Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Three days isn't seven days of discussion. No consensus for a merge at all. Request restoration as no consensus and warnings to all the admins involved about AGF. Rickymonitor ( talk) 22:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Question Are you moving to overturn the AFD on purely procedural grounds, or do you assert that there has been a substantive change (either in the proposed content of the article, or in the consensus) which would permit the re-creation of the article? Ray ^Talk 22:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Per Ray, can you be clearer what you are asking DRV to do? Tim Song ( talk) 22:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, speedy close per this and nom's indef block. Tim Song ( talk) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Flotilla DeBarge ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• userfied version here

Discussion was pivoted on sourcing of article, and at the end it was split on what seems to me no consensus; admin closed as delete citing keep arguments as "remarkably unconvincing" even if some of them brought additional sources and further discussion of sources could have continued on article talk page. Pleasant talk with admin explained the rationale but I am still not convinced it was right; admin him/herself proposed to bring on delrev. Thanks. Cycl^opia - ^talk 21:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment from closing admin. To summarise, I considered the arguments in favour of deletion to be stronger than those for keeping. The deletion arguments cited lack of substance to justify independent notability in the reliable sources listed. The keeps focused on this sourcing, but failed to refute the lack of substantial coverage. The mention of a subject in reliable sources does not give an inherent claim to notability. Other arguments, such as "She is described as a legend!", and "Seriously she has been a featured drag queen in New York and that's arguably one of the toughest cities for the form", I considered personal opinion, and unhelpful to the discussion, so I weighed them much less. Hence my decision to close this as delete. PeterSymonds ( talk) 21:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I'm not seeing anything clearly erroneous in the close. Tim Song ( talk) 21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I don't see anything wrong with the close; the arguments were weighed well by the closing administrator, who explained his rationale quite well, I believe. NW ( Talk) 22:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I feel that Peter's analysis of the weight of the arguments entirely reasonable. Kevin ( talk) 22:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per closing admin's rationale above. I'm not seeing a problem with this at all (disclosure: I was the original nom). Note also that the deleting admin also userfied it to Benjiboi's userspace - Alison ^❤ 23:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• UnsureOverturn I think there needs to be some more serious consideration of the argument that being used as an example of what is intended to be recognizable background in a significant work of fiction might indicate notability, especially if the work can be shown by reviews to demonstrate expert familiarity with the field. What I'd hope for is for a review that notices her presence there. But we can argue this further when this information is integrated into the userified article at User:Benjiboi/Flotilla DeBarge I suggest this Del Rev should have waited till then and should be dismissed now without prejudice: it's a good idea to improve the article as far as possible before asking. Most of the references at present are about the trivial court event. There is sufficient information to merit a reconsideration. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC) changed DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per analysis of other endorsers. I disagree that this del rev should be closed. Cyclopia is wasting our time here, so I think a resounding "endorse" would be a far better outcome. ++ Lar: t/ c 03:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse A good close with well considered rationale. I also note Alison's appropriate detail relating to the userfication of the article. I believe Cyclopeia is well aware of that also - and that is more than enough for the content of this article for now.-- VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 08:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I am aware of the userfication of course but I didn't see userfication and delrev as mutually exclusive. I want to make it clear that I didn't delrev to push for keep. I personally think that the best outcome would have been no consensus and relisting, and if then it was delete, then delete. I was only puzzled by the outcome and I liked to hear more opinions. Now, most of guys posting here were into the AfD (keeping or deleting, doesn't matter) and as such I already know their stance, but I will be happy to hear some external opinion, no matter if disagreeing with mine. -- Cycl^opia - ^talk 11:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. When the closing admin finds the keep and delete sides roughly balanced, he is entitled to weight the arguments by how cogent and relevant they are and how well they import policy. I am convinced that he did so on this occasion. Stifle ( talk) 10:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• While I don't have a particular problem with the close, equally, I'm not exactly thrilled to see deletion discussions and/or canvassing for deletion discussions happening on the Wikipedia Review. Decisions about Wikipedia ought to be made here.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 10:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The decision is being made here (right now, in fact) - where discussion takes place is largely irrelevant and can't really be policed anyway - Alison ^❤ 10:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I realise that the WR embraces a wide variety of viewpoints, but there are a substantial number of people there who have insect-infested underwear about Wikipedia. There's also often a major sense of proportion deficit over there. I don't mind critical commentary (that's probably a good thing!) but I want to state my basic position that conversations on the WR shouldn't influence conclusions here. And that would apply to IRC, email groups etc. as well: decisions about Wikipedia should be made on Wikipedia, on the record, not on sites that someone else controls where text can be revised without the revisions being visible.

      In this particular case, though, I'm not arguing for "overturn" because I think the result was the correct one.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 11:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• overturn to nc I can't see the references of this deleted article, but the arguments about the sources not being on-line and thus not being acceptable should clearly be ignored. No analysis of why each source is unacceptable. [1], [2] are all more than enough and that's what I found in 1 minute of searching. Yes, this isn't AfD2, but if !votes are going to be discounted because of the lack of sources, the sources do matter. Hobit ( talk) 14:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Found the userfied version. Sources were more than enough for WP:N. Let's walk them:
    1. [3] covers him (xe?) and 3-4 paragraphs are spent on him and his works. Independent, reliable. +1 for WP:N.
    2. [4] Trivial reference.
    3. [5] A reliable source solely on the topic. +2 for WP:N.
    4. [6] In passing reference.
    5. [7] Significant coverage, but not clear this is reliable or independent.
    6. [8] NYPost is a rag, but a reliable one for our purposes. Significant coverage? Borderline.
    7. [9] In passing reference.
    8. [10] Article solely about the topic. Independent and reliable +3 WP:N.
    9. [11] About topic but Gawker. I know people argue about it being reliable, let's skip it.
    10. [12] One paragraph, but in RS. I'd say it counts, but again, let's be conservative and not do so.
    11. [13] blog.
    12. [14] not retrievable but cited in the Gawker article...
  • So we've got 3 things that easily meet WP:N (1,3,8) none of which are about the assault or the PETA thing. Plus 4 others (6, 7,9,10) that are borderline. Add in the canvasing by the nom (and yes, that's what it was, allowed or otherwise) and there is no way A) to discount those who claimed notability of the subject's !votes and B) to claim there was consensus to delete. Hobit ( talk) 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, the AfD closure was right. Wizardman 17:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to No Consensus. Regardless of my personal opinion of the subject (which is pretty darn low, and in my opinion not encyclopedic), I do not wish to see admins running with scissors on Wiki. Yes, the comment from closing admin above is well-put. Be that as it may, the fact that the AfD was a no consensus can easily be seen from an airplane. Although AfD is not a vote count, it was obvious that "keep" arguers had valid legitimate views, and they provided more of those that did the "delete" voters. So, we have quantity and quality. These were not simple usual "keep because good references" one liners. In these cases, if an admin assumes the power to decide that arguments that were less represented in quality and quantity are stronger it is not the right thing to do and is an example of an ever increasing trend of admins having the "allmighty" syndrome. Think about it, if this flies than an admin can easily close as "delete" any AfD that has 8 "keep" votes that are well reasoned and explained and 2 weakly reasoned "delete" votes by simply stating that in their opinion the "delete" arguments were stronger.... That is too much power and can not be tolerated. Oh, and please, this has no reflection on the actual closing admin here, I think they are just doing what they feel is correct and to the best of their ability. I simply feel we need to cut this type of circumstance at the root, it is against WP:No one person having too much power. Turqoise127 ( talk) 19:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  Ahem, admins are appointed to judge consensus at AfD. Weighing arguments and making a final call is why we were made admins in the first place. PeterSymonds ( talk) 22:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes Sir, right you are. However, who watches the watchers? This is why Del Rev exists (correct me if I am wrong), because no one editor is perfect and mistakes for whatever reasons could always happen... Turqoise127 ( talk) 22:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. I was a little surprised this wasn't a "no consensus" and the close seemed worded so adamantly, in part because I've heard about this ... drag queen for at least a decade. I've seen her in movies but never in person and I was convinced i could write a reasonable article about her. I asked to userfy as I wasn't looking for a battle but as we here I admit I thought the close erred. -- Banjeboi 00:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse good close. Sources will out. And reflected the discussion. Bali ultimate ( talk) 01:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, reasonable closure. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 01:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn -- I find the argument that 'delete' views were stronger than 'keep' views very unconvincing. One editor writes "Not notable. No real sources other than tabloid gossip." Another writes "Not sufficiently notable. I learned of this discussion at Wikipedia Review." How are contributions like these any stronger than "notability established by sources"? Even if one judges that there was a preponderance of good delete arguments (and I don't see even that here), that's not enough to find consensus to delete, which is what policy requires to delete an article. This one was very clearly "no consensus". Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 11:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, per the sources as presented by Hobit above and participants in the AFD. The participants in the AFD supporting deletion failed to explain why these sources, which ordinarily would satisfy general notability, don't in this case. ` Christopher Parham (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Close was good. Article has been userfied and can be put back into the mainspace once it's been rewritten to an acceptable quality that clearly establishes notability. Lara 19:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • In order to do so, someone needs to explain what is wrong with the current article. Frankly I don't have a clue what the problem is so I've no idea how to fix it. Does the current userfied version meet that requirement? Hobit ( talk) 03:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation using reliably sourced draft. I think given the arguments made during the discussion, delete was within administrative discretion but the new draft addresses with enough of the valid concerns that recreation should be permitted. The off-site canvassing does little for the integrity of the discussion. Guest9999 ( talk) 18:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, I thought that this was going to be kept, and can only conclude that the deleting admin was influenced by the thought of outside scrutiny from Wikipedia Review. The topic has reliable sources and is notable. Abductive ( reasoning) 16:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  Well, your assumption is wrong; I have never used, nor do I regularly read, Wikipedia Review. Please get your facts straight before making assumptions about my influences. PeterSymonds ( talk) 19:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  Since it was mentioned in the AfD, the closer should have anticipated this assumption. Abductive ( reasoning) 05:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

New editor Varks Spira ( talk · contribs) asking for review of previous WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletes. He'll have to give more precise details as to reasons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

History: Previously deleted (twice) at End Game (2007 film) as A7 and G11, userfied to User:Echofloripa/Endgame (2007 film). A7 is clearly no longer applicable, and the previous G11 editor has declined comment ( User talk:Tom harrison#End Game (2007 film) informal review). New G11 deleting admin has been notified here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I think A7 ("No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organisations, web content)") is no longer applicable because I added two sources that indicate the film's importance. One source described the film as "cinematic gold", while another considered it Alex Jones' best film yet (at the time). I admit that it may not be appropriate to have articles about every single documentary film Alex Jones has created, but given his increased popularity over the years, his latest films are probably getting fuller receptions and therefore there may be more to say in an article about one of his films. It may even be interesting to do an article about a grouping of his films if they were to fall under a banner, such as a trilogy or whatnot, as his forthcoming Fall of the Republic is only the first volume. Perhaps there isn't enough to write about these films and it really all belongs in his bio article? That's debatable. I've considered it and I'm not yet decided. All this to say, A7 may be applicable to some articles about Alex Jones' films, but I don't think so for Endgame, The Obama Deception, and the forthcoming Fall of the Republic.

As for G11 ("Unambiguous advertising or promotion."), I disagree vehemently with that. I don't consider the article to be promotion or advertising. I found glowing reviews and used them. I'd be equally interested in including negative reviews. Varks Spira ( talk) 18:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• A7 does not apply to films. If the google cache is accurate, I fail to see why this falls within G11. Awaiting comment from the deleting admin before !voting. Tim Song ( talk) 18:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn I think you're right about A7 as it says "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varks Spira ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I think the film was originally web-published, so A7 might have applied. It no longer applies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and list - Not a speedy candidate, but it might be restored to undergo an AfD. Austin Chronicle and The New Republic seem to be good sources, even if their main interest seems to be in the film's weirdness. From their comments I get the vibe 'colorful and possibly dangerous nonsense' rather than something of no interest. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list Upon reviewing the article again, I must agree with the above that this is not a blatant G11. Perhaps Afd or the Incubator would be more appropriate. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The incubator option seems like a good idea. How does one do that? Varks Spira ( talk) 21:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per my original comment. AfD or incubation at editorial discretion. Since the deleting admin has consented to restoration, can someone speedy close this? Tim Song ( talk) 21:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply