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" [1]. 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