Orly Taitz ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The following is the reason the closing Admin gave:

The result was delete and redirect to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. In the five days since this debate opened, the article essentially remained a stub, and there wasn't enough biographical information added to prove she is notable beyond the "birther" debate. Granted, there was a fairly large majority of "Keeps," but articles like this are, to my mind, a textbook example of why AFD is not a vote. Blueboy 96 17:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - "Dems on the move" has a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BLP1E, since yes, a person has to have notability beyond a single issue, i.e. birthers. This is evident by the edit warring on the 1E section, and then the universal rejection of his edits on the talk page. As for the closing admin's rationale, IMO he was correct to discount a portion of the "keep" votes, as there were a lot of WP:SPAs and flawed "Taitz was on TV last night!" types of WP:ILIKEIT entries. A tough call to make, but should be allowed to stand. Tarc ( talk) 18:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Please note that although the SPA notice was placed on the top of the page, there was only one instance noted on the page of an SPA. When I saw that noticed placed on the page I almost removed it since I knew it would have an impact on the decision to close the discussion, one way or the other. So no, there were not "a lot of SPAs". IncidentalPoint ( talk) 18:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note from closing admin I admit, this was a tough call to make. The woman has gotten coverage out the wazoo--but virtually all of it relates to her role in the birther cause. The article was basically a stub, with little biographical information to speak of. If there had been more biographical information, or she'd done something that would confer inherent notability, it would have been enough to save the article. Blueboy 96 18:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Mine was one of the many keep comments on this AfD, but AfD is not a vote and the close was well within the normal discretion of a closing admin. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn- I think the BLP1E arguments were pretty well refuted in the afd, with the point being made that this woman has made every effort to stay in the public spotlight, appearing on Colbert, Stewart, NPR and the like, which shows that she's not trying to remain low profile, which the policy states as a guide to who deserves an article and who doesn't. Umbralcorax ( talk) 18:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - just another BLP1E birther with no notability on her own behalf. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to keep per the rough consensus at the AfD.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 18:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion No particular notability beyond that covered in the redirect, very weak sources. PhGustaf ( talk) 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, textbook case of BLP1E. Stifle ( talk) 20:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion as the original nominator. Ray ^Talk 23:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Was the proper call. Niteshift36 ( talk) 07:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion. The WP:BLP1E standard is notability only for a single event; it would be incorrect to expand that, per Tarc's argument to delete an article for a person who lacks "notability beyond a single issue". JamesMLane  t  c 12:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  Trying to draw a distinction between "one event" and "one issue" seems to be some mighty fine hair-splitting that doesn't seem to be supported by the policy cited. IMO "event" sufficiently covers single-issue advocacy as well. Tarc ( talk) 12:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You're free to hold the opinion that the policy, which refers to "event" throughout, should be amended to cover "event or issue". I was going by what it actually says now. I don't see this as at all a hair-splitting distinction. John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry was one event. Abolitionism was an issue. Similarly, there are some lawyers who gain public notice because of their involvement in a single highly publicized case. Taitz isn't in that category. JamesMLane  t  c 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Nothing needs to be amended; it already reads that way. Tarc ( talk) 21:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Currently, in WP:BLP1E, the word "event" occurs in the section heading and six more times in the text. The word "issue" has zero occurrences. So, no, it does not already read the way you want it to read. JamesMLane  t  c 05:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You're essentially pulling a Clinton and quibbling over what the difference of is is here. I didn't say that the word "issue" appears on the page. What I did say is that the meaning of "one event" is broad enough already to address individuals whose only notability stems from single-issue advocacy. Tarc ( talk) 18:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, I would suggest that Taitz is involved in a single issue (the bither movement) but multiple events (many media appearances, I'm not sure how many lawsuits, continuing coverage - and her many actions which she performs with respect to the movement, each of which can be considered an "event"). Luminifer ( talk) 18:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn deletion - there is a massive amount of media coverage of this woman - and there is no indication that this is going to cease. Much of this, I imagine, will eventually be placed in the article once proper references are found. It would not make sense to list her media appearances under the "birther" movement, as they are somewhat related but there is not an absolutely correlation - unless we want to list all media appearances of all people involved in the birther movement. This woman is notable for (a) being involved in the birther movement, and (b) being so incredibly visible regarding her involvement in it. I believe that these actually count as separate things. Luminifer ( talk) 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion. The overwhelming majority of !voters supported keeping the article. A clear majority of the !voters who discussed policy in some detail supported keeping the article. Relevant language in WP:BLP1E can easily and reasonably be read as supporting keeping the article: If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. To the extent this standard was addressed in the deletion discussion, the consensus clearly supported keeping the article under this policy provision. BLP1E also indicates that one important factor in determining whether a separate article is justified is "how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." When the closing administrator, by his/her own admission, discounted the substantial "coverage out the wazoo" the article subject has received in the news media, he/she failed to properly apply the provisions of BLP1E. When an AFD discussion turns on the interpretation of Wikipedia policy, as it did here, the closing administrator should determine whether a consensus was reached through reasonable discussion of the policy involved. Here, no one disputes that both sides held reasonable positions on interpreting the policy. In a situation like this, the closing administrator has no business substituting his/her own interpretation of policy for the expressed consensus interpretation, so long as that interpretation is reasonable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, textbook case of BLP1E, the efforts to try to pad the article into an actual bio support this conclusion. -- Stormie ( talk) 02:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion as supported by BLP1E. — Kralizec! ( talk) 06:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion (restore revision history), but uphold redirection. The closer has conflated two separate questions: "Does the subject currently warrant a dedicated article?" and "Should said article be deleted?"
  He has stated that his decision stems from the failure to expand the article beyond a stub before the discussion's closure. Since when do we delete articles because they're too short? That can be a valid reason to merge any useful content into another article and redirect the title there, and Blueboy96's closure calls for such a redirect. I don't object to that portion, but why was the deletion warranted? Blueboy96 has acknowledged above that "this was a tough call," so why not leave the revision history in place (thereby allowing editors to expand the former article's content if/when this becomes feasible)?
  Blueboy96 is quite correct that an AfD debate is not a majority vote, but the burden lies on those advocating deletion. There might not be consensus to retain a dedicated article for Orly Taitz at this juncture, but there clearly wasn't consensus to delete it outright (thereby preventing editors from addressing the issues said to justify the redirection).
  Therefore, my position is that the redirect should remain in place for the time being, but the article's revision history should be restored along with its talk page (an appropriate venue for any future discussion on whether to revive the dedicated article). — David Levy 11:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion Taitz has gained and kept attention only because of her lawsuit on Birther issues. Beyond that, she hasn't done anything notable. The main reason for the attention, I think, is she presented a somewhat novel arguement, that Obama couldn't order soldier's deployed if he wasn't the President. Somewhat new, different from the other (failed lawsuits), so the Birthers lept on her train. Everything notable she's done is related to this issue, making the redirect the correct action here. Ravensfire2002 ( talk) 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• From WP:BIO : Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.. You said "beyond that", she hasn't done anything notable, but WP:BIO doesn't state that you have to have done two notable things. If she is notable enough to be interviewed so much on television, she is likely notable enough to have a WP:BIO this is particularly relevant as people will see her on TV, look her up, and want to read about her on wikipedia. Luminifer ( talk) 16:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

That's why it helps to keep reading the rest of a policy page...which is where one would encounter the "People notable only for one event" section...rather than just citing the lead. Tarc ( talk) 17:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

One could argue that the lead should tell someone everything they need to know, excepting clarifications. In this case, then, I would suggest that someone (you?) amend the lead to be clearer. Luminifer ( talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Perhaps that is true, however this particular confusion is why most of the endorse folks have referred to the specific WP:BLP1E rather than the general WP:BIO as being the primary guiding policy. — Kralizec! ( talk) 22:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Interesting point, although even there, Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. -- this person has NOT maintained a low-profile individual. (I stand by my point that she has two form of notability - (a) association with the movement and (b) how she is capitalizing on it) Luminifer ( talk) 23:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The real arbiter of 1E policy is a simple question; absent Taitz's involvement with the Birther brigade, would she be worthy of a Wikipedia article? Tarc ( talk) 01:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

No, that's an oversimplification of 1E. (Note the John Hinckley, Jr. example.)

It is explicitly stated that a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted "if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile." Are you suggesting that Ms. Taitz has remained low-profile?

I also object to the use of the term "event" to mean "issue." The two are not the same. — David Levy 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

No, it isn't an oversimplification. Even the "simple test" can have the occasional exception. The Hinckley case is one of these, as the event (assassination) it itself such a critial, noteworthy issue. Birthergate does not rise to that standard, though. As far as Taitz and low-profile go though, yes, she is. In terms of reliably sourced media, Taitz is no higher or lower on the totem pole as Berg or any of the others. In unreliable fringe media, sure, she is some kinda of twisted folk hero. But non-RS is irrelevant. Tarc ( talk) 02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

No, Hinckley isn't an "exception." He's an example of a high-profile individual whose notability stemmed entirely from one event. Whether Taitz is low-profile is debatable (and we'll have to agree to disagree), but regardless, it's incorrect to state that the "single event" criterion is the sole determining factor.

And again, Taitz is known primarily for her involvement in a single issue, not a single event.

However, note that I don't seek to undo the redirection. I merely contest the revision history's deletion. (See my comments above.) — David Levy 03:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

A "high-profile individual whose notability stemmed entirely from one event", yes. In most cases like that the person fails 1E, but since an assassination attempt is in itself so thoroughly notable, an article on the assassin can be seen as notable. That is as plain a definition of the word "exception" as one can have. And as I have explained above, I don't see the definition of "event" being as restrictive as you make it out to be. Tarc ( talk) 18:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Maybe I'm missing it - can you re-quote or point out where you explain what you interpret "event" to mean? Luminifer ( talk) 21:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

No, "a high-profile individual whose notability stemmed entirely from one event" does not fail 1E, which explicitly includes only low-profile persons. Something cannot be an exception to a rule that doesn't apply in the first place.

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of 1E's scope. It exists to protect the privacy of a low-profile individual involved in one event. It was never intended to be applied to a person who actively seeks publicity by participating in many prominent events.

For example, when dealing with an event such as the Columbine High School massacre, we don't create individual articles for the victims (whose backgrounds are irrelevant to the incident, and whose involvement was involuntary). But we do create articles for the perpetrators, who clearly did not maintain low profiles.

Not only is Orly Taitz not a low-profile individual (or even someone who seeks to maintain a low profile), but her notability stems from her numerous (and ongoing) attempts to advance a cause, not from a single event. Your argument that "single-issue advocacy" can be deemed tantamount to a "single event" stems from an apparent misunderstanding of 1E's purpose (which is to protect the privacy of persons caught up in one-off occurrences, not to weed out persons who are simply non-notable, which requires no special rule). — David Levy 05:13/05:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I;m not going to reinvent the wheel every time you don't get what I have said, and try again from a different angle. Cheers. Tarc ( talk) 13:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

If someone expresses disagreement with you, it means that they "don't get" what you've said? Wow. — David Levy 16:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. If there's nothing to say about her apart from her penchant for self-publicity and precious little actual biographical sourcing, then BLP1E clearly applies. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 10:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse -- but restore edit history, and merge edit history from Orly taitz ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore), the previous deletion. (See David Levy comments above.) If s/he arises to greater notability, then the previous edits should be available to turn this into an article.
  -- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 11:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. While I leaned moderately toward keeping this article, and I would support re-creation if Taitz achieved notability beyond 1E, there was nothing wrong with this closure. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you see a reason to delete and redirect instead of simply redirecting?

Also, given Blueboy96's acknowledgment that "this was a tough call," why was it appropriate to close the debate after less than four days (which he incorrectly referred to as "five days") instead of the usual duration of "at least seven days"? — David Levy 14:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

And it says "Certification of Live Birth" instead of "Birth Certificate". Nitpicks all. I might have preferred to keep the article history (i.e. simple redirect rather than delete+redirect), but there may have been a concern that a loon magnet issue like this would be prone to nuisance re-creation. I don't feel strongly about the 5/7 day wait, and overturning the AfD closure over this seems WP:BURO. This closure is valid, even if I would have done it differently. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Firstly, I was addressing your statement that "there was nothing wrong with this closure." It's fine to endorse it, but it's hardly nitpicking to point out that it occurred more than three days sooner than usual (particularly given the closer's acknowledgment that it was "a tough call").

Secondly, if the revision history were retained, the redirect could be protected to prevent reviving the article without consensus.

Thirdly, as you've compared my position with that of the birthers, I'd like to state for the record that I personally regard the latter as absurd. This, of course, has absolutely no bearing on Orly Taitz's notability (or lack thereof). — David Levy 14:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

It is worth noting that the article has already been recreated, and reverted in about an hour. Dems on the move ( talk) 16:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, the current setup includes no technical means of preventing that (and the revision history's deletion increases the likelihood of unsourced material being introduced). — David Levy 16:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - I don't like the direction this stretches BLP1E in. Since Taitz has made no attempt to maintain a low profile, and there's plenty of reliable sources mentioning her, this should be a keep, or at worst, no-consensus-defaulting-to-keep. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• I agree with you. Here is BLP1E: I have bolded the parts that do NOT apply: Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options. It even goes on to say something that explicitly does apply: If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. I'm not sure how anyone can interpret BLP1E as stating that this article should not be here. Luminifer ( talk) 17:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn deletion per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I didn't participate in this AfD, and I think there were valid policy arguments for both positions, which were well-expressed on both sides. But the consensus, if any, tended toward keep. Thus, even though I personally think there's a good argument that Taitz may, in fact, be covered by BLP1E, I think that Hullaballoo is right when xe says that the closure should not substitute the administrator's judgment for the expressed and reasonable consensus interpretation.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 17:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse closure per BLP1E, but, as I said in the AfD debate, I have no prejudice against recreation if she stays in the news for an extended period of time (note that for the reason of possible recreation, I would have preferred redirection without deletion, but that is neither here nor there). youngamerican ( wtf?) 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse for now - I'm not overly opposed to reconsidering it in the future, but searching g-news for Orly Taitz, excluding "Obama" returns basically nothing, so I'm not overly inclined to believe there is anything to be said apart from the birther article. -- B ( talk) 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, but what if you search for "John Hinckley" and exclude "Reagan"?-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

There has been a gracious plenty news about him subsequent to Reagan assassination attempt. Granted, if not for the attempt, he would probably not be notable, but if nobody cared about him subsequent to the attempt, I would argue that he didn't need an article either. If, after the Obama conspiracy theories have gone the way of the budget surplus, people still care about Orly Taitz, then, and only then, would an article be appropriate. Until then, there is nothing to say not covered by the main article. -- B ( talk) 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

That may be true, but I would bet every appearance of his name at least mentions, in passing, the Reagan shooting. Likewise, even if Taitz is being mentioned in some other context, the name "Obama" is very likely to turn up somewhere in the text. Luminifer ( talk) 21:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Weak overturn - I'm very concerned that people are ignoring the plain language of WP:BLP1E, which has been quoted in full here more than once. I would also add that BLP1E is a subhead under "Presumption in favor of privacy." It primarily exists to protect low profile individuals, which the subject clearly isn't. That said, there may be a case against the article based on WP:N which says "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability - particularly for individuals known for one event." I'd like to see the article reconsidered on WP:N ground alone. -- agr ( talk) 18:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Another note from closing admin I've given it some thought, and since she isn't that far off in my opinion from having an article of her own, I have no objection to David Levy's proposal. Blueboy 96 19:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I would strongly advise against that. I'm looking at the last version of the article prior to deletion and it's pretty bad from a BLP standpoint. If this is ever recreated, I think rebooting it from scratch would be a good idea. -- B ( talk) 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn or at the very least go with David Levy's proposal. The whole thing is getting silly: the name is all over the news and I'm sure there are thousands of people searching for her name on Wikipedia and expecting a basic article. They end up with a page from which it's difficult to gather information about her. There are decent sources available for an article (say [1] for an account of her career and many many many sources for her current role in the birther delirium). I feel as though the deletion is a knee-jerk reaction to Mrs. Taitz' craving for attention. True, she is irritating and I'm baffled by the amount of publicity she's able to generate for herself but the current redirect is akin to redirecting Joe the Plumber to McCain's presidential campaign. An article is warranted here. It has to be monitored of course and it has to be kept short until extended details of her career are examined by various reliable outlets. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 02:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Just reread the discussion and looked at the deleted article and I'm thoroughly convinced that recreating the article is the right thing to do and wanted to address a few of the arguments for endorsing the deletion. First off, David Eppstein's reasoning that it should be endorsed because it was in the "discretion range" is somewhat twisted. Yeah, yeah, DRV is not a second AfD and everything but come on: one admin made a call and we should be supportive no matter how it turned out? Surely we can revisit this in greater depth than by just backing whichever admin happened to make the call. As for the many references to BLP1E, I stand firmly with JamesMLane and David Levy about the distinction between "one event" and "one issue". This is not hair splitting. Activists are typically known almost solely in the context of the issue they defend. Part of the idea of the "one event" criterion is that any relevant info can be inserted in the article in an easy, natural way. In Taitz' case the issue in question has dragged on over a lengthy period of time and it is convenient and informative to present the chronology of her involvement in a separate article instead of peppering it through the one about the issue. I'm having a real hard time with Stifle's claim that this is textbook BLP1E. Low-profile individual? nope. One event? nope. Cindy Sheehan seems a pretty good comparable. Of course, Sheehan is not insane and defends what many feel is a just cause but that shouldn't matter. Contempt for Mrs Taitz, her motives, her media strategy and the issue she defends shouldn't factor into the decision. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 01:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Regarding the fact that this is not a second AfD debate, also note that some of the endorsers are treating it as precisely that; instead of addressing the issue of whether the closure reflected the consensus reached at AfD, they're casting the equivalent of "delete" votes.

Conversely, the question of whether 1E applies is entirely germane to the deletion review, as the closer's rationale is based upon the assumption that it obviously does (and the vast majority of respondents therefore are wrong and have been overruled). I fully agree that responses based on a clearly false premise should be discounted, but it's been demonstrated that it's the 1E premise that's false in this case.

While I assume that Blueboy96 acted in good faith, he essentially substituted his opinion for those of the respondents. Also note that he has apparently ignored several requests for an explanation of why he closed the debate after less than four days (and falsely claimed that five days had elapsed) instead of allowing the debate (which he has acknowledged was close) to continue for the standard duration of at least seven days. — David Levy 02:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Indeed. Still, I think it's worth pointing out the limits of "not a second AfD". In cases where the outcome of the AfD depends so obviously on which admin pulls the trigger first, DRV is and should be an extension of the AfD. Or to put it differently: if anything, this AfD should have been extended, not closed early. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 02:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Excepting snowball closures, an AfD discussion is supposed to last at least seven days (and possibly longer if consensus is unclear). Given Blueboy96's acknowledgment that this was "a tough call," his decision to end the debate after less than four days seems rather peculiar and ill-advised. I'm troubled by his apparent refusal to explain his reasoning. — David Levy 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Weak endorse as being within the grounds for an admin to interpret consensus. The close was backed up by policy and many of the keep votes were very weak. No prejudice against recreation when it is demonstrable that her notability isn't fleeting. Them From Space 03:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Orly Taitz may be craving attention at the moment, but she has been verifiably in the news for months, popping up in news sources as far back as December. She has become famous in her own right and facts about her own person are well known, beyond her involvement in the "birther" movement. A redirect cannot possibly cover all verifiable facts about her, because they would be inappropriate for the article. — siro χ o 05:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I accidently recreated the article (didn't check AfD beforehand) because I have been seeing her in the news a lot and wanted to know more about her. When I saw there was no article I created it. I think she does pass the notability test and 1E doesn't apply as she doesn't maintain a low profile. I also am curious as to who she is, her biography, etc. Based on this, I respectfully suggest overturning. Basket of Puppies 20:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Admin's decision ignores consensus reached on second AfD. -- Tocino 20:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Also, in this context, the first AfD may as well be ignored as it occurred in January, long before Taitz reached what could be the height of her "popularity". Back then the decision to delete was correct, but this time I do not believe that it is. IncidentalPoint ( talk) 04:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment (I already !voted above): On August 3, after the close and while this DRV was pending, MSNBC devoted almost seven minutes to an interview with Taitz. This was one example of the coverage she received in connection with her latest court filing in Keyes v. Obama. If the deletion is upheld, it would not be bad faith or WP:POINT for someone to begin a new article about Taitz immediately. She's more notable now than she was on July 31. JamesMLane  t  c 07:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

agree, there has even been meta-news coverage of this msnbc interview. this qualifies as a new event and deletion should be overturned. Or at least redirect and preserve the history. That is the least you could do riffic ( talk) 15:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

What we're presented with in the interview is simply more of the same; absent Birther-gate, a subject who would be completely unknown. Readers who may search for taitz are redirected to the relevant Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article, which notes her involvement. There are exceptions to the BLP1E policy, i.e. Hinckley, but this doesn't quite rise to that. And whether or not the history of the article is retained seems like a pointless side tangent to all of this. I have no opinion on whether that stays deleted or is restored. Tarc ( talk) 15:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Nothing is pointless riffic ( talk) 16:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Again, Hinckley is not an exception. If a person isn't low-profile, 1E does not come into play in the first place.

Orly Taitz has received an extraordinary amount of media coverage, which she actively seeks. This does not automatically mean that she should have a dedicated article (and I'm not sure that she should), but it does mean that 1E isn't applicable (even if we broadly interpret "event" to cover "issue," which I strongly disagree with).

Again, 1E is intended to protect the privacy of persons caught up in one-off occurrences, not to weed out persons who are simply not notable enough to have dedicated articles. We need no special rule for the latter.

Why don't you address these points instead of claiming that your opponents "don't get what [you] have said" (a rather insulting remark). — David Levy 16:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hinckley's exeption, that is what the policy is all about; "i.e. "this is what 1E policy normally covers, but even a person connected to one event can be notable enough for an article if the event itself is signifiant." If you need help interpreting BLP policy, Dave, then head over to their talk pages and ask for assitance. I have answered you several times over now, and your recent responses boil down to a Python-esque "yes it is! no it isn't! Is! Isn't". I don't have the time or inclination to address your tangents any further. Tarc ( talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

No, Hinckley is cited as an example of the type of individual that 1E does not normally cover. This is because 1E applies strictly to low-profile persons. Referring to "a high-profile individual whose notability stemmed entirely from one event," you stated above that "in most cases like that the person fails 1E," and this is verifiably false. 1E explicitly and and unambiguously applies to an individual who "otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile." And of course, it falls under the heading "Presumption in favor of privacy." Has Orly Taitz sought such privacy?

The remainder of your reply (in which you once again assume that anyone who disagrees with you obviously doesn't understand) is rude and condescending.

I'm here for the same reason that you are: to discuss this matter in good faith (and hopefully do what's best for the encyclopedia). As strongly as I've disagreed with you, I haven't once spoken down to you as though you were a child, and I would appreciate being treated with the same level of courtesy. — David Levy 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Note that the closer has consented to the revision history's restoration. — David Levy 16:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Restoring the history is not pointless. It would facilitate the re-creation of a standalone article, if this deletion is upheld but another editor chooses to create a new article as Taitz's notability increases. JamesMLane  t  c 21:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

(arbitrary unindent) I don't understand how Tarc can say with a straight face: "absent Birther-gate, [she] would be completely unknown". That's true of course and it's unlikely that we'll hear her thoughts on gardening or nuclear fission any time soon. But activists are always covered within the context of their cause. Flip Benham would be unknown absent the pro-life movement, Jody Williams would be unknown absent the movement to ban land mines. Taitz has de facto become the poster child for a fringe group which has nevertheless managed to create a huge stir. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 19:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion at the time - a redirect is appropriate here; she's an attorney, not litigant, and thus merely a spokesperson. I also back up the discussion, noted above, that since the end of July, she's been the subject of more interviews and is on YouTube. Bearian ( talk) 15:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. 1E. -- Kbdank71 19:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I assume you've read the above discussions and since quite a few have taken the time to dismantle the argument that BLP1E is at all relevant, it would be nice if you can give your thoughts on this rather than some abstract one-liner. It's patently obvious that she's not low-profile (which is half of the 1E definition) and it's not clear that she should be considered as known for a single event. I'm ready to listen to good arguments involving WP:BIO but the 1E invocations have been thoroughly discredited above. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - I tend to think she's probably notable enough to have an article, but that seems besides the point. There was clearly no consensus to delete. More than any question of whether this article should be deleted, Blueboy's deletion was a perversion of wikipedia process, in that there was clearly no consensus in the deletion discussion that the article should be deleted, and the only exception given to that is in a case where a "little known" individual requests removal, which, so far as I can tell, did not occur here. Maybe the article should be deleted, but Blueboy had no right to delete it given the facts as they appeared at the time. As such, the deletion should be overturned - perhaps it should be relisted, if people want to do that - there seem to be a lot more people here in favor of deletion than there were at the original AFD. (Basically - overturn and remand to the lower court). john k ( talk) 23:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. WP:BLP1E's reference to an "event" can be construed broadly or narrowly. A broad understanding better fits the policy's underlying purpose and helps limit the growth of extraneous articles. Taitz's notability rests entirely on her involvement in litigating the President's citizenship; that can and should be deemed one event. Suppose that someone was claimed to be notable for their involvement in a lawsuit. That would certainly fail WP:BLP1E. Now suppose that the defendant in that lawsuit removed the case to federal court, but the judge bifurcated the case and sent some of the claims back to the state court. Suddenly we have two lawsuits, technically -- but does that help the litigant beat WP:BLP1E? Surely not. Similarly, Taitz's litigation. The fact that it has involved multiple lawsuits is like saying that anyone who ever played darts should be deemed notable on the theory that each time they throw something at the target and hope it sticks, that's one event. It's the game that is the event, not the plays, and Taitz's can be covered adequately at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 15:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm almost tempted to see the above as a sarcastic attempt to caricature the 1E apologists. I don't know where you get the idea that all litigants "certainly fall" under BLP1E. Is Norma McCorvey of no interest? Ernesto Miranda? Robert Latimer? Sue Rodriguez? All their cases followed tortuous legal paths. The darts analogy is even weirder. Hey, all these articles about baseball players? Get rid of them, they're just known for that one event of playing baseball. Nevermind the fact that we also have a few hundred articles on dart players. Why should we have an article on Chris Moneymaker? All these poker hands at the 2003 WSOP, they were just one event. And I know I'm repeating myself but "low-profile" is an integral part of BLP1E. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 20:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Some misunderstandings in your reply, Pascal. I didn't say that "all litigants 'certainly fall' under BLP1E," I said that being a litigant in a lawsuit doesn't by itself convey notability. Of course that doesn't mean that a person can't be notable for something else, or that having established notability, their litigation should be excluded from their article. Some editors would point out that WP:OTHERSTUFF forecloses your argument about other litigants for whom we have articles, but having been critical of that essay myself, I will merely point out that your example of Ernesto Miranda illustrates my point. He may be notable for some reason besides Miranda v. Arizona, but he isn't notable enough for a standalone article simply because he was the petitioner in that case. Since the article makes no attempt to show notability independent of the case, I would delete and redirect; now that you have brought the article to my attention, I will likely propose a merge or nominate the article for deletion. Thanks for the heads-up.

As for your baseball analogy, I don't mind changing sports, but let's get the analogy right. A career in baseball does not count as a single event for purposes of BLP1E. Throwing multiple pitches in a single game, however, is one event for purposes of BLP1E. If your sole claim to notability is that you played one game for the Cardinals, you are not notable. That's one event per BLP1E, and it doesn't change no matter how many pitches you throw during the course of one game. Tatiz is famous for playing one game: litigating Obama's citizenship. She's thrown a few different balls against a few different batters, but it's still the same game, and it'll still be the same game no matter how many balls (complaints) she pitches (files) at (in) different batters (courts). This is one event, just as Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 was one comet and gets one article, notwithstanding that it arrived in 21 bite-size fragments. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 23:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hmmm... Baseball, one single game? Let's see... Charles Matthews (baseball), John Roach (baseball), Bob Daughters, Joe Cobb (baseball), Heinie Odom, Steamboat Struss, Twink Twining, Ron Wright (baseball) and of course everyone's favorite: Larry Yount, a pitcher who played in one game and did not throw a single pitch. Good luck getting these guys through AfD... (And I wouldn't put too much money on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernesto Miranda either) But ok, let's assume for a moment that you've managed to sway me about your one-event theories. How do you factor in the "low-profile" half of BLP1E? Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 01:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The problem that dogs your main argument--Miranda, Yount, and the others are all just examples of the same argument--is that the premise is wrong. If these other similarly-situated people are included, you argue, why not Taitz? Stipulating that those people are similarly-situated, however, your argument only works if I reject WP:OTHERSTUFF, which I do, and if I agree that those other people should be included. I don't. I have no idea why we have an article on Larry Yount, for instance, and if I gave a hoot about sports, I'd throw that into AFD, too.

As to the "low profile" language in WP:BLP1E, I take it your theory is that the language in the third sentence limits the language in the second sentence. I don't think so, but let's suppose you're correct: it's a moot point. WP:SINGLEEVENT, whence WP:BLP1E is a specialization, also applies to any article on Taitz, and it does not include language similarly limiting its scope. The maximum bite of your argument, then, is to reach the same result via a different policy, a position analogous to demanding the article be hanged from a nylon rather than polypropylene rope.

Finally, even assuming that you are correct about Taitz vis-à-vis BLP1E or SINGLEEVENT, the articles on Miranda and Gideon are unsound. Whereas you can at least bolster your case for a Taitz article by considering each of her various anti-Obama activities as a single event, Miranda and Gideon are inarguably notable for only a single case each. Whatever SINGLEEVENT arguments apply to Taitz, they apply a fortiori to the two articles I nominated. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 02:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I think you missed something key: WP:SINGLEEVENT does not apply a blanket rule of non-notability. You're right that it doesn't contain the "low profile" language of WP:BLP1E. (And that's important for your argument, because I don't see any way you can get around the multiple uses of the phrase "low profile" in BLP1E, or any way to claim that Taitz is "low profile.") But it also doesn't apply the rigid "single event = non-notable" rule that you seem to propose.

Instead, SINGLEEVENT takes an entirely flexible approach, noting that when someone is part of a single event it may be appropriate to have an article about the "individual, the event, or both." Which of those options to choose depends on the situation. So here, we have a high-profile person involved in a running political controversy (not...actually a single event, by the way), and actively receiving significant face-time in reliable sources. Under SINGLEEVENT, that seems like a straightforwardly notable person independent of the event, and the "both" option seems appropriate. -- TheOther Bob 04:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. All of the above editors have made clear points regarding the inapplicability of WP:BLP1E to someone who is famous beyond the thing that made them famous, but I'll add to them. Let's start with an example. Mick Jagger might have become famous because he was the lead singer of the Rolling Stones. But he is now, nonetheless, independently notable. Why? Because reliable sources report on him independently. Because people know his name. Because people come here searching for him, and want information about him outside of his participation in the group. Redirecting to the Rolling Stones would be absurd. Here, Taitz is (unfortunately...) famous to at least some degree -- it seems like most people now know who she is. Her fame began with, and largely relates to, her participation in the Birther movement, true. But reliable sources report on her -- not the Birther movement generally, but specifically her. (Jon Stewart, for example, reported on her "interesting" mix of professions.) Her name is well-enough known that Salon.com used her (along with HFCS) as an example of a bogeyman in a recent movie review. People come here looking for information about her, independent of the larger movement -- or at least I did (and it sounds like I'm far from alone). These things strongly suggest that BLP1E is inapplicable -- that Taitz is not a low-profile member of a larger movement, but rather a fairly famous face who, yes, did become famous because of her participation in something else -- but now has been reported on independently by reliable sources and is independently well-known. These things strongly suggest notability. One final thought, since I've mentioned fame here several times (and will therefore merit someone responding with "fame is not the same as notability.") It's true that notability does not require fame -- random highways in Texas can be notable. However, fame is an extraordinarily strong indicator of notability. If someone is famous enough to be talked about on the Daily Show, and we judge them non-notable, we need remarkably strong reasons for doing so -- because people will rightly wonder what sort of digital encyclopedia lacks information about someone famous. I don't see any reason -- much less any remarkably strong reason -- to believe that someone as (unfortunately) famous as Taitz is non-notable. So I'd overturn this deletion. -- TheOther Bob 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Strong overturn Is one event now one issue? If so, let's remove all the baseball players too. Come on, she's a very well known and when I started researching the birther movement last week, she was listed as a leader all over the place. Leader of a movement that has a massive number of articles is notable. Hobit ( talk) 20:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

comment/oppose strong overtur - what do you mean massive number of artilces? we only have one article about the birther movements Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. this is one article because it's is one issue, obviously Smith Jones 20:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I believe that Hobit was referring to media articles in general, not Wikipedia articles. — David Levy 21:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

ahh that makes more sense i think I understand Smith Jones 22:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you David, that's what I was trying to say (however poorly!). Hobit ( talk) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The AFD was closed in only 4 days, not the now standard 7, and if not against consensus then certainly with a debatable one. Especially given the way things are fluid regarding the subject, the most appropriate outcome here would seem to be Relist, not Overturn or Endorse. Rd232 ^talk 18:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'd support that. Your argument is very reasonable. Hobit ( talk) 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • its also impostant to point out that this is the second AFD that this article has had, and the first one resulted in delete. this culd be an example of WP:SNOW, especially since the keep votes were somewhat repetitive and specious and Wikipedia is not a voting democrat. Relisting may be appropriate, but it wil csontintute the unusual step of granting the same minor and relatively unimportant article three separate AFDs (or FOUR if you count Deletion Review), which is unusual and perhaps a little bit unnecesary since it will almost certainly be closed and deleted again by the same admin. Smith Jones 22:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think WP:SNOW really applies. For one thing, Taitz is getting more and more notable each time. I'm sure each creation is the result of considerable surprise that there isn't already an entry on here for her. I think you could even go so far as say the it makes as much sense to apply WP:SNOW to the creators of the article as it does to apply WP:SNOW to the deletors (especially if it were to be as you described it - the same admin deleting it again and again). Luminifer ( talk) 04:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

File:Ambar Siar.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The image was deleted for reasons best known to the administrator. I had also put a license tag which stated that the picture was more than 100 years old and qualifies to be posted on wikipedia. I hail from the very same place which Malik Ambar, whose image I posted, erected during 16th century AD. I therefore request the editors to qualify this image and let me post the picture. Nefirious ( talk) 18:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

For background, it was deleted as a copy of File:Malik Ambar.jpg, which was deleted here in June as a derivative work of File:Copy of 12062009755.jpg. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ++ 03:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• While the question DRV is asked normally to consider is whether deletion process was properly followed, it does appear that this image is a copy of an image which is PD due to age. I therefore recommend it be restored without any negative inference towards the previous deletions. Stifle ( talk) 20:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear sir, the image was painted by an unknown artist more than 100 years before. I believe that the image will not affect anyone nor does anyone hold any copyright of the image. Please comment everyone. Thanks for recommending it to be restored. Nefirious ( talk) 05:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• I will not object if a proper and valid Citation comes with it, allong with proper licencing. The licencing of THIS image is unclear and disputed. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC) [Disclosure: I have objected on these grounds prior ] reply
  • I would guess we are talking about File:Malik Amb.jpg now that User:Nefirious re-uploaded the same picture, again, even though the Cited Source (Shaikh Chand’s book ‘ Malik Ambar’) has no GBooks match, nor did the Author. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

If Google doesn't have reference to it, doesn't mean that book does not exist. I believe there are thousands such books written in regional language that have no reference on Google. Like before, I had also attached a snapshot of the newspaper in which the picture was printed. So I suggest my fellow colleagues to reinstate the image that serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject in the article and is by all means authentic. Nefirious ( talk) 17:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

By the way, I just came across this book which has the reference of Sheikh Chand's book. [ Malik Ambar]. Please have a look at the link and you will find a mention of Sheikh Chand's book that was published in the year 1921 and then republished in 1931. Nefirious ( talk) 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• But the problem with the copyright is that, as you yourself have stated..."The photo was originally in black and white. It has been colored in a photo studio" [2]. That means, it is then no longer a Black and white photograph, It is an Artists interpretation done to an Unknown degree, at an Unknown time, then printed in a Newspaper that does not say where the Original Image or Altered Image was acquired from or what it is we are actually being shown. (We cant really tell if its not the Art Department's sketch made a week before the Newspaper Article was written or wholly now the work of the Artists that interpreted it.) Add to that, the fact that "There are no multiple sources that describe Malik Ambar as the same in every picture." [3] means that we have to be sure of the picture, or have none, for this historical figure. Myself and others have been attempting to explain this viewpoint for sometime now. Taking the picture from a newspaper then adding a Cite from a book would not adhere to WP:V as they did not come from the same source. If we could find a unaltered photograph with a reliable Citable source with with it, there would be no problem, but this Image's copyright has been meddled with by to many people already, for it to be Reliable. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You are just complicating matters my dear friend. The picture was colored in a photo studio by people in the city who adore him and see him as a hero that included myself. The photo has only been colored and is no artists interpretation and imagination. Sheikh Chand is the only author to have written a book exclusively on Malik Ambar and is considered by all researchers as a very authentic book. What you say is your own interpretation about changes in the image. If we start looking at these things so minutely then no image will ever be posted on wikipedia. And yes there are other pictures of Malik Ambar that descirbe him as darker, but that does not mean that the picture in Shaikh Chand's book or the Article with Malik Ambar's picture in TOI is fake. Times of India is a national newspaper and no one can challenge its authenticity. And by the way, the newspaper snapshot was just added for reference. I have the original copy of the image as well as the colored photographs with me. The TOI team was in search of an appropriate picture and came across this picture and published the same in the newspaper. And it has not been meddled by too many people, you are just exagerrating. The bottom line is that the image is more than 100 years old and qualifies to be posted on wikipedia. The sources have been cited and authenticity maintained. 05:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC) And if by any chance the image does not qualify under pd old then it can qualify under public domain, since the picture has been drawn by an unknown artist and has been manually colored by an artist. Nefirious ( talk) 05:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Can you scan or take a picture of ... "the picture in Shaikh Chand's book" ? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Since we share the same privileges on Wikipedia, I will do so if the council demands. I aint answerable to one individual. Sorry if you think this is rude but I would need to scan the picture and for doing so I would need to go out somewhere since I dont have a scanner. If the council members insist on doing so, I'll do so. But I dont think there is an urgent need for me to produce the outlined picture of Malik Ambar, don't think any editor ever had to produce any evidence apart from citations and references. Nefirious ( talk) 07:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Sorry. I think you misunderstand me. I dont mean to ask for "produce any evidence". That picture is the picture that I would not object to you using in the Article. That picture could meet the Cites and Copyrights. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• If thats the case then I will scan and upload the original version. Nefirious ( talk) 08:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Picture of Malik Ambar right|100px|Malik Ambar please have a look at it all of you. Nefirious ( talk) 06:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Seems to be allright to me. I too recommend that the pic be restored. 59.95.2.133 ( talk) 06:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• I'm struggling to make the least bit of sense of this huge, unformatted wall of text, but from a combination of this and a perusal of NawlinWiki's talk page, I'm tentatively of the view that this content should be userfied to Penright in order to give him time to work on the article and make it ready for publication on Wikipedia.

  Before it is actually moved to the mainspace, I think Penright should bring the finished article in its verifiable, reliably-sourced state back to DRV, where we can examine it and make sure it's appropriate.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 19:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi this is Penright here, I think I undertsand yiu you are saying that I can have some time to work on the article under a pace called userfied an dthen when I feel the article is ready for going into the main space, i will be allowed ot bring the article back to DVR where yu can examine it in detail to make sure it's appropriate and/or provide me guidelines and/or suggestions where and how I have to improve the article for being appropriate for being moved into the main space. Many Thanks Penright. Penright ( talk) 19:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Well, this is a discussion, and my answer is my opinion. Others will also have their say, and when we have reached rough consensus on what to do, the consensus will be implemented.

  "Userfied" means the article is moved to a separate part of the wikipedia space where you can work on it at your leisure before it is "published" into the mainspace.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 19:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  • To put Marshall's words into non-Wikipedia jargon, please put your article at User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?). Hope this is useful to you. Dems on the move ( talk) 19:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the deletion of the article in the form it was in, and also suggest userfication with support and review before the article is moved into the main space. Vicenarian ^{( Said · Done)} 19:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  Withdrawing support for userfication. The user is making personal attacks against other editors in his text. Not acceptable in main space or user space. Vicenarian ^{( Said · Done)} 12:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and further recommend that User:Penright visits the help desk or Editor Assistance (but not both!) to request input and assistance as s/he edits that userpage. -- AndrewHowse ( talk) 20:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and support userfication. →javért ^stargaze 21:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Scott Doe ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This is a multi layed issue so bare with me.

• A. I nominated the Scott Doe article, a soccer player that has never played a professional soccer match and their fails WP:ATHLETE
• B. The AfD was " speedy kept" citing "This article is currently a Good Article, which wouldn't be posisble if he didn't pass basic notability guidelines".
• C. I recognised the "closer" as an editor that has been invloved in an ongoing dispute with me and other with regards the notability of soccer players (mainly in Ireland and the UK).
• D. I then 8reverted the closure and opened a discussion on the closers talk page.
• E. Edit warring ensured and the AfD was locked. The closer then stated that the AfD was closed because "it has recently passed it's good article nomination, that AfD was applicable for a Speedy Keep close under clause 2.1 ("obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations (such as recently featured articles)")." - I disagreed with this stating the AfD was policy based and then felt I was being fobbed out by a biased closer as an attempt to silence.
• F. I then opened a second AfD - more of the same. I then opened a discussion on ANI and subsequently got blocked for 3RR and disruption.

• So now we are here. My issue is threefold.

• 1. The logic of the closure - Closer stated that "obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations" - the article nominated was for a footballer that never played a game of professional football in all his days and I outlined that in the nomination. It wasnt a "featured article" and the GA review it had had no mention of notability. Others agreed with this - here and a.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=305087918&oldid=305087072 here. Some editors did state it was frivilous but when challenged as to why they did not reply.
• 2. The bias of the closer - Bettia has very recently been involved in a number of arguments/discussions/disagreements with me and others over this issue and should not have been the one to close the AfD due to his "emotional invlovement". Examples here, here, here and here,
• 3. Meetpuppetry of the "FOOTY Project cabal" - In the above AfD's this cabal - consisting primarily of Bettia, GiantSnowman, Jimbo online, Angelo.romano, Dweller, ClubOranje and Number 57 - to a much lesser extent ChrisTheDude, Dweller, Jmorrison230582, have mostly been recently involved when we had a pretty similar issue where a potentially biased admin from the FOOTY Project closed an AfD when they have been invovled disputes in that area. This was at the Davey O'Connor's review, infact Bettia should remember it because he also endorsed the deletion - thankfully the community stepped in to overturn it. Which is what I hope happens here. Vintagekits ( talk) 20:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment Just in case you don't know what meatpuppetry is: WP:MEAT. I don't see any evidence of any of the mentioned users making any "recruitment of (typically, new) editors to join a discussion on behalf of or as proxy for another editor, usually with the aim of swaying consensus in that discussion". Also, as I said on WP:AN/I, I have always thought all footballers with a Wikipedia article should meet both WP:ATHLETE and WP:N, not only one of them, which is a position quite different than several of the other users you mentioned. Please think twice before writing your words. -- Angelo ( talk) 21:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, I would say that this is pretty indicative of the carry on over there. And the reaction of the "canvasser" who didnt even seem to think there was anything wrong with it is very very telling.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 21:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Right now...why don't we just deal with the article at hand? -- Smashville ^talk 21:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• 1. It is not meatpuppetry, according to the Wikipedia definition itself; 2. It is not even inappropriate canvassing, a user asks for more input from other users with valid knowledge of the subject, also because several of these AfDs went almost desert, with no comment at all, and some of them being even extended for one more week because of that; 3. WP:CANVAS is a nice reading, look at it; canvassing is not negative by definition, but can also be helpful in some cases; "Inappropriate canvassing" is the real issue instead, which is not the case here. -- Angelo ( talk) 21:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Relist. There was absolutely no reason for an editor involved in the Wikiproject to speedy close this debate - especially with this reasoning. Being a listed as a good article generally does not preclude an article from being deleted...especially when one notes - as VK brings up - that WP:ATHLETE was not even mentioned in the brief GA review. -- Smashville ^talk 21:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep the article would have had to have been checked for quick fail criteria, which doesn't have to be noted. Nothing at WP:RGA says about how in depth the review has to be, as the reviewer obviously thought it was decent enough. Clearly not meatpuppetry either, just established Wiki members who share the same view, which happened to be different of Vintagekits who seemed to get upset and take things personally. -- Jimbo ^[online] 22:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the speedy closure of the AfD as speedy keep, primarily because of the logic associated with being listed as a Good Article. From my reading of the first paragraph of the article, I question that designation, but it was perhaps different when the GA status was achieved, and that's beside the point of an AfD. If the article is a GA, it's a GA. Let's discuss that designation (elsewhere, please) before having any discussion about deleting it. Second, it is not within policy to presume that failure to meet WP:ATHLETE means a subject fails to meet notability. WP:ATHLETE and its brethren, such as WP:MUSIC, WP:ACADEMIC, etc., exist for the purpose of providing additional criteria that are discipline-specific to aid in defining additional ways in which a subject might be recognized as notable for our purposes. They are not meant as failing criteria but rather as additional passing criteria. This is described at the top of the page: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included (and yes, meeting them isn't automatically enough to say they should be included). I note also that 16 other players on his team have articles here and the team is listed as international - this is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS point, but it does seem that there is consensus that most members of this level of team are notable, so it's not without precedent. If the purpose of the AfD was to question whether or not all players at that level meet notability guidelines, they should all have been nominated concurrently as a policy discussion rather than this one particular article, and on that basis, I'd also endorse the close because of wrong venue. I am not saying discussion can't or shouldn't be had, but if there is a wider discussion to be had, let's make it the right one instead of hanging everything on this one AfD.  Frank  |   talk  21:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Ugh. This is unpleasant; from the combination of the above nomination, with negative descriptions of named editors, on the one side and edit summaries like this on the other, we're dealing with a clash of personalities as well as a content dispute.

  The article in question does not appear to be a GA to me, and even if it were, that would not prevent it being discussed at AfD.

  The point the "keep" side should have made more clearly is that Scott Doe has non-trivial coverage from the BBC here and here. This means the notability argument for deletion is only going to succeed if Vintagekits can show that the BBC is not a reliable source, and frankly, I don't foresee that line of argument cutting much ice at AfD.

  But, having said all that, I do think it was unfortunate that Bettia was the one to close the AfD. Vintagekits does have a point in this respect: Bettia isn't an uninvolved admin. So this comes back to R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy, which I've cited before at DRV, and I think is important. The principle is that while I have no doubt that Bettia is perfectly capable of setting aside their personal feelings when judging a consensus, "justice must be done, and must be seen to be done". Even the appearance of bias is enough to justify setting aside the previous discussions and requiring a good-faith debate on notability to take place.

  So despite the fact that I think Vintagekits' argument is going to get absolutely slaughtered, I'm going to go with procedural relist.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 21:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment, all i would say about the links that you provided - would you consider the coverage of Doe in those articles to be indepth significant coverage which would be enough to pass WP:N?-- Vintagekits ( talk) 22:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia definition's of "significant coverage" is provided in the WP:GNG. I'm quite certain that those pass.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 22:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Relist. Speedy keep is never valid when multiple editors support deleting an article (see WP:SK), so the closure falls at the first fence. Stifle ( talk) 22:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  Comment- Only the nominator supported deletion. Umbralcorax ( talk) 00:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  Hmm. Missed that. However, I still support relisting as this deserves a proper discussion. As mentioned elsewhere, a GA is one person's decision, so that doesn't give articles immunity from deletion. Stifle ( talk) 20:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse decision- The closer hit it right on the head. An article doesn't reach GA status unless there's notability asserted and backed up in spades, which this article has. There was no way this was going to close as a delete. Umbralcorax ( talk) 00:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, if there was no chance of it being deleted why not allow the discussion then? You also havent touchedon the issue of the closers bias. Would it surprise you that Scott Doe plays in the same league as this player. Note the identity of the people casting the delete !votes. The same one that are voting to !keep here - yet these are playing in the same level and the same sources are available for both. Another example - Vid Belec - well sourced article with better sources than this article has and its up for AfD - note the !voters and their reasoning. -- Vintagekits ( talk) 00:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Relist for several reasons:1) Meeting notability criteria is not one of the Good Article criteria, failing notability criteria is a reason given to delete something under deletion policy. 2) Purposefully not looking at this particular example, the good article review process is often only administered by one individual and so is not infallible and does not always reflect community consensus - in general no process is infallible. 3) According to the Featured Article director "FA status should not be used as the basis for arguing whether or not an article should be notable enough to keep." (January 2008) 4) Having the discussion - and determining community consensus - will be the easiest way to put the issue to bed in this particular case. Guest9999 ( talk) 00:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure if that's a good article, we're scraping bottom here. But the people who decide which articles are "good" no doubt would have raised notability issues and assuming good faith if those folks didn't have a problem, why is it at AFD? If it's time for a reassessment, so be it; knock out it's "good"ness and then nominate it. Remember consensus isn't just who shows up to the AFD, but the whole community and the community (or its representatives) have spoken that the article is "good". Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist as new AfD, overly broad interpretation of SK criterion 2. Considering "unquestionably vandalism or disruption", my reading of example 1 is more like vandalizing the current Main Page Featured Article by nominating it at AfD. Even if that narrow interpretation is expanded to shield all current FAs, I don't see how it transfers to GA. A recent promotion to or affirmation of GA status may be a reasonable AfD argument – especially if the review and the nomination overlap – but it is insufficient for SK. Flatscan ( talk) 04:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist It only takes a single reviewer to promote an article to GA status, so I don't think the nomination was out of line. I also think the speedy keep was out of line, particularly given the contentious relationship between nom and closer. I agree entirely with S. Marshall's thinking above. Ray ^Talk 06:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist How on earth is that a good article? the prose in the lead is awful.... yea, its fails athlete, that doesnt matter if the article meets the GNG anyway but we need a proper discussion about whether the sources properly discuss the subject in non-trivial terms. If it does, it doesn't matter whether its fails Athlete as GNG trumps local notability guidelines. But this needs a proper discussion so relist. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist Having GA status doesn't assert notability. He clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, so notability is going to have to be asserted elsewhere. All the references are either or statistical apart from a couple of pieces in the Dorset Echo, but even then the depth of coverage is lacking and let's face it - we could assert a lot of non-notable people's notability by using local papers. A proper discussion is needed. Black Kite 08:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

*Endorse as closing admin, as I feel that my actions were entirely policy-based. I should point out that I don't object to anyone questioning my interpretation of policy, but I certainly object to people questioning my integrity, in particular the personal accusations made against me by the nominator.
Disagreeing with someone over interpretation of policy is not the same as bias - if I think the nominator is correct about something, I will quite happily take his side. Indeed, this happened just yesterday in an AfD which nominator conveniently didn't link to - despite our difference of opinions, I supported his AfD nomination. If I truly was biased against him, would I have done that?
The idea that I was "emotionally involved" is also baseless. If anyone reading the AfDs linked to by the nominator (or in any of my edits) can find any negative emotion on my part, I'd be very impressed - I guarantee, you certainly won't find anything like the vulgar tirade left on my talk page.
Thirdly, the accusation of meatpuppetry on the part of me and the others named is also baseless and offensive as it questions the integrity of me and an entire WikiProject. Such a serious accusation needs solid proof.
If the nominator cannot provide any proof to back up these claims, I would respectfully ask him to make good use of the strikethrough tag and withdraw those accusations. Bettia  (bring on the trumpets!) 09:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment, I'll be strikin through feck all I can assure you! You and your "buddies" on the FOOTY Project are a cabal that vote in lock step and are completely hypocritical. You pick an choose when you consider WP:ATH, WP:N or WP:GNG is the policy that suits your POV - usually when its an English player and then delete the rest - the lot of ye make me sick to be honest. The DRV for David O'Connor just says it all afaik. If you had any dignity or respect for yourself you would had you adminship back in.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 09:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Pretty much what I was expecting. No further input needed from me here. Bettia  (bring on the trumpets!) 09:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Thats it run! Lets look at this statistically. On the Davey O'Connor review we have 17 !votes. 12 for overturn and 5 to endorse the deletion. If we look at the votes and split it between "cabal members" and the general community it looks a little diffeent. "Cabal members" - 1 to overturn and 5 to endorse - General community - 11 to overturn and 0 to endorse. Actions speak louder than words and those stats speak volumes.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 10:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• A question for you, Bettia: do you consider that this article satisfies the WP:ATHLETE notability criteria? Or rather that it satisfies the general notability criteria of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? (or both?) -- Stormie ( talk) 03:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Relist. This is worth a full AfD debate. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist (the first AfD) - I'm sure there was no impropriety involved but similar to S Marshall's arguement it's the 'appearance of possible impropriety' that is the problem, in this case possible bias. In my opinion no admin should close an AfD on a subject which they have a keen interest and being a member of a relevant project certainly suggests such a keen interest, as it suggests they may be biased. I'm sure in 99.99% of cases they would show no bias but there's no way to prove that they haven't so it's better they don't close an AfD on a subject they're close to so that not only are we fair but we're seen to be fair. I'm sure it's pretty much uneccessary to say this but the second AfD close was good as it's not the right way to object to an AfD closuure. Dpmuk ( talk) 10:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist per nom and Black kite. BigDunc 11:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist - despite being accused of being a member of this shadowy WP:FOOTY cult, I actually agree with Vintagekits that the discussion should have been allowed to remain open. As it is a Good Article, it is almost 100% going to be kept; but we should still allow positive, meaningful discussion. So let Vintagekits make his pro-deletion points, and see what other editors have to say. However, I want to make it known that my decision to support the relisting is in no means a criticism of the way that Bettia closed the AfD; Vintagekits' recent AfD nominations have been verging on the ridiculous lately, and this is the straw that broke the admin's back. Giant Snowman 14:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure as Keep Aren't the requirements to become a Good Article far higher than simply being kept? It has been proven to meet all the requirements, so there is no need to bother with this. Dream Focus 16:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist. I think this article is a great example of why Good Article status should not be considered an automatic keep in an AfD, and moreover it's a bit of an embarrassment to the Good Article process: it's short, lacking in substantive detail, filled with minutiae about individual game plays in the absence of anything more substantive to say about the subject, and not compellingly written. None of these qualities makes for a convincing deletion rationale, but they don't provide a speedy keep rationale either. The AfD should have proceeded normally. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist, for pretty much the same reasons as everyone else of this opinion. The GA criteria do not require one to consider notability, and in any event such articles are promoted on based on one editor's opinion. FA's by comparison, are peer reviewed, and have a better claim to immunity from AfD. Even so, there is precedent for FAs being nominated for deletion. I expect the nomination will fail, but it was properly raised, and discussion should not have been cut off by interested parties. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist – I would personally question why that's a GA in the first place. I doubt, however, a consensus for deletion will occur, but you never know... MuZemike 20:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist Being a GA is not a free ticket to notability. There is nothing in the GA criteria, or even the FA criteria that demands notbility; the only reason so few make it to GA is because the reviewer is not attentive enough to send it to AfD. Not only that, the closing admin was certainly not impartial, and this close was not a good idea. \ Backslash Forwardslash / { talk} 01:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist notability is seriously questionable as is the GA status, which it currently fails. There are no images at all on the article nor was there even a discussion during the review of this issue. I also don't believe it is well written. To give a few examples: "although he is yet to play for the team", "He was refused to join Dagenham on a permanent basis by The Football Association", "however the the Football League refused" etc. There's nothing on his personal background and particularly glaring is the omission of his birthplace. The article needs to be put up for GA review. Valenciano ( talk) 07:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist, GA does not disqualify an article from AfD. Even if it survives AfD the GA status is highly questionable. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 08:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Changing !vote to Overturn and Relist. Having had a couple of days to cool off and reflect, I've come to the same conclusion as many of the people here - although my intentions were honest, my actions were hasty and incorrect. Although I don't agree with Vintagekits' accusations against me and the member of WP:FOOTY, I do owe him an apology as my actions caused him to get angry and temporarily blocked. As User:S Marshall has stated above, "justice must be done and must be seen to be done". Bettia  (bring on the trumpets!) 07:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Then I suggest you close this DRV and relist the AfD, since that does appear to be the consensus. As deleting admin, I'm certain you have the authority.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 11:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Relist This clearly needs further examination. Chillum 02:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

File:PeterPan1.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I raised this with the closing admin Steve Smith ( talk · contribs) and, though we both agreed the image should probably be deleted, we disagreed about the role of a closing administrator- I felt that the majority of arguments in favour of retention were extremely weak, and that the initial concern (that the physical appearance of the actress in role is of no importance) was not addressed. The retention of this image seems to be contrary to wider consensus, and, though more people voted to keep, (and though I'm not accusing Steve of this) IfD debates most certainly should not be a straight head count. I feel that this closure was inaccurate, as it failed to address the wider concerns about the use of this image, and the strong consensus in support of our NFCC generally. J Milburn ( talk) 20:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Explanation from closing admin: J Milburn gets the explanation about right above, but I wanted to more thoroughly explain my closure. As J Milburn said, I don't think that this image clears NFCC #8. However, site-wide consensus on how this criterion is applied (which means, among other things, that photos of album covers are always considered to clear it in articles about the album, that purely decorative photos non-living people for whom no free equivalent exists are always acceptable, etc.) the threshold for what constitutes an argument that NFCC #8 is met are quite low. I felt that a number of the arguments from the keep side, which was clearly in the majority, were at least defensible as being consistent with this prevailing site-wide consensus (for example, "A photo of how this woman appeared when she played the part of a young boy - which is not at all obvious just from closing one's eyes and imagining - adds considerably to one's understanding of that role."). As to the role of the closing administrator, if WP:CONSENSUS is to have any meaning the closing admin's role must extent beyond merely deciding who's right, to also measure whose arguments are better supported by participants in the discussion. All of that said, I'm not married to this closure and will cry approximately zero tears of it's overturned. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

(Edit conflicted comment:)The notable effect of a woman playing the role of a boy can't be expressed in words nearly as well as it can with an image. This effect adds significant value to the articles where it's used, although it is not central to them; this argument puts it on the 'KEEP' side of significance.-- Elvey ( talk) 21:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

We could argue about that, but that's not what deletion review is meant to achieve. That's what the IfD debate was for. J Milburn ( talk) 21:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Then could you please explain to those of us new to this bureaucratic maneuver what the purpose of it is? I mean, it looks like jury shopping, but I take it I'm mistaken about that. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 23:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The purpose of DRV is not to determine whether the file should be deleted, but merely rather my close of the debate was correct. The distinction can be illustrated by the fact that I think that the file should probably be deleted (and therefore would !vote delete at an FFD debate for it) but I think my closure was correct, which means I do not support overturning it. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Just to respond to Steve's comments above, I do not think that IfD debates should merely be the combined opinion of those who turned up, but rather should reflect our wider policies directly. For a demonstration of this in a different way, see this image. J Milburn ( talk) 21:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Understood; if the "keep" arguments had all been "This image is pretty", I would have completely ignored them. But I believe that the keep arguments did address NFCC #8 as it's applied around this site, even if its application is flawed. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• I think I have to endorse Steve Smith's closure as a fair reflection of the consensus. Renominate it in a couple of months.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 22:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Are you suggesting renominating because you think there's a significant chance that either the criteria under which a non-free image is deleted or the broad consensus of the community will change in the next two months or because you do not think the local consensus of this discussion reflected the broader consensus of the community? Guest9999 ( talk) 13:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Yes.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 13:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete. The NFCC aren't negotiable, even if the image looks pretty. Stifle ( talk) 22:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Just because one person argued to IAR doesn't mean that the arguments against deletion were all based on it. The image was alleged to violate NFCC#8 because an editor "fail[ed] to see" the explanatory value of it. But arguments were made that it does not violate that rule, with explanations about the value of images over mere descriptions. One doesn't need to regard NFCC as negotiable to keep the image. I suppose one might dispute that conclusion if it isn't validated by one's way of learning, but it seems to have been reached in good faith based on the actual discussion. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 01:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Based on actual discussion? I was as good as told to shut up by an editor who wasn't happy that I was commenting with regards to votes by others. J Milburn ( talk) 16:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (no consensus). If the application of NFCC were clear, there would have been consensus. I recommend continuing the debate at File talk:PeterPan1.jpg. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • If there is no consensus to include NFC, it should be deleted. The burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the image. J Milburn ( talk) 16:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I believe that J Milburn is right. There was no consensus that the use of the image is justified. Perhaps a better justification can be made, but in the meantime the image should not be used. How easy is it to ask for permission to use such images? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Steve Smith's reasoned explanation of his actions. Jheald ( talk) 17:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep and I think the arguments were correct--this is an iconic image. DGG ( talk) 18:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Keep I agree, its obviously an iconic image. No legitimate reasons to delete it. Dream Focus 18:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment leaning towards a blameless overturn - local consensus can't overrule the nonfree policy, so I agree with J Milburn and Stifle. That said, I think guidelines on closing image discussions need to be much clearer, because at the moment the blurb at the top of the WP:FFD mentions consensus, but doesn't mention the non-free policy, and in this context, the closing admin was blameless. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Local consensus is what interprets the policy in actual situations. DGG ( talk) 14:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and I like PhilKnight's way of putting it. I have all the sympathy in the world to SI here - the discussion did indeed tend towards keep. However, I think that nonfree content policy read as a whole, with its aim of reducing nonfree content on the project weighs against keeping this image. When a policy specificially states that it is intentionally being drawn narrowly, we should construe it narrowly, event to the point of going against the local consensus within that IFD. The real problem, as that discussion and others like it showed, is that the NFCC policy doesn't enjoy the widespread consensus that its status as a policy would imply. However, it has come to us from the Foundation, and we need to follow it as best we can. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn considering both the non-free content criteria and the deletion discussion I do not think there is a consensus to include the image in Wikipedia. The arguments for keeping the image almost universally referred to the importance of the role to the actress rather than how inclusion of the image increases the readers understanding of the topic, as required by NFCC criterion 8. Consensus should be required to include a non-free image on Wikipedia. Guest9999 ( talk) 13:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

the importance of the photograph is not the importance of the role to the actor--but the the importance of the actor in the role. DGG ( talk) 18:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not going argue to as to the semantics but I still think the relevant argument would be to do with the importance of the image in the article - which I don't think was adequately addressed. Guest9999 ( talk) 22:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete. In addition to the arguments above that this use clearly fails NFCC#8, I think the closing admin misunderstands the site-wide consensus that seemingly weakens the application of NFCC#8. As far as I am aware the “weak” standard applies only to images used for “identification” of the subject of the article. The consensus is that this “identification” significantly increases reader understanding. Thus an album cover is accepted to identify an article on the album, and a non-replaceable portrait of a person is accepted to identify a biography of the person. But these seeming exceptions do not apply to this photo: There is already a free portrait to identify Mary Martin, and the image does not identify the other articles by any stretch of the imagination. — teb728 t c

Identification is only one of the possible valid uses. DGG ( talk) 14:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply

That is correct, but it is the only one that doesn't require a stronger justification than has been provided for this image. And (most significantly for this DR) it is one that accounts for the closing admin's examples of generous application of NFCC#8. — teb728 t c 19:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closer's logical and carefully explained decision. However, the image should be removed from the list article, where it serves neither to identify nor to increase understanding. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 15:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse meets NFCC#8 as it adds significantly to the article to be able to see the actress dressed in the role in this case (cross dressing is pretty hard to imagine for me at least). Finally, the closer's arguments are, frankly, outstanding. Hobit ( talk) 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the closer's rationale, as explained above. There was consensus at the FfD that it meets NFCC#8, which the closer interpreted correctly. — PyTom ( talk) 20:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

What If (Coldplay song) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Procedural nomination (I think). The song's article was redirected to X&Y per the above XfD link, though it has been restored in good faith several times previously. See here for the article's latest non-redirected revision. Dylan 620 ( contribs, logs) 16:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Laruso ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Notability established, wondering if a history undelete is possible for the most recent deleted version (not the copyright violation, just the A7). Admin declined nebulously. Gendralman ( talk) 03:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I'd love to, but reviewing the A7'd version, it looks like there are still some bits that were copyvios, so I'm afraid I can't. Cheers, though. lifebaka ++ 21:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Gendralman ( talk) 22:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Email the deleted content to User:Gendralman for him to review. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Amy Juergens ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• Unprotection - I'd like to create the page Amy Juergens, but it is currently protected. I can't figure out why it was protected. I plan on cleaning up and starting other articles for The Secret Life of the American Teenager. Nk3play2 ( talk) 04:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • it was being persistently recreated in a really careless manner, and before the show actually appeared. But that was a year ago, and there's no reason not to unprotect. Be aware that even for main characters like her, there is likely to be some opposition unless you have references to substantial specific discussions of her from good sources. I'd suggest going slowly and very carefully on the others--try for some articles so good they won;t be even challenged. DGG ( talk) 21:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It seems there is an article at Amy Jurgens - deliberately misspelled to get around the protection? Anyway there are a few paragraphs there and a couple of references, I'd say it should be moved into the correct spelling, and any further consideration really isn't within the scope of DRV. Several other characters from List of characters in The Secret Life of the American Teenager currently have standalone articles. -- Stormie ( talk) 01:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Order of the Acropolis ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deleted and eventually salted as a hoax. However, a new user (clearly a sockpuppet, but a well-meaning one) posted a link on my talk page which at least establishes the existence of the group. Notability is still up in the air, so I thought I'd bring the issue here. The link may be found here: [4] PMDrive1061 ( talk) 15:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• yes notability looks like an issue. unless the user can provide meaningful third party coverage its not worth restoring this just to delete is as non-notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• My standing recommendation for articles that have gotten themselves salted after repeated deletion is to bring a sourced userspace draft here for discussion. Stifle ( talk) 20:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• (re)Create in userspace first. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

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

I see this article was recently handled here, but Euwyn has now written a version on his user page that has been fixed up to comply with the criticism at the AfD, which included notability concerns, reliable sourcing, and promotional writing. I don't know what condition the article was in when it was AfD'd but I think we should at least consider reintroducing it to the mainspace. Them From Space 08:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• I certainly think this can be fleshed out with this msnbc article and this asianweek piece as sources (currently the article only links to one newsweek piece). WIth the introduction of those two externals, Allow Recreation. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 09:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• I'm still seeing sourcing concerns in the article as drafted, but Usrnme h8er brings up a couple of decent ones. I'm with him that a version with the new sources added would probably be acceptable. I'd just like to see this new draft at DRV before proceeding, please.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 11:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the input. I've revised the version on my userpage to include references to the AsianWeek and MSNBC piece. Would certainly appreciate further edits. Euwyn ( talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• I think it's good enough to go back in now. DGG ( talk) 21:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• I too agree that the userspace draft addresses the concerns from the AfD discussion and would support moving it back into mainspace. -- Stormie ( talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation and move back into the mainspace. Definitely looks good enough. MuZemike 02:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Alexis Grace ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• Some links for You: First Afd Nomination(kept) * Second Nomination (deleted) * Deletion Review 13 March (No Consensus). A DRV on the 12 March was merged into the 13th one. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Deletion violated Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series#Guidelines (regardless of alleged "consensus" which was nonexistent), and it has since been used to justify 36 other inappropriate Idol-related deletions. RBBrittain ( talk) 01:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Correction: It was 38 other deletions, though 3 of them have already been rejected; I commented "speedy close" on the other 35 because they (like this one) violate the established guideline for AI contestants. -- RBBrittain ( talk) 02:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Uphold deletion. The thing is, I didn't think the article should've been deleted. But the admin's decision was reasoned and honestly not incorrect. So I'm not sure it can be overturned. "I disagree with the deletion!" isn't a reason to overturn it IMO. Probably my pro-admin bias but there we are. :) And Dalejenkins actions are not the fault of the admin here. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Coming off a small break to comment: I won't comment further, given that I've gone over this many times before, but here are my points: 1) This has already been before deletion review once (can someone find the link) - what new information does the nominator have? 2) Violating arbitrary, non-community driven guidelines is irrelevant 3) I think the mass nominations you refer to are wildly inappropriate for a variety of reasons, and I am particularly annoyed by mass AfDs of any type. The nominator there is using this example to justify his actions, but that is not a deletion reason (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Similarly "being used to justify deleting" is not a procedural fault in the AfD, which is what DRV is about. Go and use the other stuff exists argument on the AfDs by all means, and tell Dale that he needs a more substantive argument, but this second DRV is a waste of our energies. Fritzpoll ( talk) 08:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. In my opinion the the main reason given for overturning is not a valid reason. Unless a wikiproject guideline has been widely accepted by the community then it should carry little or no weight in a AfD arguement - as appears to be the reasoning at the first DRV. Taking what, to the the nominator is a more minor issue, but which is a valid DRV arguement, that the closure was against consensus I feel that this AfD could plausiably have gone either way and was within the closing admins discretion to close what way they felt fit - personally I think delete was the correct outcome. With that in mind I can't see how there was any procedural errors so I have to endorse the closure as correct. Dpmuk ( talk) 18:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Wikiproject guidelines do not overarch general notability guidelines and polices. If it fails the GNG then its fails the inclusion criteria and wikiprojects do not have the right to establish walled gardens of their own where general guidelines do not apply. Get a specific notability guideline accepted if you like but wikiprojects don't trump project wide policy. Therefore endorse simply because no valid reason to overturn the AFD/DRV have been presented. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, WikiProjects don't get to set lower notability criteria for articles in their purview. Deletion process has been followed. Stifle ( talk) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  FWIW, wikiprojects certainly can set different guidelines & even lower ones-- if their guidelines are accepted by the wider community. The practical test of whether they're accepted is AfD. (I have no opinion on the particular article) DGG ( talk) 21:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  Absolutely. Feel free to read in "unilaterally" before "set", unless you don't like split infinitives. Stifle ( talk) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I don't see any versions in the deleted history that ever contained any more content than the coverage currently at American Idol (season 8) - just a paragraph of biography and details of her performance in that show. If she has any other claim to notability, and if that can be supported by significant coverage in reliable sources, work up an article in userspace and bring it to DRV. p.s. if the Idol WikiProject would like to work on coverage of Idol contestants which goes beyond Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, there is an Idol wiki at idol.wikia.com which is, excuse the pun, somewhat idle. -- Stormie ( talk) 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse – the GNG takes precedence over the sub-guidelines like BIO, CORP, ATHLETE, etc. This is no different. The sub-guidelines are meant as a more common-sense aid and idiot's guide (let's face it, not everyone here has a master's degree) in gauging notability for recurring cases in which such articles would not be likely to meet the notability standard (as opposed to will not meet the notability standard). If there is a minimal amount of coverage in a few independent reliable sources, then it passes, regardless whether or not that article meets that particular sub-guideline. MuZemike 02:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, no new arguments presented, and the AfDs started by Dalejenkins are a separate issue. I'm not particularly happy with them either, but the articles' supporters will not find relief here. Another discussion link: the first AfD had a DRV closed as relist and was relisted as a separate second AfD. Flatscan ( talk) 03:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure As a practical matter, the test for any notability guideline is AfD. This article failed that test, and closing admin accurately assessed consensus there. Ray ^Talk 07:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Melissa Palmer ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Please be so kind to review decision for deletion. I do not think that new information added after first 2 votes was adequately reviewed. Person is notable for unique combination of former top competitive bodybuilder http://musclememory.com/show.php?c=Northeastern+States+-+NPC&y=1991&g=f, author of a liver book that consistently ranks among the top 2 http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/282829/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_1_4_, and top doctor with multiple peer-reviewed publications- http://www.med.nyu.edu/pubs/palmer04.html. This was all demonstrated by secondary sources of reference. Don't think there is anyone else with this combination of achievements and individual is referenced all of wikipedia and google all in secondary sources? Augie58 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC). reply

I'm unsure if the competition is enough to meet WP:ATHLETE, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on the ability to write an article that doesn't have the same issues as the AfD'd version. Would you like the content userfied so you can work on it some more? lifebaka ++ 20:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes please. Thanks Augie58 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC). reply

Faith Hope and Charity (UK band) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The reason why I suggest undelete is from many nominations I been through, many of these AfD have been resulted in kept even if that said artist have charted below the 40 mark, which was why this article wass deleted. Therefore I find this deletion rather odd. Donnie Park ( talk) 23:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse In this AfD, however, consensus was to delete. Previous results can be irrelevant to do the potential for consensus to change. \ Backslash Forwardslash / { talk} 21:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Tough call. I brought up the #53 charting single right at the start of the discussion and 6 delete opinions (and one keep) followed. To be honest, given that the band existed for a brief moment 19 years ago, it would probably be better to just flesh out the brief mentions in Dani Behr and Sally Ann Marsh into a couple of sentences each. I just don't see that the article is ever likely to stand on its own two feet, even if it can be argued that the band does technically meet WP:MUSIC crtierion #2. -- Stormie ( talk) 01:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closure. Consensus was clearly to delete so no procedural issues. The fact that articles have been kept in the past is largely irrelevant as we allow consensus to change. Dpmuk ( talk) 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to raise issues where the deletion process has not been followed properly. It is not a venue to re-argue matters which were (or should have been) raised at the AFD. Stifle ( talk) 20:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Chelsea Korka ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Article was deleted because of the lack of notability of the Paradiso Girls and the Cassandra Whitehead precedent. However The Paradiso Girls article has been recreated since and Korka meets the criteria for notability since A) she is part of the group and B) Falling Down, a song where she is featured has been used on Disney's G-Force making her meet criterium 10 of WP:Music. She might meet n.9 because she placed in Pussycat Dolls Present and 6. as she has perform for both The Paradiso Girls and The Pussycat Dolls ( Vegas lounge and at the Viper Room), as well as with Girlesque at Fashion Cares 2007.-- Whadaheck ( talk) 21:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle ( talk) 20:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

King Mondo ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Article was nominated on the basis of no reliable sources, but was kept. None of the arguments for keeping addressed the reason for nomination. Was closed as a non-admin keep. Article has ZERO reliable and verifiable secondary sources. Out of the 21 references, 18 are to the TV show - a primary source, 1 to a comic - a primary source, 1 to IMDB - a user submitted resource and not reliable and 1 linking to an interview with an artist that doesn't even appear to mention the character in question. There are NO reliable secondary sources at all. Article should've been deleted. Exxolon ( talk) 21:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. I nominated this article for deletion, as I could not find sources. This article is, to be honest, not legitimately verifiable to any reliable source that I can find. My reason for this deletion is the same as the one for the nomination. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Perhaps you should take another look at the close before endorsing deletion. This is DRV, not AfD round 2. ÷ seresin 21:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• You can't endorse deletion since the article wasn't deleted. You can recommend deletion. -- GRuban ( talk) 21:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Ron certainly closed in accordance with the consensus; arguments about sources are a matter for AfD, not for DRV.

  In view of the amount of input and its one-sided nature, I would see that as a perfectly appropriate non-admin closure and the outcome was correct.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 21:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  • I disagree. None of the keep votes addressed the AFD reasoning and closing an AFD should be on the quality of the arguments not about counting heads. Exxolon ( talk) 21:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
    • And you see the "delete" arguments as high-quality. I understand that, and you're entitled to your opinion, but in fact closing an AfD is about the rough consensus. The rough consensus was clear and I don't see anything raised in that discussion that would trump it.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 22:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep. As mentioned in the AFD, the article has plenty of reliable sources; they're primary sources, but that doesn't make them unreliable. Articles about fictional characters are by necessity going to be based on the fiction. You The AFD nominator tried to argue that wasn't good enough in the AFD, but failed to convince people. -- GRuban ( talk) 21:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  I did no such thing. I did not nominate the article for deletion nor did I participate in the AFD either. Please don't accuse me of doing things I have not done. As for sources, primary sources are not the best choice for sourcing an article. We need reliable secondary sources here. Exxolon ( talk) 21:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  Quite; sorry. Make that "you" the AFD nominator. The rest still stands; the clear AFD consensus was that in this case primary sources sufficed as the primary sourcing, given that sufficient secondary sourcing existed to proved notability. -- GRuban ( talk) 00:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse This isn't AfD round 2. If it were, I would !vote we delete the article due to the lack of reliable, independent sources. As it stands, the close is well within the purview of a non-admin. Protonk ( talk) 21:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Again I disagree. I feel the closer failed to evaluate the reasoning of the keep votes versus the reason for the original AFD correctly. Exxolon ( talk) 21:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I don't know that it is within the closer's responsibilities to insert their opinion about an article against every single vote in a discussion. If a situation arises where I disagreed strongly with every poster I would make a comment in the debate, not close it (Some rare exceptions exist, obviously). If the debate were split between keeps/deletes with the keep votes being vacuous and the delete votes being grounded in policy, then we can talk about interpreting a consensus as grounded in policy. We can't do so when we face almost every single vote in the debate as "keep". Protonk ( talk) 21:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Keep - the AfD claimed lack of sources; there were sources found and listed in the AfD. The closure is correct in that it properly reflects the consensus of the discussion, and it is furthermore correct on the basis of policy. What the article needs is to have the provided sources integrated into it, not deletion.  Frank  |   talk  22:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • They were?? All I could find were links to results from Google News - no indication that any of the results actually met our standards of reliable sourcing and/or had significant coverage - both required to satisfy WP:RS. Exxolon ( talk) 22:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  There was a long discussion on Mythdon's talk page about it, including four sources specifically picked from the list; check out the conversation here. Only two of the are fully and freely available by clicking on that page, but sources don't have to be online to be valid, independent, and reliable.  Frank  |   talk  22:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse: The AFD went through enough time and the deletion rationales were not sufficient to convince the community that the article should be deleted.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 22:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• DeleteOverturn. The deletion rationales were convincing (no reliable sourcing); the keep !votes were not (no real reliable multiple independent sources were adduced; google [or "google news"] counting is not an argument.) "Plenty of sources on the article" said somebody -- where are they then? In the current version I can't see "plenty", I can't see many, I can't see any -- I can't see a single independent source. -- Ekjon Lok ( talk) 23:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  This is deletion review, not an AfD. We are discussing whether or not the closure of the discussion accurately reflected the consensus of the discussion. It should not even be necessary to look at the article; it's already been pointed out it is poorly sourced, but that doesn't change the consensus that was reflected in the discussion.  Frank  |   talk  23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  That was indeed my argument: that the deletion !votes were convincing, and according to policy, while the keep !votes were not. (On the sideline, I must say that I disagree somewhat with your assertion that "it should not even be necessary to look at the article"; how else can one decide whether the arguments presented at XfD are valid or not? If some !voters say "keep, sourced", and some say "delete, unsourced", shouldn't one look at the article itself to see which one is correct? If 10 SPAs come along to an AfD and comment "Keep, well referenced in perfectly good sources", isn't it one's duty to actually examine the article and those "sources", to see whether they comply with policies?) -- Ekjon Lok ( talk) 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  Quick comment on closer's responsibility: I appreciate closers who review claims, but I oppose requiring it. Maybe take this to the talk page? Flatscan ( talk) 03:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  • You can't vote Delete as this is not an AFD, you can only vote to Endorse or Overturn the result. I'd like to clarify a point here though - mere consensus is insufficient if the article fails to meet our criteria. All the Keep votes under the sun are irrelevant if the article fails a fundamental policy. I believe the Keep votes in the AFD failed to address the reason for AFD which was zero sourcing and they should've been discounted and policy applied to delete the unsourced article. AFD's are not just headcounts, the quality of the arguments and reference to our policies are much more important. I don't believe the AFD closer took this into account, hence this DRV. Exxolon ( talk) 23:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, in my opinion the arguments made by most of the contributors of the discussion are pretty weak but (again in my opinion) User:Sarilox's reasoning seems to be sound: the article contains material that should be preserved in some form and the consensus of the discussion reflects that. Guest9999 ( talk) 00:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Closer. While it's true that AFD is not a ballot or a mere head count and that a closer should weigh the strength of the arguments, it's not reasonable to expect that an AFD can be closed "delete" when nobody but the nominator is advocating deletion. (I would say the one exception would be if there are BLP issues but the subject of this article is a fictional character) Besides the nominator, the only comment that came close to a delete !vote was Sarilox's comment and he was arguing for a redirect. The only thing different that possibly could have happened barring sockpuppetry was that an an administrator using "admin's discretion" could have closed it "no consensus" or perhaps "redirect". Endorse my own closure. Further note to Exxolon. I'm curious as to why you didn't !vote in this AFD. If you were to make the same argument there as you are making here, others might have followed and the outcome may have been different. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

To answer your question I didn't vote in the original AFD as I wasn't aware of it. I found the article through a WP:ANI report about Mythdon and wondered how the hell it'd survived an AFD based on "no sources" when it had no sources and decided to initiate a DRV. I have no personal interest in the article but I couldn't reconcile the AFD result. Exxolon ( talk) 00:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Consensus to keep was clear, AFD was a WP:POINT nomination. jgp T C 01:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I wasn't nominating that article for deletion to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, but to protect Wikipedia from harm. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, clear consensus. I find the arguments to be fairly weak and the sources probably insufficient (lacking direct relevance, I skimmed the sources discussion), but that's not enough to discount the keep recommendations entirely. Flatscan ( talk) 03:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and redirect. Many editors here are endorsing the original keep as it was derived through consensus. However, I believe that that consensus was a simplified redefinition as "majority rule". As we all know, Wikipedia is not a democracy. The relatively small consensus achieved in any AfD must not be allowed to contradict the much larger consensus that has resulted in current Wikipedia policy. At least not without a very good reason that establishes a particular article as special. King Mondo does not suggest that it should in any way be treated as an exception to the rule. As stated in one of Exxolon's reasons for bringing this article to deletion review: "I couldn't reconcile the AFD result." That seems to me a clear reflection of the small AfD consensus in direct opposition to the large policy consensus. Even though this situation occurs regularly, we can at least minimize it with greater vigilance, more thoughful discussion, and a better understanding of the larger consensus. It is unfortunate that some editors here and in the AfD have resorted to an ad hominem attack of Mythdon; a logical fallacy. Whatever the personal failings are of Mythdon is irrelevant as the AfD nomination was indeed legitimate. It is also unfortunate that some editors have argued through equivocation, another logical fallacy, by mostly trying to redefine reliable sources and consensus. These tactics are all too often effective, despite being inappropriate. Finally I would like to address Guest9999's apparent assertion that my !vote to redirect was based on the idea that "the article contains material that should be preserved in some form." This is not true, and I do not believe that my comments suggest this. In fact, I believe that this article should not exist and does not need to be preserved for all the reasons stated in the AfD. I !voted redirect because I concluded that "King Mondo" is a reasonable search term, otherwise I would have !voted for deletion. I am content with that redirect being achieved either by a simple edit to the current article or by deleting the article and recreating it as a redirect. Sarilox ( talk) 04:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • "It is unfortunate that some editors here and in the AfD have resorted to an ad hominem attack of Mythdon" - What do you mean by that? Please explain. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 04:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Sarilox, it's perfectly possible for a local (talk-page or AfD) consensus to decide to suspend a broad-brush, global consensus in the case of one particular article. And that's as it should be; flexibility in individual cases is one of the biggest strengths of the Wiki model. We need to be careful not to place policy on so firm a pedestal that it can't be disregarded when the situation demands.

      I do agree that there are cases (such as copyvios or BLP matters) where it would take a local consensus of such enormous magnitude to overrule a policy that I don't foresee it ever happening, but this isn't one of those.

      I also want to say that a redirect is technically a "keep" outcome, rather than a variant of "delete".— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 10:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse It is idle to pretend there is any real consistency in individual AfD determinations, especially in this area, but the general trend is the major characters in major well-known fiction are likely to be worth separate articles. I would just as willingly combine all but the most important, for it makes very little difference as long as full information is kept. Consensus ultimately is majority rule, because the interpretation of the policies and guidelines is in the hands of the community, as are the guideline themselves. Who else can interpret them authoritatively? Sometimes, indeed , there is a temporary majority in apparent clear contradiction to a guideline, and then it is the responsibility of the administrator to decide whether the majority should be disregarded. But this is a matter of interpretation, and for interpretation we can either go with the expressed consensus or go with the opinion of whoever of the 900 active administrators happens to close the discussion. There is of course another principle: for each of us to argue that it always should go the way we individually want, and if the close is against that, it must be wrong. DGG ( talk) 04:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse based on afd discussion. It was open a week and no one other then the nom commented delete. Admins are supposed to weigh arguements, but also judge consensus. That discussion clearly shows that consensus to delete was not achieved.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 14:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse – this is not AFD round 2. Clear consensus to keep was established. MuZemike 15:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse; nobody could possibly have closed the discussion any other way. Stifle ( talk) 20:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Determination of consensus was properly made. Issue of sourcing is for AfD, not DRV. Endorse per DGG. — Becksguy ( talk) 15:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. Until recently, this set of AfD's hasn't been getting attention outside the fan community, and lower standards than those used elsewhere in Wikipedia have been applied. The content here could be merged into Machine Empire, which covers much of the same material. -- John Nagle ( talk) 16:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  This isn't a secondary AFD. While the article could very well be merged, there is nothing in the AFD that says it should be deleted (other than the nom and one !voter), and the subject of the article and the WikiProject whose scope it is in should never be taken as a factor.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 23:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Richard William Aguirre ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article on Richard William Aguirre meets all WP requirements for "notability". There are far more news stories and worthy articles about Richard William Aguirre, his campaign and his other endeavors than there are on several of the other candidates or politicians, Like this article from todays "Diario San Diego" [5]. The Richard William Article is notable to all Californians, and even crosses the language and culture spectrum of the entire state. The deletion of this article was an injustice to WP and also to the people who use the site. That Richard William Aguirre is notable enough to have national articles written about him and his campaign, yet not notable for WP only discredits WP and your pursuit of true factual information. Please review this article and remove it from deletion. As you can see there will be many more source references coming in the immediate future, as both he and his campaign are now attracting news stories on a daily basis. Please advise on how to undo deletion if you don't have the authority to make this correction. To not undo this deletion would be an injustice to your site. Thank you. ( Sdpolitics ( talk) 20:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)) reply

• Oh, DRV has all the authority it needs, no need to worry about that.

  The deletion discussion there resulted in a consensus to delete, and Juliancolton made no procedural errors that would justify overturning the decision.

  When the "many more source references" come "in the immediate future", it will be no chore to recreate the article; and so as to make that easier, I would support userfication of the article to Sdpolitics. He can then present a reliably-sourced, verifiable version of the article to DRV, and when that's been supplied it will be uncontroversial to undelete.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 21:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion as it reflected consensus and policy; support userfication if the user wishes it (and will provide said copy myself if requested).  Frank  |   talk  22:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Userfication Request I am requesting userfication so that I can continue to build the Richard William Aguirre article and present a reliably sourced verifiable version of the article to DRV so that it will be uncontroversial to undelete the article.( Sdpolitics ( talk) 20:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)) reply

Summit School (Queens, New York) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I felt the previous AfD was judged based on the number of “keep”. It did not express the views of people who said “delete”. Once again, schools are notable only if secondary sources are available. I did research on google but I found no secondary sources. The only one I found was the school's website which is a primary source. First see WP:CRYSTAL which rejects claims that it will be important in the future as a reason to keep the article. Second, are there any schools which are not "notable in the school community?????" My point is not all schools in the school community meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines to have an article. Hagadol ( talk) 19:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• The AfD pages are here and here.

  Hagadol, when there's a consensus for something, it's normally best to accept it. There were no procedural errors in either of those two closures, so I don't see that there's any matter of substance for DRV to consider here.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 20:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• I suggest you wait a month or two, then renominate for AfD if nothing has changed. Endorse both closures as correct. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 20:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse – it has been agreed elsewhere that high schools in Fooville are notable and will be covered in the press of Fooville (held in the archives of Fooville Library and not necessarily visible to Google). Occuli ( talk) 20:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse both keeps. They reflected consensus and in general we do give the benefit of the doubt to high schools in the United States, for better or for worse. But disagreeing with a policy is not a reason for deleting an article.  Frank  |   talk  22:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There is a settled consensus here, even though the opposition of a few people have kept it from becoming a formal guideline. The interpretation of WP:N bering a guideline is that the community decides when the GNG is appropriate, and when it is not. Here, the community has decided that it is better to simply keep them all rather than debate them all to remove a possibly non-notable 10%. Myself, I was reluctant to accept this either, as i tend to be skeptical of the encyclopedic notability of local institutions, but I decided it was better than the endless fighting. DGG ( talk) 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse No consensus to delete in the first AFD. Also although not binding, original closure followed general precedent for similar articles.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 14:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse It is generally accepted that high schools are assumed to be notable, referring to DGG and others above. For example, in NYC, high schools are named, while lower schools are numbered (e.g. - Stuyvesant High School, but PS 170 and IS 54). I see consensus to keep in the first AfD, and the second was a pointy nomination after only 12 days. Even a few months would be pointy in my view, A year between nominations would be much more appropriate. Multiple nominations can raise the question of forum shopping until the desired results obtain. Neither AfD was closed with procedural errors and I therefor endorse both. — Becksguy ( talk) 14:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Johnny Herbert (Musician) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The page was deleted before it could be improved and expanded Dudewheresmymac ( talk) 20:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC) --> reply

Question: what do you want doing with the page? Do you want to work on it in userspace, or appeal the speedy? If you want to appeal the speedy, you need to make some indication of the importance or significance of the subject. Notes: the article seems to have consisted mostly of a MySpace link, and the related recording, Johnny Herbert Destroys The Moon, has been tagged as an A9. 07:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Restore. I think that a new user should have been given time to work on the article before it was deleted, and should be restored to give him the opportunity to work on it. Rapid deletion tagging for speedy deletion is unnecessary, except for copyvios, attack pages, and vandalism, and it's very discouraging to new users. Let him have a few days. There's enough longstanding garbage that needs cleaning up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Userfy and have the author come back to DRV to request that it be moved back into article space once he or she has a draft article that can pass WP:MUSIC. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:AEE ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I feel that this discussion should have been closed as delete or deprecate. On a strict "vote-count", there were 24 delete, 17 keep, 5 userfy, and 2 mark-historical, giving 31 against the page existing in Wikipedia namespace against 17 in support. Several of the keep "votes" were tentative or only awaiting the result of an RFC (which may not end for months), and on an argument basis, the deletion arguments seemed to me to be stronger. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is to be open to everyone, and the point that this organization is not so open has not been refuted by those seeking to keep the page. I recommend the decision be overturned and the page deleted in accordance with the consensus at the discussion. Contributors are reminded that this is not MFD round 2.

In accordance with the deletion review instructions, I have consulted with the closing admin before opening this request. Stifle ( talk) 08:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn I concur with Stifle. The closing admin stated that MfD was not the correct place for discussion of the organization, but a majority of editors participating must have disagreed as they not only actively participated but they agreed with the proposal to delete the group. As with many other pages at XfD, userfication is also an option to consider if anybody wants to keep this as a working idea. Them From Space 08:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn There was clear enough majority to delete the article and if there had been any issues for the deletion request being in the wrong place. There was over seven days for anyone to come in and say something, but no one did. I struck me kind of odd for an admin to quickly come in and claim no consensus when there was a clear majority that voted to delete the article. Brothejr ( talk) 09:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment. For what it's worth, I have gone ahead and marked the page as historical. Wherever the page is (or isn't), per the page history, the proposed group is clearly not active. Dekimasu よ! 10:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn clear consensus. Jeni ^{( talk)}_(Jenuk1985) 11:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close, calling no consensus within closer's discretion. I gave my analysis of the state of the MfD and reasonable close options at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AEE#Thoughts on closing, and this close, and one close to Stifle's preference, were among them. Two points: I think that mark-historical should count toward keep in closing, since it can be applied as a normal edit, and I don't think the deletists made better arguments than the keepists: I sensed an undercurrent of tribalism out of keeping with how WP is meant to achieve consensus, (like, but not as bad as, the Great Userbox Debacle), and the appeals made to policy were weak. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  The page was not deleted, can you please clarify what you are endorsing? Stifle ( talk) 13:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  D'oh! Must be ingrained into my finger muscles. Changed from 'endorse deletion', to 'endorse close'. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Question: would those who think it should be deleted be happy with userfying the page? Or would the idea that a user would have the page in their space on a presumable permanent basis count as a run-around of the MfD? If the latter, what would you make of the earlier MfD of this content ( Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Peter Damian/Established Editors) when it was in user space? — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Why can't we just userfy it? While I'd say there isn't really a consensus to keep it from the MfD, deletion should always be treated as a last resort, and User:TallNapoleon volunteered to have it userfied to his userspace in the MfD. I have queried him as to whether he's still amenable to the idea. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ++ 14:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Close: I am still willing to have this sent to my user space. I would appreciate it if people stopped trying to delete the damned thing in its infancy. We have no idea at this point what it's going to be and whether it will be active, because instead of attempting to develop the idea all our efforts have been spent battling accusations of bad faith and attempting to argue against the incessant nominations for deletion. Why don't you guys userfy it to my space, let us develop the idea further, and then, if you don't like it, tag it as historical. TallNapoleon ( talk) 15:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Oy vey. Just userfy the bloody thing and let it be a drama generator in someone's personal space instead of project space. Keep the historical tag, though, because the consensus is pretty obvious that in its current condition it will not fly. Tony Fox (arf!)

List of franchises established on Nintendo consoles ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Decision was to merge page to List of video games published by Nintendo, however, the article does not solely contain video games that were published by Nintendo and a merge would be unnecessary, seeing as the list is basically duplicated. The article should be deleted, per the other opinions in the discussion.. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse MBisanz's accurate reading of the consensus. (You needed to convince the AfD, not us; this isn't AfD round 2.)— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 20:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment as a simple list with no creative element there is no real copyright concern here, once the merge is complete (and it's agreed it's complete) surely the source page could be deleted as normal housekeeping, if a redirect isn't desirable (it would seem an unlikely search). -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• I'm not sure what the request here is. If the destination page is basically a duplicate of the destination of the merge then a merge will have no effect and the source will be turned into a redirect. If the source contains content not pertinent to the destination page then the decision of the AfD was to delete that content. If the concern of the nom that the redirect is inappropriate and if so, what information has been added that was not available during the AfD? Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 09:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • My concern is that the redirect would be inappropriate because the AfD judged that it should be merged into an article with a smaller scope. If I redirected this and tried to delete the redirect, it would just lead to a dispute.-- _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 00:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• On reflection I shouldn't have closed this. Its open again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Neutral, I'm ambivalent on both the AfD and its close. The close decision correctly reflects the clear consensus against a standalone article and falls within admin discretion. The merge recommendations did not specify what content to merge; comments at the AfD indicate that the list entries are redundant (published by Nintendo) or outside the merge target's scope (third-party publisher), thus there is nothing to merge. My reading is that there was consensus to delete, but it's not strong enough to overturn. I have asked MBisanz to comment. Flatscan ( talk) 03:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Closing admin It could have gone as delete or merge, being conservative I felt that merge would be the best option since after the merger the article would no longer exist and if the person doing the merge saw there was little or no content worth including, they could make the editorial decision to do so. MBisanz ^talk 03:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Baku Today ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deletion vote was to delete Baku Today → Moldova what was deleted was the already corrected redirect Baku Today → Baku where the media outlet is covered. There is not enough information for a stand alone article, just the sentence in the larger article. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure as delete. It appears that almost all of the arguments to delete this redirect did not rely on the fact that it redirected to the wrong article. Instead, the rough consensus was that redirects to the geographic location of a publication are less helpful than having a redlink that might encourage creation of the article. I don't necessarily agree with that consensus, but I see no problem with this closure. — Satori Son 18:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

When there is only a few sentences of information it should go to the point in Wikipedia where those few sentences are. If a full article can be made, and here it can't, it can be made into a full article. If there was enough info, I would have made it into one. As it stands the vote was to delete the redirect to the city, that was changed to a better redirect to where the information is on that media outlet. The person who closed erred and deleted the new direct. And when the three errors were pointed out, chose to not revert the deletions. If you want to delete the new redirect, have a new vote. Or make a full article if you think you can. Not every topic is notable enough for a full Wikipedia article. Cheers. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 18:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I didn't want to delete the redirect, and I don't want to write a new article on the subject. I don't want anything at all in this case. I'm only here to express my very humble opinion as to whether the closer correctly evaluated the consensus of that particular debate. — Satori Son 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

All the votes to delete, but one, were cast before the redirect was shifted to a better target. How is that consensus? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 20:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The Paradiso Girls ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Page deleted because the group was seen as not notable at the time. Now however they are featured on KIIS FM's page, on rotation on several radio networks, are featured the Complex blog, The DList Magazine, have shot for Maxim and YRB magazine, have been featured on songs by notable artists such as Will I Am, Space Cowboy and LMFAO, are currently touring in the US with multiple dates at known places, have their own page at Interscope Records and their official page, a Top 40 single and a strong internet following (see Facebook page, Twitters, Youtube, Myspace...). I think all of this makes them notable and I'd like the page to be recreated.

See also here and here-- Whadaheck ( talk) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Please could you link the reliable sources that verify your remarks?— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

DList KIIS FM's Top 9 Complex Feature page Introduction video and Myspace featurette Interscope page with Tour dates Official page Facebook page Videos with Space cowboy and Will I Am Coca Cola commercial with their Song-- Whadaheck ( talk) 16:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• The concerns of the AfD were that the sources were youtube, myspace and their own pages and that the band was, two months ago, purely hype rather than substance (and as such afoul of WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL). The sources provided above fall into the categories listed with the addition of blogs and lists (the top 9 at 9 being that they are available as an option for a listing, hardly a notable award or recognition). Can the nom please provide a more extensive explanation of how the band now meets WP:MUSIC? Until the issues discussed in the consensus AfD are better resolved I have to tend towards Endorse. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 09:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

They may meet 3 of the criteria IMO, the first one (DList, Complex, Popmusicscene and a lot of other websites that you can find on Google), if KIIS FM is considered major then they meet 11, and if you consider the NowNewNext Awards notable, then they meet 10. Also Ptron Tequila has been charted (it didn't peak that high but still) so it may meet 2 as well-- Whadaheck ( talk) 11:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Since they've now charted and the article has been unsalted and created the whole excersize becomes a bit academic. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 09:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Yup, I suggest this is closed as moot.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 14:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Sport tractor ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The following is a verbatim copy of the "request for reinstatement" posted to the AfD talk page:

== Sport Tractor - designated for deletion - rebuttal - request for reinstate page ==

No reason for deletion except for generation of a new term, which is supported

====[[:Sport Tractor - designated for deletion - rebuttal]]==== :::{{DRV links|Sport Tractor - designated for deletion - rebuttal|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png|article=Foo}}

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. Based on generation of a new term. Sanderrl ( talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear Sirs:

The article for “Sport Tractor” is to show a new design in trucks that has not been seen in the Light Duty Truck arena. This is a non-commercial truck and is used similar to a sports car.

If new designs cannot be shown as explicit on your site this needs to be known to me.

Based on the following:

"Delete The original author of the article added this comment on the talk page "By the way, this is a new idea, my research has found that the term "Sport Tractor" will have originated here in Wikipedia". He admits it is OR and a neologism. There is no evidence of the term in this context in a Google search. The truck in the article appears to be some sort of home made modification. 1. Malcolma (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)"

1st: The above is a true statement. Unless Wiki refuses to support creation of new terms, (which I haven’t seen, and if so, show me the rules/guideline) I will comply. I am willing to generate this on a new URL webpage, but I thought that Wiki was a better source for defining new terms, designs and innovation in existing technologies. Again, If I am wrong in this, I will not contest this deletion and will move forward in a separate venue.

The term is new, noone, except myself generated this new term “Sport Tractor” a new classification for those who enjoy light duty trucks that are non-commercial use, similar to sport cars that are not used for racing. A term exists for “Sport Trucks” namely the personal trucks manufactured by the major automobile companies and are less than 11,999 lbs GVWR. There is a term for “Sport Cars”, there was no term that my research found that used “Sport Tractor” in the same light. There are terms mentioning the word in context of tractor pulls, but the term is meant for farm tractors that are not licensable vehicles.

2nd. The statement is not a home made modification, the Isuzu is a commercial light duty truck that is continuing to be sold throughout the world. The body is design by Ralph Sanders, but the body manufacturer is by Frontier Truck Body of Santa Ana, Ca. Therefore, this is not a home made design. The definition of “homemade” is not defined in Wikipedia. Hence, should not apply to support deletion. This statement is also subjective in this context.

Therefore, since the deletion is based on a new term or as malcolma states “neologism” I request that the “Sport Tractor” page be reinstated.

Excuse my noviceness,(wasn’t sure where to file rebuttal request), therefore this was also sent/edited to:

User talk:Vossanova,

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sport tractor,

User talk:Cirt (new section),

User talk:Malcolma,

Please excuse the tone by which I state the above since this is an emotional event to me. Sanderrl ( talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Consider this a procedural nomination for deletion review, I do not currently have an opinion either way. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion: If I understand correctly, the appeal for reinstantement is based on the idea that neologisms are appropriate in articles. Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, they are not, and per that page In many cases, articles on neologisms get deleted (either via proposed deletion or articles for deletion). Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. I see no grounds for overturning the close. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, the assertion that wikipedia refuses to contain new terms is correct. Please see WP:N, WP:V. A term cannot be verifiably notable until it is established and it is not the purpose or role of wikipedia to support in the establishment of a new term ( WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT). If the term catches on as a generally used phrase (such as Sports utility vehicle) that will be a different matter. The deletion process has been followed correctly with a clear outcome. Novices are always welcome and we try not to bite the newcomers, even if deletion process and deletion review can seem quite a hostile place sometimes. I hope you don't become too upset by this and guarantee you that no one involved has any bad intentions (or at least we all assume so, see WP:AGF). Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 15:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, deletion process properly followed. Stifle ( talk) 16:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• ( edit conflict) Endorse this consensus-based decision.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Proper AfD closure based on clear consensus and policy. — Satori Son 16:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Basa Press ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The vote was to delete Basapress news agency → Moldova what was deleted was the already corrected redirect to Telecommunications in Moldova where the media outlet is covered. There is not enough information for a stand alone article, just the sentence of two in the larger article. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 07:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Restore redirect, seems entirely reasonable. Stifle ( talk) 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore redirect. The deletist case in that RfD does not apply to this redirect. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore per Stifle and Charles Stewart.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore; the issue that lead me to say "delete" in the RfD was in fact solved by retargeting and adding that sentence. Rationale for deletion no longer seems to apply. ~ mazca ^talk 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore, classic mistake at RfD, where the entire content of the redirect was essentially replaced after the discussion. I don't see that this would be very controversial. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 09:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Dublin Penny Journal ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The vote was to delete Dublin Penny Journal → Dublin, what was deleted was the already corrected Dublin Penny Journal → List of newspapers in Ireland where the media outlet is covered. There is not enough information for a stand alone article, just the sentence of two in the larger article. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 07:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Restore redirect, as long as it's at least mentioned in the other article. Stifle ( talk) 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore redirect, this case is closely analogous to the Basa news agency case, right down to the key RfD participants. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Once again, Restore per Stifle and Charles Stewart.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore; the issue that lead me to say "delete" in the RfD was in fact solved by retargeting and adding that sentence. Rationale for deletion no longer seems to apply. ~ mazca ^talk 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore, per above. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 09:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Alasdair Tait ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Not an actual copyright infringement.The page took the material from Wikipedia.Notified first the admin Pascal Tesson, but he hasn't made an edit since June and I don't want be following this up for months. Some more details: the page says it took the material from WP at its bottom. I had not logged in for more roughly six months before and six months after the deletion in Feb 2009 Atavi ( talk) 00:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Restore. Atavi is right. The page it's supposedly a copyright of says Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasdair_Tait" at the bottom. It was also supposedly created in December 2008, while the history goes back to October 2006. It does need cleanup help and actual sources but that's not what deletion is for. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 02:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore: Clearly a mistaken speedy. — Charles Stewart (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Kideos.com ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The deletion of the page "Kideos.com" is unwarranted by the fact that the administrator misinterpreted the article as a G:11 violation, "unambiguous advertising or promotion." While the article does have an external link to the website, that is as far as the article goes towards advertising the website. The article used only reliable published sources to create an article that sought to be encyclopedic and neutral.

The text within the article does not support nor attack the website. It stays within a neutral zone as advised by Wikipedia's Five Pillars. Therefore, I request that Wikipedia "Overturn" the speedy deletion made by NawlinWiki on the grounds that the article respects all the rules Wikipedia has placed towards its articles. I list the following arguments to support this request:

I would also like to note that there was previous contact between NawlinWiki and I after he/she deleted the article the first time. After posting a comment on his page containing similar arguments to the upcoming arguments, there was no response from the administrator and thus I re-posted the article. The second time I posted the article, I did receive a warning and in response I placed a hangon, but the article was instantly deleted thereafter.

On to the arguments:

First, the article does not hold any bias. The fact that the article did not quote directly from the website should show how untampered the facts were. While there were quotes from what one might see as biased references, none of the quotes taken from the references were one-sided. Each quote taken was a fact, not an opinion. Had there been a quote drawing people towards the site on the article, NawlinWiki's deletion could be understandable, however that each quote on the site was a fact and not an opinion. The decision made to delete the article leaves me concerned. Furthermore, should the administrator point out where he or she perceives bias, I will gladly change that section.

Second, the article is no different than any of the other articles within its genre. Three website articles that are most similar to Kideos.com are Fact Monster, Kidzui and FunBrain. These sites have the same type of information as the Kideos.com article contains and I even used those sites as a model when posting my article. If those sites are published by Wikipedia's administrators, there should be no reason that Kideos.com should be the exception.

Finally, I would like to restate that Kideos.com did not violate any of Wikipedia's pillars. Just like the FunBrain, Kizdui, Fact Monster, or any other article, the Kideos.com article met Wikipedia's criteria. The article helped provide information, not advertisements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke81 ( talk • contribs) 23:49, July 22, 2009

• Endorse deletion Looking at the deleted version, the tone was clearly advertising, not encyclopedic at all ("The site is putting a premium on kids' safety", really?) and while there were sources, they were either blogs or press releases from the company, from multiple sites. Looking here and here, all that we have is the company's advertising campaign. No independent third-party reviews yet it seems. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 02:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Written in a wholly promotional tone, seems unsalavagable without a total rewrite. Good speedy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Arguments by reference to other articles which exists aren't really very useful, because other crap exists. Stifle ( talk) 08:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  Of course, there is no bar to creating a neutral version of the article, but it might be better to leave it to a user without a conflict of interest. Stifle ( talk) 08:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Is the cached version an accurate reflection of the article at the time it was deleted?— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Yes. -- Stormie ( talk) 01:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment While the article may have an advertising tone in some lines, I don't think that it is all entirely biased. I think that by changing the article in some lines, the article would be completely acceptable. For instance, the Earlier Media section is all fact. 10:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe808 ( talk • contribs)

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

Organization now meets notability guidelines, in national and international press (CNBC, SF Chronicle, Google Tech Talks)

This article had been previously flagged for "speedy deletion" after being marked for "delete" in a "Articles for deletion". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wokai.

I would kindly request that this be reconsidered. Since the time of the September '08 discussion, Wokai has garnered significant coverage from reputable media sources (CNBC, AsianWeek, SF Chronicle, per below) and has raised significant funds, built a 100+ member volunteer base and is well on its way to its mission of raising funds from international sources for microentrepreneurs in rural China. It's a noteworthy 501(c)3 nonprofit deserving of its own mention.

Links:

Wokai's Co-Founder & Ceo spoke at Google's Tech Talks - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqhZoCp0UCg CNBC's Nick Mackey did a recent piece featuring Wokai's China operations - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wokai AsianWeek covered Wokai's SF launch - http://www.asianweek.com/2009/07/13/bay-area-microfinance-reaches-rural-chinese/ San Francisco Chronicle Coverage - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/13/BACB16VUFE.DTL

Cheers, and thanks for your time.

Euwyn ( talk) 22:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Mm, I'm not seeing it clearly. I'd suggest you try writing a version at User:Euwyn/Sandbox first. I'd be happy to userfy the previous content there as a starting point, if you'd like. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 23:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Userfy and eventually allow recreation of article as it looks like some minimal notability can now be established. MuZemike 02:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Yes, this looks a prime candidate for userfication and submitting a draft to DRV. Euwyn, if yu are amenable please say here and someone will do it for you straight away so you can get to work without waiting for the DRV to run its course. Feel free to elave a note on my talk page if its not done by this evening and I'll do it when I get home. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Just created a version of the Wokai page at User:Euwyn/Sandbox —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC).

Consequence of Sound ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

To whom it may concern,

I sincerely believe that the recent deletion of the Consequence of Sound Wikipedia page was unwarranted for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, this has been an on going issue for several months, with the most recent conclusion coming in June when, after a fruitful and professional discussion, it was decided that this page exhibited the necessary criteria to remain.

However, recently, actually rather instantaneously, the delete debate was reopened... and before someone could argue otherwise, the page was deleted.

The reasonings given were the following:

1. "Not enough to get over notability guidelines." - One hammer) 15:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC) reply

2. " Totally non-notable, no reliable third-party sources, not owned by a notable company, doesn't have writers who have been published elsewhere reliable, doesn't even have a submissions guideline page." - Rafablu88 06:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I would now like to take a moment to respond to each of these charges.

As it relates to the issue of notability, the online publication in question has been referenced by the following publications: New York Magazine, MTV.com, USA Today, Filter Magazine, Chicago-Sun Times, The Huffington Post, Time Out Chicago, Austin360.com, Glide Magazine, Comedy Central Insider, BBC.co.uk. Before the article was deleted, several of these mentions were included in references.

Furthermore, the online publication in question was deemed "best music blog" by WNEW of CBS RADIO. It also served as the official "bloggers" of the Lollapalooza 2008.

Now, on to the issue of not being owned by a notable company. Well, if that's the basis for deletion, then you have numerous other pages you better start deleting.

The editor writers that the online publication in question "doesn't have writers who have been published elsewhere reliable." That is simply, 100% inaccurate and if the editor who wrote those comments actually took the time to do the research, he/she would know that. Staff members who write for the online publication in question have also seen their work published in Entertainment Weekly, CBS.com, Time Out New York, and the Toronto Star among others.

Finally, as it relates to the online publication in question not having submissions guidelines, may I point you here, here and here.

I hope you strongly reconsider the deletion because from my estimation, I have answered all of your questions. 71.178.191.137 ( talk) 00:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• To help explain "First and foremost, this has been an on going issue for several months, with the most recent conclusion coming in June when, after a fruitful and professional discussion, it was decided that this page exhibited the necessary criteria to remain." to non-admins here is a timeline of the article:

• • December 16, 2008 Wikibeasty ( talk · contribs) creates the article.
  • TheXenocide ( talk · contribs) tagged the article for speedy deletion within.
  • Maxim ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) declined the speedy.
  • May 27, 2009 91.106.18.20 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) proded the article.
  • June 3, 2009 MuZemike ( talk · contribs) contested the prod.
  • July 5, 2009 TheJazzDalek ( talk · contribs) nominates the article for deletion.

• I can no find any evidence for "after a fruitful and professional discussion, it was decided that this page exhibited the necessary criteria to remain", the deleted talk page of the article had a short discussion with the AfD nominator who obviously didn't agree the article is notable. BJ ^Talk 01:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Interesting. As a rule, blogs are not reliable, and Wikipedia doesn't want them. Here, you are attempting to assert that this blog is notable. You provide one, non-blog, almost good, supporting reference http://www.wnew.com/2008/07/best-music-bl-1.html. What is extremely unfortunate for your case is that that reference, which would normally be judged independent, doesn't contain enough independent commentary on the subject. All it contains as independent commentary is "Best Music Blogs: Consequence of Sound [(title)], [is one of] the best music blogs on the Internet." By having all of the rest of the article be a compilation of quotation from the creators, wnew.com have rendered the article clearly "non-independent" and of no value towards meeting our notability criteria WP:N or WP:WEB. wnew.com did not, in the end, review the website. To demonstrate sufficient notability to our threshold, you have to include reliable (not blog) sourced commentary about the website. Someone, not the creators, or employees, has to have said something about the site. Critical commentary is best. Fannish adoration is unimpressive. Promotional commentary, sounding like a paid infomercial, will count against it. Support Userfying to a subpage of an editor with a track record of productive contributions. Such sources as required probably exist if it is true that this is one of the Best Music Blogs. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle ( talk) 08:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  There was this. Which I chose not to respond to. BJ ^Talk 08:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a forum to establish whether deletion process has been properly followed. It is not a location for discussions properly made at an AFD discussion to be rehashed and reopened. Stifle ( talk) 08:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Request: Can the talk page of the article be restored for this DRV? — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

   Done. BJ ^Talk 08:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  Thanks! — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I don't see any indication that the deletion process was not followed or that data has been provided which was not available to the participating editors. The talk page makes mention of Chicago Sun-Times, OC Weekly and CBS Radio references but I'm unable to locate these resources. If links to these could be provided and proved to be substantive and independent of subject I would consider revising this opinion. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 08:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore and relist: I think the information available to us now casts the subject of the article in a better light than was immediately available to the delete !voters in the AfD. We now have a well-sourced case that the weblog is influential amongst opinion leaders in the music industry, and adequate sourcing to flesh out an article; WP:WEB#1 should be reevaluted in the light that the weblog is engaging in music-industry journalism. SmokeyJoe's suggestion of userfying to a turn-around master would be even better, in terms of likelihood of getting the article into acceptable shape, if we could only find such a person... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalst ( talk • contribs)
• Weak endorse – looks like procedure was followed with some sort of rough consensus (after one full relist, of course). The IP claims that coverage is everywhere but does not show that. Perhaps someone can take the article off the user's hands here and see what can be done in the userspace (after all I did contest the prod on the notion that the sources given may have established some notability there). MuZemike 02:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Deletion log ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Old log deleted by since retired admin who intended to restore them, but failed to. Would like permission to restore the deletion logs, removing the libelous deletion summaries. Failing that I would like permission to undelete and blank the logs. MBisanz ^talk 23:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Support. Trust User:MBisanz's judgment. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Ditto SmokeyJoe on the trust, but I'm unsure this is the right place to make such a request. A cross-post at WP:VPP or WP:AN (or both) would probably be good to get a wider opinion on this. Overall, I'd rather that the logs be visible, less any that can't be shown. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 04:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Yes, restore with common sense applied. Stifle ( talk) 08:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• I have intended for quite a while to remove all deletion summaries and restore all of them. That was my intent upon deleting them (originally based, if I recall correctly, on a complaint from someone who was libeled in one of them). If someone wants to do that, that would be great. I have no major concern in general, so long as the libel is removed. Ral315 ( talk) 21:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Lithuanian surnames ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Necessary category redirect to the newly created category Category:Lithuanian-language surnames, to assist editors creating new articles in locating the proper category, by redirecting from the "common sense" category title formerly used at WP. This is similar to the category redirect Category:People_from_Minneapolis, which redirects to the proper category, serving a prosaic yet essential function of informing editors of the correct location of the category. Badagnani ( talk) 06:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment The relevant deletion discussion voted to upmerge the articles. So are you proposing to ignore that completely for the newly created article? It starts to feel like an end-run around the decision. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, no indication given as to how the deletion process was not properly followed. Stifle ( talk) 09:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Stifle. -- Kbdank71 13:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• I've notified the closing admin of the debate in question of this discussion. The decision to create the linguistics based categories instead of the nationality based ones seems to have been the decision of the closing admin and I'm not 100% sure whether his close precluded redirects where a linguistic root is inherently tied to a national root (for example swedish language surnames, greek language surnames or, for that matter, lithuanian language surnames). The main problem with the old cats system seems to have been indiscrim and inherent verifiablility issues, but a redir along the lines of Category:Italian surnames seems fairly harmless. That said, this isn't really a question of overturning so much as a request for permission to create a redirect... Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 13:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Category:Italian-language surnames currently has 43 entries. Many of them are badly formatted, and have the wrong template. Only the main article has any language references. I repeat: there are no references! Every single one of these names should be removed. That category redirect is a continuous disaster.
  -- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 13:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Ditto most of the above. While there's nothing wrong with the closure, there's also nothing wrong with allowing a category redirect at that title. Were it not for the history of this particular category I would have created the redirect myself. So, unsalt and redirect as nom suggests. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ++ 15:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Suggest asking for wider discussion of the general topic by the community as an RfC. There was very dubious consensus for the general change and it a a far-reaching one. The close was essentially a proposal of the closing admin, and , though in my opinion probably the best solution, did not represent the view of anyone other than himself. The question as I understand it is the ambiguity of the term: whether it ought to mean Lithuanian language surnames, Surnames used in Lithuania, or Surnames used by people of Lithuanian citizenship or extraction. Good arguments were raised for each of these. The decision was to go by language, and leave other possibilities open. Not a bad decision, but it needs further discussion. DGG 16:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• There already was further discussion at Category talk:Surnames, and already has been a Deletion review, where you have already participated. This is an abuse of the review process.
  -- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 13:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

yes, and I thought then,as I think still, that this should be a community decision with wider attention. I'm not really able to get as involved as I'd like to be on this one, but I think an RfC is the next step. DGG ( talk) 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment - The above comments ignore the fact that a category redirect is needed, because "Lithuanian surnames" in the commonest understanding does in fact mean "Lithuanian-language surnames," and our users need to know where the correct category is in the same way that Category:People_from_Minneapolis leads to the correct category. The term "Lithuanian-language surnames" is nowhere to be found in the literature on this subject, while the term "Lithuanian surnames" is a well-understood term, in fact the term most new editors would input as their category, find that category has been deleted, but without a redirect explaining where the proper category is. Kindly address comments to this important issue rather than simply saying "endorse close, it was a good close" which doesn't address this real-life issue at all. Badagnani ( talk) 19:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Question: Does it matter that an admin closed the discussion and DRV found no consensus to overturn? One category got recreated per this DRV so are you planning on relisting each one by one? It may be a scattershot approach. And you can been saying for quite a few weeks that this is all "needed" without much proof beyond your assertion that it is. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• I'm opposed to this one by one attack on the original decision, that itself was based on precedent. When we nominate related categories one by one, the nomination is attacked as " Salami slicing". When we nominate them as a group (it took more than 12 hours for me to complete the nomination), we are attacked as too broad. That July 6th review was the second review, and there was considerable canvassing. It was improperly handled.
  -- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 13:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment (closer). Just to give my views as a background to this: the close did not explicitly state that these categories could not be changed to redirects. A few weeks ago, I was speedily G4 deleting these as I thought it was perhaps too early to conclude that the "by-language" scheme was going to be the only successor scheme, since the close had mentioned the possibility of other schemes (such as by-culture ones, presumably), in which case a straight redirect could perhaps be inappropriately pre-empting this possibility. However, there were two editors in particular who were quite vigorously pushing for the old category names to become redirects. At the end of the day, I don't care that much about whether a category redirect exists or not, so I let the issue pass and stopped deleting them. Obviously other editors have continued to G4 them. Substantively, I don't really have an opinion, though I do think that giving the development of the new scheme(s) some breathing room before we decide what to do with the old categories would not necessarily be a bad thing. But good luck trying to convince the converted about this issue—I tried but found that those pushing for these had already decided what they wanted and weren't interested in considering other positions or compromising in any way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Closure, Deletion, and Speedy Deletion -- no indication given as to how the deletion process was not properly followed. Moreover, these repeated Badagnani category redirects have become a serious problem.
  1. As articles are reverted, or the category is blindly added, the category redirect moves a "by country" article into a "by language" category. This makes it difficult for our users to understand the reason the category is then removed....
  2. Always keeping our users in mind, it's better that the category is red-linked, so that they don't think it is a correct category at all!
  3. Always keeping our users in mind, an attempt to recreate the category will give them a nice list of deletion log entries, with a link to the original CfD decision.
  4. Always keeping our users in mind, they will know to check the {{ surname}} template usage documentation, and read the category descriptions, and check the references, and carefully put the article into the correctly named category.
  5. In this particular case, the recreation was deleted 8 times by 3 different administrators. (See logs above.)
  6. In this case, there are currently 43 entries in Category:Lithuanian-language surnames:
     • 1 is a Talk page, for goodness sakes!
     • None have references. I repeat: NONE.
     • Therefore, all should be removed from the category.
     • A category redirect would exacerbate the problem.
  7. Many/most of the other Badagnani category redirects have been deleted and salted (and frequently follow an outright recreation of the original category, because Badagnani has not been cooperative in the CfD process and its result). The only remaining ones from this June 6 CfD are:
     1. Category:Italian surnames ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
     2. Category:Polish surnames ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- created just yesterday
     3. Category:Icelandic surnames ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  8. As with the June 25 review, there is no consensus to reinstate this individual category in its current form.
• This is a repeated abuse of the review process.
  -- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 13:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Yet another in a string of isolated DRVs for categories in the Fooian surname structure. No indication that anything has changed regarding this specific category within that structure. Suggest that if Badagnani continues with his present pattern of bad-faith recreations and bad-faith accusations against fellow editors here and elsewhere, he be sanctioned. Otto4711 ( talk) 00:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse nothing wrong with the close and concensus hasn't changed since. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Nothing to indicate a change in overall consensus. Editors should work on discussing it at Category talk:Surnames rather than trying to brute force their view in. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 02:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - DRV is not CfD Round 2, which some of the usual suspects should know by now. Tarc ( talk) 13:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Red Sox-Rays rivalry ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

12.185.48.89 ( talk) 21:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Would the closer please explain his close. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The sources, which say that the two teams are "developing a rivalry," prove notability just as well as news articles which show two countries developing bilateral relations because the leader of one of them visited the other country. If they continue to have a major rivalry, sure. But until then, WP:CRYSTAL. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment: can we temp undelete this, so I can see what the AfD was about? — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Closing admin The arguments based on the premise that with so little interaction between these teams due to the distance and age issues, it was natural that it would not pass sourcing for the broadly defined topic of a rivalry between two teams, were convincing. I suspect that if more series are are played between the teams in the future, and an actual rivalry develops, sources will be created. But I don't really know enough about the topic to predict more than that. MBisanz ^talk 08:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, seems like a rough consensus to me. Stifle ( talk) 09:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per WP:NOTAVOTE; valid close. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 15:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Closer made correct call. Niteshift36 ( talk) 09:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per Rklear and his four sources, which are actually good sources for supporting notability, being independent, discussing the subject (the rivalry), and not failing the NOTNEWS catch, with dates: June 5, 2008; Oct. 9, 2008; October 9, 2008; October 19, 2008. Mstuczynski drew attention to this, and while several participants (including commenters) had criticism, they did not argue that outright deletion was required, with Magnetic Rag promising to make improvements. I guess that the closer was unduly. though understandably, influenced by the weakness of the other two keep !votes and the fact that among so many participants, only one made a good keep !vote. MBisanz explanation above, in failing to refer to Rklear, suggests to me that the most important !vote was lost in the noise. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• It was not a clean "keep", with significant editorial work remaining, including a likely rename or merge. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse – while I very well would have !voted keep in the AFD, I must respect the rough consensus for deletion here. If someone wants to do a cleanup job and merge any remaining information to other pages, then I won't object to any userfication in that respect. MuZemike 18:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

John Kimble ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

A fictional character in a notable movie ( Kindergarten Cop) and John B. Kimble, has an article which has sustained 2 years since 2007 when this was originally deleted. See Talk:John Kimble. Tyciol ( talk) 02:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Children of Michael Jackson ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deleted per WP:NOTE and WP:BLP. Here are two sources for the NOTE issue. [6] [7] As you can imagine, there are thousands of news sources that discuss them to greater and lesser degrees over the past 10 or so years (the article had about 25 by the time it was deleted). It didn't violate BLP, and that would have been a reason to fix it and not delete it, anyways. Basically people had a gut feeling about the article, and didn't really care if it conflicts with our guidelines and policies. I think if we base our decision on our rules, it should not be deleted. Also, there were a lot of merge !votes as well as deletes. Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 19:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Closing admin: This was generally a case of a large mass of coverage that pretty much solely covered the children in the context of their father and his death; which many felt resulted in the article merely reflecting inherited notability. Neither side any kind of monopoly on poorly-reasoned arguments; in the end I felt the overall consensus leaned distinctly towards removing this content and in the case of particularly sensitive BLPs of children I felt my close was also the prudent option. ~ mazca ^talk 19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  The coverage has spanned over ten years. People in the AfD said NOTINHERITED, and basically ignored the duration of coverage. I think a lot of them thought NOTINHERITED is meant in a family sense, which it isn't. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Endorse - we base our deletions on consensus, and the consensus was to delete in this case. Since DRV is to argue the procedure and not reargue the AfD, the consensus is what matters here. For disclosure, I was the nominating editor. Fritzpoll ( talk) 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Endorse. There were no procedural problems with the close, and the WP:BLP concerns were very real. Unitanode 19:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• This reminds me of the AfD. People said delete per BLP, without explaining how that works. BLP doesn't support it. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  Please read this, as there couldn't be a more clear example of it. Unitanode 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Endorse - consensus was clear. Jauerback ^dude?/ _dude. 19:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment It may be pointless to ask, but can an endorser address how the sources do not meet notability, now the duration of coverage does not meet NOTINHERITED, and how BLP says this should be deleted? This is the same thing that happened at the AfD. People cite policies, but have never shown how those policies actually apply. It's probably in your best interests to just pile on a never speak of how policies apply, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

PF, please stop rehashing the AFD issues. You think one thing. A whole LOT of people feel differently than you. Procedurally, this close was on the money. Please focus on areas of how this was procedurally done, or simply withdraw the DRV, as you've raised no questions about the procedure followed during this close. My arguments were made at the AFD, and I won't make them again here. Unitanode 20:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll take that as a no. As the below commenter mentions, as well as at least one of the deletes in the AfD, they are notable. I guess we'll just call every delete an WP:IAR delete. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 20:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

PF, I'm basing my judgment on the AFD discussion only. DRV is not the place to argue about sources. My endorsement of the closure doesn't necessarily represent my (or anyone else's viewpoint) on whether the conensus was correct or not, but rather on what the outcome of the concensus was. Jauerback ^dude?/ _dude. 21:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. This ridiculously large discussion had two substantial rationales for deletion - lack of independent notability, and BLP. While I agree with PF's reading of notability here, the guideline certainly is amorphous enough to support the argument that there is only derivative notability here. I'm more sympathetic to the BLP concerns, although I agree that they are more prospective in nature than the result of any demonstrated problem. Still, the discussion here was quite thorough, and I don't think that this is situation where one side is working so outside of policy that its position can be given substantially less weight. The closer here accurately discerned that on balance, the consensus was to delete. Would that all our discussions benefit from many pairs of eyes. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• This is an interesting one. The consensus was delete, but I agree with Xymmax that WP:N doesn't actually support that outcome. I don't think BLP does, either; BLP concerns might be a reason to fix the article, or even edit-protect it, but I don't see that they lead to a need to delete it.

  Still. Where consensus collides with the rules, consensus should prevail, so I endorse this accurate close.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 20:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as a reasonable admin closure. From my perspective, the arguments for deletion seem to outweigh the reasons for keeping; even though it's not a strong consensus, I'm afraid the BLP concerns raised bring it over the top. MuZemike 21:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Good close. There were good explanations in the delete rationales for why BLP applied so I'm slightly concerned the nominator doesn't understand how BLP applied. I understand they might not agree but the reasoning was provided and was clearly compelling. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Thoroughly debated at AfD. Even if WP:BLP isn't written clearly enough, deciding to delete and keep deleted this subject is the right thing to do and we should not be embarrassed to make decisions reflecting morality. No information will be lost to humanity if we don't cover these people now. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Question what is the part of BLP that applies? There's the "Presumption in favor of privacy" section, which sounds like it might support deletion, but nothing in it really does. It has lots of advice about how the article should be written, and that advice was heeded. WP:BLP1E sounds kinda close (forgetting the years of coverage), but it recommends a merge. Maybe I'm missing something. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 22:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know if I have the answer you're looking for, but there is much more potential for harm to living persons wrt articles like this, especially when content-forked as it what it looked like happened. Information on BLPs are to be taken much more seriously and consequently with much more care. While the mantra when in doubt, don't delete is a useful watch-word wrt deletion/XFDs, that does not necessarily apply to biographies of living persons, where said persons are entitled to protection from harmful, unsourced/unverifiable information. We cannot sit back on a BLP and say, 'this will eventually get cleaned up, so don't delete it', it's got to be done right. Hence, the extra care needed. Many users I think have this in mind during this DRV. That's my take. MuZemike 23:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• I think Peregrine,s question should be: How can WP:BLP be revised to better explain what was done here. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  That's answers my question. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close - a perfectly valid weighing of strength of arguments. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I agree fully with the argument that notability is not inherited. -- Blue Squadron Raven 06:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, consensus looks fine to me. Stifle ( talk) 08:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a good close based on the arguments put forward, with no apparent procedural errors (and none raised by the editor who initiated this discussion). Hut 8.5 12:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and hoping Michael Jackson's health and appearance‎ and Records and achievements of Michael Jackson‎ are the next MJ related articles to meet similar fate. - ALLST✰R▼ ^echo _{wuz here} 13:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (from author) due to lack of time to refute WP:BLP concerns. I had thought a due process would be to wait (at least) 2 days to see if anyone had time to refute the final 5 fears about BLP hacking. Those issues went completely unopposed in the final minutes before deletion. Perhaps others (seeing my "recap subsections") thought I had time (everyday) to refute the next set of debate points; however, I spent my time expanding the article (not the debate) to explain Grace Rwaramba was the 12-year nanny from Uganda (college in U.S.) helping MJ+children (and I wanted to add they called her "Mum", him "Daddy" but couldn't find 2nd source). So, meanwhile as I'm expanding the article with double-sourced facts, the AfD is seen as unrefuted and closed.
  Again, I say "Overturn" due to a lack of time (such as 2 days) to refute final arguments. However, I also fear the BLP hacking and think "un-deletion" should discuss pre-protecting article immediately before restoring to public view: someone had already quipped "custody will go to Octomom(!)" and another moved/renamed the article to title "Children of Debbie Rowe" thinking they "aren't really" MJ children, despite birth-certificates signed by MJ. This situation is a policy loophole in Wikipedia: why doesn't a large article get split into subarticles with automatically the same protection: instead, each attempt to expand in subarticles is exposed to endless vandalism seen by "65,000" pageviews per day until embarrassing vandalism is proven to offend readers/children in mourning. When delaying typical article protection, no wonder there were so many BLP concerns. So, please discuss protection before un-deleting, per lack of time to refute ending arguments. - Wikid77 ( talk) 16:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• endorse close I'm not sure I would have favored deletion if I had seen this discussion while it occurred, but the consensus for deletion is pretty clear. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as the only reasonable option. Accurate and well-informed closure. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 23:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This whole thing was a flurry of WP:RECENTISM and the BLP concerns outweighed that. Always error to the side of caution with BLP, especially with minors. Niteshift36 ( talk) 01:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn #2 (from author) due to closure outside scope of AfD. When readers were asked to consider the AfD, the scope involved 2 issues: notability of article's topic, and WP:ONEEVENT. However, once those issues were refuted, rather than stop the AfD, the debate became (surprise!) WP:BLP, without amending the top reasons for deletion. Once deleted, the reasoning stated "particularly sensitive BLPs of children" which had not been fairly indicated, at the top of AfD, as a major issue to discuss or refute. That's changing the rules of the game in mid-stream, and hence, people were left unprepared for what spurious argument to debate next. - Wikid77 ( talk) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn #3 (from author) due to new user(s) saying "Delete". When a new user (with red-linked name) "tilts the consensus" to deletion, as the main contributions of a 4-edit user, then that's highly questionable. If at trial, a police officer were found to have falsified evidence, then I think a cloud of suspicion would be cast on all evidence; a recess (delay) would be in order, to re-examine the events: there is a difference between consensus and canvassing. - Wikid77 ( talk) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn #4 (from author) due to arguing from false premises. The AfD was initiated by claiming: notability of an article's topic is NEVER inherited, and a WP:ONEEVENT would NEVER support a separate article. However, when considering the topic of the White Star Line, there were 2 sister ships (nearly identical) which were the new babies of the famous shipping line: S.S. Olympic (1910) & S.S. Titanic (1912). Well, notability (of the shipping line) is not inherited, so forget those babies, they don't count, no matter how rare. The Olympic sailed a while and had a minor wreck, but was repaired. Then the R.M.S. Titanic sank, but that was just a WP:ONEEVENT. Case closed: not even notable enough for "Sister ships of White Star". In reality, because they had been sister-ships, the S.S. Olympic was later used to demonstrate turning tests of how the Titanic could have been steered to avoid an iceberg (conclusion: don't put engines in reverse when steering forward). Anyway, it is well-known in sentential logic, that if the premises of an argument are false, then anything can be proven, like "white is not white" or "black is white" or "this article should be deleted". Hence, it is completely unacceptable to claim such a debate, based on false premises, which are guaranteed to support the unavoidable deletion. The AfD must be rejected due to those false premises which created a systemic bias, highly likely to result in deletion. Next time, note: a WP:ONEEVENT must be like a worldwide event, like some big ship dies (or similar) to support notability of those involved, such as a group of survivors or those who diagnosed the dangers ( Frederick Fleet, crewman who sighted the iceberg). Hence, notability can be derived from a single event. - Wikid77 ( talk) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn #5 (from author) due to new DRA-profiling of the evidence. The article had been convicted of the "crime" of BLP-childrisk and sentenced to deletion. However, other culprits can be revealed once the evidence is re-examined, using DRA-profiling, for dangerous risk activities (DRA), in use at the time. Specifically, the debated problem of BLP-childrisk (for minors) can be traced to other suspects: