Wal-Mart (disambiguation) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This discussion was closed with 7 keeps and 12 deletes. But AfD is not a vote. There were strong arguments in both directions, so there was a consensus neither to keep nor delete. Therefore, this should be overturned to keep. Tatterfly ( talk) 23:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Fixed link to proper AfD. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 23:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • We've had this discussion at DRV once before, and it was sent back to AfD. Now the consensus at AfD is clearly to delete, and I don't agree with that consensus, but I think it's time to accept it and move on. Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 23:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• I strongly endorse the deletion as a correct interpretation of consensus, given the relevant guidelines. ÷ seresin 00:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• The nominator says it best : AfD is not a vote. I did not close this by the numbers but rather by the strength of the arguments. I'm sure a review of the closure will uphold that reading. As the closer, I obviously endorse the closure. Sher eth 01:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The closing admin gave a lot of thought to the decision and wrote an excellent summary. Incidentally, many of the keep opinions were ignorant of, or ignored, our guidelines. Drawn Some ( talk) 03:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, I see no irregularity at all. Not a vote doesn't exactly mean the closer HAS to go against popular opinion does it? In this case, vocalised opinion, existing policy, and strength of arguement all indicated deletion. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 07:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The refrain "AFD is not a vote" is all too often used by people who are opposed to a deletion discussion just because it went against them. Deletion review is not a venue to seek a second bite at the cherry in the hope the decision will go your way. Stifle ( talk) 08:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn closure. Seems to me to be one of the many discussions where numerous intelligent, established editors have a good-faith difference of opinion as to interpretation of the text and spirit of the relevant guideline. Thankfully, we can all respectfully agree to disagree, but when in doubt as to the consensus of an AfD discussion, we don’t delete. [1] — Satori Son 20:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Actually, this may be a good case to revisit splitting off "disambiguations for deletion" from "articles for deletion" (I've opposed dropping them in RfD before, but maybe a new *fD). Two of the All pages with titles beginning with Walmart ( redirects (and likely the documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price) are ambiguous and need disambiguating. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 00:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The terms listed on this page are different enough to warrant a disambiguation page. I can't believe anyone would argue hard enough against having one. This should be a basket case. Shaliya waya ( talk) 03:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment - User:Tatterfly appears to be notifying all of the folks who !voted to keep during the AfD about this DRV, but has not extended the same courtesy to those who argued to delete. This would seem to run afoul of WP:CANVASS. Sher eth 04:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • For the record, I made my comment above before being contacted by Tatterfly. But you're right, of course: Such a one-sided canvassing is completely inappropriate. I have left them a note. — Satori Son 13:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close due to inappropriate canvassing. Stifle ( talk) 08:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  If canvassing has been done, the appropriate remedy would affect the user canvassing. If this disambiguation page was inappropriately deleted, speedy closing the discussion because of the user would seem odd, but I do understand the desire to keep canvassing from being an appealing path. Would it make any difference if I opened the review request, either this one or a separate one? -- JHunterJ ( talk) 11:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  User:Satori Son has asked the nominator to extend the same invitation to the remainder of the people who participated in the AfD. That really is the best approach to the problem. If it is done in a timely manner I think that would resolve the problem created by the canvassing. Sher eth 14:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: I was unaware of this guideline. I have now notified everyone else. This should give everyone a fair chance to comment. Tatterfly ( talk) 14:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I see no issue with the close. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 18:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, per my original justification. I was not notified of this deletion review, despite being the first commenter on the AfD. Hours have passed since the canvassing complaint and the response has been unsatisfactory. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The admin properly weighed the arguments put forth based on policy. -- Whpq ( talk) 19:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Admin wrote very good closing statement explaining the reasoning behind the decision, and I don't see anything wrong with that reasoning.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - as a 'redirect/delete' opiner on the AFD. The rationale put forward by the closer looks good and fits policy; there's no reason for reconsideration that I can see. Note that I was just notified by the nominator. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I feel the close was borderline with the wrong result, clearly there's 15-17 articles all on Wal-Mart that a disambiguation page would be perfectly acceptable for:
  • Wal-Mart - main article
    • Criticism of Wal-Mart
    • Working Families for Wal-Mart
    • Why Wal-Mart Works; and Why That Drives Some People C-R-A-Z-Y
    • History of Wal-Mart
    • Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market
    • Wal-Mart Watch
    • List of assets owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
    • Wake Up Wal-Mart
    • List of Wal-Mart brands
    • Walmart Canada
    • Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price
    • Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes
    • Walmarting
    • Walmart First Tee Open at Pebble Beach
    • Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
    • Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

In such a case a reasonable solution would be to overturn and clean-up to serve our readers' best interest. Categories, lists, disambiguation pages and templates should compliment one another. If someone is looking for the advocacy group or the documentary, etc. they shouldn't have to dig through an article to find it, Likewise the template should not be compelled to list every article related. A disambiguation page serves this purpose. -- Banjeboi 20:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply

None of those (with the possible exception of Walmarting) would be appropriate on a dismabig page. Disambiguation pages are for disambiguating articles with the same titles, not pages that share keywords in the title. ÷ seresin 20:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I understand that technicality but we aren't here to serve our rules as much as helping our readers find what they are looking for. WP:SETINDEX is a form of disambiguation that would seem to apply here. At the top of the main article a link to "other articles about Wal-Mart" would be placed and the index briefs on the other articles that exist. -- Banjeboi 21:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• (ec) Endorse This is not the place to refight the AfD, but rather examine whether the debate was closed properly. "Consensus" does not require unanimity, but it does (typically, assuming there aren't many egregiously bad !votes) more than a simple majority. In this case, the ratio of !D and !K is just high enough and the merits of the arguments are just good enough to push the result from "no consensus" to "consensus to delete". IMHO. Yilloslime ^T _C 21:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - a consensus to delete anything should be an extremely clear, near unanymous agreement to do so by the community as a whole, or else it may just amount to dislike, which is not a valid reason for deletion. If several people have one or more good enough arguments in favor of keeping, it should be kept. The main mission of a Wikipedia editor should be to improve, not destroy. Even if ⅔ of the population dislike hot peppers, this will not result in their removal from society. Same with Wikipedia content. Sebwite ( talk) 21:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment This is why I said that dabs for deletion might need to be separated from articles for deletion. The dab here is needed for:
  • Walmart (neologism)
  • Walmart (golf tournament)
  • Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price

and none of the others (that might have a place in a set index article, or nowhere at all). But Walmart leads to one article and is ambiguous with the Walmart (neologism) and Walmart (golf tournament) articles (redirects) -- there is no !vote needed; this is just a restatement of the current state of Wikipedia. As long as that ambiguity exists, Wikipedia needs a navigational aid (disambiguation page) for it. (If the redirects are incorrect, then they should be deleted through the RfD process, and the documentary can be disambiguated by a hatnote on Wal-Mart. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 11:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The poorly-sourced neologism should probably be merged with the main article. The golf tournament name is only a redirect, and Walmart may not remain its sponsor. Nobody searching for the documentary is going to just type "Wal-mart". They are far more likely to type "Walmart documentary" or some such similar. I reject the notion that there is any sort of ambiguity problem here. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

If the changes you propose were implemented (merging the neologism and deleting the redirect), then I'd agree with you. I (and the disambiguation guidelines) reject the notion that a Wikipedia entry that is "only a redirect" is not ambiguous with other Wikipedia entries that shares its name. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 11:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion: In fact I don't think there is anything wrong with taking this back to DRV, since the last DRV didn't give the closer unambiguous guidance in interpreting the AfD, and argumentative 7-12 AfD closes are just the sort of thing that DRV is for. It is clear that the AfD was about WP:DAB and that the deletists most effectively argued that issue. Having said that, the AfD did not really work out the issues well: S Marshall's argument for a redirect to a list (which is what I would have !voted, has I remembered to), simply bypasses the not-a-DAB case, and Sebwite argued well for the utility of dab pages in such cases. But for a closer to have seized on either of these opinions and claim that is where the weight of the argument lay would not have been defensible. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment Some users here have not only given good arguments in favor of keeping, but have also listed exactly which articles can be listed on this page. Please note that I have started a separate discussion on the inclusion of partial matches on DAB pages. I feel that there are many cases in which they should be included, and this is a major example of that. Even if this discussion here does not reverse the outcome, it may be reversed later depending on that one. Tatterfly ( talk) 14:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Chalst. Very few of the topics in the dab actually were what is meant to be listed in a dab, and the consensus seemed to be pushing that way. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Well-reasoned close. No reason to overturn or even relist. youngamerican ( wtf?) 18:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. I voted keep, then changed to delete because the arguments for delete were airtight, and the arguments for keep, mine included, could have holes poked in them. The closer has to take the validity of the arguments in mind, as WP:NOTAVOTE notes, hence why delete made sense for the closure. -- CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳ ₴₮ʘ№€} 22:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Consensus is weak, but it's still a consensus. Besides, I closed the last DRV as relist; we are not going through that again. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The arguments most given in favor of deleting this page are 1.) that the listings on the DAB page relate to the main subject, and 2.) they can be better listed in a see also section in the main Wal-Mart article. But Wikipedia:Disambiguation#What not to include does not say anywhere that articles that are directly (or indirectly) related to the subject should not be included. The page also does not state that disambiguations should not be created if they are redundant to any lists or templates. Considering this, there is no guideline that would exclude a WM DAB page, and therefore, no matter how many "deletes/endorses" there are, this page should be restored per guidelines. Tatterfly ( talk) 22:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Tatterfly, guidelines describe community consensus. They do not mandate it. The lack of a guideline means consensus has to be formed elsewhere, in this case, the AfDs we just did are the consensus. -- CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳ ₴₮ʘ№€} 22:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

But consensus does not mean majority. It appears very misleading here that the majority have said "endorse/delete," when plenty of people haven't. This is not a vote. This is a matter of showing which guidelines favor inclusion or exclusion, and there are plenty of guidelines favoring inclusion. Tatterfly ( talk) 00:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Sales 2.0 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I deleted this article after closing the Afd, and userfied it here per a request at my talk page. The editor has made improvements, and would like to return it to main space. I have declined to do so unilaterally, but have created this entry to assist the editor in getting a wider audience to consider the matter. He/she is welcome to replace this statement with a nomination of their choosing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• The second and third reference listed ( as of this version) don't really talk about the term at all. The second doesn't mention it at all, and the third merely has a trivial use. The first reference doesn't contain all that much, and doesn't discuss the term itself, but appears to be about a book which the author had considered naming Sales 2.0. This might be parsed through for something useful, and there's a book by the title ( amazon.com link). So, I believe that something at this title can be written, but we're not there yet, unfortunately. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 22:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• I'd add to Lifebaka's remark that blogs are not normally reliable sources.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 22:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• As per lifebaka. The exiting references are not sufficiently reliable, and/or the coverage is too trivial. Suspect that it will improve with time. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Thank you all for this feedback. I have updated the references for this entry in response to your concerns. I believe that the current entry with the revised references warrant this article being re-instated. Emiliecole ( talk) 22:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The references have an uncomfortable promotional feel. Are there any independent sources that critically discuss the impact that Sales 2.0 has made? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Roman Catholic jurists ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Category:Jewish jurists ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Category:Hindu jurists (perhaps this one as well)

Currently, there is a discussion going on about the possible deletion of Category:Jurists by faith. Part of the discussion revolves around the deltion of these three categories. I'd like to see them restored. There seems to be no problem with the category Category:Muslim jurists. I don't see why the three above aren't given the same consideration.

There are the categories of Category:Roman_Catholics_by_occupation Category:Jews_by_occupation and Category:Muslims by occupation, why can't there be a jurist sub-category?

As an example of their relevance, in the U.S., the Supreme Court now has six Catholics, the faith of a judge does seem relevant. It fits within our category schemes and isn't over-categorization. Philly jawn ( talk) 14:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• The "Muslim jurists" are all to at least a large degree "Jurists of Islamic law" (modern systems are often mixed), but I have suggested at the other debate that the category (not currently nominated) should be renamed to this. Johnbod ( talk) 15:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Category:Roman Catholic jurists and Category:Hindu jurists weren't deleted, they were just renamed in this CfD, a decision I endorse. I haven't looked into Category:Jewish jurists yet. lifebaka ++ 19:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the various deletions - no indication that any of the various CFDs for these categories were closed in error, no new information presented indicating that the consensus expressed by those CFDs has changed. DRV is not CFD round two. That there "seems to be no problem" regarding the Muslim jurists category is not relevant to this discussion. First, the existence of one category does not mandate or even suggest that another similar category should exist. Second, as has been noted both in at least one of the original CFDs and in the current discussion, there is some "problem" with the notion of a category specifically for jurists who are Muslim and a suggestion has been made to rename and repurpose the Muslim jurists category to make it specifically about jurists of Islamic law systems.
• Additionally, I note that although Philly jawn was explicitly advised here, after re-creating some of these categories out of process, that before opening a DRV he should discuss his concerns with the closing admin(s), as advised in the instructions found on this page. I see no indication that he has done so. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• I've taken the liberty of notifying the closing admins for both discussions. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 22:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse prior decisions, from April 2007 and May 2009 (I fixed your link, it was to Supreme Court Justices by religion). Agreeing with Otto about lack of indication these were closed in error. Why are these old and older decisions brought to Review? These are now long-standing and repeatedly confirmed decisions.
  -- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 00:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (closer of some of the discussions). Per above comments; my understanding of the consensus is that this form of categorization would be fine for judges of ecclesiastical courts of various religions, but not for judges of state courts who just happen to be of a particular religion, which is why these were deleted in the past. Incidentally, the nominator didn't ask me about any of this prior to nomination; I would have been willing to explain things a bit further. I think this is the 5th consecutive DRV for a category discussion that I closed that no one has asked me about prior to nomination. Perhaps the suggestion in the DRV instructions that recommends speaking with the closer beforehand and to use DRV as a last resort only should be strengthened, or bolded or something. (Oh, I see now it already is bolded. Never mind.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Perfectly appropriate categorization, supported by sources in the individual articles; deletion is typical of the fringe minority at WP who seem to have as their primary reason for editing the undermining of our categorization system as regards ethnic groups, religions, and other cultural groups (particularly the Jewish one). Badagnani ( talk) 04:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

  In case you haven't read the CfDs in question, only one was actually deleted. The other two were renamed, and still exist under their new names. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 04:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

If they had been renamed, there would be category redirects for both--there are not, so effectively they haven't been renamed, if no one is able to figure out where they are from the "common sense" names. Badagnani ( talk) 06:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Renaming categories does not result in category redirects. That's not how it works. Bad-faith accusations against fellow editors carry no weight and are meaningless. Otto4711 ( talk) 12:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply