Edward P. Felt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD| AfD 2)

The page for Flight 93 passenger Edward P. Felt [1] was recently deleted [2]. The nominator claimed that it violated WP:ONEEVENT. However, when I nominated Flight 93 terrorist Ahmed al-Nami for deletion for the same reason, the page was kept [3]. Any cursory internet search shows much more information about Edward P. Felt than about the terrorist. In fact, I could not find a single reliable source where the terrorist was the primary subject. Edward P. Felt, on the other hand, is the primary subject of many entries. Both these individuals are known for the same event, but the more notable one had his page deleted. This is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Therefore, the page for Edward P. Felt should be restored. Steve8675309 ( talk) 23:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment Before someone goes and yells "OMG WP:OTHERCRAP", the nom here does make a good point. It would likely make for an interesting discussion to review what was different, if anything, between those two AfDs. -- Ned Scott 04:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • comment That's a question more for a sociologist than for DRV. JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I think it would help us when considering similar AfDs in the future. This deletion review, after all. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• suggestion Maybe some of this content should be merged with United Airlines Flight 93? JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment, I am neutral on the DRV, but I think if it is endorsed, there should be a redirect to United Airlines Flight 93 here. I have boldly done so (with a DRV tag explaining it) -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 06:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • while bold, it has removed the cached version from Google so we can no longer review it. Nfitz ( talk) 04:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Oh, fiddlesticks. Sorry. Well, the history should probably be restored anyways if the redirect goes in place, if that's the result. Can it be done? -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 03:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• comment The victims are less notable for encyclopedic purposes than the hijackers. One group were incidental to the event, the other caused it. I have no objection to the redirect. DGG ( talk) 19:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Both AfDs were close, but there is no apparent procedural problem. I imagine that a good article could be written despite WP:BLP1E on the basis of good independent secondary sources covering the subject. Things appear in goodle. I'd guess that there are books covering all of the victims. Create the article in userspace. Restore the history and talk page, but maintain as a redirect. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Keep in mind that there were 40 victims and only 4 highjackers. In the entire incident there were 3,000 murders, over 6,000 injuries, and only 19 highjackers. It's not unreasonable to see that there perhaps should be articles for those who perpetrated this. Also in cases of murder, it's customary to have an article for the murderer, but not the victim. Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) (which isn't finalised) suggests that there should not be an article for the victim, unless they were otherwise notable, and that there shouldn't be an article for the Perpetrator, unless they are otherwise notable, they killed a famous figure, or the motivation or "execution of the crime is unusual". And the execution of this crime was indeed most unusual. Though I don't see any reason the 4, or even 19, highjackers wouldn't have a single article. Nfitz ( talk) 04:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Also note WP:NOT#PAPER. We can have 3000 pages for the victims, as long as there is different source-based encylopedic content (whatever that means) in each article. We could also easily have 3000 redirects. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. Al nami’s page was kept in spite of the facts that Felt is more notable and more is known about Felt’s actions during the incident both of them are known for. If wiki wants to claim it’s neutral, Felt’s page should be restored. Steve8675309 ( talk) 12:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Normally there are not pages for victims of crime for which this is their only claim to fame. Nfitz ( talk) 23:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse One event notability as a crime victim has been established by long-standing consensus as inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Westboro Baptist Church (Ottawa) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

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

I'll just repost what I said on the deletor's talk page: I don't see how you can consider that church (which incidentally predates three provinces and two territories) as not notable. The article notes the role it had in the development of Westboro village and bringing in and supporting the Ottawa Baptist community, it has a larger congregation than the eponymous US church and its name has brought it much infamous attention. It and All Saint's Anglican are the two big main churches in the area and it's also has the only Montessori programme in the immediate area. I always planed to add more info (and noticed the deletion because I was going to) but I thought it already had enough info to allay any notability concerns. Moreover, churches with less history, less importance and less information remain here on the Wiki, but this one was deleted? You should have put in a notability tag on the article or contacted me with any concerns or at the very least put it up for a deletion vote, especially considering your unfamiliarity on the topic, instead of unilaterally deciding it didn't have importance and speedy deleting it. Regardless, it is an important church today and had an important impact on the development of Ottawa, please restore the article.

What I find really questionable is the capricious and spurious nature of the speedy deletion especially considering the nescience of the deletor in regards to the topic, the confusing explanation of "Doesn't indicate importance or significance" despite the historical section demonstrating its significance in the early development of the Ottawa region and the complete lack of anyone else having had issue with the content or quality of the article. And given his unfamiliarity on the topic, why didn't the deletor first attempt to either put a tag or post on the article's talk page or send me a note to inform me of his notability concerns or at the most, nominate it for deletion? D'Iberville ( talk) 22:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• There really wasn't anything there that asserted imporance much, I'd have to agree, but I still will argue to overturn because I'm loath to give A7 ground over churches. I'd much rather see an AfD for this, though I do believe it isn't likely it'll be kept. Cheers. lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 23:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• The faux outrage here is irritating. I made perfectly clear that I was happy to reverse my deletion if a reliable source demonstrating importance could be presented. To take this as some sort of tyranny on my part and to go storming to DRV instead of the far simpler act of showing me a source makes me deeply unamused. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 23:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • So you're just going to create a straw man with some ad hominems of "faux outrage" and "storming down here", "saying you have a tyrannical behaviour" and attempt to avoid the principal point that your deletion was overzealous and in error; you didn't attempt to warn someone or post on the page that you questioned the notability, you didn't even nominate it for deletion— you didn't do anything to allow me or anyone else to attempt to improve the article and allay any concerns, you just flat out deleted it. This is the problem I have and since I believe you were wrong in your original deletion, rather than attempt to appease you to restore the article, we should make it clear that you were wrong since it will not only restore this article but you'll probably think twice before speedy deleting other articles without prior warning or discussion.-- D'Iberville ( talk) 00:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • No, I'm going to say "Look, you can get this undeleted easily and without drama. Please, by all means, do so." And yet instead of taking this easy out we're here. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Again, you completely avoid the point. You shouldn't have unilaterally deleted it in the first place. If you had bothered to write a quick note "this article needs more X or it'll be deleted" or "I'm nominating for deletion because of Y", I or someone else could have listened to those concerns, attempt to mollify them and either succeed leading to a better article or failed leading to a community consensus of removal. But I am not going to attempt provide any incentive to convince you to reverse your action since that original action was wrong from the get go.-- D'Iberville ( talk) 02:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
        • It had no assertion of notability, and was a valid speedy target. I'm happy to reverse the speedy if you provide even a modicum of a reason for me to do so, and find your pontificating to be convincing evidence that you don't have a case. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 02:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
          • I would have to question why, if it indeed had "no assertion of notability", why as I noted previously, other articles about churches with even less history and less information found within Wikipedia remain whole. To reiterate yet again, you were wrong in deleting it as evidenced by the fact that if only a "modicum of reason" was needed for it not to be deleted then implicitly the speedy deletion of the article was a dubious decision and it remains inexplicable why you simply did not ask for any modica before acting. As I already noted at the start, I discovered the deletion due to my wanting to add additional information to the article but I will not validate your erroneous action by providing you any reason to reverse your mistake which might give the perception that you were originally correct in deleting it and moreover, no one should be required to provide a reason to undelete something that shouldn't have been speedy deleted in the first place.-- D'Iberville ( talk) 03:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
            • They exist because nobody has gotten around to deleting them. Their existence is not evidence that they are in compliance with our rules. It is merely evidence that nobody has deleted them. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 03:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
              • Deja vu. If only you'd listen to me and find some reliable sources to support your claim. <Editor comes back with a source.> Phil: That's not a reliable source -- Allowing it is more than my job's worth. <Editor finds information supporting the reliability of the source.> Phil: Well, it might be reliable, but it isn't reliable enough.
                I've seen the Lucy and the football routine before from this admin. My dim view of that technique continues unabated. -- SSB ohio 03:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. After looking over the deleted article, the filer's complaints and assertions don't seem to hold. The article did nothing to explain the church's role in the development of Westboro village nor did it illustrate the church's role in Ottawa's Baptist community. There is no indication that the name has brought the church any sort of "infamous attention", except by self-reference to an archived old version of the church's website explaining the lack of affiliation. That information was also presented with commentary unsupported by the source. The "commentary" was also grossly inaccurate (characterizing the position as more progressive than the general Baptist community, while it is firmly in the center-conservative portion of the mainstream Baptist spectrum). The rationale provided for overturning the deletion by the nom misrepresents the article content and additionally relies on long discounted rationales (such as " other less noteworthy articles exist" and "it's important"). I'm also concerned by the first overturn comment, as there's no substantive reason to treat churches differently from other topics in relation to inclusion. Vassyana ( talk) 03:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Wikipedia editors collectively are a bit divided on what a church is. Some think that it is a building, and thus we get all sorts of articles about the buildings that ignore the people who use(d) it. Under this interpretation, such an article is not eligible for A7 speedy deletion. Others think it is a congregation of believers, and we get articles on congregations that barely mention or don't mention the building. I'm in the second group, and since a congregation of believers is a group of people, I consider churches eligible for A7. In this case, I'd looked at this specific article last month when sorting all articles in Category:Unassessed-Class Christianity articles and decided it was a reasonable stub. Absent some evidence that independent and reliable sources have written about the church, it won't survive an AFD, so why should we list it there in the absence of such evidence. If you live in the same locality as the church, the local historical society would be a good place to look that many editors might not consider - though in a national capitol even that might not be very fruitful. GRBerry 03:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Well that's the thing, I wanted to add some more information (including incidentally a line about the building itself) which should reduce a bit some notability concerns (and there is a book in the Ottawa Room of the Central Ottawa Library that has substantive information about it but it can't be taken out of that room and honestly I have a big list of other priorities I have to do before spending an afternoon reading it). Again, my beef is not with whether or not the article should be deleted, it has to do with the manner in which it was deleted. I, nor anyone else, was given the opportunity to try and fix the article as we weren't even told there were problems with the article. And a quick comment to Vassyana's comment. If you check the webpage right now, you'll see a large message stating that they aren't affiliated with Phelps and the article, from what I remember notes this so it isn't just "an archived old version of the church's website". It is a big problem for them since people still keep thinking they're somehow a Canadian chapter. Also, if the article stated that the Church was "slightly more progressive than mainstream Baptism" and in actuality it's "mainstream Baptism", I would not consider the whole of the commentary to be "grossly inaccurate". Ideally, I'd like the chance to improve the article and if nothing else, this whole conversation will help me to do so, but not I, nor anyone else was were told that there was a problem or even given the chance to improve it.-- D'Iberville ( talk) 03:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• As GRBerry has well explained, there are different interpretations on how to deal with church articles, and depending on interpretation, this article may or may not have been a valid speedy deletion. However, looking at the deleted article, two things are clear: (1) There was no indication of why the subject is important or significant (2) without such an indication, sourced to reliable sources, it is exceedingly unlikely that this article would survive an AfD discussion. If D'Iberville or some other editor is confident that they can establish notability, I'd be willing to undelete the article for them to do so, but without some reference being provided, it just seems like it would be a waste of time. -- Stormie ( talk) 03:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Definitely endorse deletion now that Tikiwont has found that an article on this church was deleted after an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citywide Church. -- Stormie ( talk) 05:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy-deletion. I concur with the assessments above. There was nothing in the deleted content which asserted the notability of this church. (The sole comment that included the phrase "well-known" referred to the Topeka church. Notability is not inherited. One does not gain independent notability merely by being named the same as a notable person or organization.) On the question of whether WP:CORP (and by extension, CSD A7) apply to churches, I think in this case it is clear. There is no assertion in the article or in this nomination that the church is at all notable for its architecture or for any of the other factors that sometimes distinguish churches from other organizations. (Neither did the picture of the church show any distinctive architecture.) Unless someone can come up with independently sourced evidence why this church is special, it should be subject to Westfield's generally accepted inclusion criteria as an organization. Rossami (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• From the logs, one can see a deleted redirect as a previous article was moved to Citywide Church and then deleted per AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citywide Church as it seems that the church itself was briefly named Citywide Church and then named back. So whether or not the latest version asserts enough importance to avoid a speedy deletion per A7, it would certainly fall short of providing grounds to overturn previous consensus, so endorse. -- Tikiwont ( talk) 14:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Because this was a speedy deletion, what we have to go on is one editor's view of the article -- a situation where there appears to be an assertion of notability, however poorly sourced. Relist at articles for deletion if necessary, but don't allow this speedy deletion to stand as long as there is a good-faith disagreement over whether it asserts notability. THat's not what CSD A7 is for. -- SSB ohio 03:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I just wanted to highlight the following: Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. From the second link:A man tries to build a house. (...) Soon, a building inspector comes by. (...) "And look!" the inspector cries, "There is no ceiling! The owners of this house will be angry indeed when they get rained on." "They won't!" the builder retorts, "Because when it's done there will be a ceiling!" The inspector ignores him. "This house is no good, builder. It must be torn down." The next day he sends someone to demolish the house.

As you can see by the dates of my contributions, editing Wikipedia is not something I do on a regular basis. Though I do go to this site several times I day, I only edit when I see something that needs editing. When I created the article, I believed there was enough content in it to satisfy it's inclusion and planned to add more information at the usual leisurely pace to which I contribute. However I did put the article on my watch page and periodically verified it to see if any problems or concerns reared up. None did. Now one person came upon this article and didn't believe it merited inclusion. That's fine (and the comments here clearly demonstrated that the article does need a decent amount of improvement). But instead of voicing his concerns or giving advanced warning, he immediately removed it. And I only find out when I come to add additional information, proverbially improving on this unfinished house. But the difference in this case is that the building inspector did not tell me that there were problems with my house nor warned me that he was going to demolish it.-- D'Iberville ( talk) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

(ec) I understand where you coming from and am sorry for this being a frustrating experience. One suggestion we have in such cases is to let things grow as drafts in user pace. My own issue is mostly that there has already been a deletion discussion which I now have linked at the top as well, albeit under a different title and seemingly unknown both to you and the deleting admin. So there has already a house been built by another editor in the past and it was decided by community consensus to take it down. that doesn't mean that there should never ever be such a house but rather that it needs a better plan than what we've seen so far even if we restored it. It already had a chance and its potential has already be evaluated once. So if you really think there is sufficient potential to address also the previous concerns, building it calmly in userspace and reviewing it here, might be the way to move forward.-- Tikiwont ( talk) 19:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Westbury--not a speedy, and that's all there is to it. Makes a claim to being an historic church. Whether it is sufficiently historic to be notable is for an afd. Tota;lly wrong for admins to delete as A7 on theb asis of their opinion of whether or not something is notable. That's for the community if challenged. I cannot see further why any admin would turn down any reasonable request to undelete and send to afd . DGG ( talk) 19:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Citywide Church, as there was a valid AFD. Overturn Westboro, as I don't think A7 applies there. Stifle ( talk) 09:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  I notice that Westboro had been moved to Citywide, but the article content seems to be different, so a G4 isn't valid. I stick with my original opinion, in so far as it makes sense. Stifle ( talk) 09:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• List at AfD for the speedy. The nominator here is asserting notability. CSD#A7s should be listed without drama on the basis of a good faith request. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Westboro, A7 doesn't cover buildings and churches are organisations but predominantly they are buildings. RMHED ( talk) 17:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - there is more than enough evidence that this shouldn't be a speedy. There is no cache available, so we need to do an AfD on this, or else most people can't see the article. Nfitz ( talk) 19:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. What on earth is the point of undeleting these and sending them to AfD just because you disagree that a church can be interpreted as an organisation per CSD A7? The articles gave absolutely no indication of notability, no independent sources and were generic directory entries at best. Sending to AfD is needless process wonkery. A church is an organisation (and that, friends, comes from the Bible itself) so these are legitimately covered by A7 even if the organisation has chosen to build a building around itself. That, plus the WP:COATRACK issues with the Citywide article in particular, makes for a problem that was rightly solved by nuking the articles. Feel free to try a sourced, neutral, non-coatrack rewrite in userspace. Guy ( Help!) 13:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I have no idea what was in the Citywide article and didn't even know of its existence until someone mentioned it above and this deletion review has nothing to do with the Citywide article which was removed because it was really an attack piece (though I add, it was removed after an AfD so there was fair warning to those who did contribute to it) and there is no issue of an agenda with the creation of this one. Also, there is clearly there is a debate whether a church is a building or the people within the building as seen in this discussion. Regardless of your position on this particular topic, the purpose of the article was to give basic current information about the church and indicate the role that that particular church had in the past eight decades in the development of Westboro. There are a couple of rare books in the special Ottawa Room of the Central Library of the OPL which do the latter however, whenever I do have free time, reading those books is not the first thing I think of and as I noted earlier, editing Wikipedia is not something I do on a daily basis. As a corollary of this, I do not know the ins and outs of every requirement, bureaucratic rule or essay considered as policy but I do know that one of the cornerstones of this site is supposed to be that the community helps in the creation of an article by improving it themselves (which is admittedly somewhat difficult with this article unless you live around Ottawa) or indicating the problems and shortcomings of the article. I thought I had inserted enough information to give it enough credence to survive but I still checked every day the two weeks after I created it and a couple of times a week afterwards to make sure that there weren't any problems. Now I came back here of my own accord to improve the article by adding more info and it's gone. No template on the article, no warning on any talk page and no AfD. Now whether or not you believe this article should be deleted is not the issue at hand, the issue is that it was unilaterally removed by one person who did not attempt in any way to advise anyone that the article was wanting in anyway. Now, though I admit I am somewhat ignorant of the law of Wikipedia, this action, to me, seem to violate the spirit of Wikipedia.-- D'Iberville ( talk) 02:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Guy, you are in a position to judge for yourself that the articles gave absolutely no indication of notability, but the rest of us aren't. You have come to your conclusion, but your conclusion is not the only one reached in good faith regarding the article. Speedy deletion is not a justification for deleting an article when whether the article meets the criterion cited is a matter of dispute. If you are convinced of the absolute lack of assertion of notability in this article, then undelete it and AfD it; That way, we'll all see what you see. Until then, your arguments are being advanced without any factual foundation while you exercise a tremendous advantage through your access to the content in dispute. I call on you to level the playing field and allow the community to determine what should happen to this article. -- SSB ohio 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Whether or not A7 was properly applied in this case, the article should be deleted and will certainly be deleted inder whatever process the closer of the DRv adopts. under the principal of WP:SNOW, I suggest that it simply stay deleted rather than being undeleted for a pro forma five days just to chastise Phil. Send him a trout if you want but there is no good reason to overturn what is clearly the correct ultimate decision. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• The point of going through the motions of listing for discussion and then deleting after five days is not to chastise Phil, but to respect the right of process for the newcomer DRV nominator. There is the chance that the AfD will be a valuable learning experiences, as opposed to the crushingly empty speedy deletion of a good faith attempt to contribute. There is even the chance that the article can be improved to the minimum threshold (suitable sources found) during the five day discussion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Eluchil404, per your Snowball link: "If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause." This discussion clearly demonstrates that there is no unanimous decision. Moreover, again from your own source: "What the snowball clause is not: An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable. In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate." From the very start I stated that I created the article with what I thought was enough information to satisfy notability with the idea that I would add much more information at the unhurried pace that I usually edit. Since the editing of this article was never a priority with me and since no one brought forth any concerns, there was no reason to go to the library to get the information required to meet the notability standard. Now given the esoteric topic at hand, I have difficulty seeing how anyone here can assume with any certainty that notability can not be met, especially when considering that those of us who would be more familiar with the topic and have access to specific local information on the topic weren't given any warning: there wasn't an AfD, there wasn't a message on the talk page, there wasn't even a tag warning about notability. So given the topic at hand and given that we had no warnings nor chance to ameliorate the article, how can anyone here state with any certainty that the article is doomed from the get-go?-- D'Iberville ( talk) 02:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Simon Thomas (footballer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Article was deleted because it apparently didn't meet WP:ATHLETE however consensus did not appear to have been reached in the AfD and claims that it doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE are weak as the player is clearly a successful part of the first team of a major professional sports team. This isn't a 17-year old youngster that is going to be sitting in the reserves. While claims of WP:CRYSTAL might be made, it's entirely expected that this player will be playing professionally in a fortnight, so there is little point deleting such articles. In addition the AfD failed to note that he meets WP:BIO already given the significant media coverage in the last month or so. Google shows 24 articles in the last 12 days alone. Nfitz ( talk) 17:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion Player fails WP:ATHLETE. Can be easily restored if and when he actually plays a game (I'm hhapy to do so if anyone leaves me a message). Until then, he isn't notable and to say that he's expected to play is a WP:CRYSTAL violation; there have been hundreds if not thousands of young players who have signed for professional teams and never played. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Saying he's likely to play in 2 years is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Saying he's likely to play within 2 weeks, expecially when all indication shows he -is- likely to do so, is not. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • This isn't a young player. This is a 24-year old striker who is playing regularily with the first squad in pre-season games, scoring goals, and has plenty of media coverage that passes WP:BIO. The WP:CRYSTAL arguement is moot as he meets WP:BIO but even if he didn't then surely WP:IAR comes into play. Common sense says we don't delete articles that we will be needing in a fortnight; WP:CRYSTAL can always be used to demonstrate that the Sun might explode before then but then the second practice of WP:WL comes into play - "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its principles". I failed to link the articles supporting WP:BIO - see here, though there are 25 - many are local, but some are national and significant; these are only from the last week or so, I didn't look back any further. Nfitz ( talk) 18:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. If there are several sources to indicate notability (and I'm taking the nom's words at face value here when they say this), there's no reason he shouldn't have an article as he meets the general notability guideline. Besides, this idea that a player isn't notable until he actually goes out and kicks a soccer ball is absolutely silly. Apparently this player is very likely to play. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - This player does not currently meet WP:ATHLETE. When he does, I will support the undeletion of this article. – Pee Jay 20:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion I too feel that having to kick the ball in a game is a silly basis for inclusion if WP:N is otherwise met. But that seems to be the consensus. I'd !vote to keep in the AfD, but the close was fine and what I'd expect. Oh, and the nom right before he's likely to play verges on disruption. But, again, the close was reasonable. Hobit ( talk) 20:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • As far as I understand it "having to kick the ball in a game is a silly basis for inclusion if WP:N is otherwise met" isn't true. In fact Wikipedia:BIO#Additional criteria notes that "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under WP:N.". WP:ATHLETE is one of the additional criteria. Nfitz ( talk) 21:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I agree with that and would have !voted exactly that way in the AfD. That said, it appears that very reasonable view was in the minority in the AfD. Silly in my opinion, but just because I disagree with the result (fairly strongly in this case) doesn't mean it was closed incorrectly. IMO this never should have been sent to AfD, those !voting should have gone for keep based on WP:N, and the closer could have closed it as keep because the keep arguments were stronger. But, the delete close is the expected one in this case. Were I an admin and the closer, I'd have gone no consensus to delete on this one. But his close was reasonable. Hobit ( talk) 00:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • You think the close was wrong, but since it was reasonable, the deletion should stand? Wow. Process is important, but not that important. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 03:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
        • There is a difference between "wrong" and "different than I'd have done". The joy of all things subjective :-) Hobit ( talk) 17:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • I don't think anyone even looked into WP:N during the AfD. It got overlooked by us all. Nfitz ( talk) 07:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion - I can't see much more than trivial coverage in most of the independent google news hits linked to above. So he moved from Boreham Wood to Crystal Palace. I can't see how that makes him notable until he at least makes a professional debut, and I'm beginning to think that even that is too easy a mark to hit. - fchd ( talk) 11:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion - we have jumped through these hoops more time than I can remember. The position is clear; once he kicks a ball in anger, i.e. takes the field for Palace, or another league club, in a competitive match, he gets a page. This applies to all footballers. Whilst it is an arbitrary standard it makes sense to have an unambiguous cut-off. Also, though the nominator may be correct in saying "it's entirely expected that this player will be playing professionally in a fortnight" we don't crystalball because, however unlikely it may be, he could have a career-ending injury in a pre-season friendly and we are stuck with a page on someone who didn't make the cut. Oh, and there was nothing wrong with the close which is actually what we are judging here ;-) TerriersFan ( talk) 17:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • There is more than one way to meet the notability threshold than WP:ATHLETE. He has apprently received independent coverage in multiple sources. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 18:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I've looked into this a bit more. It's not a WP:CRYSTAL violation - it says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."; we've established that a match between two professional teams in league play is notable - and that this player will almost certainly be playing in, what, 8 days; WP:CRYSTAL clearly isn't violated. Nfitz ( talk) 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

And how do you reckon he's "almost certainly" going to be playing? He's just another squad player at the moment. As said above, if he DOES play, fine. Until then, I can't justify restoring the deleted article. - fchd ( talk) 19:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle ( talk) 09:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Ah so there is - I used to know this, and it skipped my mind. It would help if this was number 1 in the intructions, rather than being a separate box on a very crowded page. Though I'm somewhat jaded on this. I've asked Admins before to expand their reasoning, and all I've ever recieved are comments that they don't have to, that it was clear, that the votes carried it. I've actually been following this procedure on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerardo bruna before doing a DRV, but after 3 weeks I can't even get a response from the Admin. Oh well too late now ... I did notify the Admin and he hasn't commented at all. Nfitz ( talk) 17:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Lack of commentary in sources, failure to meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Delete !votes were sound and policy based. A keep !vote mentioned news stories. Provide the stories, or quotes from them, as a basis to recreate as a better article. I'd have preferred a redirect to Crystal Palace F.C. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. This deletion seems to come down to one thing:

1. He doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE yet, because he hasn't played a fully professional game. Yet he's only recently joined Crystal Palace F.C. which is between seasons, which starts in about a week. He's consistently been used during the first team games in the few days since he was signed - as opposed to other players who've been playing in seperate second team games. Every indication is that he is part of the first team and will inevitably be playing. This would lead to his notability and recreating the article in the next few weeks.
2. I think that if we all knew that he'd be playing within a few weeks, then WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply and the article should exist.
3. So what it really comes down to, is will he be playing? I've been looking for a definitive reference from someone, saying something like "he is clearly a critical part of the first team" but to be honest I've failed to find one. I can't find any good discussions of what the team will be - which seems odd to me - perhaps a reflection of just how many teams there are in London area compared to the number of media outlets.
4. When we look at the course of events, on July 23rd he was signed [4]. He immediately started playing with the first team in pre-season matches, scoring a goal in his first outing [5]. He played in the July 29th match, and presumably will be available for the final pre-season match on August 2.
5. Surely knowing the background of this player, his age, that he has been given a relatively high shirt number (17) with the first team [6] one can be confident he will play soon, and an article will be created.
6. Given all this, it just seems silly going to the trouble of deleting an existing article that will only have to be shortly recreated. Given the inevitability, and short time-frame WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply.
7. Does anyone out there really think that this player won't be playing soon?

Nfitz ( talk) 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

All I have to say on the issue is to remind you that I posted on your talk page on June 26 an offer to undelete any article on a footballer that was deleted for failing WP:ATHLETE, upon them taking the field in a game in a fully professional league. Is it worth all this argument to try and get the article undeleted a week early? -- Stormie ( talk) 10:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes it is worth all this argument. If this player plays, it's quite likely someone will be trying to recreate the article before either I or you have an opportunity to touch it. We've had a whole series of AfDs in the last few weeks for players that will have to be recreated shortly after the season begins next week. Is it worth all this argument to try and get these article deleted for a week or two? Deleting these articles and requiring a few select individuals to recreate the article violates the principle that Wikipedia violates 2 of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia "Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit" and "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". We need a more rational way to deal with this mass of deleting articles for players that are clearly going to be part of Tier 1 and Tier 2 first-teams, only to recreate days later. This DRV is intended to clean up the process and make it simpler for everyone. Nfitz ( talk) 16:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Nfitz, the subject failes the weakest criteria. The most important criteria is that there are independent secondary sources covering the subject. Bending the weakest criteria currently writen into some guideline, ignoring the lack of suitable encyclopedic sources is to create directories, which is not what we do as per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. This subject can be mentioned in other articles, such as Crystal Palace F.C.. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't disagree. My point is that we know he will very soon pass this criteria which will lead to article recreation, so there is little point expending a lot of effort AfDing dozens of similiar articles days before the beginning of the season. Nfitz ( talk) 01:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, close reflects the debate correctly. Notability is about sources, there were no non-trivial independent sources provided, so that's it really. Guy ( Help!) 13:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • This source appears non-trivial - BBC - [7] Nfitz ( talk) 16:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The page was deleted based on WP:CRYSTAL for the reasoning that the article was on a future album and had no sources. However, the album HAS been released and the article was edited to reflect thus before deletion (future album status was removed, etc.) Leopold Stotch ( talk) 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Wow, that's a terribly obvious overturn, since the delete reasons weren't valid at the time of deletion. Also, while I can't get at the label's web page (Firefox can't connect?), AllMusicGuide lists the album as having been released yesterday. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Overturn. I'm shocked this got deleted. It's selling on Amazon. Nfitz ( talk) 17:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Closing admin: I'll overturn my decision. I simply saw that all the !votes were for delete, and missed that fact about the release, sorry. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Evolver (John Legend album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

From what I understand this article was deleted because it did not have sources? >:[ The deleter person must have missed the VIBE.com source I added.

Anyway, here are many more sources: http://news.google.com/news?q=john%20legend%20evolver — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubfan789 ( talk • contribs) 13:29, July 29, 2008

• Okay, the history here is a little confusing. First, endorse the closure of the AfD as the consensus in it is obvious and the version deleted had those failings (sorry, admin only link). Then, overturn the most recent deletion as the VIBE.com link is enough for me to want another discussion and recreation should have meant obviously disputing the PROD; so we rule out G4 on the former and more {{ PROD}} on the latter. After restoration I believe another AfD is in order, nominated by anyone who thinks it's a WP:CRYSTAL violation still. Cheers. lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 13:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• I deleted the article most recently, and have since restored the full history. The original AfD discussion raised WP:CRYSTAL concerns raised in addition to lack of sourcing, however I accept it would have been better to go through another AfD per lifebaka. PhilKnight ( talk) 11:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Now seems to meet WP:N. No objection to re-sending to AfD, but just a restore (as done by PhilKnight) is fine too as our long-term solution. Hobit ( talk) 01:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

2009 in Music (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

This article was deleted after a number of delete "votes" simply cited " Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". All but two were of this form; of the remaining two, one alleged a problem with just one of the items and assumed that all were just as bad, and the last, though acknowledging that it was "not a case of WP:CRYSTAL," said that the "claims the article makes are un-comfirmed and mostly just speculation". However, all arguments to keep pointed out the existence of sources (each item in the article cited a source), and while there were allegations that certain sources were unreliable, one of those arguing to delete acknowledged that there were "2 or 3 possible reliable sources", and I personally added no less than 10 items from unquestionably reliable sources ( MTV News, Billboard, and Rolling Stone) and found better sources for two more items before the article was deleted. The general consensus in Wikipedia is that articles about future events which cite reliable sources for the information are acceptable, and we have plenty of examples: 2009 in television, 2009 in film, 2009 in spaceflight, etc. The closing admin also cited WP:CRYSTAL, but did not respond when I tried to get an explanation as to what, if anything, distinguished this article from other articles which we generally allow under that same policy. I believe that since the arguments to delete insufficiently addressed the points made in the arguments to keep, and that since improvements were made to the article during the discussion, it should have at least either been relisted or closed as "no consensus". I ask that the article be restored, so that reliable sources can continue to be added and those sources cited which may be unreliable can be individually examined, and claims be individually removed if sources are insufficiently reliable. DHowell ( talk) 04:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). An article with this title is, by definition, speculation and inappropriate for the encyclopedia. The opinions in defense of this page primarily hinged on comparisons with other articles of a similar nature. The sources alleged to defend the deleted content were reviewed by other participants of the discussion and found to be insufficient (with one person explicitly commenting on the nature of the sources). Additional sources were added later in the discussion but they did not overcome the core problems with verifiability - they remain speculation about future releases based primarily upon press releases of the entities themselves. As to the comparison with other 2009 in foo articles, the right answer when we find pages violating policy is to clean them up too, not to lower the project's standards. Rossami (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • If you believe articles like 2009 in television should also be deleted, I don't believe that opinion represents Wikipedia consensus (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 in television). But if you simply believe they should be "cleaned up", then I agree with you, but my efforts to clean this article up were cut short by its deletion. Also, the opinions in defense of this page were based on the existence of sources, not simply comparisons to other similar articles. There is no evidence that any of those arguing to delete reviewed any of the more than 80 sources cited by this article but one, and a hasty generalization based on one out of so many sources hardly constitutes a valid review of the sources. Futhermore, no one addressed the ten sources that I added, and the additional two that I added before the article was deleted, which should have been sufficient on their own to support the existence of this article. When independent reliable sources report on "future releases based primarily upon press releases of the entities themselves," this is not speculation, but reporting on facts. Otherwise we'd have to delete all articles about future events, such as 2016 Summer Olympics. Since an article on "2009 in music" will almost assuredly exist within the next six months, when exactly do you think it is appropriate for it to exist? DHowell ( talk) 03:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Personally, I do not think that Wikipedia should be attempting to write an article titled "2009 in music" until at least 2010 when there is at least a chance to have some sense of historical perspective. But I know that interpretation does not currently have community consensus. What I think does have consensus is that 2009 in music can not reliably exist until 1 Jan 2009 when the things that we are reporting upon have actually happened. Plans for the Olympics are, by definition, significant to many, many people and require large, predicable lead time. The topics covered in the "year in music" series are largely product releases, subject to significant last-minute changes and even cancellations at the sole discretion of the producer. They do not have the stability that justifies the predictive articles about other topics. Rossami (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • The outcomes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 in television (decided 29 Jun 2008) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 in music (decided 30 July 2007) contradict your thought that there is consensus "that 2009 in music can not reliably exist until 1 Jan 2009". DHowell ( talk) 21:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep. Sorry to the closer, but this is a case where the delete !votes were wrong. The article in question did not violate WP:CRYSTAL, which is for speculation. At least some of the albums listed make the requirements at WP:MUSIC#Albums, and the only issue is that the rest need to be removed. But that is an editorial issue and not a deletion one. So, after restoration someone will probably need to go through the article with a chainsaw and a belt sander to chop off the messy bits and clean up afterwards. Cheers. lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • For the sake of transparency, I'd like to note that I've nominated quite a few of the albums from that list for AfD. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 17:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Realistically the article should have been deleted per WP:NOT rather than WP:CRYSTAL, as even with the sources for these upcoming albums, it is little more than a directory of items. IMHO, all of the XXXX in music are horrible articles, and really should contain commentary and discussion about important developments in the music industry in any given year rather than a laundry list of albums released, but that is neither here nor there. In any case, the contention that the !votes to delete were wrong is true (CRYSTAL does not really apply as most of the items were sourced) and there was no policy-grounded consensus to delete - therefore there is no alternative but to overturn. Sher eth 16:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn DHowell's comment demolished WP:CRYSTAL concerns, his was the strongest policy-based argument. ˉˉ ^anetode ╦╩ 20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn on grounds of common sense. We are now 5 months from 2009. Some events that will happen in t hat year are now reasonably certain enough to be listed. In at least some fields of music, major events are planned a number of years ahead. DGG ( talk) 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, I find myself in agreement with Lifebaka and DGG. While this article certainly will require vigorous pruning to keep myriad WP:CRYSTAL violations out of it, 2009 is now close enough that there's bound to be verifiable reports of specific release dates and information about some of the releases, at least during the early part of the year. I'd expect the article, properly cleaned up, might be a little bare at the present time but I find it hard to believe the whole article was genuinely a WP:CRYSTAL violation as a whole as the delete !votes in the AfD suggest. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 08:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse based on the consensus of the users. DRV is not AFD2. Stifle ( talk) 09:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Three questions: 1. How are you determining "the consensus of the users"? 2. What exactly does "DRV is not AFD2" have to do with this DRV? 3. If DRV is not AFD2, and consensus can change, and we all know where to find AFD2 (and AFD3,4,5,...,14) for kept and recreated pages, where exactly do we find AFD2 for deleted pages? DHowell ( talk) 21:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • As to #3 - if consensus changes, it will be due to the presence of new information or new arguments. So show us a relevant policy/guideline change (I dread the day the notability guidelines change materially - this page will be overwhelmed), or give us new relevant sources, or show us that sockpuppetry was a problem, or ... but don't repeat arguments that were made in the XfD - they are not new. GRBerry 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply