, and closing it just allows for that in the future. The above IP (is he really an IP) also notes quite well that the only real argument for deletion came from Michig. If anyone wants to start a new AfD based on Michig's rationale, I would not mind. The closing admin made a judgment call that the arguments for deletion were not enough to delete, and that seems valid when one looks at the large number of calls for improving rather than deleting. NuclearWarfare _{( Talk)} 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. There was a consensus to delete and I disagree with the notion that the deletes should be discounted as not being per policy. WP:IINFO, WP:V, and WP:N are perfectly reasonable rationales to delete. Oren0 ( talk) 21:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • True, but those policies didn't apply here. 160.39.213.152 ( talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. Consensus or not, policy here is pretty clear - we avoid indiscriminate lists where we can. One keep vote was useful, encyclopaedic list, which is perhaps the worst argument for keeping something I've ever seen. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 01:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • What is the policy that says to avoid indiscriminate lists? And why is this list indiscriminate? 160.39.213.152 ( talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
    • WP:IINFO seresin (  ¡? )  04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Where does WP:IINFO say that indiscriminate lists should be avoided? (And you didn't answer the second question.) 160.39.213.152 ( talk) 22:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - DRV is not a second attempt where one can hope for a less well advertised AFD. The discussion is enormously confused and no one can reasonably say there's any consensus in it. Wily D 03:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete: no consensus? Are you kidding me? Sceptre ^{( talk)} 03:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete: The list fails basic criteria for verifiability. Also, the inclusion criteria are not well defined and I see no way for that to change. Unmaintainability has been a common valid reason for deletion. (Entries that are either common knowledge or verifiable were originally broken off from the main article, so merging them back would not require the edit history of the list). _ Mgm| ^(talk) 12:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

  DRV is not a deletion take 2. Its a determination if the previous deletion process worked or not. Your argument that the original page is unverifiable does not match what DRV is for. Furthermore, lack of verifiability does not justify deleting a page to begin with. Otherwise, we wouldn't have stub articles. Ottava Rima ( talk) 18:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

  Lack of verifiability absolutely is a reason for deletion. seresin (  ¡? )  04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

  I remember someone trying to suggest that very thing before in regards to removing all stubs. That argument did not last too long. Lack of current verifiability does not mean that it can never be verifiable. Since there are "terms of endearment", as it is a real concept, then a page on it is blatant. Ottava Rima ( talk) 04:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Mgm, can you help me understand what it means for a Wikipedia article to be "unmaintainable" (there is after all an "edit" button at the top of every page)? 160.39.213.152 ( talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete - there may be some confusion in the AfD, but I see a consensus on the policy arguments, and as for keep because it's a useful list... we can't say 'no consensus' because of Keep votes based mainly on 'isn't that pretty' types of argument. dougweller ( talk) 17:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• No Consensus to Delete - There were five supports for deletion, 3 comments (one saying it was awesome, one listing redundancy and possibly transwiki, the last saying that the "deletes" aren't based on actual deletion principles), DGG asking for improvement or deletion, one merge, one move to user space and improve, and one flat out keep. There doesn't seem to be a clear opinion anywhich way, and the point about the content of the deletions is a strong argument to ignore many of the deletion concerns. A page that isn't currently being worked on or needs future improvement is not a justification to delete. Otherwise, there would be many, many pages being deleted right now. Ottava Rima ( talk) 18:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - per Ottava. Widespread confusion limited it to no consensus. VX! ^~~~ 18:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete, there was a fair consensus here. When even DGG is saying it's a delete candidate if it's not improved, one tends to listen. If it's kept, an absolute minimum would be to remove all the OR (i.e. most of the article) and possibly merge back into parent article. Black Kite 19:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• With all due respect, "When even DGG is saying it's a delete candidate if it's not improved, one tends to listen" is not a valid reason to overturn an AfD closure. From what I can tell, the general consensus so far is that the editors in favor of keeping or merging failed to provide sufficient arguments, but as far as I can tell, the editors supporting deletion were not any better. The arguments for deletion were basically "not needed", "made up", and "it should be deleted", with no evidence to support those claims. Regards, – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Yes, but AfD isn't a vote, and it's useful to evaluate what respected editors are saying here. Also, I don't see a single policy-based Keep vote (bar possibly Exit2DOS' and even they suggested deleting 90% of the article), whereas a few good policy reasons were provided for deletion, mainly based on WP:V (or via WP:LC) - which is completely fair, because the majority of the article clearly is completely unsourced, unverifiable and/or original research. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this was a particularly bad closure - all I'm saying is that I believe that there was more consensus than you did, and I would've closed it as delete. Black Kite 20:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• If a portion of an article (even most of it) is unverifiable then that is a reason to remove the unverifiable content. It is not by itself a valid argument for deletion. 160.39.213.152 ( talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• "Yes, but AfD isn't a vote" Which is why there was no consensus. The only deletes were treating it like a vote, did not have legitimate reasons, and the opinions that were legitimate said that the page should be improved without having a valid reason for deletion. Poor quality is not a deletion criteria. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Don't be ridiculous. Only the deletes had any comments that were backed by policy. seresin (  ¡? )  04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Deletion is not based on deletes vs keeps, but based on surveying each suggestion. Suggestions to move, improve, merge, and the rest, are reasons to keep and alter an article, and do not result in a delete. There was no consensus, and since the first resulted in an overwhelming keep, there is no justification to then delete. Ottava Rima ( talk) 04:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Relist Note that I "voted" earlier as well - This DRV doesn't look like it will come to a consensus anytime soon. Why not just start fresh? NuclearWarfare _{( Talk)} 04:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Personally I think given the opinions here, a relisting at AFD (by which I mean the closer of this DRV should create a new AFD not just relist the old one) seems to be the most sensible option. Given the different opinions here, along with some strong opinions that the closure was incorrect, relist to let the community discuss the article again. Davewild ( talk) 19:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply