Eric West ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Is a notable personality, actor and model and even host ( http://www.eric-west.com/blog/?p=99 ) ( http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/2006/04/21/2006-04-21_gatecrasher__milian_myspaces.html ). I'm not sure why this has been deleted so many times.

1. He just shot 30 Rock (see latest issue of OK! magazine), Something Borrowed.
2. Has been on MTV's The City, The T.O. Show, Kell on Earth, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phLDni-FiYQ,
3. Did a national ad campaign for Jed Foundatin http://www.jedfoundation.org/get-involved/2010-gala
4. http://www.zimbio.com/Eric+West/articles/JstUT5PR-L_/Eric+West+Interview+Zang+Toi+New+York+Fashion
5. http://www.eric-west.com/blog/
6. http://www.wireimage.com/celebrities/eric-west
7. http://www.okmagazine.com/2010/09/stars-celebrate-oks-fifth-anniversary-at-big-apple-bash/eric-west-sept-14/
8. http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/thisday/may-18-2009-1003963325.story#/bbcom/thisday/may-18-2009-1003963325.story

—Preceding unsigned comment added by JFlash54 ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, given the poor history of the article and the fact that it's protected from re-creation, let's see a perfectly-sourced userspace draft first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Seriously, if this is the best you can do with sources then we won't be hosting an article. Give it some time and see what happens, if there is more press then do a draft and bring it here for review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment I wasn't writing an article. But he is obviously notable in film and television, which is why I don't understand why it has been deleted three times. He is entitled a stub. JFlash54 ( talk) 18:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I assume this person is the Eric West listed on IMDb at Eric West (II). But I can't say he is obviously notable in film yet. He is not listed as having had even one credited role in a film that has been released yet. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I would like the DRV to clarify exactly under which circumstances an administrative closure is appropiate. We have three people in the AfD agreeing that FL is irrelevant for deletion discussions, we have precedence in several cases, yet an admin closes the discussion which probably would have ended in delete had it ran. I think it's too beaureucratic for wiki's own good. Sandman888 ( talk) 18:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist. Being listed on FA/FL/etc. is not a bar to nominating for deletion; the article deserves to be considered on its merits. Stifle ( talk) 20:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment - The article has already been turned into a redirect, which itself is problematic since it is a featured list that is still being discussed at WP:FLRC. This is kinda turning into a mess. Two speedy closed AfD's, an ongoing discussion at WP:FLRC, a bold redirect of a featured list, a DRV, and a partridge in a pear tree. SnottyWong ^babble 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Please note that it was not me who turned it into a redirect. Sandman888 ( talk) 07:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• If one wants to get it deleted, I think it's more likely once it has been rejected as a FLC. And in general, there's no point in holding multiple simultaneous discussions that may come to contrary results. And as Snottywong said, trying to do the same thing simultaneously by editing, and by AfD is hoping that at least one of the multiple discussions will give the desired results. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment from closing admin My rationales for this close are listed in the two AfDs, as well as in my discussion with the appellant at his talk page. To summarize them here...

1. Featured content should not be XfDed except in exceptional cases. Once it's been defeatured, of course, it's fair game.

• • No that is simply not the case and I object strongly to this. Featured content can be XfDed just as well as any other content, we have multiple predents for this and not this "I dont like this process so I will close it". Sandman888 ( talk) 07:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

2. Two processes, one specific and one general, should not be used on the same content at the same time.

• • perhaps you have a point here, but i still strongly disagree with the above. Sandman888 ( talk) 07:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

3. AfD should not be a dependent process--that is, an FLRC (a specific process) should not be made contingent on an AfD (a general process).

As a point of order, the AfD closure that's going to be under review here is actually the first one, since the second one is essentially the result of the appellant simply restarting an AfD without a conversation with me or an appeal to DRV.

While the redirection appears to be standing for the moment, I really would like to see this gain larger community input. I also have previously agreed to reopen the second AfD should the FLRC be closed with a delisting. I would not object to a larger RfC on how to handle multiple processes at once, especially with respect to de-featuring and deletion attempts happening for the same material at the same time.

I want to commend the appellant for his conduct and civility. Even though we disagree on process, he has been making his points appropriately and politely... I just don't find them compelling. Jclemens ( talk) 01:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• • Yes its been very civil. Jclemens has also been very polite in the whole process though I strongly disagree with his closes. Sandman888 ( talk) 07:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment - Is there any policy or precedent which forbids the nomination of featured content for deletion? I'll agree that, in almost all cases, that is common sense. However, in this case, the nomination appears to be in good faith as it deals with content forking, not notability. Also, I'm not sure that the discussion at WP:FLRC is necessarily in conflict with an AfD on the same article. The FLRC discussion is only limited to deciding whether the article gets delisted, whereas the AfD would decide whether it is kept, deleted, or redirected. SnottyWong ^confabulate 17:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

The fundamental problem I have with an AfD and an FLRC running at the same time is that it raises the possibility of two decisions: one to delete it and one that it continues to represent Wikipedia's best work. That's inconsistent, and the imprecise nature of AfD would be the contributing factor in such an outcome--lots of people knee-jerk vote one way or the other, and whether a deletionist or inclusionist whim carries the day on a particular article is much more random and capricious than the outcome of a more narrowly construed and precise process like an FxRC. Jclemens ( talk) 21:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist. I don't think there is any policy or guideline that indicates a featured list should not be nominated for deletion, so I believe the close was in error. Also, I see no reason why an AFD and a FLRC cannot run at the same time, as a FLRC is mainly about the quality of a list, while an AFD is about its suitability in the encyclopedia. Furthermore, if it is undesireable for an AFD and FLRC to run at the same time, I would think the AFD should occur first, as if the AFD results in the list being deleted there would be no need for a FLRC, while if a FLRC results in the list being delisted there might still be need of an AFD (i.e. there is no need to create extra work by forcing the FLRC to be completed first). Also, it is my impression that AFD gets more participation than FLRC (though maybe I am mistaken about that), which would probably make AFD a more suitable venue than FLRC for deciding if a featured list should be removed from the encyclopdia. Calathan ( talk) 20:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Whether the article should be on Wikipedia at all is more important than deciding its quality. There is no bar on featured pages being nominated. It is always going to be rare for such a page to be deleted anyhow. If anything should be closed, it should be the FLRC. Aiken ( talk) 21:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I agree with Aiken, Calathan and Sandman888. If featured content is considered to fail inclusion standards, it makes sense to run an AfD and hold the (time consuming and backlogged) featured content assessment until the AfD is concluded, not the other way around.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 22:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• OMG We're really having this discussion? First of all, I don't believe merge discussions belong at AfD--the right place for that is traditionally the talk page. On that basis alone I'd be happy to see that closed. Yes, we sometimes merge things at AfD, but that's as an alternative to deletion. We really don't want all merge discussions coming to AfD. Secondly there doesn't seem to be a good reason to have both a delist discussion and an AfD going at the same time. One could, but what's the rush? I'm okay with either going forward first, though I'd prefer the delisting discussion happen first for reasons Jclemens mentioned. So keep closed because nominations for merging should always be closed at AfD as being the wrong venue. Hobit ( talk) 02:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Do not endorse. I don't agree with the quick renomination (I didn't find any discussion preceding it) or either of the "Administrative closure"s. WT:Articles for deletion discussion from September–October 2009 ( 1, 2, 3, 4) failed to form a consensus for requiring that Good and Featured content be delisted before nomination at AfD. Reopening/relisting may not be productive, as Sandman888's merging circumvented his own nomination and made deletion more difficult technically. The argument could be made that WP:Speedy keep #1 now applies. I don't agree in this instance, as AfD could enforce the current state of redirect, but this narrow interpretation of AfD's scope has wide acceptance. Flatscan ( talk) 04:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Relist If there is no consensus that featured content cannot be listed for deletion then there was no policy bases for these closes so the discussions should have been allowed to run through as normal. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse own close for the reasons I outlined above, just in case someone is only checking bolded comments. Jclemens ( talk) 04:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply