Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 October 26
2011 October 28 >

27 October 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
new New World Order (politics) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I remember of a page on this topic about six months ago which I consulted after a talk discussing the notion of post-New World Order at a University in Taiwan. I have now found a mirror of the original article new New World Order (politics) . I am no expert but it seems very well put to me. Does this very aggregation constitues Original Research? Actually if the article had been published elsewhere we could not reproduce it per copyright infringement. I see only five people discussed the deletion of this entry and most where coming from the French discussion where the article was legitimitaly closed as the term has no notability or third-party coverage in the French language... I do not have the time to review the Frech discussion but as for the English article, I submit emotional snowballing has biased its discussion into an unfair assessment. GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 12:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse - Deletion Review is not for cases of "I disagree". If you want to request a copy of the article be placed in your user-space to attempt to work out the problems (though in my opinion the very nature of the article is inherently problematic with WP:SYNTH concerns raised at the AfD, and an article that tries to make hay out of an "Obama bowing controversy" is a non-starter), any admin can do that. There was nothing remotely wrong with closing an AfD as delete that ran 5-0. Tarc ( talk) 15:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I mean that: the article needs to be wikified rather than dismissed as a whole. I am ready to do that. Also, as a journalist, I had heard a lot and covered the "bowing controversy" although I did not know it had a name. It was quite famous as a discussion in East Asia. Here are a few references from the web at large and from the googles news archive with clear citations from Fox News, MSNBC and others. If this section must be deleted then, why not do it in the wikifying? Besides, although it is in the norm to give five people the right to deny an entry it is neither morally fair nor scientifically legitimate: truth is not democratic. GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 15:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Please ask the deleting admin to place the article in your userspace so that you can improve it in the WP:INCUBATOR. Dualus ( talk) 15:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • before I do that I need a wikibuddy to give her/his opinion on what is original and what is not. To me there is no OR in this article, and the ips voting in the French review have gone as far as saying the deletion was a cognitive bias of Lock-in namely one primer gives hs opinion with emotional intensifiers and others follow. I am not sure it is that, but I cannot see any original conclusion being made out of the synthesis: namely I cannot see anything being said in this article that has not been said by a third-party before, which means to me it passes the OR test. If you move it to my user page I'll do my best to improve it though GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 16:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • 'Restore, improve, and possibly have another AfD. DR can reverse for any reason that has consensus. Wikipedia is NOT BURO. That consensus may have changed, that there were factors overlooked in the discussion, and t=people judged without thinking it through, are all good reasons for reversal. Correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do so is a mistake in following Deletion process. A close that does not fairly evaluate the topic is an eror in everyone's judgement, and can be reversed. It's only equitable: if people can bring repeated AfDs of a keep decision they dislike, there has to be some equivalent way to challenge a delete decision. Whether this is true in the present case, however, is the question. It would appear to me from the recovered article that the phrase is sufficiently used to justify an article, and that the people at the AfD may have been overhasty in judging it OR. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • DGG, I see you are a librarian, would you help me objectively find out whatever this article has said that may not have been said by any third party source? After a thorough reading of the entry I see that the only possible OR may come from the first paragraph entitled "scholarly overview" in which the editor(s) have hastily asserted that the Obama discourse pursued the Brzezinski doctrine without sourcing this statement. There is also a parenthesis comment which could be suppressed. Apart from that, tha article totally passes the OR test to me: namely I fail to see any assertion made in this article that has not been fully made by third party sources, even in its synthesis. Cheers GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 08:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse (yes, if you spam Jimbo Wales, you catch his fleas as well, in a rather mixed metaphor). Original discussion was unanimous and correct (linking e.g. the Obama bow controversy with the new new world order is WP:OR or at best something that doesn't appear in reliable sources: [1] and the same search in News, News Archive, Scholar, and regular Google). Userfy and turn into a completely different article if you think you can make something good out of it: but don't put this into the mainspace. Fram ( talk) 11:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • well I'm happy to meet you Mr/Ms Flea. I don't consider it a spam but merely " being bold". As per the bowing section why don't we just cut it out of the article then? My argument is that no assertion claiming something that has not been written by a third party source has ever been singled out. This means the article passes OR. Cheers to you Mr. Flea -- GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 11:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
PS: I actually find it very rude of yours to call it a spam when it has a legitimate goal, is a short and clear edit and is even recommended by the user... but you are free to call a request a spam -- GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 11:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I just singled out a whole section, so claiming that "no assertion claiming something that has not been written by a third party source has ever been singled out" is a bit strange as a reply. I haven't checked whether the other sections are or contain OR, nor whether the whole article is OR synthesis: the people in the original AfD did this, and they were unanimous. You disputed their correctness (and indeed, unanimity doesn't mean correctness), but your claim to do so, "I fail to see any assertion made in this article that has not been fully made by third party sources, even in its synthesis." is clearly incorrect, so overturning an unanimous decision based on your incorrect reasons is not something I can support, and I have to endorse the original decision. Why don't you want to userfy and thoroughly rewrite the article? Fram ( talk) 11:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
      • P.S. Your canvassing belongs on Jimbo's user talk page, not on his user page. Fram ( talk) 11:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Ok calm down, relax and take a deep breathe. I wanted to do just that. But I want others' opinions before starting it. Your opinion leads me to think I should absolutely not for example. And I value it. And you may be right. And forgive me for the straightforward editing of the Master's page. Do you want me to delete the edit? GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 11:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
PS: what do you mean "canvassing" GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 11:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm quite calm, thank you. No idea where you got a different impression. When you invite a user to participate in a deletion discussion or DRV where they have no relation with, and when that invitation is not neutral but clearly biased towerds the opinion of the poster, then that is often considered canvassing (also known as internal spamming). Singling out Jimbo also gives the impression that you are looking for an argument from authority, even though he has no more authority in these discussions than other editors. Fram ( talk) 11:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • that was your opinion. Assume good faith. I meant no harm, nor was I looking for an argument of authority. Cheers -- GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 13:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
You meant no harm, but meanwhile you have posted [2] a similar biased request for involvement in the DRV to User:Mike Cline, self-declared inclusionist. Please read and follow WP:CANVASSING. Fram ( talk) 13:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
very few people presently active in Wikipedia are inclusionists on everything. Mike is a respected and even-handed administrator. Just as people who ask me to discussions are not necessarily please by my comments; I think this is also true about him. Unless you have solid information otherwise, you should in all fairness rephrase your comment here. I look forward to seeing his views; I have no idea what they will be, but perhaps they will clarify things here. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I have made no comment about or judgment on Mike Cline, but it is from the perspective of the canvasser perhaps not surprising that they invite a self-declared inclusionist to this DRV. That doesn't mean that the canvassing would have the desired result, canvassing often doesn't work, but that doesn't make it any better. Fram ( talk) 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
It would be much too humbling if the community declared me an inclusionist, so I did it myself to save on the embarrassment. By the tenor of the comment, one must assume such a label (self-declared or not) carries with it great power. Unfortunately such power eludes me at the moment. Fram, thanks for giving visibility to my views, us inclusionists need all the support we can muster.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 20:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Visibility <> support (nor necessarily the opposite). I personally loathe both labels, inclusionist and deletionist, as being divisive and usually not representative of the actual views of people (except some of the most extreme ones), but everyone is free to label themselves however they like. Fram ( talk) 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD was perfectly clear, not to say unanimous, and the reasons presented (OR, SYNTH, and the fact that searches did not suggest any established consistent use of the term) were in accordance with policy. It could not have been closed any other way, and the fact that only five people took part and a theory about "emotional snowballing" are not reasons to overturn its result. No objection to userfying, if GrandPhilliesFan thinks s/he can make something of it, though it seems to me a case of "If I wanted to go there (an acceptable article) I wouldn't start from here (this version)." JohnCD ( talk) 18:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse There was nothing wrong with the close, despite the fact that the debate was pitiful. But that deletion does not in any way have to be viewed as permanent. New, New World Order is factually a phrase that has and is appearing in international political discourse. However, global doctrines sometimes take years to mature into something tangible in the media and in academia, so on this the jury may still be out. I have no idea why GrandPhilliesFan reached out to me (probably my association with ARS), but all that did was bring accusations of WP:CANVASS with little or no mentoring explanation as to what that means. Shame on the community, here we have a new editor (< 200 edits) asking legitimate questions about WP:OR and WP:SYN in the context of a deleted article. Although DRV was probably the wrong place to ask, as those of us in the community that routinely participate in DRV (I don’t because it’s a broken process) should have immediately recognized the Newbi nature of the questions and behavior of this editor and begun mentoring that editor on their talk page about the best way to handle these kinds of questions. Clearly GrandPhilliesFan’s questions would have been better addressed at an OR noticeboard, but I doubt a new editor--GrandPhilliesFan for example-- even knows that board exists. I know I didn't when I had 200 edits. Instead GrandPhilliesFan got chastised for CANVASSING and curt recommendations to do something different, even when it’s evident the editor didn’t even understand what people were talking about. We have to start behaving better toward new editors. It’s not just civility, as there is nothing (so far) uncivil in this discussion so far. It is about recognizing that new editors are going to do things that are perfectly normal in collaborative environments outside the walls of WP. Inside those walls, we have many norms that are inconsistent with good collaborative behavior ( WP:CANVASS for one) that take a while to learn, understand and apply productively. We are Building an encyclopedia here. Our workforce are our volunteers, our editors, and if we don’t mentor the newbies with vigor and conviction, our building will suffer in the long term. I will discuss options with GrandPhilliesFan later.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 20:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I had no idea there was an OR noticeboard yes. And I may underline Ignore all rules I wanted to improve wikipedia in good faith, and I do not like being patronized or fustigated rather than plainly informed for my initiatives. Newbies (oh and by the way : Don't bite the newbies) are here to help wikipedia evolve. If you are merely dismissing this input of new blood with the back of your hand you become responsible for the overall damage inflicted on WP. WP is the "Free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" not "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit according to her rank in the WP hierarchy and given her navigation knowledge of the elaborate bureaucracy " or maybe I had the motto wrong when I registered? Thus may I userfy the page or not? -- GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 09:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Note that while I indicated the error of canvssing and the errors in his expressed views regarding the lack of OR in the article, I also indicated in that first reply here that he could have the article userfied. I don't mind explaining the positive possibilities to editors, but that doesn't mean that we have to ignore the errors they make. And canvassing is not "good collaborative behaviour" at all, quite the contrary. Fram ( talk) 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The debate was anemic, but the debate doesn't exactly need to be very lively when everyone agrees with each other. That alone is a pretty good reason to judge the outcome as consensus. Also, I have seen it done probably dozens upon dozens of times and invoking WP:IAR as an end-run around notability in an AfD or deletion review has a success rate of exactly zero percent. Trusilver 16:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_October_27&oldid=1089641408"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 October 26
2011 October 28 >

27 October 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
new New World Order (politics) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I remember of a page on this topic about six months ago which I consulted after a talk discussing the notion of post-New World Order at a University in Taiwan. I have now found a mirror of the original article new New World Order (politics) . I am no expert but it seems very well put to me. Does this very aggregation constitues Original Research? Actually if the article had been published elsewhere we could not reproduce it per copyright infringement. I see only five people discussed the deletion of this entry and most where coming from the French discussion where the article was legitimitaly closed as the term has no notability or third-party coverage in the French language... I do not have the time to review the Frech discussion but as for the English article, I submit emotional snowballing has biased its discussion into an unfair assessment. GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 12:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse - Deletion Review is not for cases of "I disagree". If you want to request a copy of the article be placed in your user-space to attempt to work out the problems (though in my opinion the very nature of the article is inherently problematic with WP:SYNTH concerns raised at the AfD, and an article that tries to make hay out of an "Obama bowing controversy" is a non-starter), any admin can do that. There was nothing remotely wrong with closing an AfD as delete that ran 5-0. Tarc ( talk) 15:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I mean that: the article needs to be wikified rather than dismissed as a whole. I am ready to do that. Also, as a journalist, I had heard a lot and covered the "bowing controversy" although I did not know it had a name. It was quite famous as a discussion in East Asia. Here are a few references from the web at large and from the googles news archive with clear citations from Fox News, MSNBC and others. If this section must be deleted then, why not do it in the wikifying? Besides, although it is in the norm to give five people the right to deny an entry it is neither morally fair nor scientifically legitimate: truth is not democratic. GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 15:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Please ask the deleting admin to place the article in your userspace so that you can improve it in the WP:INCUBATOR. Dualus ( talk) 15:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • before I do that I need a wikibuddy to give her/his opinion on what is original and what is not. To me there is no OR in this article, and the ips voting in the French review have gone as far as saying the deletion was a cognitive bias of Lock-in namely one primer gives hs opinion with emotional intensifiers and others follow. I am not sure it is that, but I cannot see any original conclusion being made out of the synthesis: namely I cannot see anything being said in this article that has not been said by a third-party before, which means to me it passes the OR test. If you move it to my user page I'll do my best to improve it though GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 16:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • 'Restore, improve, and possibly have another AfD. DR can reverse for any reason that has consensus. Wikipedia is NOT BURO. That consensus may have changed, that there were factors overlooked in the discussion, and t=people judged without thinking it through, are all good reasons for reversal. Correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do so is a mistake in following Deletion process. A close that does not fairly evaluate the topic is an eror in everyone's judgement, and can be reversed. It's only equitable: if people can bring repeated AfDs of a keep decision they dislike, there has to be some equivalent way to challenge a delete decision. Whether this is true in the present case, however, is the question. It would appear to me from the recovered article that the phrase is sufficiently used to justify an article, and that the people at the AfD may have been overhasty in judging it OR. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • DGG, I see you are a librarian, would you help me objectively find out whatever this article has said that may not have been said by any third party source? After a thorough reading of the entry I see that the only possible OR may come from the first paragraph entitled "scholarly overview" in which the editor(s) have hastily asserted that the Obama discourse pursued the Brzezinski doctrine without sourcing this statement. There is also a parenthesis comment which could be suppressed. Apart from that, tha article totally passes the OR test to me: namely I fail to see any assertion made in this article that has not been fully made by third party sources, even in its synthesis. Cheers GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 08:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse (yes, if you spam Jimbo Wales, you catch his fleas as well, in a rather mixed metaphor). Original discussion was unanimous and correct (linking e.g. the Obama bow controversy with the new new world order is WP:OR or at best something that doesn't appear in reliable sources: [1] and the same search in News, News Archive, Scholar, and regular Google). Userfy and turn into a completely different article if you think you can make something good out of it: but don't put this into the mainspace. Fram ( talk) 11:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • well I'm happy to meet you Mr/Ms Flea. I don't consider it a spam but merely " being bold". As per the bowing section why don't we just cut it out of the article then? My argument is that no assertion claiming something that has not been written by a third party source has ever been singled out. This means the article passes OR. Cheers to you Mr. Flea -- GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 11:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
PS: I actually find it very rude of yours to call it a spam when it has a legitimate goal, is a short and clear edit and is even recommended by the user... but you are free to call a request a spam -- GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 11:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I just singled out a whole section, so claiming that "no assertion claiming something that has not been written by a third party source has ever been singled out" is a bit strange as a reply. I haven't checked whether the other sections are or contain OR, nor whether the whole article is OR synthesis: the people in the original AfD did this, and they were unanimous. You disputed their correctness (and indeed, unanimity doesn't mean correctness), but your claim to do so, "I fail to see any assertion made in this article that has not been fully made by third party sources, even in its synthesis." is clearly incorrect, so overturning an unanimous decision based on your incorrect reasons is not something I can support, and I have to endorse the original decision. Why don't you want to userfy and thoroughly rewrite the article? Fram ( talk) 11:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
      • P.S. Your canvassing belongs on Jimbo's user talk page, not on his user page. Fram ( talk) 11:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Ok calm down, relax and take a deep breathe. I wanted to do just that. But I want others' opinions before starting it. Your opinion leads me to think I should absolutely not for example. And I value it. And you may be right. And forgive me for the straightforward editing of the Master's page. Do you want me to delete the edit? GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 11:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
PS: what do you mean "canvassing" GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 11:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm quite calm, thank you. No idea where you got a different impression. When you invite a user to participate in a deletion discussion or DRV where they have no relation with, and when that invitation is not neutral but clearly biased towerds the opinion of the poster, then that is often considered canvassing (also known as internal spamming). Singling out Jimbo also gives the impression that you are looking for an argument from authority, even though he has no more authority in these discussions than other editors. Fram ( talk) 11:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • that was your opinion. Assume good faith. I meant no harm, nor was I looking for an argument of authority. Cheers -- GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 13:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
You meant no harm, but meanwhile you have posted [2] a similar biased request for involvement in the DRV to User:Mike Cline, self-declared inclusionist. Please read and follow WP:CANVASSING. Fram ( talk) 13:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
very few people presently active in Wikipedia are inclusionists on everything. Mike is a respected and even-handed administrator. Just as people who ask me to discussions are not necessarily please by my comments; I think this is also true about him. Unless you have solid information otherwise, you should in all fairness rephrase your comment here. I look forward to seeing his views; I have no idea what they will be, but perhaps they will clarify things here. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I have made no comment about or judgment on Mike Cline, but it is from the perspective of the canvasser perhaps not surprising that they invite a self-declared inclusionist to this DRV. That doesn't mean that the canvassing would have the desired result, canvassing often doesn't work, but that doesn't make it any better. Fram ( talk) 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
It would be much too humbling if the community declared me an inclusionist, so I did it myself to save on the embarrassment. By the tenor of the comment, one must assume such a label (self-declared or not) carries with it great power. Unfortunately such power eludes me at the moment. Fram, thanks for giving visibility to my views, us inclusionists need all the support we can muster.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 20:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Visibility <> support (nor necessarily the opposite). I personally loathe both labels, inclusionist and deletionist, as being divisive and usually not representative of the actual views of people (except some of the most extreme ones), but everyone is free to label themselves however they like. Fram ( talk) 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD was perfectly clear, not to say unanimous, and the reasons presented (OR, SYNTH, and the fact that searches did not suggest any established consistent use of the term) were in accordance with policy. It could not have been closed any other way, and the fact that only five people took part and a theory about "emotional snowballing" are not reasons to overturn its result. No objection to userfying, if GrandPhilliesFan thinks s/he can make something of it, though it seems to me a case of "If I wanted to go there (an acceptable article) I wouldn't start from here (this version)." JohnCD ( talk) 18:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse There was nothing wrong with the close, despite the fact that the debate was pitiful. But that deletion does not in any way have to be viewed as permanent. New, New World Order is factually a phrase that has and is appearing in international political discourse. However, global doctrines sometimes take years to mature into something tangible in the media and in academia, so on this the jury may still be out. I have no idea why GrandPhilliesFan reached out to me (probably my association with ARS), but all that did was bring accusations of WP:CANVASS with little or no mentoring explanation as to what that means. Shame on the community, here we have a new editor (< 200 edits) asking legitimate questions about WP:OR and WP:SYN in the context of a deleted article. Although DRV was probably the wrong place to ask, as those of us in the community that routinely participate in DRV (I don’t because it’s a broken process) should have immediately recognized the Newbi nature of the questions and behavior of this editor and begun mentoring that editor on their talk page about the best way to handle these kinds of questions. Clearly GrandPhilliesFan’s questions would have been better addressed at an OR noticeboard, but I doubt a new editor--GrandPhilliesFan for example-- even knows that board exists. I know I didn't when I had 200 edits. Instead GrandPhilliesFan got chastised for CANVASSING and curt recommendations to do something different, even when it’s evident the editor didn’t even understand what people were talking about. We have to start behaving better toward new editors. It’s not just civility, as there is nothing (so far) uncivil in this discussion so far. It is about recognizing that new editors are going to do things that are perfectly normal in collaborative environments outside the walls of WP. Inside those walls, we have many norms that are inconsistent with good collaborative behavior ( WP:CANVASS for one) that take a while to learn, understand and apply productively. We are Building an encyclopedia here. Our workforce are our volunteers, our editors, and if we don’t mentor the newbies with vigor and conviction, our building will suffer in the long term. I will discuss options with GrandPhilliesFan later.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 20:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I had no idea there was an OR noticeboard yes. And I may underline Ignore all rules I wanted to improve wikipedia in good faith, and I do not like being patronized or fustigated rather than plainly informed for my initiatives. Newbies (oh and by the way : Don't bite the newbies) are here to help wikipedia evolve. If you are merely dismissing this input of new blood with the back of your hand you become responsible for the overall damage inflicted on WP. WP is the "Free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" not "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit according to her rank in the WP hierarchy and given her navigation knowledge of the elaborate bureaucracy " or maybe I had the motto wrong when I registered? Thus may I userfy the page or not? -- GrandPhilliesFan ( talk) 09:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Note that while I indicated the error of canvssing and the errors in his expressed views regarding the lack of OR in the article, I also indicated in that first reply here that he could have the article userfied. I don't mind explaining the positive possibilities to editors, but that doesn't mean that we have to ignore the errors they make. And canvassing is not "good collaborative behaviour" at all, quite the contrary. Fram ( talk) 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The debate was anemic, but the debate doesn't exactly need to be very lively when everyone agrees with each other. That alone is a pretty good reason to judge the outcome as consensus. Also, I have seen it done probably dozens upon dozens of times and invoking WP:IAR as an end-run around notability in an AfD or deletion review has a success rate of exactly zero percent. Trusilver 16:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_October_27&oldid=1089641408"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE