Tim_DeChristopher ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Please restore this page. There is a prima facie case that the subject of this page is notable. The subject is being compared to folk heroes and civil rights activists such as Thoreau and Parks in local, national, and international media. Celebrities such as Robert Redford and Peter Yarrow have made public statements about his morals and actions. And DeChristopher himself has made speeches both in and out of the courts that are notable by their own right. Res ipsa loquitur

Unfortunately, I am unable to properly notify the deleting admin MBisanz as his talk page has been locked to editing by non-established users. User1000000000 ( talk) 17:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Pro forma endorse. The AFD was nearly three years ago, and turned on WP:ONEEVENT. If that's changed in the intervening years, or if subsequent coverage has made that inapplicable, just write an expanded article. I'm not thrilled with the unexplained close, (but note that one keep was added well after closing), nor with the flimsy "compared-to" rationale from the nominator here, but there's little point in having a discussion here rather than doing it after an updated or new article text is ready to be discussed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• There's no point reviewing a two-and-a-half-year-old deletion when so many of the sources are more recent. I'd say you could just create a fresh page.— S Marshall T/ C 21:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Userfy, or Undelete and allow for it to be improved with the sourceds given above. The new sources demonstrate ongoing coverage that probably beats WP:ONEEVENT. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Note The page has been recreated -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 16:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Former pupils of Scottish and Welsh schools ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The decision to rename did not reflect the discussion and no reason for the decision was given. I would also question the adjudicator's independence on the matter as he had been in conversation on his talk page with a supporter of the proposal about similar renames.

Since the discussion, my correspondence with the adjudicator has been as follows:

The reason the move was done was simply the consensus in the disucssion. In addition, that consensus reflected the consensus of recent related discussions. Yes, there where some editors who where opposed to this for various reasons, mostly the choice of 'people educated' rather then 'former pupils'. Those objections simply did not outweigh the overwhelming consensus in this or the other discussions. I did not make and extra comments on the close since the consensus was clear in the discussion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 17:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Is 6 (including the nominator) overwhelming when there are 3 objectors? Is it not meant to be about the strength of argument? The only previous discussion relevant to these catgories was this discussion which was no consensus. There were other discussions relating to other countries, but the discussion for Canadian schools indicates that local terminology should be used. Cjc13 ( talk) 18:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

There is also an ongoing discussion relating to these matters at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#RFC for naming of by school student related categories. Cjc13 ( talk) 11:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Support rename - consensus on such renames has been clear in cfds for some time. As has been stated many times, since the 1990s UK state secondary schools have been moving away from the use of 'pupil' in favour of 'student' (but not, I am told, in the independent sector), and so neither 'pupil' nor 'student' will do. 'People educated at' is neutral, clear and unambiguous. Occuli ( talk) 09:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• This was answered in the discussion. No evidence was provided for this point of view. Cjc13 ( talk) 10:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment There is a significant problem with "People Educated" not raised in the discussion. Educated can be used as an adjective, [1] so "People educated at Foo school" suggests that there are also uneducated people ("People uneducated") at Foo school. Clearly this is not the intention of the categories. Thus "People educated" is too ambiguous to use in the names of the categories. Cjc13 ( talk) 10:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• The only person to perceive this ludicrous 'problem' in many discussions so far is User:Cjc13. Evidence for student vs pupil has been provided ad nauseam, only to be met with endless quibblings; here is another piece of evidence (I too have taught and done TP in 7 or 8 UK state secondary schools since 1998 and these days in state schools they are called 'students', not 'pupils'). Occuli ( talk) 13:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close. I assume that this discussion is the one being reviewed? (One from 2011 Feb 10 is linked to from the "XfD" link above.) If so, this appears to me to be a relatively uncontroversial close that reflects the consensus reached during the discussion. Of course, not everyone always agrees, but this is not a reason to not implement consensus. Disclosure: I supported the rename in the discussion as a reasonable compromise. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support, as the original nominator. Though I suppose that would be expected. Anyway, the close definitely reflected the view that these two parent categories have almost all subcategories being "People educated at (X)." There are other discussions going on now, and perhaps a different direction will emerge for those. Regardless, I doubt there are many people who want both "Former pupils" and "People educated at" in the same category.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 23:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply