Robert I. Sherman ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The discussion was closed prematurely. Although, admittedly, I was the only one who voted for keep, we didn't even get to discuss the question of notability. Since I have, from a cursory glance on the source, reason to assume that this person is notable, I would at least like to have the option of checking that. There were already about a dozen or so news sources present in that article. However, this is unnecessarily obstructed by that fact that the copy of the article I made on my user space ( User:Zara1709/Robert I. Sherman) was also deleted. I received a laconic comment that I should take the issue to deletion review [1]. Well, I suppose I have to. How I am supposed to asses the notability of a person, when the article, which has several sources already present, is deleted completely. If anyone of the other editors has taken a closer look at the sources and can tell me why these are insufficient to establish notability, then of course this wouldn't be necessary. But this was not established in the previous discussion before that one was closed, and I would like to make up for that now. Zara1709 ( talk) 04:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, as there was a clear consensus. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 05:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Probably I wasn't specific enough. I am not asking for the article to be restored, I am asking for the copy on my user space to be restored, so that I may evaluate the notability of this person. If I come to the conclusion that he is notable, I can then still decide whether I want to inquire on this page that the article should be restored. Zara1709 ( talk) 05:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The purpose of DRV is solely procedural evaluation of the close of an AFD. In this case, as Julian pointed out, there was a clear consensus to delete. Your user space was speedily deleted as an attack page. As was pointed out in the AFD, the information is more appropriate in the articles of those being quoted. لenna vecia 05:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Deleting material out of an editor's personal userspace is a bit different from deleting it out of the mainspace. An attack page could justify that measure, but I think it would need to be a very clear-cut case.

  Endorse closure of the AfD and deletion out of the mainspace, but, I think a real question remains about deletion from the editor's personal userspace. At the very minimum, it would be courteous to email a copy of the page to Zara1709 so she can use it as a basis for a non-attack-page article.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 09:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  PS: I take strong exception to Jennavecia's remark that "the purpose of DRV is solely procedural evaluation of the close of an AfD". This is simply wrong, because this editor was specifically directed to bring her case to DRV by an admin. For Jennavecia to then tell Zara she's in the wrong place is bureaucratic and Kafkaesque.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 09:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  Whether or not an admin misdirected her here, WP:DRV is clear. The purpose of this venue does not change simply because of one admin's recommendation. لenna vecia 21:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  The purpose of DRV is surely more than procedural evaluation of the close of an AfD, Jennavecia. For one thing, any XfD is considered. For another thing, speedy deletions are often considered here and it's custom and practice that this is the place for such a matter.

  My position is that the purpose of DRV is to make Wikipedia better. And certainly once the deleting admin has directed a protesting editor here, we should at least consider it.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 22:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

  I disagree. لenna vecia 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• I'm less than convinced that this is worth userfying, in accordance with WP:BLP. Clear endorse of the AFD in any case. If it were me making the decision, I would only permit userfication of the first paragraph, but luckily it's not (-: Stifle ( talk) 09:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• overturn/relist I'm sorry. But this should go through a full AfD. Moreover, most of the material in question (especially that dealing with Sherman's interaction with Bush and his interaction with Davis) are easy to relate in a neutral fashion. Whether the incident with the use of the term "negro" has enough reliable sources to be included in an editorial decision (from what I can tell, there's not enough. Olbermann for example is not a reliable source and the other linked to website is a blog). It is however clear that given the coverage regarding both Bush and Davis that Sherman is not BLP1E given that there's you know, more than one event. An article by itself dealing primarily with those two issues would clearly be fine. Regardless, this should have a full AfD so the case can be made in detail. JoshuaZ ( talk) 20:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion of the user subpage as a GFDL violation: it was a copy-pasted copy of the article that failed to preserve the page history. Weak endorse the AFD closure: the consensus was clear, but still I would have preferred prefer for the discussion to remain open for the full seven days. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 21:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I still endorse deletion of the user subpage per WP:GFDL, but I was convinced by DGG's argument about the AFD itself, so relist for a full 7-day discussion. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 23:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: Clear consensus. With the backlog at AFD, I'm not concerned about an IAR SNOW close. Like a copyvio, a BLP shouldn't be userfied. Law _{type! snype?} 01:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Are you claiming that any biography of a living person should not be userfied even if there is a userfiable version that is BLP compliant? Moreover, in what universe is a backlog at AfD a good enough reason to use IAR? JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• 1) No. 2) Mine. 3) I don't think I want you talking to me again. Law _{type! snype?} 06:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Regarding 1) so since we have such a version here why is there an issue 2) Wikipedia has no deadline- WP:DEADLINE so it is really hard to see how to one can justify using IAR in that context for a simply a few days backlog. As to 3, if you are going to make a comment in a public DRV discussion you should expect replies and questions. Disagreeing with you or raising questions is not an attack on you as an individual. I'm sorry you apparently see it that way. JoshuaZ ( talk) 19:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• It's not BLP compliant. That's why it was deleted. لenna vecia 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• I didn't claim an attack. I don't care if it's here on in real-life - I'm not likely to address anyone who prefaces a question with 'in what universe.' It's snide. Now, with respect to BLPs, what is the point of deleting it out of article space only to move the same article back into userspace? It still exists, but because it technically has a different URL, it's OK? No. If BLP applies to all WP space, then once userfied, it could be speedied as recreation of a deleted AfD result - obviously being somewhat elliptical. As far as IAR - I didn't remember there being a scale as to what reasons were better than others. In fact, it's ignore 'all' rules, not IAR as long as you can justify it to someone else. That would be more like what consensus is for. Applying consensus to IAR is the opposite of all that is written. The perfect time to apply IAR to administrative procedures, in my universe, is when there is a backlog at AfD. An intelligent and seasoned editor may very well be able to make a mature and informed decision without letting the AfD run its full course. This keeps the wheels turning and cuts down on the red tape which is already overwhelming. Not every article needs 7 days; some more and some less. Now that I've explained my decision, I welcome any polite commentary. Law _{type! snype?} 04:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Relist it is almost always a mistake to close an AfD like this early, because it just leads to more problems. Better to run the full time, and probably there would have been sufficient consensus to discourage deletion review though I do understand the admins impatience with this article. As for the suitability of DRV, 1/ it is the appropriate place to challenge any decision on deletion at AfD, because procedure is to close in accordance with consensus and policy and to make an appropriate use of discretion; therefore, a mistake in evaluating any of this is a procedural error. 2/ if viewed as a snow close, doing one is always a use of discretion and therefore a straight procedural matter in the narrow sense. 3/ if viewed as a speedy for BLP, then arb com specifically ruled that the appropriate place to challenge them was DRV. Thus Jennavica's argument is incorrect in every particular. DGG ( talk) 04:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. The article as it stood was a biography of a living person which focused only on two incidents from his life and thus did not present an accurate picture of him. That said, I would allow re-creation of the article as there appear to be sufficient news sources about him and his activities. I would recommend that the new article be titled Rob Sherman as he is commonly known by his nickname rather than his full name. When I saw that this DRV was about "Robert I. Sherman", at first I thought it was about the guy who wrote songs for Mary Poppins. I would have recognized "Rob Sherman", though. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore and relist Closing an article that can potentially be fixed after just 1 day instead of 7 is a blatant violation of the speedy close policy. Any BLP problems can be altered through editing or commented out to give the creator a chance to fix it during the normal discussion period. (this means the closer's claim SNOWBALL applies is faulty because there is a snowball's chance of improvement that can change further voting. - Mgm| ^(talk) 09:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: Deletion review is not meant to be a second AfD. The first AfD had clear consensus to delete. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 03:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: There was only one request for the article to be kept, by the DRV nom, and in 24 hours there was plenty of consensus to delete that article. Recreating the article in userspace should be out of the question.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 03:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: I'm not convinced by any evidence presented that a second AFD will produce a different outcome or provide any benefit to the community. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 07:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Aside from a few intelligent comments, the majority of what has been written here only confirms that I should seriously reconsider the way I have been editing on Wikipedia- or whether I want to continue editing at all. Roughly 24 h certainly were not sufficient to discuss the issue: Neither have Jennavecia and others explained where they saw a BLP violation (that couldn't be fixed) nor do we actually know that Robert I. Sherman isn't notable, since we didn't even take a look at the sources. Of course, it only takes 5 minutes to look at an article and say 'delete', but then, on the other hand, I've been working with the material for hours, if not for days. If the editors at Wikipedia were actually concerned with writing an encyclopaedia, they would at least give me the time I needed to bring my arguments forward. However, as I perceive it, the deletion discussion was not about writing an encyclopaedia; editors and administrators were probably playing some kind of deletion game there, the rules of which I don't understand. A discussion is supposed to be on the basis of arguments, not on the basis of votes. Seriously, if all it that is necessary to delete an article are a number of 'deletion' votes, then we don't need to have discussions (using words) to decide whether we should delete an article or not. This job could almost be done by monkeys with typewriters - they'd only need typewrites with a big 'vote delete' key. Anyway, since there are some editors here who I think are actually interested in arguments, let me bring one: I conducted a search at yahoo for the exact phrase: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens". I know that search statics alone are not a sufficient argument for notability, or here, for the coverage of a particular event somewhere in Wikipedia, but then again, you can at least try to guess how many pages yahoo found with this phrase. Surprisingly google only found roughly 1/6 that many, but that number still is rather high, if we compare it with the number of hits you would get for the content of articles like Religious discrimination against Neopagans. And I have some more arguments I could bring forward for the relevance of this issue; We could discuss those in detail if we relist the afd, but for the moment just think of this: There is a whole country out there that needs the answer to the question whether George H.W.Bush actually said that he doesn't know that "atheists should be considered as citizens". I took me only a few hours to find the answer (it is unverifiable that he said that), and it would be nice if Wikipedia could help provide this answer to the U.S.-American public. Of course, bot sides are not going to like the answer. Atheists would rather have it that we write that Bush actually said it, whereas many Republicans would rather have the issue not mentioned at all. (There are a few conservative Americans who also think that Bush actually said it.) Fortunately, though, "I don't like it." is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. If you were an editor with a pro-Republican bias, and I am not saying that any editor here actually is, you would have to seek another reason to delete it and keep you editorial bias to yourself, if possible. Considering that the discussion surrounding this alleged quote warrants inclusion in Wikipedia (imho), then we would need to see how we could do this the best way. And, although there are articles like Discrimination against atheists that could accomodate, I think the most elegant solution would be to have an article Robert I. Sherman and include it there. So, in conclusion: If the version on my userspace is restored, I can take a look at the sources, count and evaluate then and, if necessary, I'll write Sherman an Email to get to know what he actually though of his article, and whether he rather have the article fixed or no article at all about him. (Jennavecia apparently isn't telling me, what he actually wrote.) And if I then come to the conclusion the Sherman is notable, that the article can be fixed, and that I am actually willing to do that, then we relist the afd. Or we simply relist it and figure this out together. But, if neither one of this options is possible here, I not only wasted a lot of time figuring out the issue of the alleged Bush quote in the first place; I'll also consider a lot of other work I did for Wikipedia a waste of time. I consider myself an editor who can not only research this and many other topics and write from a neutral perspective about them, but who also bases his editorial views on sound reasoning. Some editors here may actually find this hard to understand: I a not making the effort with this discussion to annoy you, but because I think there are reasons why we should at least discuss keeping this article. And when I have to read 'Delete', with that what I've previously written being ignored, then I honestly don't feel as if am am talking with human beings who want to write an encyclopaedia together. In this case, this will be the last thing you will hear from me for a rather long time. I assume there are other projects I could work on. Zara1709 ( talk) 09:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • WP:TL;DR Stifle ( talk) 08:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Don't panic. Mukadderat ( talk) 16:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Per Julian. MBisanz ^talk 12:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Consensus was clear. Claiming the article was not pointy is rather disingenuous given the time and skill that it is claimed went into it. Moreover, the suggestion to recreate is about as far from "elegant" - given the policy concerns (BLP not least) - as I am wobbling home after a skinful. Plutonium27 ( talk) 01:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, at least there is someone who has read what I've written - partly. You might want to read the (now archived) comments I posted on the noticeboards during the afd. Most of my efforts concerning our article space went into researching that alleged Bush quote; however, more effort went into discussing this quote in the discussion space. I didn't actually spent so much effort researching and writing about the person of Robert I. Sherman himself, I don't even know for sure yet that he is notable. I was about to research that properly, but then the article was deleted prematurely. And the version I made on my user space for precisely the reason of checking the sources to establish notability or not was deleted, too, which is the reason we now need to discuss this here in the first place. If some admin hadn't deleted that material on my user page I would have by now conducted the research and could tell you if he is notable according to our guidelines or not. And anyway, what policy concerns? If someone was the subject of several verifiable controversies, you can't claim that corresponding article is a blp violation if it is written from a neutral perspective. Even if it is not written from a neutral perspective, that can be fixed. If you want to have an encyclopaedia for the sum of human knowledge, then this would include the current controversies surrounding atheism in the United States. Do you want to write an encyclopaedia or not? Zara1709 ( talk) 10:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

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

I would like to create this article, however it was deleted back in 2006 because it failed notability guidelines. However, I just discovered that Major League Baseball Advanced Media's contraversial blackout restrictions relies on this service according to the Wall Street Journal. Perhaps it's best to discuss whether or not this fact would merit notability, though it seems bizarre to unearth an article deleted 3 years ago. – BuickCentury Driver 18:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn deletion and allow re-creation. It's certainly possible that the company might have become more notable in the intervening three years since it was up for AfD. The version at the time of deletion was quite short and had no references other than the company's own web site, but I don't have a problem if the edit history gets restored. That said, there is no guarantee that the company will be considered notable now; you will probably need more sources to support a new article besides the Wall Street Journal article you cited. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation but do not restore the deleted page history, which contains nothing more than an AfD template and a copyright violation. The full text of the article was copied verbatim from an older version of this company page, and the text of that older version is available here (scroll to the bottom, where it says "About Quova, Inc."). – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 21:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  It may then be useful to recreate and redelete as a copyvio so it doesn't get accidentally resurrected in the future. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 06:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• No reason you cannot just recreate the article. Thanks for asking here, but given that it was deleted such a long time ago, you shouldn't have any issue with a new good article. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 03:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Krahu i shqiponjës ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

You can read the article at the address below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xanxari_en./Krahu_i_shqiponj%C3%ABs

And if you are careful, you will notice that there are new sources and references of the most reliable. I don’t know what can be more reliable than the president of the Parliament of a country ( Pjetër Arbnori}) and the National Library of a country?! There are photos there and documents (facsimile):

http://www.shefkihysa.com/al/xhaferri.html

which prove that Albanian state is our collaborator. See them and suggest us what other reliable sources can we find?!

-- Xanxari en. ( talk) 13:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment: The original AfD was here.

  Some of the references and sources used on the draft article would not normally be permitted, for example, the blogs and yahoo groups. Please read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources.

  When I was doing my research for this DRV, I couldn't help noticing that the related articles, Shefki Hysa, Bilal Xhaferri and Jakup Mato, also contain references that do not conform to WP:RS, and I would suggest that these are also improved, as I doubt they would survive AfD.

  I also note that you have received the same advice for the equivalent article on the German Wikipedia, which is here. The English Wikipedia's referencing standards are higher. (On de.wikipedia, you can write it if it's sourced or if other editors think it's true. On en.wikipedia you can only write what the sources say.)

  I do not have the library to read the paper sources you cite, so I hope someone who does is able to participate in this DRV.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 14:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Permit recreation since speedy deletion criterion G4 no longer applies. CSD G4 is for recreations of deleted pages which are "substantially identical to the deleted version" and if "changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". The userspace version presented by Xanxari en. is not "substantially identical" to the deleted version, which can be viewed here. Not only are there not insignificant differences in the text, but the addition of the references (even if they are problematic) is by itself a major change. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 21:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore The first deletion was valid, then the version that tried to address the lack of sources was deleted as a recreation multiple times. Since the first G4 was invalid, the x other ones are also not valid. - Mgm| ^(talk) 09:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

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

There is no consensus to redirect sourced articles about settlements to higher order administrative units removing sourced information from the encyclopedia. I have discussed this with the closer who acknowledges that there is a debate whether all inhabited settlements are inherently notable, if they can be verified. This concept, while not policy has obtained a level of support and is reflected in the essays WP:INHERENT and WP:OUTCOMES, which should give pause to someone thinking of deleting a settlement that there is a significant body of editors who would find that against policy. I am of the opinion that settlements are inherently notable: if Wikipedians are also of that mind or at least have no consensus that they are not, then redirecting or deleting settlements is against consensus or at a minimum there is no consensus to do so - which, contrary to what the closer suggested in our discussion, is not limited to who shows up for the debate. Even if you think that settlements are not inherently notable, this one is, and verification of basic facts was added after some of the participants in the debate had !voted, which apparently was overlooked at the close. Many barangays in the Philippines are small villages but are tracked by the Philippine national census, much like the US CDP's (and, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica were the "basic unit of local administration in the islands", [2] also not brought up at AFD when other editors contered that they were a few blocks of houses - without sourcing - which skewed the debate) - articles for which were created en masse by bot approved by the community based on the recognition that regardless of whether settlements are notable inherently or not, those for which national census data are available and maintained most certainly are. While this argument may run afoul of another essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - cited by the closer while dismissing the other essays - it also is fundamental to confront Wikipedia's WP:BIAS, which has reflected a particular need to confront it in geography - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Geography. While nearly any dot on an American map will likely have readily available information on the internet or at a library that many Wikipedians can draw from, those abroad may not. That doesn't make them less notable - nor is it call for deletion or redirect either. It calls for keeping the article and allowing it to grow organically as Wikipedians in that geography (or elsewhere) can add to it, with sources they have more ready access to. Here, the effect of the non-consensus close to redirect was to eliminate some sourced material - and some unsourced, which could have been redacted or tagged with {{ fact}} as we do everywhere else - to point to an article to the next order administrative district that merely lists the place, without the sourced data, without any sources to verify the existence of the place. That is surely not the right result and should be Overturned here. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This is a challenging one to reason through.

On the one hand, I sympathise with Carlossuarez. We're often told what Wikipedia is not. But Wikipedia:Five pillars says very clearly that one of the things that Wikipedia is is a gazetteer, and this content does belong in a gazetteer.

But on the other hand, it's hard to censure Fritzpoll for his well-reasoned close. I'm convinced that was a valid reading of the consensus he was supposed to be evaluating.

Fortunately, I think in this case it's possible to satisfy everyone, because a redirect is technically a "keep" outcome. What the AfD in fact decided was, this article should be a bluelink on Wikipedia. And the content of the bluelink is an editorial decision, not an administrative one.

Any editor can now take the discussion to the article's talk page and seek consensus to create an encyclopaedic article there. No reply would be such a consensus per WP:SILENCE.

Therefore my answer is that this redirect probably should be an article, but my reply in DRV terms is endorse closure as a valid reading of the consensus and wrong venue for the request to re-create.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 20:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. Given the reasoning of various parties, both for and against, at the AfD, I think Fritzpoll's closure as redirect and his reasoning was perfectly in line. Now let's address some of the arguments of the DRV nominator:
  1. Regarding the argument of WP:BIAS: people seem to think that if there are thousands of articles about U.S. places and there are a few in other countries means that we should create hundreds, if not thousands, of articles of those other countries. This is a fallacy. Countering the bias could also mean that we could also reduce the articles on the U.S. places (consolidating them into groups) or target some middle ground.
  2. Regarding the notion that "deleting" sourced material harms Wikipedia. Deletion of source material per se does not harm Wikipedia. WP:NOT (which is a policy) even guides us to delete material even if they are sourced. In addition, Non-keep AfD closures does not equate to deleting material. A redirect/merge close essentially means that the community would like to keep the material but that a separate article to house that material is not necessary. The sourced material that was in Masalipit can be included in San Miguel, Bulacan or even fleshed out in a List of barangays of San Miguel, Bulacan sub-article.
  3. The argument that whenever a government tracks something, it automatically makes them notable is also not true. The Securities and Exchange Commission of the Philippines, by mandate, tracks all legally incorporated companies and organizations in the country but that does not mean that we should have articles on all of those companies and organizations. If the Philippines implements the long-discussed National ID system, then that would be essentially a way of tracking its individual citizens (and that's why privacy advocates are against the ID system), but that doesn't mean that we should have articles on every individual citizen. So the argument that the national government tracks these barangays through census and local administration also does not mean that we should have articles on all of these barangays.

-- seav ( talk) 02:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. I can add little to S Marshall and Seav above. We have not lost encyclopedic material as it can be merged up. Stifle ( talk) 08:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure per Seav and S Marshall. While I want to have more Philippine articles (That's why I joined in the first place), I don't want empty unsourced ones since Wikipedia is not a directory. My challenge to the nominator is that rather than argue using essays, why don't they back up the article with multiple reliable sources?-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • There were two reliable sources when the article was deleted - surely multiple reliable sources, so your argument is based on factually incorrect assumption - perhaps had you read it, you'd have realized it - now my challenge to you is change your !vote based on the facts to prove that your argument has any valid basis. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 03:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

One was a page load error the other was a populuation cite which can be merged to the parent municipality's list of baranggays. The rs that I want are economic, political or any decent data that actually have content in it.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 07:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment from closing admin: I did think reasonably hard about the close, and have talked about this on my talk page. What I can say is that in instances where we have an AfD of geographic units (be they towns, wards, etc.) an admin is going to have trouble closing when the keep arguments are essentially this weird concept of "inherent notability". I have witnessed several discussions on this concept in my work on Wikipedia, none of which amounted to a consensus, and none of which have codification in our guidelines or policies. Whilst my personal opinion is that this omission cannot be left unanswered in the long term, the lack of notability indicated by the discussion can only be assessed by the GNG, and the consensus at the AfD was (validly) that the article didn't meet the requirements. Absent a convincing keep argument grounded in policy, there was little to avoid an alternative conclusion. However, since a merge was proposed within the discussion, the imperative to preserve information allowed me to use redirection as a tool in this instance. I am, as ever, happy to be overturned for any egregious error I have made here, but I think the long-term problem is the supposed security blanket of "inherent notability" that has been used in the past for this kind of article - but that is a topic beyond the scope of DRV or AfD Fritzpoll ( talk) 17:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure Per conservative close. MBisanz ^talk 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I might personally be prepared to extend the concept of the inherent notability of populated settlements to neighborhoods as a matter of course, but I don;'t think there is consensus here to do that-- and I think this is essentially the nature of most baranggays. But, using the GNG for these is going to become increasingly irrelevant as time goes on. Most such places worldwide will in a few years have internet accessible reasonably reliable sources discussing them in a reasonably substantial way, and the only way to continue the GNG will be to define "reliabl"e and "significant" in increasingly restrictive ways. DGG ( talk) 23:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • On what basis do you conclude that this is a neighborhood rather than a village? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 07:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • All barangays are subdivisions of incorporated municipalities, which I believe is how neighborhood is commonly thought of in the U.S. -- Polaron | Talk 11:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, the US-centricity of WP as I mentioned above. Most villages in Europe are subdivisions of municipalities and they are fine at WP - because they are first world. If Philippine geographic articles for population centers were limited to municipalites only 1631 articles could exist on them: 1521 municipalities and 120 classified as "cities" from List of municipalities in the Philippines. For a country of 90 million people spread out on 7000 islands, this is a bizzarre conclusion, as some municipalities spread over multiple spreadout islands it is somewhat odd how each becomes a neighborhood more than a village. but that's a WP fiction. Just for comparison, the Republic of Ireland is essentially most of one island with 4 million people has 1266 village and town articles, and lots of redlinks suggesting an incompleteness that will in time surpass 1631. I guess WP considers Ireland more important than the Philippines. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 16:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
        • So why do you think en.wiki editors from the Philippines themselves disagree with you about the significance of barangays. The municipality is the civic identity in the Philippines. I doubt you'd find anyone from the Philippines saying the barangay name when asking them what locality they're from. Majority of the islands of the Philippines are actually uninhabited and it is not unusual for these uninhabited islands to be grouped together in a single barangay. Barangays are essentially census tracts or Wards and you're ascribing more significance to it than locals do. -- Polaron | Talk 17:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
          • I'm aware these are not precisely identical to US neighborhoods in the generic sense, because they are formally recognized; they perhaps might more closely correspond to a US ward or a Citizen's Board, which are the old and new fashions for elected minor officials in local areas of US cities. The have very limited responsibilities and are not self governing nor do they control major community facilities. DGG ( talk) 21:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
            • This barangay is classified by the Philippine government as rural, which suggests the proper analogy is the village as a subdivision of a municipality in the typical Continental European models or unincorproated communities in the US one, not a "neighborhood" in any city/urban sense (a few blocks without much to say about it). Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
              • It is discussions like these that reaffirm to me the need to establish community-wide standards for geographical inclusion, which are presently lacking, although the problem is likely to be that one side of the debate will settle for nothing less than absolute inclusion, and the other will resist any implied weakening of the GNG. Still, that debate is not for here: rearguing the AfD is not the purpose of DRV - if there is a procedural or policy error in my close, then that should be discussed. Fritzpoll ( talk) 08:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Plot of Les Misérables ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

First of all, the recent Deletion discussion was non-admin closed, but does not come under any of the requirements for an non-admin closure, and is thus unambiguously invalid, particularly as it was a speedy closure.

Secondly, the first deletion was an overrule one based on WP:PLOT, however, per recent discussion, that is not a deletion criteria. I think we should keep the article, and improve it by adding extensive literary criticism. The deleted article is well-referenced, and an excellent introduction to an in-depth discussion of one of the most important works of French literature. Seriously, we have an article on almost every chapter of the Bible; Les Misèrables may not have quite that impact, but having a sub article to discuss its plot in detail, allowing deep analys is of Hugo's work, is hardly a problem. WP:PLOT is an improvement criterion, not a deletion one. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 16:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• I'm not even sure this is the right place to be. Having an AfD closed as a non-admin speedy redirect after 1 day when the last deletion was 2 years ago seems like something anyone could undo. Thoughts on process? Is this the right place for the discussion? I'd think AfD would be. So reopen AfD and let run 7 days is my thought. Hobit ( talk) 17:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep as redirect; Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. Stifle ( talk) 18:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Have you actually read WP:PLOT since the RfC reached a conclusion? I think that this would be an excellent article for a test of what encyclopedic subarticles dealing with plot should look like. It's going to take some time to do this, though, and it's not going to happen at all if we act as if WP:NOT was insta-delete, not, as it clearly says now, an improvement criterion. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • That's for plot summaries in articles, not plot summaries as articles. Stifle ( talk) 08:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Could you explain how you read the policy to get that result? Of a certainty reactions to the plot could provide the needed real-world context. Hobit ( talk) 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Indeed, and those would be appropriate to a section of the main article. Stifle ( talk) 09:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
          • Trying again, could you explain how you read the current policy to get a result that this article could be deleted? Hobit ( talk) 00:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
            • I don't see how I can answer that. It's my reading of the policy. Stifle ( talk) 15:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
              • As the current policy recommends improvement over deletion, I'm not sure how you can get that result. That's what I'm trying to figure out. Hobit ( talk) 02:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• re-open the afd and allow to run for a full 7 days. A redirect is all well and good if there's consensus, but the fact that we're here is a decent indicator that there was no such consensus reached (at least not yet). If a consensus to redirect is reached at the end of the debate, so be it, but a redirect without enough time for a full discussion is not the way to go here. Umbralcorax ( talk) 19:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• I'm confused as to the target of this DRV. Is it contesting the AfD and DRV of July 2007 or the recent AFD and its closure as WP:CSD#G4? As to the former, endorse both decisions. WP:NOT and it's inclusive WP:PLOT element were and are policy and still applicable to those two-year-old decisions. As to the latter, this edit is the very definition of the G4 criterion for deletion (or, redirection in this case) and a determination I endorse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by pd THOR ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 May 2009
  • Invalid arguement. This is what WP:PLOT says (after the recent lengthy RFC reached a consensus on this issue)

    Plot-only description of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting. Articles on fictional works containing little more than a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. For more information on writing about fiction, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).}}

    It is certainly not meant to force deletion of an article someone wants to improve. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 20:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Why are we ignoring the subject of the redirect Les Misérables which contains the plot summary. As far as I can see your argument seems to be I want to improve the plot article to be the main article. Why not just enhance the main article if it's lacking in the suitable level of plot information? I certainly don't believe the intent of the recent discussion was to allow lengthy standalone plot articles split from the main article if you include some of the main article material in it. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 21:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • You verily misunderstood me. DRV is for reviewing the closures of AfDs for impropriety. Therefore, are you contesting (a) the July 2007 AfD decision, or (b) the more recent AfD's closure? I endorse the former's as proper in its time, and the latter as you recreated the exact same article that was decided upon previously, which is a valid application of the CSD#G4. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn for an admin to close. Non_admin closure is only for non-controversial closures. The act of raising this DRV shows that the closure was controversial, and therefore the NAC is automatically invalidated. I'm of the view that any editor in good standing can, on reasonable grounds, simply revert a non-admin closure of an AfD.

  I must say that Les Misérables is an extremely notable work of fiction and its article is already well over the recommended 32kb length. Therefore per the manual of style, it would be appropriate to divide it into sub-articles.

  Whether one of those sub-articles should be Plot of Les Misérables is a different question, but it's one that should be addressed at AfD rather than DRV.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 21:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Ugh BE BOLD. If you want to make an article that isn't just a wikipedian giving a play-by-play of the work, do so. Go make this article. Make us proud. If you are asking us to overturn "formally" this decision at DRV two years later I say no. I endorse this decision "at the moment of decision" and I will oppose any attempt to simply force this article back into existence at the point of a knife. Protonk ( talk) 01:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • So, you're saying I should work on an article, but with no promise it won't be deleted at any moment, because I haven't gotten the deletion overturned. And that's the solution? Bullshit. If you wat me to work on an article, I want enough time to build it, and bring in others. I don't want to be told that all myhard work may be flushed away at any moment, because of a no-longer-policy deletion two years ago. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 10:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • That's exactly what I'm saying. Sorry that isn't to your liking. Protonk ( talk) 19:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • I'll ask the same question I asked Deor. Let's pretend that we have an article that was deleted and then policy changed so that the basis of the deletion was no longer valid. What is the procedure for restoration? If there is a disagreement, where should that discussion be held? DrV? AfD? The discussion page for that policy? Hobit ( talk) 21:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
        • What's the point? how is this different from my response below. This may sound rude, but I don't think it is worth our time to keep repeating this stuff. If you guys want to make this an article, make a post on the talk page or just be bold. If you don't want to be bold out of fear that someone will come along and redirect it again or G4 it, that isn't our problem. When I recreated Dragon kill points I didn't come here and ask permission, I just made it. Little discussion should be necessary. Protonk ( talk) 01:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
          • If the policy that was cited as a deletion reason goes away (or in this case, significantly changed) then an actual review of if the article meets policy/guidelines now is in order. There is no need to change it in order to request that discussion. Just waving a wand of "be bold" and asking for changes isn't helpful as that's not the issue being raised. To repeat (which I agree isn't helpful, but appears needed for some reason) the question is if the article, as written, meets our current policies and guidelines. Hobit ( talk) 02:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
            • I think that you and SH appear to be the folks most concerned about that question. You don't need to keep repeating the question. I'm not misunderstanding you, I'm just insisting that the question itself is unimportant and unrelated to the deletion at the moment of decision. Beyond that, pushing at PLOT for changes then coming over here for validation of those very changes seems a titch bizzare. I'm not waiving a magic wand, either. Precisely the opposite. Being bold in making or remaking this article is not waving a magic wand. It is asking an editor to step forward, use judgment and begin editing an article. It is hard work. Work that I'm not inclined to do because I don't particularly care if this is an article or a redirect. If there is someone who does, I really don't see the problem with them creating/recreating the article. If not, I don't see the problem with it remaining a redirect. Protonk ( talk) 03:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
              • The underlieing reason for the DrV is to figure out what to do with this article. Does it meet the current policies and guidelines? If yes we should have it. If no, we should not. I'd argue that's the core question. What do _you_ think the core question is here wrt this DrV? Hobit ( talk) 12:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
                • I would argue, and have argued, that there isn't a core question to this DRV. It is a totally superfluous, almost aimless discussion that belongs neither here, nor at the talk page nor at PLOT. We aren't going to "establish a precedent" with regards to articles previously deleted in whole or in part to past wording of PLOT. We aren't really discussing the applicability of the policy (and even if we were, announcing that PLOT is no longer a deletion criteria has no bearing on a 2 year old AfD). And you clearly want a discussion that is outside the scope of the talk page for the main article. You guys seem to think that this review was compelled by actions outside our control, that some incipient issue has arisen demanding that we hash out an answer. In response to repeated claims that no such incipient crisis or problem exists, you have stayed the course. The core question of "a DRV" is to assess the validity of the deletion decision. We have made it something of a habit (not one I agree with, but there you go) of not only reviewing deletion decisions but reviewing recreated articles here. In the sense that this is a recreated article, you might think that we are reviewing a deletion of sorts. I disagree, partly because of the age of the deletion debate and partially because this doesn't need the tools for a solution. You could, if you want, disagree with Sceptre about the redirect and re-establish the article. You could insist (with some support from me) that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables (2nd nomination) should be reviewed as a NAC and the AfD simply relisted (rather than insist that some procedural question need be answered). Protonk ( talk) 19:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
                  • I just want the article recreated and to have a chance to improve. I'm annoyed at the process thus far as we seem to be stuck debating process rather than resolving what to do with the article. I'd be fine with just removing the redirect, but given it is currently at DrV, I'm not sure that is a reasonable action. I guess that's what I'll do once the DrV closes. I think SH probably handled this poorly (no real fault of his, it wasn't clear what to do) and somehow it has resulted in a very weird situation. As far as precedent goes, I'm not overly worried about that. Exactly how to handle situations like this is in discussion elsewhere. I'd just like to see this article get a fair discussion on the merits. Hobit ( talk) 00:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep as redirect per the result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. (I'm assuming that some of this content was in fact merged to Les Misérables, so that the history needs to be retained. If that is not so, my opinion is overturn the recent "G4 redirection" and delete per the same DRV result.) This DRV's nominator has claimed that he wants this plot summary restored so that he can "expand this with literary criticism"; the place to cover literary criticism of the novel is Les Misérables, not this former article. Given the nom's previous comments at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, such as this and particularly this, I suspect that he's trying to make some sort of obscure point here. Deor ( talk) 12:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • So if something is deleted or redirected on the basis of a policy that no longer supports that action, G4 still applies in your opinion? How should one go about (if at all) making the argument that something that was deleted should be restored because policy changes would allow it to exist if it were created from scratch? Hobit ( talk) 21:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Well, the forum we're discussing this in is titled "Deletion review", and the box at the top of the main DRV page says that DRV "is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article"; so I'd recommend starting a discussion here rather than just re-creating the article. I have to say, though, that I don't think a separate article on the plot of any fictional work stands much of a chance in any discussion not dominated by ARS fanatics, since any non-plot information that might be added to it would belong rather in an article about the work itself than in one about its plot. Deor ( talk) 22:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and avoid such phrasing as "ARS fanatics." We are discussing articles, not editors. Thank you. Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 22:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • So you would prefer that once this DrV is closed, anyone wishing to restore the article based on policy changes should come to DrV? I suspect that would get tossed out on it's ear. Suggestions? Hobit ( talk) 22:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
        • You asked not what should be done with the article in question here but, generally, "how should one go about (if at all) making the argument that something that was deleted should be restored," and I gave you my reading of the relevant procedure. If it had been followed, we'd still be here, but we'd be having the discussion you apparently want to have rather than this discussion, which is supposed be about the validity of the recent AfD closure rather than the merits of the article. Don't worry, though; somehow I foresee a rash of DRV discussions involving old deletions in which WP:NOT#PLOT happens to have been mentioned. Deor ( talk) 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
          • So because an editor handled the "paperwork" incorrectly, we just won't have a process for restoring this article? That seem, well, wrong and perhaps the definition of bureaucratic . Hobit ( talk) 23:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: it's a textbook G4: recreation of material deleted at AfD. And said content was stagnant for four weeks. SH should know by now to either sandbox in userspace before recreating, or, alternately, recreate material and then immediately work on it. SH did neither. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 13:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • So we should delete (or in this case, redirect) independent of changes in policy that have occurred in the meantime? If we'd removed WP:PLOT would you still be in favor of hitting this with G4? Hobit ( talk) 15:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Also, did you expect this to be non-controversial? Given that it's 2 years old, NOT#PLOT has changed significantly and an editor in good standing did this, I'd have thought it pretty obviously would not be, but I'd like to hear your reasoning there for the non-admin close of an AfD in less than a day. Hobit ( talk) 15:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • ...We should make an article if we think that an article is worth making. If we think that the article prior to the redirect is a reasonable article, we should do so. what we shouldn't do is sift through old deletion decisions and have them overturned at DRV because times have changed. As for the 1 day NAC, I don't care. Honestly it seems pretty damn reasonable to me given that it took 2 years for us to consider overturning it. This whole DRV is largely irrelevant. If someone wants to make that into an article, they should. If someone speedies that (I doubt that they will), that can be discussed at DRV. Protonk ( talk) 16:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • It still fails the new NOT#PLOT. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Which is, very explicitly, an improvement criterion, not a deletion one. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Besides, the restoration did nothing to combat the problems the article was deleted/redirected for. Thus, G4able. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 17:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
          • And so the betst thing is to prevent ANYONE from working on these. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 17:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
            • I know you're smarter than this, so why did you think recreating this wouldn't kick up a fuss? Sceptre ^{( talk)} 18:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
              • I think an equally valid question is why you closed this early when it pretty clearly wasn't going to be non-controversial. I feel like WP:POINT is coming from both directions here. Hobit ( talk) 18:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
                • Thing is, I thought it would be non-controversial. This is a textbook G4 case. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 19:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
                  • You don't think that the fact that the policy used for deletion being entirely rewritten might make it less than a textbook G4? Would it have mattered if that policy were instead removed? Hobit ( talk) 21:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
                    • The sentiment of the policy still remains more-or-less the same, though. And yes, it would still be a G4 candidate even if NOT#PLOT were removed. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 22:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
                      • Could you explain why the removal of the policy that was the basis for deletion wouldn't invalidate a G4 speedy? If the article, as it stands, were recreated from scratch (and NOT#PLOT were removed) we'd keep it, yet because it was deleted under defunct policy you'd say we couldn't recreate it? Am I misunderstanding you? Hobit ( talk) 00:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep article per lack of consensus behind WP:PLOT as evidence by recent RfC. The plot of this notable book, film, musical, etc. is indeed something covered in numerous secondary sources as well as despite the title of the article, can easily contain some out of universe commentary as well. Best, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 16:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse decision per WP:IAR and close as moot. This should have been discussed at Talk:Les Misérables in the first place in regards to recreating the article. The first AFD had a consensus for deletion, with a history restoration in a DRV following that; in essence, this became a redirect which was confirmed as such here. With history and everything else still intact, spinning the plot article back out is a content issue which is to be hashed out either at Talk:Les Misérables or via dispute resolution. A second AFD, nor consequently this DRV, are not necessary and are only serving to further inflame and polarize many Wikipedians, let alone the two sides in this whole plot summary debate. MuZemike 23:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Addendum – I am not judging as to whether or not this should be spun back out per guidelines and policies, but rather how this situation was handled and approached. MuZemike 00:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep as redirect per WP:PLOT:

  "Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting." (emphasis added)

  In other words, an article should not consist solely of plot description, which is precisely what the restored article contained. The mere two sentences that provided real-world context, about reception and printed guides like Cliff's Notes, could easily (and should) be mentioned in the main article. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 06:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • You've rather selectively quoted that. Literary analysis is encouraged, and that's best done in a spin-off. It's also an improvement policy, not a deletion one. In any case, the original non-admin closure was inappropriate, so it should be overturned, and sent back to AfD to decide. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I don't see how my quote is in any way selective since it constitutes the whole of the first sentence of WP:PLOT. Also, while a neutral review of extant literary analysis (by the way, "literary analysis" ≠ "plot summary") is encouraged, literary analysis itself is most definitely not encouraged ( Wikipedia:No original research). And, furthermore, I see no reason why a review of literary analysis of a work of fiction should be done in a spin-off article rather than directly in the main article. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 00:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Because you left out the part saying such articles should be improved (not deleted). Also,the original article is quite long. That's why this and the analysis is best spun off. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Thank you for clarifying that point. The part of WP:PLOT that emphasis improvement rather than deletion is, in full: "Articles on works of fiction containing little more than a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context." However, this is not an article on a work of fiction, but rather an article on the plot of a work of fiction. That said, if there is adequate coverage in reliable, secondary sources of the plot of Les Misérables specifically (i.e. literary analysis)—and not just Les Misérables in general—such that including all of the literary analysis in the main article would negatively impact its readability, then I would support having an article about the plot. At this time, however, I have seen little to indicate that such is the case, and believe that any sourced literary analysis could be covered in the main article. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 17:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn redirect. Let's underline the all-important word:

  "Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting." (emphasis added)

  This is about our coverage of a particular work, not about individual articles. Our coverage of Les Misérables certainly does contain more than a plot summary, to the extent that the article Les Misérables is too large to stand on its own without being split up into summary style sub-articles. It is perfectly reasonable for the plot section to be one of those spun out in this way, particularly as this is a work with a very convoluted plot, necessitating more content than can reasonably go into the main article. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• I would like to second this (yes I !voted above) and further note that unlike the traditional "spinout" argument, no one is arguing that this article, as written has any problems with WP:N. The article itself is reasonably sourced. It is solely a question of NOT#PLOT. Hobit ( talk) 17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Doesn't that ignore the previous phrase of the given policy which states "Wikipedia articles should not be:... Plot-only description of fictional works". Guest9999 ( talk) 19:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Could you please provide a link for that wording? I can't see it anywhere in WP:NOT. Phil Bridger ( talk) 00:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I uploaded an image highlighting the relevent sections: File:NOT-PLOT highlight.jpg. Guest9999 ( talk) 11:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment a stand alone plot summary in mainspace is not going to grow into a novel kind of spin out article - within the relevant policies and guidelines - through normal Wikipedia editing. If someone wants to show how such an article can exist in a way that it is not simply a plot summary or redundant to the main article they should write it. Any information I can think of that would be relevant to the real world context of the plot summary would all belong in the main article of the work. Also I endorse the original AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables) as - two years later - I believe the closing rationale still applies and will apply until such a time until someone can show how a plot summary can be the subject of an independent encyclopaedia article. WP:NOT#PLOT makes clear that articles should not be plot only descriptions (Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary), until someone shows otherwise an article starting "Plot of..." would seem to be inherently a plot only description with no chance of improvement. At this time covering the content in the main article seems like a reasonable interpretation of policy. Additionally I don't see this as being a great "test case" to start with as I've seen more critical commentary in Articles about Simpsons episodes than in the main Les Misérables article, surely it makes more sense to work on improving the main article before worrying about spin outs the purpose of which is to elaborate on that article? Guest9999 ( talk) 03:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Sigh... Reopen AfD largely per DGG, this clearly needs further discussion and deletion review is not the place place for it, frankly I don't think an AfD is either but it would be a start. Guest9999 ( talk) 11:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Relist Improper NAC as pointed out by Shoemaker's Holiday. These shouldn't be encouraged. Them From Space 18:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist --
  • as for the immediate issue, which is not whether or not the article should be redirected or whether such articles are justified, or anything at all related to WP:N or to fiction in general, and something I would say about even an article where I think redirection clearly indicated, the close first No non admin should ever make an non-obvious contested close--there is a reason for screening admins, and not giving everybody such powers as soon as they start editing-- that is because they can be trusted to have some judgment about how to apply policy, as shown by this very discussion. I think we need a firm rule against non-admin closures of contested AfDs, when contested in good faith. The first comment above is right, that this should not have come here: any editor at all in good standing has equal authority to the one closing the afd, and could revert the edit, and i would encourage any editor who disagrees with a non-admin closure in any direction to do just that. Whether the close be right or wrong, they should not have made it. To avoid doubt, we should prohibit it flat-out as a matter of policy. As for making an early close, not even ad admin should do that in a discussion disputed in good faith. The reason we have AfD in the first place and do not do everything by speedy is so we can have discussion, not decide by whoever is willing to take the fastest action. The proof that an early close is contested and need a full discussion of the intact article is a good-faith request for restoration from an established editor, which should granted by any admin who has closed SNOW as a matter of course, and if denied, reverted by any other admin as a routine matter of course without need for consultation. SNOW like IAR is automatically and inherently invalid if there is bona fide disagreement. Thjis is already policy, but, again, we need a firm flat-out rule to avoid doubt. We also need a rule against redirecting without essentially unanimous consensus among those discussing it in good faith during an AfD. It confuses discussion and leads to situations like this which could be resolved better at the original afd.
  • As for the secondary issue of what to do about the article, as we will discuss further whern the AfD reopens, if there are multiple secondary sources discussing the plot of a work, and they are cited and discussed in the the article, then it will no longer be a mere plot summary. This should be possible for every major work of classic fiction, and also a great many minor ones by well-studied authors-- and increasingly for contemporary forms also. Those who doubt it are apparently unfamiliar with the way both academic and non-academic criticism takes place: they discuss plot and characters and settings in great detail, and are therefore suitable sources. The problem is only with those works not yet the subject of substantial discussion, where I think everyone agrees that a bare plot summary by a Wikipedia editor is not a substitute for a stand alone article. This is in conformity with even the rather confusing revised version of NOT PLOT--an article where there is sourced discussion of plot is not just a plot summary; it will always be justified in there are sources--the people most opposed to plot articles all conceded that much; they may have thought it rare, but they will soon see how widespread such discussion is; I expect , AGF, that they will be glad to see such an abundance of sourced articles. And in this particular case, where the work in question has multiple manifestations in multiple forms, the discussion of plot cannot be dealt with by the main article on the novel since an extensive amount of comparisons are needed. In summary, we make the rules ourselves, and can decide how to apply them. Even if one doubts plot articles in general, the ones on the major famous works of world fiction can stand on its own by any reasonable application of any rules, past or present. DGG ( talk) 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep as redirect per CSD G4, if anybody wants to work on this in userspace and convert it into a viable article (which is a very distant prospect) they can try to do so. However, simply reverting to a version of the article that was previously deleted is absurd. Tim Vickers ( talk) 00:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Even if the policy that the deletion occurred under has seen significant change? Hobit ( talk) 01:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I think the policy change may have been forced through without enjoying widespread approval. Stifle ( talk) 08:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Dear Administrators, 1. JoomlaLMS article was deleted very fast after Dank ( talk) has placed the speedy deletion tag. People had no chance to discuss this at all. 2. The tag placed - section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion - was incorrect as "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on." JoomlaLMS is software, NOT a company. 3. The tag placed on 8 February 2009 by Slakr( talk)(Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G11 was removed long time ago as the article has been completely changed after February 2009 and the tag became outdated. 4. The JoomlaLMS is a highly notable software and used by THOUSANDS of people and is the most popular Learning Management System for Joomla and very well known among Joomla users what was written in the article as well. Please consider recovering article and discussing it if required. I'd like to put "hangon" tag and provide additional reference and notability to prove that* the article has a right to exists in open Encyclopedia. Thank you. Interkrok ( talk) 11:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Note: I've moved this here from the AfD log page for this date, where it was mistakenly posted. No opinion on the speedied article. Deor ( talk) 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• list at AfD as it does appear to be an invalid speedy. I don't think it will survive AfD, but perhaps someone will find sources... Hobit ( talk) 17:09, 29 May 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) 09:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Since found discussion at User talk:Dank/May. Overturn per Black Falcon, as software is not currently a topic covered under CSD:A7, with liberty to list at AFD. Stifle ( talk) 08:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• It was actually User:Spaceman7Spiff who placed the speedy deletion tag, and then I deleted the article. I have no problem at all with restoring the article and taking it to WP:Articles for deletion for a discussion, and I won't make an argument there one way or the other. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

*Comment I'd tagged for CSD A-7 because it looked like a company and the website gave the impression that the product/company were the same, and I couldn't find any references either, except launch notes and the like. - SpacemanSpiff ( talk) 00:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Restore article and optionally list at AfD. Since JoomlaLMS is a software program (a learning management system), the article was not eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A7. I would guess that the confusion arose due to the presence of {{ Infobox Company}} in the article. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 06:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, per WP:CSD#A7. decltype ( talk) 08:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• I don't see the point of overturning. If it can't be deleted by A7, G11 is a solid alternative. If it is restored, it should end up at AFD immediately. - Mgm| ^(talk) 09:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G7 not even relevant in the slightest, G11 not correct, because the article is mainly descriptive and not promotional. Whether the article will stand will be determined by the sourcing, but that is for afd. All admins, certainly including myself, make occasional errors, though I am a bit puzzled that it wasn't simply restored and afd'd when complained about, saving us all some trouble. DGG ( talk) 02:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

  Ack, I forgot to watchlist that page when I created it, and started relying on my talkpage rather than that subpage ... note I have no edits to the page after May 14. Sorry. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Lnlwedding.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Feel that deletion was unreasonable.

I contacted the closing administrator, Stifle, about reconsidering this image's deletion before I brought it here, but he declined. As I stated in the deletion debate and to Stifle on his talk page: "...[This image] is not decorative in the Supercouple article, in which it is used as the main image. This is the couple who started the term supercouple, which is very much sourced and commented on within the article. There is no free alternative image to use for this couple at their wedding (which started the initial supercouple era), and using any other couple as the lead (intro) image in the article simply because that image is free would be ludicrous. A free image of a celebrity supercouple as the lead image will not do, when taken into consideration that celebrity supercouples did not define the term and came after soap opera supercouples (at least when referencing the term supercouple)."

In addition to that first argument of mine about this, I must also state what I stated on my talk page and Stifle's: "I do not see at all how it is against Wikipedia's image policies by being used as the main image in the Supercouple article, considering that it is displaying the appearance of a fictional couple who 'created' the term and the event at which the term was coined, as noted in the lead and discussed within the article. Its use is more valid within that article than any other fair-use image there."

Newer arguments: I must also note that Damiens.rf, who nominated this image for deletion, did not seem to feel that this image was decorative in the Supercouple article. He nominated the image more so due to it being decorative in the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article. Thus, I argue that it simply being decorative there does not discount its validity in the Supercouple article, which is why I removed it from the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article during the debate. In addition, one of the administrator's ( Quadell) in the deletion debate for this image voted a "Weak delete" and in a way that seemed to suggest I do something with the lead to better validate this image's use there. In Stifle's closing decision for this image, he also did not seem to feel that this image necessarily fails Wikipedia's image policies. All of this tells me that there is some validity in keeping this image as the lead image for the Supercouple article. Further, Stifle also voted "Delete" regarding images Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg and Angie crying on Jesse's chest upon his death.jpg, while Quadell (who closed those two image discussions as "Not deleted") stated that they clearly pass Wikipedia's image policies. This makes me wonder how fair these image deletion debates are if they are more about opinion than policy.

Basically, I do not feel the Lnlwedding.jpg was simply decorative in the Supercouple article, any more than a non-free image of a fictional character used as the lead (intro) image of that character's article. Sure, the Supercouple article is not solely or even mostly about Luke and Laura, but they are the couple who started the term/"gave birth" to the term and the article is based on that/on them. More critical commentary about their groundbreaking wedding, which started the supercouple era, can also be added to the Legends section of the article. This imagery was seen by 30 million viewers and can clearly be significantly commented on further down within the article (in the Legends section). Flyer22 ( talk) 22:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Thanks to this nomination, I had to navigate through the 11,458 clicks necessary to find Stifle's talk page and read it. :(

  Using non-free images is always a bit tricky, and I think admins have a duty to err on the side of caution, so my starting point is sympathetic to Stifle, but having said that: does the non-free image in question appear anywhere else on the web, where I might be able to look at it?— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 23:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Comment/Reply. I apologize for your having to search for the discussion I had with Stifle. Stifle does not have a table of contents on his talk page, and I subsequently did not think to link to it. For others, you can find the discussion I had with Stifle about this topic on his talk page in this link under the title Lnlwedding.jpg.
  • While I am sure that this non-free image can be found elsewhere on the web, as can the images Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg and Angie crying on Jesse's chest upon his death.jpg, I feel that this image falls into the fair-use category partly for the same reasons that Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg and Angie crying on Jesse's chest upon his death.jpg do...and for the reasons I explained above. Also, there is no free alternative that can display this same event/this same fictional couple. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The "kiss" and the "dying character" images we're kept due to a bad judgment by Admin Quadell, that seems to believe that once plot passages are discussed by other sources, their discussion on Wikipedia get magically more complicated, and so, in the need of an image to illustrate. Quadell's decision shouldn't be used as a precedent, since I'm planing to put them for review in a while. As for this couple's image, I don't have to see the characters to understand a paragraph stating they were the first supercouple ever. And we have no obligation to illustrate the Supercouple ever with and image of the first supercouple. Any supercouple can do the job. -- Damiens.rf 00:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Disagree with Damiens.rf's comments about Quadell's decision regarding the other two images and this one. Quadell was following policy, as other editors also felt that he was. It is just that some editors and administrators here at Wikipedia interpret Wikipedia's image policies differently. Saying that we do not need an image of Luke and Laura to understand that "they were the first supercouple ever" is like saying that we do not need an image of a fictional character to understand that fictional character and what is noted about them. What a character looks like is arguably significant to understanding that character. The same goes for a fictional couple, in which an article is about -- or, in this case based on -- them. In the same way that an image of a fictional character is perfectly allowed for the lead (intro) image of his or her (or its) article on Wikipedia due to it being the subject of that article, so is an image of Luke and Laura who are being discussed within the article and "created" the term after which the article is named. Anyone reading the lead of this article or the Legends section of it will want to know who Luke and Laura are/what they look like. But it is also not merely about what they look like (or rather looked like back then); it is also about the fact that this image does significantly increase the reader's understanding of this topic, is noted within the article, and can be provided with significant critical commentary in the Legends section about the further importance of this imagery/couple. From what I have read of Wikipedia's image policies, the other two images pass and so does this one. It is not about precedent (what Quadell did was not even precedent, considering that closing decisions similar to those have been done many times here at Wikipedia before); it is about what is right. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse own deletion. As per the usual protocol, I discounted the !votes of 71.234... as an IP editor, and those of NeutralHomer, Silvestris, and Allstarecho as lacking any reason in policy. That left the nomination and two other delete !votes and a single valid keep !vote, which is a delete on number counting. The arguments to keep and delete were balanced, but I found the delete arguments more persuasive — there is surely a supercouple still alive of whom a free photograph could be taken, and the use in the other article was merely decorative. Stifle ( talk) 08:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. While Stifle makes a sound argument, the point is not about whether there is a fictional supercouple still alive. I assume he means fictional, as in their real-life portrayers. If we were to use an image of Luke and Laura's portrayers as the lead image of the article (such as them posing as themselves, not as their characters, together), that image would be an image of those portrayers. The image would not be about fictional supercouple Luke and Laura, no matter it being a free image. And any other fictional supercouple or their real-life portrayers would not serve as much purpose as the lead image. If Stifle means using a free image of one of the celebrity supercouples as the lead image, I already explained about that above. Furthermore, the fact that this image was decorative in the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article is beside the point, considering that I had already removed it from that article before Stifle made his closing decision on this image (as noted by me above). This image's validity in the Supercouple article should not be based on whether it was valid in another article and on persuasive delete votes. It should be based on policy more than anything else, and I feel that my arguments for this image remaining as the lead image in the article, or at least in the Legends section of it upon further critical commentary of the importance of the moment the image is displaying, is far stronger than the two delete votes for it (one of which was/is a "Weak delete" vote, as noted by me above). Flyer22 ( talk) 23:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus I suspect Stifle is right and a different picture could be used here. But A) I don't think anyone suggested that in the discussion B) there were arguments that this is the "first one" and so might be "better". So I don't see how the closer can reach that conclusion from the discussion. Further, I don't think that the IP or Allstarecho's !votes should have been discounted. If this is based on strength of argument, the IP's well-reasoned comments should be considered. If it is nose count, those without arguments should be considered. Discounting both seems, well, wrong here. And Allstarecho does echo a policy-based reason for keeping, so I'm loath to accept that the fact he didn't bother to directly cut-and-paste the arguments he supported should mean his opinion should be discounted. Hobit ( talk) 16:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

If you suspect that Stifle is correct, then that by WP:NFCC rules out having the image (criteria 1), so your !vote is contradictory. To suggest we ignore those criteria on the basis of no one making such an obvious suggestion would seem to be bureacracy at it's best. Your point (b) is also covered by NFCC#1 there is no real concept of better if it conveys the same encyclopedic information/purpose the free image wins each and every time, same way that a grainy shot of some dead popstar submitted as a free image would make a high quality (better) agency shot fail NFCC#1. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 21:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

No? I suspect that is the case. As it wasn't brought up at the IfD, no one had a chance to respond to the notion. I certainly don't know enough about the context and just how relevant this "first" couple is or if that "first" notion is sourceable. As no one objected to it during the close, I think the closer needs to assume it's true unless it is factually incorrect. In other words, the closer doesn't get to replace the results of the discussion with his own views. Hobit ( talk) 18:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually WP:NFCC is fairly clear that the burden of proof is required on the side of the keep, there isn't a burden to rpboe the other way. i.e. if there is no sensible supporting argument beyond "I say so", the burden is not met and the deleting admin is quite correct to ignore it. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 19:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

"X was the first and therefor an important image to have a picture of" is more than "I say so". Hobit ( talk) 21:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, the term Supercouple was coined due to Luke Spencer and Laura Webber. It is sourceable, is sourced within the article...and can be sourced with plenty of other valid references as well. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment: The file is at File:Lnlwedding.jpg. The deletion debate is at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18#Lnlwedding.jpg. I don't believe Flyer22 characterized my comments accurately above, and I think it's worth reading the debate.
• Endorse deletion. The deletion was thoroughly discussed, and the closing admin clearly understands policy and took all arguments into account. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 03:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The deletion debate is linked to above at the very top of this section. Surely, very experienced editors/and editors here who read the directions on how to list these articles at this particular Wikipedia project know that. And I do not see where in that debate this topic was thoroughly discussed, nor where I significantly misinterpreted your comment there. I stated a long and valid argument, with clear understanding of Wikipedia's image policies, and only got a copy and paste answer of delete from one editor and then a "Weak delete" from another editor (you). The decision for delete of this image does not seem to have been weighed more so in policy at all, from Stifle's own comment in the closing debate and from his one in this. If it was more so about policy, then delete arguments being "more persuasive" would not have been an issue. This whole thing seems more like an opinion of how a few editors feel about this harmless non-free image which has been in the Supercouple article as the lead image for the longest now remaining in that article, and not wanting to admit that they are likely wrong about this decision. If it was more about policy, there would not be any need for you to have voted "Weak delete." Right now, it only seems that if my argument of "Keep" had been "more persuasive" to two editors in that deletion debate, this image would have been kept. Not exactly a decision based more so in policy. In fact, as pointed out by me above, this image was mainly nominated for deletion due to it being decorative in a different article (an article it was removed from before the deletion debate of this image was closed). Flyer22 ( talk) 01:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - correctly closed based on strength of numbers arguments instead of counting votes. PhilKnight ( talk) 16:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. How was this correctly closed based on strength of numbers instead of counting votes? There was no strength of numbers; there was just a copy and paste vote of delete that does not even make sense in response to some (if not most) of the images and a weak vote of delete. And does policy even matter here? This image does significantly enhance readers' understanding of the topic, seeing as it is showing imagery of the couple who "started" the term and the event at which it happened. This is imagery that cannot be conveyed through text, and thus passes Wikipedia's image policies. Deleting this one image, as if it is a problem in the Supercouple article, as opposed to any other non-free image within it, and when the problem with this image was not even its use in the Supercouple article, is ridiculous. And Hobit likely has a point above about discounting an IP's vote simply to further "validate" the outcome one wants. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Fixed. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
      • LOL. And still disagree, per what I stated above. I saw no strength of numbers or strength of arguments for deletion of this image. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
        • The use in Supercouple is replaceable, and the use in Luke Spencer and Laura Webber doesn't significantly add the reader's understanding in the context on the other image. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
          • Replaceable? This particular image has no free alternative that can demonstrate the same visual. From what I know of Wikipedia's fair-use rationale policy, it is about whether there is a free alternative of the same image or free image that can produce basically the same thing. A free image of a celebrity supercouple is not the same thing as an image displaying the fictional supercouple who started the term, nor does it convey the same thing. Wikipedia allows non-free images...as long as those images significantly enhance the readers' understanding of the article or are backed up by significant critical commentary (preferably both), such as the image of Janet Jackson's " wardrobe malfunction" in the article Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy. If you mean that this Luke and Laura image can be replaced by another image of the same thing found on the Internet, well the same can be said of the image of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction.
          • This Luke and Laura image does significantly enhance the readers' understanding of the article Supercouple for the reasons I stated above, and it can be backed up by significant critical commentary on the event it is displaying. But as for the article Luke Spencer and Laura Webber, I do not see how that is still currently an issue for this image, considering that, as I stated above more than once now, it has been removed from that article and was removed from that article before the closing decision for this image was made. Furthermore, considering that the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article will be significantly fixed up by me and editor Rocksey, to reflect articles such as JR Chandler and Babe Carey and Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery (except for the fact that the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article will no doubt be much bigger eventually and even better written), this couple's 1980s wedding will no doubt be significantly commented on within the article at that point and this image will be perfectly allowed within the section it is significantly discussed. Therefore, deleting this image is also a waste on that front. To have to upload this image again but possibly go through complications with it due to it being deleted before (without much validity) is not something that I feel is best (particularly for myself and any other hard-working editor here). Flyer22 ( talk) 00:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and restore. if an image or scene in a film is discussed in a substantial way in an article, it should generally be illustrated by a photograph, which is generally necessary to make the discussion sufficiently meaningful. This is not a policy change--it has always been out policy, and it is fully protected by basic copyright law. We have not always interpreted it as liberally as we ought to. DGG ( talk) 21:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • From your above comment, I don't think you understand the non-free policy. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Hi Phil, I'm curious what you feel he's missing. Hobit ( talk) 01:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The Real MacKay ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The Real MacKay was an article about a video blog related to STV News at Six. I nominated it for deletion on the basis that it was not sufficiently notable for an independent article, and the result - based on very few comments - was merge. Northern Exposure (video blog) is also a video blog related to the same news programme and I separately nominated that afterwards, but the result this time was keep (no consensus). This inconsistency is irrational, and given that there was no strong opinion at the AfD for The Real MacKay, I propose that the article be reinstated, contrary to my original proposal. I42 ( talk) 21:32, 28 May 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) 08:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • No I didn't - but I will, and will report back. In this case I considered it non-obvious because there are essentially two AfDs to consider, and the admin clearly made a good decision based on the discussion on the AfD itself. I42 ( talk) 19:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • The merge was reverted. As you supposed, DRV was not required. I live and learn! Thanks. I42 ( talk) 20:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

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

May as well pre-empt the inevitable on this one. I closed this FFD as keep on the grounds that all the users other than the nominator recommended keeping, and consensus is that one non-free photo of a living person is pretty much always permitted. I've been asked to reconsider because of the policy basis of the !votes and WP:NFCC#2. While I can see merits in this, it is clear that a change to delete would result in a listing here anyway. Therefore, I am asking the community whether I have followed the deletion process correctly in closing this discussion as keep. Stifle ( talk) 09:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse keep closure The low resolution takes into account commercial opportunities for the copyright holder and the subject being deceased makes a free alternative unlikely. Unless we have direct line to representatives or family of said dead person, unfree images of dead people are generally accepted. I see no reason to review the decision when only one commenter disagreed. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, there was a clear consensus in the discussion to keep the image. I see no real grounds for possibly overturning this one. Good job bringing it here just to be sure, though =). Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC). reply
• Comment Surely fails NFCC#1 - it's replaceable fair use. I though the consensus was generally the opposite, if the person is still alive unless there is something pecculiar about the image then it likely fails NFCC#1, or did we decide the replacability aspect could be ignored?> -- 155.140.133.254 ( talk) 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  Ah they are deceased, I guess the nomination wording needs fixing. -- 155.140.133.254 ( talk) 11:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Britannica would have to pay Associated Press for using this image (event at this web-resolution). There's no possible fair use defense for us here. That the guy is deceased just makes the image even more valuable for AP. -- Damiens.rf 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Just out of curiosity, why didn't you !vote in the original FFD? If you would have made the same argument there that you are making here and on Stifle's talk page, it might have been able to be closed "delete". On the issue itself I'm Neutral. I think both sides present a logical argument but I'm not familiar enough with our non-free image policy to !vote one way or the other. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, I didn't bothered !voting because news-agency's images are such a clear-cut case for deletion. Usually, no matter how many "I like it" or "I don't understand the violation" keep !votes are cast, the copyright infringing image is just deleted. -- Damiens.rf 19:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep Citing NFCC #2 seems to be the new strategy for deleting images. At the original deletion discussion, ViperSnake151 cited this part of policy and said, "Press agency photo cannot be fair use. Market role is to sell the right to use this image." ViperSnake151 then continued, saying "We can only use news agency photos as the subject of commentary of the image itself. This is not the case." Holding these two views at the same time is self-contradictory. If putting a picture online to illustrate an article harms the news agency's ability to sell that same image, then so does putting the picture online in a separate article to discuss the image itself. It's not as if somebody running around hoping to rip off the AP's work would say "oh, I can copy this image because it's being used to illustrate an article, but I can't copy this other image because it is actually the subject of the article." 68.43.196.251 ( talk) 17:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  They are very different things, just because you don't understand the significance of the difference, doesn't diminish it any. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 19:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  Please, explain. I was always told in elementary school that those who fully grasp a concept are able to explain it. Those who don't simply wave their hands, stamp their feet, and pout, saying "it is this way, it is this way." 68.43.196.251 ( talk) 20:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  A press agency sells their photos to illustrate the subject, that is their business. If we use the image for exactly that purpose without paying we are undermining their business. If the image is for some reason iconic in and of itself and we write up about how significant that image is, in wikipedia terms that means we must have reliable third party sourcing discussing that image and it's significance, meets neutral point of view, verifiability etc. the image is well known at that stage. In those instances (and it'll be rare for recent images) using in an article discussing the image isn't using the image in a manner which detracts from the agency's ability to sell it as illustrating X. In elementary school I was taught that there are none so blind as those who don't want to see. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 21:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  So far you've told me nothing new. In any case, a press agency sells its images in significantly higher quality than what we've tried to offer here. They use them for news articles, promotional posters, television broadcasts, etc. Ask them if their business model includes selling stuff to Wikipedia. If they cared, they would have contacted us a long time ago. A 200 x 200 image that will become pixelated like none other when blown up doesn't get in their way. I see the distinction between (a) using a picture to illustrate and (b) using it for discussing the picture itself. But I think more broadly than people who follow this interpretation of policy. That is, I consider how much this picture would harm a company's business if people randomly started downloading and plastering it all over the place. If it's not harmful in case (a), it's not harmful in case (b). 68.43.196.251 ( talk) 21:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  Fair use law says if I want to write a book, encyclopedia article or webpage about the award-winning Elian-Gonzalez picture, I don't have to pay AP for placing a small version of the picture on my media. But if I want to write about the Elian Gnozales taking by the FBI, I would have no fair use defense for freely using the picture. If you don't understand the difference, you have no idea what fair use is. -- Damiens.rf 00:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  Unfortunatelty the fair use doctrine cares not what you think is harm/not harm. We have a valid fair use claim if we are using it in a transitive form. If we are using it for it's original commercial purpose we don't (i.e. we are just taking the commercial value without paying). Regarding if the agency cares about wikipedia use (which would be no legal defence anyway, if you know there is an issue and do nothing about it, the rights holder is not obliged to tell you in a given timeframe), you know Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. We want to provide a resource which can be used and reused by anyone, non-free media is an issue for that (though in some cases we have little or no option), non-free media for which we are looking the other way saying "but the rights holder hasn't complained about our use" is an even bigger problem. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 06:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I don't see the picture being here as harming the owners of the picture nor has anyone explained how it does. Nor do I agree it is in violation of US fair-use laws. Hobit ( talk) 01:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  I'm not sure what the issue of harming the owners has on this. The criteria is "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." - no mention of harm, no call for any wikipedia editor to make a subjective decision on harm. What is the original market role of the material? Is wikipedia using it in the same way? If the answer to the second is yes it fails the criteria irrespective of any questions of harm. The issue of violating the Fair Use doctrine (US) is in many ways unimportant. Since of criteria are generally stricter than US fair use law, and because wikipedia is actually interested in creating a global free resource, just because wikipedia is safe under US law doesn't mean the image is free enough to meet wikipedia's overall project goals. (The Berne doesn't provide for a fair use equivelant for images it leaves it to the individual countries/states, so places like Italy don't have fair use type provisions for images at all) -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  "replace the original market role" describes replacing not just using in the same way. I'm not sure I follow how that's the same as using in the same way or even exactly what that means. Could you explain? Hobit ( talk) 01:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  I think you are just being obtuse in your interpretation of this. The meaning is pretty clear. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 07:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  No, I can think of a few meanings, but none that make sense in this context. I'd really like an explanation. Hobit ( talk) 12:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  Comment I suppose "harm" is being used to describe generically how an image is being used in a way that doesn't respect its market opportunities. In any case, I could imagine a case where Wikipedia puts a picture online to discuss it (the Elian Gonzales picture mentioned above, for example). So far so good. Then another website decides to direct link the image page to illustrate the topic of Elian Gonzales. We might have satisfied our policy, but we're still contributing to the usage of an image in such a way that it could infringe on the creator's right to sell the picture. In that case, we'd be left to conclude that photo agency images aren't allowed at all, regardless of how notable it is. If we don't like that conclusion, then we need to figure out what exactly NFCC #2 is supposed to mean. 72.196.196.187 ( talk) 03:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete. This is a clear violation of NFCC#2. The AP makes money by leasing their images to news agencies or individuals who pay a fee to display them. That's true for images of deceased celebrities as much as for living ones. If your hometown newspaper wants to use this image, they would have to go here and pay to do so, and they might wonder why Wikipedia gets to use the same image without paying. This absolutely undercuts the market value of the image. In a similar case here, a user had uploaded an AP photo of a plane crash -- it was absolutely non-replaceable, and had a detailed fair use rationale -- but Jimbo himself deleted it as a copyright violation. And it is. The AP routinely sues people who use their photos without paying, and although you might get away with it on your personal website, Wikipedia is far too prominent to get away with it. This use violates the letter and the spirit of NFCC#2, and it could easily lead to legal troubles for the Wikimedia Foundation. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 03:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a first step in the revision of NFCC, to make it clear that a low resolution picture does normally not interference with the commercial use of a photograph, and that in the absence of acceptable free pictures of a living individual, we can include one under fair use. I accept that this is not necessarily the present interpretation, but it ought to be. This is an appropriate place for changing policy as well as on the page itself. Acting as an admin, I will certainly enforce the interpretation we customarily use, but this does not mean or need to mean that I must support that it should be the interpretation. consensus can change, and I hope that gathering consensus will increasingly be to liberalize the policy up to the limit permitted by the foundation. DGG ( talk) 21:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • No, this is not the correct place for changing policy. I'm aware that you're supporting my closure, but you should place your !vote according to the policy as it is, not as you would like it to be, and if you feel it should be changed, establish a consensus for the change at the relevant page (which in this case is WT:NFCC). Stifle ( talk) 08:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'd note also that we've had a specific email from the AP saying that they would not consider our use of any of their images to be fair use. Stifle ( talk) 08:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Could you link to that email (or discussion thereof?) I don't think anyone can say "any think you use of ours isn't fair use"--the law doesn't work that way. But I'd like to see the letter and read any discussion about it. Hobit ( talk) 01:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
      • It's an OTRS ticket. Stifle ( talk) 08:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I just reread that, DGG, and your proposal that "in the absence of acceptable free pictures of a living individual, we can include one under fair use" directly contradicts the foundation licensing policy, so any change of that extent would need to come at foundation level. Stifle ( talk) 08:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• I can see both sides of this, but after a fair bit of thought, I find Quadell's argument the most convincing. It's an overturn and delete from me. No reflection on the closer, since that does appear to be a correct reading of the consensus.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 13:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

BackCountry CO ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I speedied this as advertising and the creator contacted me. Because s/he is editing in good faith, I userfied here and s/he added some links. I still feel it's advertising (primarily for this site and would need to be re-written in order to be encyclopedic. Passages such as this Nestled atop a dominant ridge, the Sundial House commands a dramatic location offering panoramic views of everything from downtown Denver, to Longs Peak, Pikes Peak, and the 8,200 acres of Backcountry Wilderness Area read as if they may be lifted from somewhere, but I cannot find where. I told the creator I'm willing to bring it here for further review. I'm officially neutral and have no problem with this being overturned if that's consensus. I'm going to be offline for the next few days and will not have time to work with the creator but have encouraged to participate here. Thanks. StarM 03:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

It's possible that an article couldbe written, but this is presently boith promotional and speculative. DGG ( talk) 04:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Seems to be some stuff lifted from here - the quote above: Sundial House commands a dramatic location offering panoramic views of everything from downtown Denver, to Longs Peak, Pikes Peak, and the 8,200 acres of Backcountry Wilderness Area

And the press release linked: Sundial House will command a dramatic location offering panoramic views of everything from downtown Denver, to Longs Peak, Pikes Peak, and the 8,200 acres of Backcountry Wilderness Area.

-- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 06:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted, no reliable sources, article still promotional in tone. Stifle ( talk) 08:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The article is meant to highlight the Backcountry Wilderness Area, the trails, parks, and ecosystem. The Sundial House issue can be removed from the article and was included only because it does serve as the trailhead for all six of the trails within Backcountry. The other information can be rewritten or removed - my bad for making it sound promotional rather than encyclopedic. Let me tell you, when you are there, in Backcountry, it is so dramatic that you cannot help but feel in awe of the views and overall experience - you literally see for 100 miles! People here in Colorado really appreciate that, and my exuberance is best served outside of Wikipedia, but this is relavent, and I would like to get the article to a point that others can learn about Backcountry Wilderness Area also. My references are not in any way promotional. Please advise from here, and thank you for your help. Renaebomb ( talk) 15:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)renaebomb reply

A bigger problem is that large chunks have simply been copied from elsewhere. The sundial house stuff above, the section "BackCountry Parks and Trails" has bits like

• Discovery Park features a meandering waterway that makes its way into a pond along the Discovery Center’s edge. You’ll find some small, private spaces, perfect for reflection by the water, or time with a good book
• Solstice Park will feature the largest manicured lawn in the neighborhood anchored by a line of trees that will flow south, leading up the hill to the Sundial House. This beautiful park is sure to be a favorite open space for a game of Frisbee or a picnic

Compare this to here :

• Discovery Park features a meandering waterway that makes its way into a pond along the Discovery Center’s edge. You’ll find some small, private spaces, perfect for reflection by the water or time with a good book.
• the largest manicured lawn in the neighborhood, Solstice Park, also anchors a line of trees that stretch south, leading up the hill to the Sundial House. Perfect for a game of Frisbee or a picnic, this park is a favorite when you’re looking for some open space.

The first being a very obvious direct copy. The second although not a verbatim copy is still far too close to avoid being a copyvio. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia: ECRI Institute ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Relist.Removed promotional language and added proper references. Thank You. Kocherecri ( talk) 03:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The current version is at User:Kocherecri It may be notable, but there is nothing specifically about the group to show it. I have no objection to listing it at AfD. I've tried to fix it so persistently that I may be overinvolved, and I'd rather the community decide. Kocherecri, that old Jama article is hard to find. the full ref is Medical technology watchdog plays unique role in quality assessment. by Stephenson J. PMID  7563468 JAMA. 1995 Oct 4;274(13):999-1001. -- that vol. of JAMA is not online at the publisher at the moment. Could you post the relevant part perhaps--it's the one plausible reference. DGG ( talk) 03:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• I can't find any page ever existing at that title, can someone please link the correct page? Stifle ( talk) 08:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • ECRI Institute, perhaps? Reserving my judgement until this is confirmed. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC). reply
    • If that's it, I endorse all deletions and request a sourced, neutral userspace draft for this to be considered again. Stifle ( talk) 11:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

that's it; it was essentially similar, except for the additional self-praise in the first version. FWIW, see the discussion between the editor in question and me on my talk page [3] DGG ( talk) 19:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hindu terrorism ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deleted in May 2008 following an emotional vote (as opposed to constructive review) pretty much along "pro-Hindu" vs. "anti-Hindu" party lines. In November 2008, the term "Hindu terrorism" made headlines as a neologism ( BBC, 'Hindu terrorism' debate grips India, Reuters, India wonders how deep "Hindu terrorism" goes) so that undeletion would already suggest itself due to changed conditions in the real world. But there is also Saffron Terror, a synonym that passed AfD with "no consensus", so that I suggest undeletion and subsequent merge into Saffron Terror. dab (𒁳) 17:08, 27 May 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? Also, is there a reason for the delay of nearly a year in requesting this review? Stifle ( talk) 17:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Since this is new information being presented with regards to the topic rather than new information regarding the (now rather old) deletion itself, would it not make more sense (and cause less fuss) to incorporate this new information into a new article (or section of an existing article since you seem to favor a merge), rather than dredge up a problematic version for which there was a fairly strong consensus to delete? For the record, I would have been more than happy to provide a copy of the deleted material for use as a reference in fleshing out other articles. Sher eth 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • well, I was going to just make Hindu terrorism a redirect to the existing Saffron Terror, but I noted it was WP:SALTed and did not want to override protection unilaterally. It is true that the deleted content does not absolutely need to be restored. It will be enough to remove protection from the title. Since, as Shereth points out, this is about new information which appeared after the original deletion, I would usually have done this unilaterally as the straightforward course of action, but I wanted to present this to a few more eyes because of the intrinsically delicate nature of the topic. I do not understand Stifle's question of "is there a reason for the delay of nearly a year in requesting this review", seeing that I first noted the existence of this deleted article and the associated AfD debate yesterday. -- dab (𒁳) 08:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • If you're happy just to unprotect the title, then I've no problem with that. I'd also support userfying the content if desired. Stifle ( talk) 11:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • I have seen the deleted content, and I don't think userification is necessary. Let's just unprotect the title and turn it into a redirect. -- dab (𒁳) 14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Done. Would an admin who hasn't participated in this discussion close it please? I don't see any need to keep this discussion open. Sher eth 15:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The grounds for review are those specifically described as permitted in the DRV closure: I'm bringing this back as a good faith request to examine the actual closure rather than the actions of the original DRV nominator.

My position is that the closing admin did not close in accordance with the debate she was supposed to be examining. Instead, KillerChihuahua seems to have closed in accordance with the consensus in an entirely different debate, and I think this goes beyond admin discretion. I think that if KC did not intend to implement the consensus that was actually in front of her, she should have !voted rather than closing.

The outcome I seek is a relist at AfD on the grounds that the debate was defective. — S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 17:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Endorse original AfD close, endorse DRV endorsement of the AFD. Bali ultimate ( talk) 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

On what policy-based grounds?— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 17:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I made an argument at the previous DRV that was policy based and i believe still stands. Bali ultimate ( talk) 18:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The previous DRV was rightfully closed as an endorsement of the original closure. Unless there was some flaw with the previous DRV discussion, then the result obtained there - that is, to endorse the original closure - should stand. Sher eth 17:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

There was such a flaw. The DRV focused on the original nominator's bad faith rather than the admin's actions; please see the DRV closure statement for the reasons for this one.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 18:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Such is your interpretation, but it is not one I share. I shall have to continue to endorse the closure. Sher eth 18:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn AFD/DRV and relist AFD. KC closed the AFD of version of the article that was as such not previously at AFD with the consensus of a previous RFA, which was not the correct thing to do. Even if we assume that this was indeed acceptable closing, deleting the article afterwards, after closing it as merge(!), makes the whole point of closing it as "merge" void. The previous DRV did not address this outcome but seems to have ended in drama, which should not be the reason to close it as "deletion endorsed". Since now we do not have a sockpuppet nomination, we can concentrate on the AFD that should have been discussed in the previous DRV. As I pointed out above, the close was "weird" at best and even if one endorses the close, the following deletion foils the alleged result as merge by not allowing people time to merge the content. Thus I think the correct result should be to restore the article and then relist it at AFD to reach a separate consensus for this version of the article. Regards So Why 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you actually see this as a separate article? Ignoring the renaming, there was only a bit of change to the heading and a small section copied over from Rachel Corrie. The merge notice was there a month which wasn't productive. Nothing was added to the main article and nobody could remove anything from this one without being reverted (content was even being added). -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I think it was separate enough that it warranted a new AFD which took place. I understand that it was the same article at the first AFD (having re-read my !vote above, it's probably a bit unclear, my apologies) but I think it was changed substantially enough to warrant the second AFD. The extended discussion at the second AFD serves as a indication that the community did share this view and that they wanted a new consensus to be determined about the current state of the article. By closing the article with the result of the previous discussion (and subsequently deleting it), KC ignored this apparent wish for further discussion. The correct way would have been to assess the new consensus after the AFD has run for the full length and then act based on that. If the result had been merge again, then the better way to handle this would probably have been to history merge it to Rachel Corrie so that the information could be salvaged and incorporated to the merge target. Regards So Why 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Also, I do not think that a close as "merge" of any AFD can ever be interpreted as consensus to delete, no matter what happens afterwards. Merge translates imho as "keep the information but reorganize it". So the deletion was actually against the consensus because it deleted the information that was !voted to be kept. So the deletion itself should be overturned as not being in line with the correctly closed first AFD anyway. Regards So Why 07:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_19 has the original DRV. Protonk ( talk) 18:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment I've notified KillerChihuahua of this new DRV on her talk page. I'd like to hear her input on this. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment I think we need to restore the article temporarily. One of the big argument is whether this is in fact a new article or not and how much effort was made to merge, none of which can be determined without seeing the history and the article. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist afd. . There have been two simultaneous politically inspired series of actions on this and related articles: one, to try to have as little mention of her as possible, not even a single article, and also delete any other articles having anything to do with her, and , on the other hand, to try to make as many articles as possible. I deplore both of them. The attempt to deal with a merge result in afd, by on the one hand not merging, and on the other, but merely redirecting, were equally inappropriate. In any case, this is a different article and needs another afd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs) 21:42, May 28, 2009
• Endorse AFD, endorse DRV, enough already - Anything related to the death of this person can be included in her article, as the AFD and the DRV correctly indicated. This new DRV is bordering on abuse of process. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

On the contrary, it's certainly not abuse of process because the previous DRV's closure specifically permitted an editor in good standing to relist it. My position is still that deleting an article on the basis of a consensus at an entirely different discussion is an abuse of process.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 00:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Specifically the closer of the last DrV said "I won't object if a legitimate editor brings this to DRV again, though" in the DrV close. I think it's pretty clear that this isn't an abuse of process. Hobit ( talk) 01:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• overturn to no consensus for two reasons. First, I don't see consensus in the discussion. Second, the closer closed the AfD early (3 days early I believe) and, if I read the closing statement correctly, closed it while ignoring the discussion. The AfD should have been allowed to run it's course. Relisting is also an option, but this has already gone on too long. Hobit ( talk) 01:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse AFD, DRV, end the drama nothing untoward about the close - we have few "reactions to..." articles; rightfully so, if the reactions form part of the notability of the matter, it should be included in the main article - if they don't they are not notable. People die amidst conflicts - some people state regret, others point at the dead person and say it was their fault - no surprise here. Relatives sue after people die - no surprise there - the US is a litigious society and you can just about find any lawyer to sue anybody over anything. People call for investigations, then time passes and people move on and no longer find the fire in their belly to dwell on one person's death among many. I think that the article was basically a POV fork from the main article - much as would be a Reactions to the death of Leon Klinghoffer would likely be in the other direction. Let's face it: nothing in anyone's reaction was much different than anyone would have predicted them to have been and are well covered in the main article. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 07:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. This topic isn't encyclopedic, i.e. one would not expect to find it in an encyclopedia. Going on about how the discussion was listed in bad faith, or whether there was an explicit consensus, or not, is heading right down the road of process wonkery. My feelings have turned against this article since the last DRV. Stifle ( talk) 08:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • And it appears that the wonk essay has vanished. I shall have to rewrite it. Stifle ( talk) 08:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

    I'm surprised to see that your position has apparently changed since the last DRV, Stifle?— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 14:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

    • • Yes, it has; my reasoning in the last discussion was that the process hasn't been followed, but I don't see a point in going through reams of process when the outcome is, in my view, clear. Stifle ( talk) 18:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
        • R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy.

          Possibly this article should be deleted, but I can't accept that the closer should get away with implementing the consensus from the wrong AfD discussion in order to achieve that.

          I'm really quite surprised that you don't see it that way, Stifle, in view of what I've seen of your previous contributions. (I'm less surprised at some of these others, which is why I've chosen your answer to reply to in detail rather than anyone else's.)

          Still, if that's how you feel, then that's how you feel and I'll accept it. But are you sure you won't reconsider?— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 18:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

          • Yes, I'm sure. Wikipedia is not a court of law, although I am high on the list of people who use legal jargon inappropriately (and I'm not even a lawyer). There's no sense putting an article through more process for process's sake; in cases where there is a colourable chance of success, my feelings are different. Stifle ( talk) 08:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Why do I feel like Bill Murray with (marginally) more hair? Oh, I know, because I've seen this before. Endorse previous actions for pete's sake, and stop murdering poor defenseless electrons with rehashing this stuff over and over... Tony Fox (arf!) 16:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As the last one was closed due to problems with the nom, where do you feel the debate about the merits of the case should happen? Hobit ( talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and figure out who exactly in this morass needs topic bans from I-P issues for a year. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist at AfD If it's this messy then sadly a relist would likely make sense. I have little doubt that delete will be the likely result however we have processes and this seems to have been malformed. Relist, let it play out and move on. -- Banjeboi 03:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Good close. Eusebeus ( talk) 16:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

David Boothroyd ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The page was previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (2nd nomination) and recreated due to the new controversy sparked by a recent article in The Register. The closing admin of the previous AFD ( Jehochman ( talk · contribs)) re-deleted the recreation as G4 although the new article (by definition) was not substantially identical to the deleted version (thus violating the letter of G4) and although the new AFD also had users !voting "keep", thus clearly not being uncontroversial. When asked to reverse this decision, the deleting admin did not engage in discussion but pointed to DRV. Speedy deletion was incorrect here (twice) and thus the article should be restored and relisted at AFD to allow full community discussion (which can be expected given the recent involvement of the subject of the article as an Arbitrator on this project). Regards So Why 08:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse my three deletions. Please read my closing rationale, rather than the selective and inaccurate description provided by User:SoWhy. As recreated the article was a severe violation of our biography of living persons policy. Nearly half of the article focused on one recent, minor event in this person's life. Despite the fast talking explanations of those who recreated the article, it was nothing more than an attack page. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. We don't write biographies based on the scandal du jour. Jehochman ^Talk 08:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• ( edit conflict)You used G4 as a reasoning before you closed the third AFD. While we do in fact have a policy regarding such BLPs, there is no speedy deletion criterion that allows the deletion of such material if it has reliable sources (attack pages, as covered by G10 only apply to unsourced negative BLP for exactly this reason). To cite WP:BLP1E: "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" (emphasis added). Given the fact that the subject in question has appeared to give statements in public and to newspapers many times before the latest incident (refer [4] [5]) we cannot assume him to keep a low profile, thus WP:BLP1E does not apply here.
• But the argument you put forward is incorrect for another reason: Only one paragraph out of four focused on these recent events (and only using two sentences). I think you were too hasty in assuming a BLP violation here when the source of the controversy is available to everyone both in the reliable source provided and on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Resignation. Your deletion, while probably well-minded, is not within BLP oder deletion policy and as such should be reversed to allow the proper venues to handle this. Regards So Why 08:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion since requested by the subject of the BLP. The latest version of the article was even more of a BLP violation than previous ones. Mathsci ( talk) 08:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Relist at AfD, speedy deletion is not for bypassing consensus. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 09:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It was not technically a speedy delete. There was a discussion here. Mathsci ( talk) 10:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per WP:BLP and keep salted for three months to give the matter a chance to die down. Stifle ( talk) 10:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per WP:BLP; let the real world assess this; we can come back to this later on. Anyone who feels a burning need to write about this can do it over at Wikinews, or they can get a job as a reporter. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per BLP with no objection to recreation if the sources become available. Viridae ^Talk 10:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• overturn, relist if someone wants to Struck above, changed based on new sources. Viridae ^Talk 13:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Viridae, do you feel the Register's article doesn't meet that bar? Hobit ( talk) 13:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist at AfD. Come on, a new source appears and we close the (3rd) AfD after less than 1 day? Not a valid speedy nor reasonable WP:SNOW case. Hobit ( talk) 13:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion We delete articles of people with only minor notability at their request. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I support that notion, but I do have two questions. #1 Does our current policy say that we do honor such requests? #2 Did he make that request? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, I didn't see either in the AfD. If both are true, I'd strongly support deletion in this case (at least unless "minor notability" fades) Hobit ( talk) 17:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • 1. Policy is descriptive, not proscriptive. We do delete individuals who have only minor notability if they request, so if that's not written into policy, policy is outdated. Yes, he made the request -see [6]. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. I still feel there was a problem with the AfD, and as that's what DrV is for, we should relist. But I'd !vote to delete at this point (unless notability improves significantly). Hobit ( talk) 17:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. The closer made a number of mistakes here. He cited SNOW, SPEEDY and BLP. The Afd lasted just over an hour, with barely any indication that anyone had researched the subject, so claiming SNOW is not appropriate at all. Neither did he have any business citing CSD Speedy A7: an 'article...that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant' - the article detailed that the subject is a councilor, owner of an important website, and published author, as well as three seperate mentions in third party sources for noted actions. So that only leaves BLP as a grounds for deletion. And a 1 hour long Afd debate to discuss the merits of a BLP article that has existed since 2005, just because the subject requests its deletion because he has become the subject of some dirty laundry, is just not on, and smacks of censorship/cover-up. A non-attack page version of this article is entirely achievable. Rollback to a version prior to the latest controversy and properly list it as Afd as a non-notable BLP at AFD, where everybody can have their say. Otherwise, this DRV is just an exercise in performing the original Afd without the ability to improve the article, or even see its previous state. MickMacNee ( talk) 14:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The non-attack version of the article had zero references. The only real coverage is that Guardian article, and it focuses on just one event in the persons life. There does not appear to be any way to write a neutral, reliably sourced article. The subject wanted the article deleted. Under these conditions, we should keep the article offline until such time as somebody is able to demonstrate the possibility of writing an acceptable article. Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • The Guardian and Time sources are both non-attack references, and cover two separate events. His status as an author and website owner are easily referenced. The only issue with the article appears to be notability, which is not a CSD. MickMacNee ( talk) 16:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Could you link to the references you are proposing. I want people to see what you refer to. Jehochman ^Talk 16:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
        • [7] [8]. MickMacNee ( talk) 16:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
          • The first link appears to be an opinion piece or tabloid journalism, and only covers one event in the subject's life. The second article only mentions the subject in passing. It appears that people are stretching WP:N, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP well beyond their limits. I see no possible way this subject qualifies for an article under our policies. Jehochman ^Talk 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
            • This is DRV not AFD. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per the second AFD, which closed less than a week ago; combination of BLP issues and a lack of solid sources added to the subject's request should trump a point-and-laugh style newspaper article. We don't need to kick people when they're down. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• very weak endorsement of deletion At present the scandal in question has only been reported in The Register. If however this matter becomes more widely covered we are going to need to have an article on this topic. For now, this does seem like BLP1E. I would however have strongly prefered given the new information that this go through a full AfD again. JoshuaZ ( talk) 16:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  blink Did JoshuaZ just endorse deletion? John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC) my apologies if you have endorsed deletion before; I've never seen it happen. reply

  • It happens on occasion. About one in every 5 or so. But in this case I'm only doing so very weakly. Don't tempt me to change my mind... JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Don't Endorse I don't like the speed of both the 2nd and 3rd AFD close. I think they should have stayed open for at least a reasonable period of time to allow comment. I think policy was bent a little on the quick deletions, and it at least appears it was done for the reason everyone's dancing around. That said at least at this time I don't think it should pass a full AFD and relisting is probably more trouble then it's worth.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 16:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. In addition to reasons provided above, am an advocate of the dead trees standard: the biography subject is not notable enough to be an entry at any reliably published encyclopedia and has requested deletion. A lot of site dramas would settle down if we simply applied this standard with no regard whatsoever to other factors. Durova ^Charge! 17:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AfD. Actually I agree with Stifle, but I think DRV isn't the right place to make that case. From a DRV point of view, this is a deletion without a proper XFD, in the face of objections from an established editor who is citing a source—and thus the deleter was way outside admin discretion. I don't see we have any choice but to overturn and then !vote delete at the XFD.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 17:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Huh? You are contradicting yourself. Either there should or should not be an article. Which option do you prefer. Jehochman ^Talk 17:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • That's a false dichotomy.

      I think DRV is for deciding whether the closer erred. In this case, I think he did, so I suggest overturning.

      I think AfD is for deciding whether there should be an article with this title. In this case, I think there should not, so at the AfD, I would suggest deleting.

      These two positions aren't mutually contradictory.  :)— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

      • Good. We both agree that the article should be deleted. I have no further questions. Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
        • He appears to be objecting to the speedy closure. Although I agree with the closure by a different rationale which would remain unaffected, there have been instances where subsequent news coverage during the normal AfD cycle nudged an entry above the notability threshold. A recent, positive, and ultimately uncontroversial example was Susan Boyle. Dead trees has no force in policy, so for editors who don't subscribe to it the factor of developing news would be relevant. Durova ^Charge! 18:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. The article as it most recently existed was really two deficient articles welded together. The first is an article on a local politician, with marginal notability at best, that didn't establish notability at all and in practice focused on negative coverage. The second is an entirely negative article on a Wikipedian, sourced only to The Register, which is not an acceptable source to hang such information on - they have a history of tabloid-style shit-stirring with regard to Wikipedia. Importantly, the second portion also does not establish notability, so the article as a whole does not. That means, in turn, that the article as a whole absolutely does violate the BLP policy, and so sending it to AFD is pointless, and potentially harmful, bureaucracy. If it's possible to write an acceptable article on this subject, it should be written independent of the existing article, rather than restoring attacks and hoping they get cleaned up soon enough. — Gavia immer ( talk) 18:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • There is plenty of non-attack material that has been summmarily thrown out in the haste to remove the article. Not everybody has view delete permissions, so continuing the deletion debate by discussing notability at DRV is utterly pointless. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Are you referring to David's student days at St Catharine's College, Cambridge? Mathsci ( talk) 19:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • That's not in the version I've seen. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Ahem, earlier this month David Boothroyd was listed in the category alumni of St Catharine's College, Cambridge. Since notability is being discussed, more is required than being a local councillor and having written a useful but run-of-the-mill book on British electoral practices. If we were discussing Jeremy Maule, a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, who similarly worked as a clerk in the House of Lords and who before his untimely death in the the lates '90s unearthed documents in Lambeth Palace that changed the way the world viewed Thomas Traherne, it would be a different matter. In this case an openly gay local councillor appears to have mildly trangressed the very peculiar rules of play of an international internet site. This is not notable by any normal standards. Mathsci ( talk) 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
          • I refer you to previous replies. MickMacNee ( talk) 09:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion - per MickMacnee. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion The sources are sparse at best. One is Boothroyd's personal website, another is about Banksy and only mentions him. The only real source is about the controversy in the Register which is completely overblown. It is mentioned in just a single publication and since he doesn't appear to be blocked, their comparison to Essjay is a clear attempt at defamation. He's nowhere near notable enough for inclusion based on just a single controversy. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I do not want to sound cocky but you do realize that DRV is not about whether the subject is indeed notable or not? That is what the AFD was tasked to determine. The DRV is about whether the deleting admin's decision to close this AFD after just an hour and another similarly fast was correct within our policy (also considering that the article existed since 2005 and thus any BLP "damage" it could have caused already happened). Regards So Why 12:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • You come off as clueless rather than cocky. The BLP damage is providing axe grinders and drama mongers a week to defame the subject on Wikipedia while the matter is debated at AfD. No, we should not do that when there is no chance whatsoever that the article will be kept. We don't do bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Since these "axe grinders" and "drama mongers" (whoever they are) had since 2005 to defame the subject, it's unlikely that following the process for a few days would have made a difference. After all, your first close was already incorrect, which was days before the Register article. The whole point of AFD is to determine whether there is merit to keeping the article, isn't it? So I do not think it's clueless to say that DRV should not debate the merits of the article but the process of this discussion. You have made it clear what your opinion about this person's notability is but saying that an AFD with keep-!votes by experienced editors like Agathoclea ( talk · contribs) has "no chance whatsoever" to end with anything but "delete" is quite an assumption that I do not think is merited by the actual discussion. I am not advocating to keep the article but I am advocating that admins should follow policy when handling AFDs and as I have shown in my nomination, neither WP:DEL nor WP:BLP justify such a quick deletion without time to discuss. Regards So Why 13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
        • I was speaking about AfD #2, which was unanimous to delete. AfD #3 happened after the article was improperly recreated by a probable sock puppet account. I am not sure whether Agathoclea was fully informed about the prior circumstances. Perhaps you would ask that user to review the matter and comment here. The risk of axe grinding and drama mongering were greatly increased when Boothroyd's various Wikipedia identities were connected, and they resigned from ArbCom. Any clueful editor would see the potential for grave WP:BLP issues under those circumstances. The idea that nothing had changed since 2005 is highly disingenuous. Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
          • The second AFD might have been unanimous to delete - after giving it only a little more than an hour of discussion. That is the point of this discussion here (otherwise admins could go around closing AFDs as SNOW delete whenever those in favor of deletion manage to comment on the matter before those inclined to keep). I would not contest the deletion if it had been within policy, I am asking for a review because you have not followed policy. And again, you can call me clueless all you want, but the second AFD was days before those connections were made (May 23 <-> May 26). You cannot justify a previous deletion in violation of policy on something that has happened days afterwards.
          • On a side note, I think Agathoclea (as an admin) is more than capable of clicking the link to AFD #2 and whether the recreating user is a sock or not (for which there is no proof or even indication enough to start an SPI case) has no impact on the validity of arguments. Regards So Why 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
            • For AfD #3, I did not assert WP:SNOW. I suggested that recreating a deleted article that violated WP:BLP, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:UNDUE was out of order. Those who disliked the result of AfD #2 should have come here to appeal, rather than making an end run around process. At the time I closed Afd #2 it was already common knowledge that Boothroyd had resigned from ArbCom. By their contributions TAway ( talk · contribs) is obviously not a new user. The reason there's no WP:SPI case is that I don't know who the puppetmaster might be. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
              • It's rather ironic to be talking about multiple accounts in the circumstance don't you think? Another irony is David Boothroyd reserving the right to become notable in the future, way back in August 2005. As for this specific debate, anybody would think no admin had ever seen a neutral verifiable BLP stub before, certainly fit for a proper Afd debate. It's a farce when looked at from a process POV, but obviously it is going to be chalked down to IAR/anti-wonkery, while ignoring the obvious conflict issues given the subject matter. I find the do no harm aspect particularly galling. I am definitely going to remember it at every DRV in the future where some admin or DRV regular gives me the runaround about how DRV is not Afd. You simply cannot simultaneously cite Afd 3 as a non-speedied and correct policy based closure of a deletion debate, and then claim it should not have occured in the first place because you yourself correctly speedily closed afd 2 and it must be appealed, and then carry on the deletion debate when it does happen, instead of addressing the reasons for appeal. That is definitely giving people who are obliged to follow policy the run around. The fact is, for me, the biggest error of yours here was in closing both Afds yourself. But to recognise that is definitely getting into the realms of self examination. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
                • I am still waiting for MickMacNee to say something about David Boothroyd and St Catharine's College, Cambridge. I'm the only one that's mentioned it on this page, although MickMacNee has suggested the contrary, completely inaccurately. This seems to indicate that MickMacNee is not in the slightest bit interested in any kind of accurate biography of David Boothroyd. Why then are he and others lurking here? Mathsci ( talk) 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
                  • I'm afraid I really haven't got a clue what you are on about, I have already told you that his college is not even in the version of the article I have seen (and is not available to any non-admin or person who doesn't know where to look), so I am at a complete loss as to what you think I am supposed to be saying about it. If you are confused about the purpose of this page, read the instructions. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
                    • There was a line [[Category:Alumni of St Catharine's College, Cambridge]]. David was an undergraduate there. I found it in a google cache for May. Mathsci ( talk) 06:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per blp and wp:notnews. There are too few sources to support a neutral biography. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and send for a proper Afd discussion - since the initial deletion, substantially different articles have been deleted without any analysis of whether they have overcome the issues that made the earlier versions deletable. Is this guy notable? close call, I'm sure that most recipients of this much press would be considered notable by many here. I read WP:BIO differently, figuring that significant coverage beyond "news" is required, but that isn't necessarily the majority position. I also note that the suff that may be considered "contentious" was sourced, so BLP may have been effectively complied with. Of course, one person's view of what's "contentious" differs from another's. If you have a broader view, surely deletion of the material not the article is called for? read WP:BLP. The other reason to have a debate is so that it doesn't appear as though we are sweeping something under the rug. It may be sufficient to add a blurb at Criticism of Wikipedia and a re-direct, but without the debate, how do we know. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Slapping a reference on scandalous material does not satisfy WP:ONEEVENT, an integral part of WP:BLP. Jehochman ^Talk 15:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • And deleting the entire article instead of removing just the offending material doesn't either. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Without the offending material, the article is just the recreation of an article that was deleted a few days before via WP:AfD and WP:SNOW. Jehochman ^Talk 17:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Both AFD closure decisions were made by you and both are being challenged here. Why are you trying to pretend they are not related? MickMacNee ( talk) 18:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. G4 did not apply and the article did not meet any other criteria for speedy deletion. decltype ( talk) 09:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion I did nomination #2. BLP1E/BLP, arguable trivial to no notability, WP:VANITY concerns a possibility (?), and the fact the article was barely sourced. We don't need this article today. Honestly, I'd say just bring it back to DRV in 6-8 weeks with a properly sourced {{NOINDEX}} userspace draft that shows it has the potential. Then we can review this. All that aside, AFD #2 was perfectly legitimate. rootology/ equality 08:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Striking for now based on Tyrenius's sources. rootology/ equality 04:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion per Duvora.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist to allow a proper evaluation. The 2nd AfD and 3rd AfD were both closed in just over an hour by the same admin, who then speedy deleted the article on the basis of those AfDs. Though I am sure this was done in good faith, it creates an unfortunate impression. The first AfD delete summary was "no indication that the article meets criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, WP:CSD#A7. It is a biography of a living person that entirely lacks references". The third was then largely justified by the second with the addition of WP:ONEEVENT. It is debatable whether these assessments are valid, and the outcome should not have been determined peremptorily.

There was not sufficient time for the article to be examined properly by the community and for any further information to be researched—which is a key aspect of AfDs. Boothroyd has a profile higher than the run-of-the-mill councillor and has been involved in several issues with some contention; he has not been backward in stating a controversial view. There are more references than those included to date in the article. Topics he has been involved in include: election statistics, [9] [10] Banksy mural, [11] [12] [13] gay flags, [14] [15] [16]affordable housing, [17] Reagan statue, [18](page 2) BNP, [19] Wikipedia, [20](now also reported by Iain Dale [21]). There are a number of letters from Boothroyd published in the national press, stating his views on various topics. He is a frequent poster to the blog of Iain Dale, [22] who name checks him several times. [23] [24] [25] [26]

In the light of his forthright utterances elsewhere, it seems somewhat disingenuous for him to be shy of an article detailing them, and improper for this to be a determinant of the article. It is likely that people reading his views in the media will look for further information. The article has steadily over 300 views a month, [27] i.e. over 3,500 views a year.

Ty 03:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Overturn and relist Deletions where done in undue haste. AFD is 7 days for a reason. Agathoclea ( talk) 08:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

To expand on that as the close stated earlier that I had not been aware of the previous situation. In particular I had been aware that there had been a first AFD which was kept. I would not have commented on the 2nd AFD as - as I stated in the 3rd - I considered DB as borderline notable which could go either way and as such I would neither delete nor object to deletion. The speedy deletion at AFD 2 was already out of process due to the previous AFD. There was no BLP critical information that needed hiding and the article had been around for years - so regardless of the possible further outcome a bad call. Closing Afd3 as G4 was equally flawed as G4 a) requires a previous deletion discussion which was not allowed to run its course and b) the article was different in the sense that a event has entered the picture that altered the balance of notability. To the content of the AFD in question I might add that there are some strange thoughts entering wikipedia like "Councillors are never notable - no exception" forgetting the point that DB notability (as weak as it might have been until recently) did not come from his position as local Councillor but from his wider political activities. Agathoclea ( talk) 08:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The Afd #2 was unanimous to delete. Thus, a WP:SNOW close was proper considering that the article had been around for years, yet had zero references. One would think, nothwithstanding the long list of trivial mentions posted by Tyrenus, that a few years would be enough time to come up with proper references for a biography. When the article was recreated, nothing was added except a severe WP:BLP1E violation. It doesn't take much clue to realize that this particular biography is receiving so much attention only because the editor has resigned from ArbCom. I am puzzled by the handful of editors who wish to keep an obviously deficient article about an unwilling subject, an article that has been, and would continue to be, used for slander. Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The Afd #2 was unanimous, but it had only been open for just over an hour, which seems a very short time to be sure per WP:SNOW that it didn't have "a snowball's chance in hell of surviving deletion." The dissent on this page and more references show that is a highly questionable use of SNOW. Boothroyd is an elected representative in a powerful position on a committee whose decisions affect people's lives and businesses in the centre of London. When he is quoted in the press with a pronouncement on such issues, it is not trivial, particularly when they are outspoken comments. Nor is an article whose headline refers specifically to him. [28] It is up to a debate of editors to decide whether cumulatively this does or does not merit an article, but that debate should be held to achieve a proper consensus. We are not concerned with why it has received attention — which is something that cuts both ways. I regard the other issues he has been involved with as more significant than the wikipedia one. If the article is deficient, and remains so, then a full Afd will settle the matter. The "unwilling" subject is a public figure and a politician, who has shown no unwillingness to air his views elsewhere. He is, and should expect to be, accountable. You will have to be more specific about "slander", as I don't see where that applies, and, if there is anything remiss and improperly sourced, then there are procedures for taking care of that, as with any other article. Ty 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Overturn, relist at AfD, and forbid Jehochman from being the closer. He has made his position on this article crystal clear and a fair AfD requires an impartial judge. There were already keep votes at the new AfD on account of this person having been the subject of significant new developments since the second AfD, so Jehochman's speedy close in light of that was inappropriate. We need longer than one hour under threat of speedy deletion to incorporate all the source material User:Tyrenius has linked to above, so let the regular 7-day AfD process take its course. TAway ( talk) 16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse good close per blp1e. Eusebeus ( talk) 16:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

This is the first I hear that blp1e is a speedy criteria. Agathoclea ( talk) 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't think anybody asserted that. The actual logic is somewhat deeper, but I will refrain from repeating myself again. Jehochman ^Talk 01:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

BLP1E is invalid as there were several events included in the article. Ty 03:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist at AfD for the full 7 days. The critical procedural error Jehochman made was to cut short two AfDs after less than a day without compelling reason to do so. If there is a policy-based reason to delete the article, such as WP:BLP, its validity can be assessed better after a full AfD discussion. Jehochman, being clearly involved by now, should refrain from taking further administrative actions regarding this article.  Sandstein  04:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The compelling reason is that the biography was clearly not notable; the first AfD was unanimous. Subsequently, a few people appear to have used the bio as a platform for maligning the subject who was a very prominent Wikipedia editor, User: Sam Blacketer. That sort of thing should not be tolerated. Letting people take pot shots at a living person for 7 days is a very poor idea. You'll notice that a few clueful people supported my action, including several administrators and an arbitrator. I'm not out on a branch by myself here. Keep in mind that policy is descriptive, not normative. Common sense trumps bureaucracy. Jehochman ^Talk 05:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Where policy tells us that we must or must not do something (such as not create unsourced BLPs), and where we block people for not following it, it is indeed normative. Although the idea is not necessarily a bad one, current deletion policy does not provide for the possibility to cut short AfDs just because they concern BLPs or Wikipedians. I doubt that one could obtain consensus for such a change when we have just extended the duration of AfDs from 5 to 7 days. And is it really necessary to resort to appeals to authority here?  Sandstein  05:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I just want to point out that the fact Boothroyd=Sam the ex-Arb=Fys had zero to do with my AFD nomination; I saw a BLP I thought was non-notable; I'm reconsidering that based on the sourcing here and actually was considering a userpage draft based on the new sourcing. Politicians are by their nature 'public', and choose to be so, so privacy concerns fall away. Also, I am 1000000% opposed to any BLP article that is in fact an editor here getting ***ANY*** special dispensation, consideration, or action, that any other BLP would not get, full stop. We have are required to eat our own dogfood, and any special action or dispensation for any BLP subject that would be based on their status as Wikipedians would be considered abusive. We are not more special than other BLPs, and I hope your deletions/touching of the AFDs was not based on the fact that Boothroyd is our Sam Blacketer. rootology ( C)( T) 12:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Rootology, I generally agree with you when you say editors here should get no special treatment. I would especially agree if you mean that editors here are treated neither better nor worse. It is a very slippery slope if we start writing articles about editors for their hijinx on Wikipedia. One reason I stepped up on this issue was that I'm not friendly with Sam Blacketer. If he wanted a favor, I would be the wrong person to ask. For the avoidance of doubt, nobody asked me to look at this matter. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist at AFD as neither AFD was allowed to run for anything like a full period. Given that there are reasonable (to my mind) objections to these deletions this should go back to AFD where I have no doubt that such an AFD would produce a large community response. Let the community decide in a full AFD whether an article is merited or not. Davewild ( talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• endorse deletion per zomg scary scary BLP factor. Gurch ( talk) 15:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per WP:BLP and Durova. لenna vecia 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per Durova, WP:BLP policy, and all above. — Ched :  ?  16:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. There is not enough here to warrant an article outside of the article in the Register, and that is far too self-referential to justify the article. I took a look at the last version of the article prior to its deletion, and it's pure venom. Outside of a single marginally notable incident, the entire article was built around the subject's activities on Wikipedia. WP:SELFREF is the appropriate guideline here; this section is pretty clear about how Wikipedia is is to be discussed in articles, and his editing on Wikipedia has nothing to do with his public life. We have articles on other BLPs on people who have edited the project, and normally there is no discussion of their work on Wikipedia unless it is a significant chunk of their real-world notability. There is no indication that this is the case. Horologium (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

CIBT Education Group ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Please unblock this as I wish to explain the history of this entity. Emhc ( talk) 19:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• As it's currently protected due to persistent spamming, I'd suggest that it would be appropriate for you to start a new article in your own user space (at User:Emhc/Sandbox would do), and then coming back here with a draft for evaluation. be sure that it's properly sourced and not promotional. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Concur with Tony Fox. It's usual, when a page has been recreated so many times that an admin has felt it necessary to prevent its recreation, to provide a sourced, neutral draft in userspace. Stifle ( talk) 08:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

List of extraordinary diseases and conditions ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This AfD was closed as no consensus despite 18 arguments in favor of deletion and 7 in favor of "keep." I contacted the closing admin, he reminded me that AfD was not a vote and in his opinion the two sets of arguments "cancelled each other out." I disagree. While AfD "isn't a vote," most of the deleters made strong, policy based arguments. My biggest objection was that "extraordinary" is a highly subjective term with different meanings in different eras (disaeses considered "extraordinary" 50 years ago no longer are, for instance. What to do)? At any rate, when we have policy-based "delete" arguments at a greater rate then 2-1 against the policy-based keep arguments at an AfD, I don't see how it can be said that "no consensus to delete" was found. If this much lattitude is given to the personal opinion of closing admins, it breaks the whole AfD process and harms the whole consensus-based model here. I encourage an overurn to "delete." Bali ultimate ( talk) 16:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The list has since been renamed to replace "extraordinary" with "considered unusual". I find this no improvement. Problems include: Considered unusual by whom, when, where, for what reasons (rarity? gross? interesting -- insect eggs hatching out of a human forehead?)? Bali ultimate ( talk) 16:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I have notified every participant in the AfD of this DrV. Bali ultimate ( talk) 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse no consensus closure. No clear consensus in this one. Afd is indeed not a vote and those saying to keep made strong, policy based arguments. Moreover article improved during the course of the discussion. Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Which policies did they use in favour of keeping? I saw a lot more policy arguments on the delete side. Article quality should be irrelevant since everyone agreed that the article was already in good quality at the start; the discussion is about inclusion criteria and future problems. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 16:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

They pointed out that it was not original research, that it was verfiable in reliable sources. Some of the keeps essentially make arguments that point to these without explicitly linking to them. Best, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• No opinion Merely noting that DRV is a hidebound waste of time that should be deleted itself, and that deletion should not be reviewed. I should note that I was canvassed to vote keep on the inital AFD by ARSBot at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles, who somehow seems to get away with positing lots of canvassing messages at the afformentioned page. I ignored his canvassing (I seem to do that a lot). I should also note that I was advised of the existance of this deletion review on my talk page. Hipocrite ( talk) 16:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

There are 249 members, and they vote by their conscious, what they sincerely believe, be it keep or delete. Only 7 keeps for this article, and were all of them members of the Rescue Squadron even? There was no flood of people rushing over to vote one way. Everyone stated a reason for their position. Please keep all bad faith conspiracy theories and slander out of discussions. Dream Focus 17:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Canvassing happened. I don't see slander or bad faith conspiracy theories. If you'd like, I could add those. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Can you find one example of canvassing? Did anyone post anywhere to tell people to go there? Was there anything other than the Rescue tag, informing people this might be an article worth saving, to please share their opinions and help improve the article if necessary? Dream Focus 01:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Like I said, a bot posts a list of articles that are nominated to be deleted on a page watched almost entirely by people who regularly vote keep on nearly everything (queue the "I delete lots of stuff" chorus, you can all skip it, if you don't mind), and the bot dosen't just post a link to the article, it posts a link to the afd. The category is apparently not easy enough for people who want to add references to articles of questionable notability with a strong COI supporter, you need a watchlistable update on the articles as they get added. It's canvassing, everyone knows it, let it go. Hipocrite ( talk) 12:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse When supplemented with the provided explanation, the close seems reasonably consistent with WP:DGFA which states "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy" and "When in doubt, don't delete.". Colonel Warden ( talk) 16:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist or close as delete Should have been a delete. Is DRV ready for this kind of thing? I'd add a delete Not vote based on sound policy if I'd been aware of this. Verbal chat 16:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete Relevant policies debated were WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V and although AfD is not a vote Bali ultimate showed above that there was a clear consensus that favored deleting this article that was developed out of these policies. Them From Space 16:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete per Themfromspace. — sephiroth bcr ^{( converse)} 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• I !voted delete. However I agree with the no consensus closure. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There was no consensus. Obviously not everyone agrees on things, which is why we have AFD to decide the fate of articles, instead of everyone just destroying things on a whim on their own. It was closed properly. There was no consensus either way, both sides making valid points, and simply not agreeing. Dream Focus 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete and a note to the closing admin: when you close an AfD that runs counter to the consensus of participants, it is vital that you lay out your reasoning for doing so. There WAS clear consensus to delete; if, however, the arguments to retain were deemed more compelling, then this would have been better closed as a straight up keep. A no consensus close is procedurally flawed. Eusebeus ( talk) 17:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

When both sides make valid cases, and neither can convince the other, then no consensus is how you are suppose to close it. Writing out a proper reasoning for this, would've been nice though, but most administrators never bother doing this. Dream Focus 17:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment As I understand it, deletion review implies that the closing editor erred in the decision. I can understand the editor throwing up his hands on this one and calling it no consensus, there was quite an impressive smokescreen thrown up by the "keeps". However, I would have liked to have seen some evidence of the reasoning so help us understand it and would request that the closing editor provide the basis for the judgement, much as any judge explains himself. A good example of that can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full Armor of God Broadcast. At this point I am waiting to see what they can do with the article over the next few weeks and if it is still an unencyclopedic freak show to nominate it for deletion again. I am also looking at other articles in the "unusual" category with the same possible criticisms. This has exposed a whole underbelly full of inappropriate articles so in that sense the AfD was successful. Drawn Some ( talk) 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Please see the talk page where the closer explains his thinking. Colonel Warden ( talk) 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll save yall the trouble. Here is the comment from the closer, in toto: "Hi. AfD is not a vote, so it doesn't really matter how many people suggested that it be kept or deleted; the arguments from both sides seemed to cancel each other out enough that I defaulted it to a "no consensus."" I obviously think this "reasoning" is preposterous, as on this basis one "keep" argument could be considered to be equal in weight, or to otherwise seem to cancel out a raft of "delete" arguments. This seems to be pretty radical, and a practice that if more widely adopted that would do a lot of damage to AfD, as flawed as the process is to begin with. Bali ultimate ( talk) 17:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Please see Deletion Guidelines for Administrators which explains the process which the closer seems to understand and have followed quite well. Colonel Warden ( talk) 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Seems like more of the definition of "no consensus" to me but like I said I can't blame the closing editor in this situation. Drawn Some ( talk) 22:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- There was no consensus to delete there, and the arguments made by the people stating "keep" were far stronger than the ones for "delete". Umbralcorax ( talk) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Naturally, when someone gives a decision like this, those who support the result argue he is right to take the strength of the arguments into account, and those who disagree that a straight vote is necessary. When someone gives a decision based on a vote count, those who support and disagree say just the opposite. Very few people actually go by what the admin ought to do, rather by whether they agree or disagree with the result, on the apparent principle that the the role of an admin is to give them the decision they want. The reason why this nonsense is even possible is that there is in fact no agreement about what the role of the admin is. My own formulation is that an admin ought to disregard !votes not based on policy, but not judge the strength of policy, but that is not a sharp dividing line--what about !votes weakly supported by partly applicable policy--which is the usual case with a lot of !votes. My own reason to endorse is that I am very reluctant to disturb a non-consensus close in a contested debate, unless the article is actively doing harm. A relist is likely to be more effective in a month or two. DGG ( talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per DGG. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist as a defective debate. I found the arguments on both sides of the debate extraordinarily weak, personally.

  The 18 "deletes" is a WP:BIGNUMBER but they were all parroting the AfD nominator's argument without introducing anything new; and the 7 "keeps" boiled down to contradicting the nominator. Neither side gave any evidence at all that they'd examined the actual sources.

  I have some sympathy for the "keeps" because I find the deletionist mantra of "I demand this article is deleted unless someone else does a lot of work examining the sources" very irritating, annoying, and tiring, and I can understand the temptation to simply contradict them, but what was called for here was to show the deletes where their error lay; a proper examination of the sources would show that there's the kernel of an encyclopaedic article here, but it shouldn't have this title, and it needs a fundamental, source-based rewrite.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 19:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - I supported deletion of the article, but there was no overall consensus on the issue. --- kilbad ( talk) 19:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete in accordance with the consensus at the AFD. Stifle ( talk) 22:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete – I see more of a consensus on the deletion side on the basis of no original research than I do on the keeping side of refuting this rationale. MuZemike 22:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• weak Overturn and delete I feel that the arguments for deletion were stronger and certainly more numerous. Some of the delete arguments were basically only !votes and should be discarded without a second thought. But others were significant and not really addressed in my opinion. DGG easily had the best argument for keeping it, but I feel other had better arguments for why he was wrong. I would strongly support userfication if someone wants to use some of the material as a source for an article on the book DGG referred to. Frankly, it seems to be an indiscriminate list as it stands and I think the folks in favor of deletion showed that successfully. At the same time, I'm not a fan of "indiscriminate list" as a reason for deletion unless it's really indiscriminate. Thus the weak part. Hobit ( talk) 00:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure to no consensus. In reading the AfD discussion after-the-fact, I see cogent points made by both the delete opinions and the keep opinions. In discounting opinions that were offered as "close per" or "keep per" or "parroted the nominator" (in that AfD is not a vote by weight of shear numbers, and in not giving undue weight to many repetitons of the same arguments, it can be seen that the views did generally balance out and that the no-consensus closure was a reasonable decision. It can also be seen that One two three... had a difficult decision, weighed the discussions, and made the call. I do not envy him he mop. Oh... and just to be clear... I was not "canvassed" to comment here, and though a member of the ARS, I was not part of any discussions at the AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse no consensus closure. In a case such as this, where the admin closes as no consensus a discussion in which delete recommendations clearly outnumber keep recommendations, I would like to see a more fully articulated justification for the decision than "the arguments seemed to cancel each other out." However, the head count is (or should be) irrelevant to whether an article is deleted or kept, and the strength of arguments is what ought to be weighed. The closer's rationale for the no consensus decision is that the strength of the opposing sides' arguments are, in hir estimation, of equal strength. This is legitimate grounds for a no consensus decision, and I see no clear evidence that this judgment was in error. Nick Graves ( talk) 02:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete, but willing to consider weak endorse if a detailed closing rationale (not the one already given) is provided. I think that the arguments for deletion were more substantial than and better addressed the keep arguments. If the closer found the keep arguments particularly persuasive, saw a weakness in the deletes, simply defaulted to no consensus, or something else, the underlying reasoning should be disclosed. I support reasonable admin discretion, including closing against the numbers, but this looks to be outside that. Flatscan ( talk) 04:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete "Cancel each other out" my foot. What a ridiculous rationale. It either fits with policy or it doesn't. You don't score policy-adherence-points against policy-violation-points and come up with an acceptable article to keep. If the article cannot be made to be in non-violation of policy, then it fails no matter how interesting or well sourced it could be. S Marshall's comments above I find offensive and he falls into the same trap as most of the keeps: that yes well I wouldn't keep this article but change the name to something else, do a bit of work, and viola you have an article that I would keep, so keep. The AfD is on this article with this name and this content. This was not an AfD on "List of rare diseases", for example, for neither the name nor the content required rarity. The second trap the keeps fell into was to regard the ability to find sources as proof that both WP:V and WP:OR could be satisfied. Yes, we can find sources that so-and-so thought the condition was extraordinary, or unusual, or weird, but all that tells you is that one person had an opinion. Opinions do not make facts. And WP:ASF (policy) makes it very clear that we couldn't have a List of greatest bands in history, citing someone saying that the Beetles were "the greatest band in history" as a suitable source. So although we could satisfy WP:V and WP:OR by sourcing the list to individual opinions, we'd fail WP:NPOV by attempting to state those opinions as facts. And those opinions are generally non-notable in each individual case. Sure there are some diseases we'd all regard as "extraordinary", though it would be a challenge to find an authoritative source for many (e.g., some survey where 90% of the population agreed that XYZ was "extraordinary"). But the other extreme has a ridiculously long tail of rather mundane conditions that somebody somewhere thinks is a bit unusual. There are parts of Africa, for example, where a visiting white person is surrounded by children wanting to touch their weird skin. Would that make White people an "extraordinary condition". In conclusion, WP:NPOV is what kills this list, and the admin failed to spot that argument wasn't "cancelled out" by any of the keeps. Colin° ^Talk 12:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment: A similar article, List of unusual deaths, has been nominated for deletion 6 times, and kept each time (including a no consensus and a keep and rename result). The most recent deletion nomination was made in an attempt to establish broader community consensus and precedent concerning lists of this type (List of unusual X), and the discussion participants strongly supported keep. Precedent set in other deletion discussions for similar articles carries some weight in the case of this list of unusual diseases and conditions, insofar as the rationale for deletion matches those made by supporters of other failed deletion attempts (in this case, the contention that there is no objective/reliable/consistent way to establish inclusion criteria with regard to what is unusual/rare/extraordinary). The closing admin did not appeal to such precedent, but it does provide some support for the contention that hir decision was not in error. Insofar as the article in its current state is in violation of policy (that is, diseases are included without verification from a reliable source that they are indeed unusual, thus violating WP:V and WP:OR), that is grounds from improvement of the article (culling or proper sourcing of entries), not grounds for deleting the entire article. Nick Graves ( talk) 17:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse most of the delete votes were made before the addition of references and the change in the title. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The core of Bali ultimate's argument for deletion review is that "when we have policy-based 'delete' arguments at a greater rate then 2-1 against the policy-based keep arguments at an AfD, I don't see how it can be said that 'no consensus to delete' was found." It must be reiterated that AfD is not a vote. The ratio of keep to delete arguments is completely irrelevant. Whether these arguments are firmly rooted in policy is what is important here, and Bali ultimate admits that both sides had policy-based rationales. Determining the weight of these policy-based arguments is at the closing admin's discretion. There is no clear case to support the contention that the closing admin was in error. Nick Graves ( talk) 17:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. This article title has now mutated to List of diseases and conditions with unusual features, which is even worse from a policy point of view. Almost all diseases have unusual features of some sort. For example, Down syndrome has transient myeloproliferative disorder as an unusual feature, so shouldn't Down syndrome be listed? The inclusion or exclusion of diseases from this list is entirely arbitrary. Eubulides ( talk) 23:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure There has been a recent debate about lists of unusual things. It only matter whether a reliable source considers the disease unusual. A rare disease which causes children to be extremely allergic to sunlight to the point they have to be completely covered up or can only go out at night is unusual since it happens in only a handful of patients and is widely considered unusual by both medics and the general public. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Also, the idea that there were no clear inclusion guidelines could easily be solved through editing rather than deletion. Either we include diseases with a low prevalence or diseases with symptoms that have a low prevalence. Both are clear uncontestable numbers and if it's a problem to call those unusual, we can rename it to "rare" based on such numbers (see http://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/ for one authority on the subject). Just because some diseases are misplaced in the list doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

If you define "unusual" as "rare" rather than "odd" then you do indeed end up with "list of rare diseases", which I have no problem with (other than impractical length). *sigh* I'm wasting my time here, obviously. Colin° ^Talk 11:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist (I'm amenable to overturning and deleting, but that is less preferred) This was close to no consensus, so I could be pushed into agreeing that "no consensus" was within the admin's scope of options. However a few things draw me back to overturning this close. The first is that while both 18 and 7 are "big numbers" which aren't compelling by themselves, "not a vote" tends to get trotted out when an admin comes to a decision contrary to numerically evident consensus and "rough consensus" tends to get trotted out when an admin comes to a decision contrary to a compelling policy argument. I'm not alleging bias, just realism. As a community we clearly prefer to avoid "mob rule" and we prefer to avoid process through statutory interpretation. This means, to me, that we balance these two poles when they happen to conflict (Obviously we would hope that relevant policy arguments favor the majority, but if a frog had wings...). If any balancing occurred, it did so in the mind of the admin because s/he left no indication as to the motivation of his or her decision. Looking at the delete arguments, they range from superfluous (one liners about subjectivity, without any reason why subjectivity is disallowed in the encyclopedia) to more meaty concerns about sourcing and inclusion. The nom (though it makes the troubling mistake of assuming redundancy to a category is a condition for deletion) advances the deletion arguments in a reasonable fashion, arguing somewhat compellingly that "List of diseases and conditions with unusual features" is ripe for editor definition, idiosyncratic inclusion decisions and sensationalism. Keep arguments range from the somewhat convincing (Col'n warden's argument being the sturdiest) to the outright unhelpful. Given the preponderance of arguments were for deletion and a preponderance of those arguments had at least as good if not better rationales than the keep arguments, I'm having trouble justifying this one as a close on the merits. Also, I'm worried that canvassing occurred and if it did, that gives us a strong incentive to rebuff that convassing here at DRV. Protonk ( talk) 17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

For the record, I did not make the "troubling mistake of assuming redundancy to a category is a condition for deletion". I compared a category with a potential "list of rare diseases", which (I have been repeating ad-nauseum) is not the list we are AfD'ing. The AfD list has no comparable category. It is a site-note that I consider a "list of rare diseases" (at 8,000 entries long, majority red-links) to be potentially not as useful as a category that points to actual wikipedia articles. I have repeatedly said I would not AfD a "list of rare diseases" even if I do consider it inferior to the existing category. Colin° ^Talk 18:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse with no prejudice against relisting. Personally I'd have closed this one as a delete, but the closer made no egregious errors here - it's something of a borderline case, but it was merely closed as "no consensus" - not "keep". If the closure survives this review and the article remains there should be no impediment to re-listing the article for deletion in the near future, particularly if it does not improve. Sher eth 19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete - looking at the article itself, I can still see the article being fundamentally flawed by original research and/or indiscriminateness, both points brought up in the original AfD and weren't really countered that well. Also, it's poor form to close something as "no consensus" without a rationale. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 01:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete - I created this article two weeks ago, and I was initially very disappointed by hearing it was up for AfD. I had just been reading List of unusual deaths and believed it would be equally well writing an equivalent list of diseases and conditions. I wanted to give it a chance to show what it could evolve into with the combined effort of the community. However, just by looking at what it has (and has not) achieved in these two weeks makes me rather disappointed - not much improvement of the article itself, but, on the other hand, a hell lot of controversy and dispute. Yet, I guess we will always have to cope with this kind of altercation as long as there are articles in Category:Lists of things considered unusual, but let's not make it even worse. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 10:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Significant conflict is not inevitable, and improvement is possible. It is conceivable that a list of this type--with rigorous, well-defined inclusion criteria, and properly sourced information--could become a good, encyclopedic resource that far fewer Wikipedians would support deleting. Nick Graves ( talk) 01:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The AFD did not present a consensus for deletion. It is not a vote. That said, any disease in the list should have reliable sources stating that the disease is considered "extraordinary." Chimerism conjoined twins and progeria are. Cancer, common cold, influenza and heart disease are not. Edison ( talk) 16:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• endorse I could see someone closing this either way but this is a reasonable close given the circumstances. I see no compelling reason to overturn. If necessary, wait a bit and AfD it again. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete – The policy-based argument for deletion (we should not present claims of opinion as claims of fact, per Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) were not effectively countered during the deletion discussion. The list is, ultimately, a list of diseases and conditions that are considered to be "extraordinary" (a term which means different things to different people) by one or more editors, sources, or both. In principle, it is no different from a List of beautiful people or List of amazing places. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 22:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Cal Con ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Discussion was closed as no consensus. However, none of the keep opinions were based on policy with vague assertion of references but no actual citations. This issue was raised with the closing admin. His response indicated no compelling reason for deletion. However, a lack of reliable sources covering a topic has generally been held to be grounds for deletion which was the deletion opinion advanced. Whpq ( talk) 14:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete. Whether by numbers (4 delete 2 keep) or strength of arguments, I think One got this wrong. Stifle ( talk) 15:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete the article remains sourced to a website run by this convention, the "largest and oldest gamers" convention in western canada, according to the convention's own PR. The arguments against keeping were 2-1 against, and the absence of reliable reliable sources should be dispositive to considering notability established, that there is sufficient verifiability. Bali ultimate ( talk) 16:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Question The article says "Attendance 600 Average". Is a convention that has only 600 people notable? It does seem a bit odd. And you can't say you are the biggest and oldest, and also somehow the youngest, games convention in Western Canada, without some sort of proof, especially when you say only 600 people show up each year. Dream Focus 17:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. Though I am very reluctant to disturb a non-consensus close in a contested debate, unless the article is actively doing harm, this is a case where a clear error was made. We can;t keep an article supported by no decent sources at all. I'm flexible in what counts as reliable sources in this area, but something is needed. DGG ( talk) 18:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. I find DGG's case persuasive here.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 19:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete--I do believe that despite the one (and a half) "yes," the "no" arguments should weigh more heavily, based as they were on policy (such as WP:RS, obviously). There were no sources, and I was somewhat surprised to hear the article was kept. Drmies ( talk) 19:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete as the editor who nominated it for AfD, I had done a search for any news sources and found nothing, I expected to at least see it in a What's happening this weekend in Calgary article, but it was not even mentioned. -- kelapstick ( talk) 19:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete my own closing per overwhelming consensus above. One two three... 21:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Anthony Tavera ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I am still working on the page to make it more notable. How am I supposed to do that if it keeps getting deleted before I can finish it? Could it be undeleted so I can continue working on it. (I think that I can make this page much better if I could just have a few weeks to finish it correctly without admins deleting it every 2 seconds)-- Ken Durham ( talk) 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• The page has only been deleted once, so saying that admins delete it every 2 seconds is a bit disingenuous. Also, you didn't even give the deleting admin an hour to reply to your message before coming here. Recommend userfication (see WP:SUBPAGE) so that you can bring the article up to scratch. Stifle ( talk) 14:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Ok, so now I know how to bring it up correctly. Can you please undelete it? -- Ken Durham ( talk) 15:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Page has been userfied; I think we can close this now? DS ( talk) 15:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes it can!-- Ken Durham ( talk) 16:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• What's wrong with the article? Why the speedy delete? I see a list of movies the child actor has been in, which are blue links. There was no reason to delete the new article, it having some signs of notability in it. Speedy delete is only done for spam, slander, and whatnot. Dream Focus 17:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn' Checking on iIMDB, I very strongly doubt that a young person playing these minor roles -- some as just a voice-- is actually notable; The CSI role is probably not enough to be significant--I gather he's the victim-- but it was enough to pass speedy. Dream Focus is wrong about speedy; it is done and needs to be done when there is no indication of any possible notability, which happens quite a lot--of the 5 or 10 speedies I do a day, about half are for that reason. DGG ( talk) 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close because the nominator indicates he is now satisfied. Further argument about this seems pointless.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 19:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hisham Zreiq ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

Hello, I noticed that the article about Hisham Zreiq (also spelled Zrake), a Palestinian visual artist and film maker (see The Sons of Eilaboun was deleted by Number 57, and I don't agree with the what he said: (A7 (bio): Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance) Hisham Zreiq is an award winning director, he won the Al-awda award for his documentary The sons of Eilaboun, His film was featured in many film festivals and he have an imdb page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3054116/ And for his visual art he won a German award from Hollfelder Kulturfreunde e.V. http://www.kunst-kultur-hollfeld.de/presseberichte.php?i=1 http://www.kunst-kultur-hollfeld.de/print.php?presse=true&id=1 http://www.kultura-extra.de/compuart/portrait/hisham_zrake_a.html There is an article about him in Arabic and German Wikipedia as well.

• Reverse deletion AmirCohen ( talk) 11:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• All that the article had was an infobox, categories, and the text "Hisham Zreiq (Also Spelled: Zrake, Arabic: هشام زريق, born February 9, 1968 in Nazareth) is a Palestinian-Israeli film director and visual artist. He is one of the first computer artists in the world, He started creating computer art in 1994, and in 1996 started exhibiting his work in galleries and museums. In 2007 he filmed his first documentary; The Sons of Eilaboun." It was written by User:Hishamzr, who may well be the article subject. As such the deletion was correct (it does not indicate the importance or significance of this person), and I endorse it, but as with all speedy deletions, anyone is welcome to recreate the article if they can overcome the issue that led to it being deleted.
  For future reference, it's customary to contact the administrator who deleted the page and ask him/her to reverse the deletion before opening a listing here. Stifle ( talk) 12:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Still don't think the film or producer are notable. Also, there is no German article, and the Arabic article was also written by User:Hishamzr. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• There is no cache of the article to look at. Dream Focus 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rapid Overturn Certainly enough to pass speedy as an indication of notability, and possibly actually notable. That documentary is an award winning film, shown internationally at multiple festivals. Stifle is arguing the subject is not actually notable, but that is not the standard for passing speedy--to have created a film that won awards is an indication of possible notability if there ever was one. There is a German article for the film, though not the person. As for the notability of the film, it was deleted at AfD, and then recreation was permitted at Deletion Review. I notice that it was in fact a politically controversial film, and a speedy in such a situation is really wrong. DGG ( talk) 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AfD. I'm not completely convinced by DGG's remarks because I think a good argument could be made that it's the film that's notable rather than the creator. However, AfD is the place to make that case, not here. I think the article's claims of notability are sufficient to place it beyond the remit of speedy deletion and we have no choice but to overturn.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 19:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AfD the evidence provided proves he has some assertion of notability, which would be enough to overturn the speedy deletion. Whether that evidence is notable enough for Wikipedia is probably subjunctive and would be best for the people at AfD to figure out. Tavix |  Talk  22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per DGG. I can't see the article, but it sounds like it asserts notability (from Stifle's summary). Hobit ( talk) 00:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Although the second link given is actually the print version of the first, the other two give a good indication that sources about this man exist. Also, source 4 in the film article shows the award was given in the category documentary films and the film was directed, written and produced by this person. I a case like that such an award is clearly relevant to the notability of the person who created the film. He's not speedy material. (Of course, it would be better if all this was included from the get-go, but it's not something that cannot be fixed. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Cole Tucker ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Hello, the older deletion discussion forgot to discuss, that Cole Tucker got the GayVN Awards and the Grabby Award.

• GayVN Awards 1998 – Best Supporting Actor ^[1]
• GayVN Awards 1998 – Gay Performer of the Year ^[1]
• GayVN Awards 2000 – Special Achievement Award ^[1]
• Grabby Award 1999 – Best Performers ^[1]
• Grabby Award 2000 – Wall of Fame ^[1]

So Cole Tucker should have his own side on english wikipedia as he already has on german wikipedia. GLGermann ( talk) 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• The article was deleted in 2006, so you could probably just go ahead and re-create it. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 22:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Agree with Juliancolton. The deleted article had some BLP issues. Stifle ( talk) 08:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment IMDB isn't a reliable source, because they regularly spread misinformation. You'd need evidence either straight from the Grabby Awards themselves if they keep a database of given awards, or some reliable magazine or newspaper to back it up. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Close this as moot Just make a new one, but follow Mgm's suggestion about sourcing. Hobit ( talk) 00:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I would support it if someone sent them a copy of the text by email to avoid duplicate work done. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Agreed. If there is anything that doesn't violate BLP, it should be userfied or e-mailed. Hobit ( talk) 17:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Music Emissions ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Hello, my name is Brian Rutherford, and I have been a music reviewer for eight years. First and foremost, let me apologize in advance if I have misused any coding or scripting here. About 18 months back I wrote an article on one of the sites I have been contributing to for six years. Here is the info on that.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#musicemissions.com. - Archive

--Dirk Beetstra T C 08:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

More recently, about eight months ago, I spoke (chatted) with a fellow who was somehow associated with Wiki, I believe in Europe. I also believe I saved this documented consultation, but I do not have that conversation at this moment. The end result of the conversation was that MusicEmissions.com at the time, was not considered a credible source for Indie Music Reviews. After showing the representative various links that sourced MusicEmissions.com as a credible resource the representative saw no reason that MusicEmissions should not be considered a credible resource.

Here are just a few articles that reference Musicemissions.com http://www.sideonedummy.com/bands_interviews1205.php?band_name=Bedouin_Soundclash http://musicratty.com/article/6073b585d2aa4238a141f3a9b6403060 http://www.spraci.com/news/syndicated/413043/ http://www.papertrumpet.com/quotes/quotes.html http://www.musicianguide.com/biographies/1608004551/Alexisonfire.html http://www.clevelandagora.com/bands/info.asp?bandID=1291

Again, please accept my apologies if I have goofed up anything in this discussion. My ultimate bottom line is to get the MusicEmissions.com article retrieved from deletion as myself and 10,000 other registered users find it to be a great source for independent music. Please understand I do not say this in any kind of mean spirited fashion, and I do appreciate anyone who can assist me. Hstisgod ( talk) 18:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• I've added a link to the archive of the Wikiproject case. Can you clarify what you are asking here? A good part of that discussion seems to be about a proliferation of links being added to other articles. Even if the site itself is considered notable for the purposes of an article, the response to such links is likely to be the same. Wikipedia is about enyclopedic content not links to reviews, many people find many reviews on many sites useful, we can't link to them all and it won't enhance wikipedia's primary goals. The releavant policies such as external links were linked to in that original discussion. As you have written for the site it appears you may have a conflict of interest in having the site listed here, it's usually best to let someone unconnected write about the site (which can include the negative as well as the positive). Since the deletion over 2 years ago it doesn't look like anyone else has tried to write an article on this. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• No action/keep deleted due to the lack of clarity on this request and the nominator's failure to return and prosecute it. Stifle ( talk) 08:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted, but allow recreation. Given the state of the article just before it was deleted (substantial content was copy-pasted verbatim from the website and the article was essentially written as an advertisement), I think it would be better to write a new article (assuming that the topic is notable) rather than to restore and try to improve the deleted version. – BLACK FALCON ^{( TALK)} 22:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The Money Masters documentary ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The Money Masters ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore) (note: the article has been userfied)

The article seemes to have been deleted early 2008.
On its archived discussion page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Money_Masters I can find several people who just state that the article ( the film ) is "not noteable" without even justifying their claim. After which they go on to "disagree" with the content of the film. An Encyclopedia entry is not subject to wether or not one likes or agrees with the content. One does not remove articles about nazi germanys films by Leni Riefenstahl on the argument that its content isnt noteable.

The notability of the film lies in that it has been growing steadily over the years and is now a prevalent phenomna and because it has steadily increased in its spread throughout the internet, now has several million references throughout the internet. On that note itself it is a phenomena worthy of noting in wikipedia.

I have tried several times to conduct a civil debate on this, I added the hangon tab, I provided verifiable arguments and pointed out that I do not care about the views in the film.
the views presented in the film are not what is in question here.

• I do however suggest that the article is renamed The Money Masters (film) on the same lines as Loose Change (film)

Some of the most crucial and verifiable arguments for its inclusion go as follows:

• The existence and widespread usage of and references to this documentary is a verifiable fact.
• Just as any cult film this film is a phenomena (spanning two decades now) and has a large "following" no matter its content.
• This film has been commented upon by several serious economists, including Nobel Laureate Milton Friedmann
• The film gains several hundred thousands of independent hits throughout the english speaking world in google searches
• It's content is also reflective of the main views of one of the US's larger political movement, through Republican Congress representative Ron Paul, and is reflected daily in the mainstream media and in the News (online), no matter wether one agrees with such views or not. This makes it noteable in itself as a source for finding out what and where the rationale for such movements come from!

Any argument just stating "50.000 sold dvd's" or "the film is not noteable", " I dont consider it noteable" can not pass for justified legitimate arguments.

I expect serious sincere responses conducted as adults and not the slapping on of wikipedia guidelines to pretend that this user has not read guidelines and using that as an argument for deletinon.
The issue here is the article, not this user or my abilities or errors as a wikipedia contributor . Again, remember, we are not doing this to review "views", we contribute here to inform people around the world. Wether we like or agree with the information or not.
sincerely, Nunamiut ( talk) 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Can you provide independent references to substantiate your claims? MER-C 12:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Google refrences. alternatively contact google if you want any more specific verification of their linking/refrence policies. The same goes for youtube. As far as I can tell they do not provide any obvious overall hits statistics that is easily monitored, but a search gives huge amounts of hits. It is possible to go to the individual userpages and see if they have made hits statistics statistics public. I'm no expert in these matters, but is abundantly clear to even the layman that this videos distribution is widespread. For more factual references I'll have to referr you to normal search and investigation of the matter. I could post a dozen links here but I do not see it as meaningful since you all are able to type and use google. Milton Friedman + "The Money Masters" should suffice to document that part of the noteability claim, and or going to the films official website and checking their refrences and documentation. There are dozens of reviews of the movie online but I do not know which author(s)/experts/sites are your favourites so again I'll have to let you choose which (or what amount of) results you wish to consider before you make up your own mind. finally I'll just have to echo users Hobit and MacGyverMagic (if its at all unclear) : I'd like to see this at AfD, undelete and list / Overturn and relist Nunamiut ( talk) 20:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Can you at least give us some citations for the comments by "several serious economists, including Nobel Laureate Milton Friedmann"? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:08, 5 June 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? Also, can you please explain why the article was repeatedly recreated, including under a different name to escape page protection, instead of the normal appeal process being followed? Stifle ( talk) 14:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. Stifle ( talk) 08:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Flat out dishonest arguments again. As if a single users ability to respond and defend the article in time somehow supersedes all other previous arguments and the obvious fact that this film exists as a phenomena and the actual verifiable fact of its noteability as a widespread phenomena. Do you have a sense of proportions at all? You can see the moon for yourself but if _I_ fail to describe it and defend it to you, you're pretending the proper logic that follows is deletion of reference to it. This is clearly a dishonest train of thought, putting the burden of proof for any phenomena on to a single user each time, as if going to each jew individually and asking them each alone to prove conclusively with documentation that the holocaust took place to you, when the material is aboundantly clear and visible all around you for you to look at. This article is neither "my article" nor my "work" or "property", this is issue is on wether or not wikipedia admins chooses to honestly accept the fact that the phenomena exists" You sir are behaving like a juvenile in your line of argumentation, pretending that attacking my abilities is a sufficient reason for keeping the article deleted. I have already provided you with proper arguments. I will not waste any more time disussing it here if juvenile attempts at discrediting others like this user has attempted are taken as justification to leave the article deleted, I wont bother wasting any more time in an environment that stoops to such low levels of reasoning and behaviour. undelete and list / Overturn and relist Nunamiut ( talk) 05:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • You've had your say already, please don't add any more bolded comments. Stifle ( talk) 08:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Also, I'll be happy to amend my opinion if you will provide the answer to my question. If this was a court of law (which I'm glad it isn't) your case would have been struck out by now for want of prosecution. Stifle ( talk) 08:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist Whatever the initial version of the article didn't have, the latest version I checked had several independent sources, though not all listed in the reference section. The claim in the original debate that it didn't have independent sources no longer applies, so the G4 speedy was misapplied. Whether they are enough reliable sources should be reassessed. The claim that film notability guidelines don't apply is faulty. Book guidelines apply to magazines, journals and other written publications, film guidelines are pretty much the same, they apply to documentaries, films, videos, and animations among other things in the same vain. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Doesn't look to be a pure recreation as sources now exist (in the cached version at least). I'd like to see this at AfD, so undelete and list Hobit ( talk) 00:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete The article describes the film, but doesn't get into anything about why this film is notable. It's a film that thinks there's a banking conspiracy. Umm, there's more than a few of those out there already. The one possible attempt is the 50,000 claim, which is sourced to the producer. Yup, that's noted in the article, but seriously, that's a claim for notability? Another reference is to Nexus, which seems to cover conspiracy theories. shrug - no idea on that one. I'm not seeing anything present in the article that makes this film noteworthy. Ravensfire2002 ( talk) 02:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The article as it stands is not in question. Its the actual existence and noteability of the phenomena to deem it "worthy" of an article at all. We can discuss and change the content later. The article is the way it is because its not possible (and hasnt been) for people to update it or make it adhere, comply to the standards you ask for precicely because it has been deleted and kept out of anyones view. The film is a phenomena wether you read me saying so here or not. Your abilities or wishes to make serious inquierys notwithstanding the film has been endorsed/recieved praise from a Nobel Laureate in Economics, Milton Friedman. Can you please tell me why I or anyone else should value your opinion in matters of economic history above those of an economist, ANY economist? close to half a million hits in google makes it noteable in itself as a internet phenomena far axceeding any other cult film in its genre. I'll again ask all please to try to adhere to honest debateing techniques. undelete and list / Overturn and relist Nunamiut ( talk) 05:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Again, please don't add multiple bolded comments to the discussion, as it may give a misleading appearance that your position has more support than it actually does. Stifle ( talk) 08:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • You seem to be conflating "honest debateing [sic] techniques" with "only people who agree with me can contribute here". Please accept that others may not share your opinion, or your zeal to have the article reinstated. Stifle ( talk) 08:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• We live in curious times indeed. Episodes of the Simpsons have/get entire full page articles devoted to them, but any alternative media dissent or otherwise on pretty crucial and important socio-economic or political issues ( most anything and everything is political in some form or another btw..) and a lot of debates, however large an audience they have reached, are pretended not to exist and not to be worth mentioning. Seems There really is a war on for peoples minds.. they just dont get to hear or see documentation or get to see all information, or even see what has transpired and make their own choices and draw their own conclusions, because the information is simply not being made available to them and being pre-censored and erased from the mainstream consciousness. Our priorities and focus are obviously pretty sick these days. Not to mention our understanding of whats important in this world. Oh well. I guess its just a consequence the numbscull dumbing down of public education. A total lack of ability to understand or grasp certain very essential concepts of information and the documenting of our shared history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.3.220 ( talk) 23:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Several articles on Simpsons episodes could do with being merged and/or deleted. Stifle ( talk) 08:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion the article does not provide sufficient reliable sources about the film rather than supporting/discussing the ideas it promotes, to justify overturning a correctly closed AfD. Eluchil404 ( talk) 01:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion It seems as if we should have an article on this fringe "documentary", but I don't see how that's possible, considering that I couldn't find a single reliable source for it. Although there are 136,000 Ghits for it, the majority of what I saw were sites sellling the video, which doesn't count, plus a few fringe non-reliable sites discussing it. With no reliable sources, it's really not possible to have an article. Given the state of play, the AfD comments that said "Not notable" seem perfectly reasonable, so I don't see any reason to overturn the deletion. (Incidentally, the article, or some version of it, is userfied at User:Xiutwel/The Money Masters, for those who want to see what it was.) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Yet Again. The issue is not the content of the current article,(or the movie. Are you here to judge the content of movies too???) but the actual existence of any documentation of it at all for people who wonder what it is, who made it and any exisitence of any info on it at all. But it has been completely impossible to even correct anything or create a new improved version since it is immediately deleted. The issue is that this film is a cult phenomena that probably has a larger audience and has been viewed by more people on the internet than any other of its kind in internet history. Google video had a couple of hundreds of thousands of views a few years ago. The film is abundant all over youtube and the internet. IF it has sold fifty thousand copies and we reason that not all viewers watched it alone, an additional 100 thousand. It is widely referred to, and discussed. I cannot find all the majority selling it as is claimed. That in it self would be pretty astonishing, more than a hundred thousand sites selling it.. This must be the best hidden cult movie in history.. So where do you suggest the improved article on the film is posted, and who is the all knowing individual at your history department it should be submitted to for approval? But thats enough. I've read Enough dishonest bullshit for a good while. 1984 indeed. You sirs are shills. Goodbye. Nunamiut ( talk) 18:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Wrong redirect. Looks like blatant advertising of commercial "Ragnarok Online" game.

What's the problem? Actually I had no idea what is this "eAthena" and wanted to learn meaning of this term. So I entered query to Wikipedia. Result was strange for me. There was something completely irrelevant - about some commercial MMORPG game "Ragnarok Online". This result is believed to be utterly incorrect. I did some investigation and discovered that there was older page but it has been deleted and replaced with redirect (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EAthena). After googling I discovered true meaning of "eAthena" term and it differs from what redirect displays. I believe such actions are either vandalism or blatant advertising intended to advertise commercial "Ragnarok Online" game on Wikipedia. As you can see, this resulted in false information represented to me, I believe such practice is unacceptable for encyclopaedia articles.

The following issues were found with mentioned redirect:

• eAthena turned to be open source MMORPG server project. Nothing more, nothing less. It haves nothing to do with "Ragnarok Online" game except they implement similar protocol which could be somehow compatible to protocol of "Ragnarok Online" game to some degree. This server is used by another open source games like "The Mana World" and "Aethyra" and these games have nothing to do with Ragnarok Online. Except their overall idea is similar - they're MMORPGs so ideas behind protocols are the same and there is even some partial compatibility may exist. However games using eAthena usually implemented from scratch and not directly compatible with "Ragnarok Online". So, redirect appears to be some unfair method of competition or some kind of blatant advertising of commercial "Ragnarok Online" game.
• Article which is target of redirect contains exactly nothing about "eAthena". There is even no such word on this page, except redirect itself. So, visitor haves no chance to learn meaning of "eAthena" term at all. There is no links as well, etc. So, there is lack of proper information about term. This looks a bit like vandalism.
• In any event, some server software haves nothing to do with whole complete MMORPG product. Server software is just some sub-part of final MMORPG product. So, at very least such redirect is very rough, inaccurate and could provide wrong information to visitors.

If you want more common and clear example, imagine if there is redirection of " Apache HTTP Server" article to " Windows". Just because Windows supplied with IIS web server and both IIS and Apache implementing same HTTP protocol and Microsoft wants to sell Windows and shut up Apache, etc. So, if this redirect should exist, you should also create redirect from "Apache HTTP Server" to "Windows" as well ;)

P.S. I'm sorry, I'm not a professional Wikipedia editor but rather casual visitor. If I did something wrong here, do not blame me too much. Instead, try to correct my faults and review my request based on Wikipedia goals and purposes rather than from bureaucratic and formal points of view. 91.77.158.255 ( talk)

I think what you should be asking for is that the redirect be deleted, correct? If so, or in any case, DRV is not needed here. MuZemike 21:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

It may alternatively be an appeal of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EAthena (second nomination), which resulted in the redirect being protected. If that's the case, then this is the right place. If the nominator wants the redirect to be retargeted, Talk:EAthena or WP:RFPU is the place, and if xe wants it deleted, it's WP:RFD. I'm leaving this open pending clarification. Stifle ( talk) 08:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

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

While I'd agree some section might be construed as spamish, I do not agree that the article could not have been saved without major rewrites. I also feel that it did not qualify for G11 Speedy Deletion. Q ^{T C} 05:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. The article was not unambiguously promotional. Since the subject is clearly eligible for inclusion, a minor rewrite should be preferred to deletion. Example: "Aramark Limited is a food, facility and apparel service partner. With 250,000 employees, it is the 19th largest employer on the Fortune 500" decltype ( talk) 06:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rapid Overturn The deleted article was not promotional,except possibly for a listing of a few too man officers of the company. It was speedy deleted twice: the An earlier version was not a valid deletion either: it had one promotional paragraph & one unbalanced paragraph of trivial criticism. If both had been removed, the article would have been passable. The company is important enough that the article should be much expanded. It is so large, that even if the entire article had been promotional, the article should have been stubbified bot deleted. If 2 different admins are prepared to delete material like this, we need to remove or tighten up the G11 standards. DGG ( talk) 16:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC) DGG ( talk) 17:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • In fairness, Sarcasticidealist only deleted it because someone had moved it to an all-caps version of the name and edited the redirect to prevent someone moving it back, so that deletion was entirely in order. Stifle ( talk) 16:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. G11 requires that there is no possible neutral version to which to revert, but that's not the case here. Stifle ( talk) 16:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per DGG. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 16:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore I was quite surprised when I saw this pop up on my watchlist as deleted. I don't know about the version Sarcastic deleted last year, but the version deleted most recently didn't look like it was an unrecoverable piece of spam. Maybe the officer's list needed trimming, but I do not believe CSD was the appropriate method. MBisanz ^talk 17:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Deleting Admin As I can see there's an overwhelming consensus to restore the article, I have no issues if the article was restored and stubbed. I only ask that next time if a user disagrees with my actions, that they try and discuss it with me before listing it here, as deletion review is more of a last resort. I promise I don't bite! :) Icestorm815 • Talk 17:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Apologies as Nom' Completely missed that section snuggled there at the end about discussing with deleting admin first :-/ Q ^{T C} 01:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Nine Eleven Finding Answers ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The deletion log does not indicate whether this article was deleted following being tagged with a speedy delete, or whether the deleting administrator deleted it on his or her sole authority. The deleting administrator recorded WP:A7 as the reason for deletion. I don't know what the article said, at the time of its deletion, but I am sure a case can be made that the Foundation is fully notable. The deleting administrator hasn't been online in five months, so I would like to request someone else userify this article, its talk page and full revision history to User:Geo Swan/review/Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation. Geo Swan ( talk) 04:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Userify if desired at the time of the deletion the article was a request for help in doing a better stub, followed by the text: "Details : NEFA Foundation is an organization that seeks, tracks and publishes intelligence on the Islamic Terrorist / Jihadist movement. Its purpose is to inform people about and try to stop further attacks similar to the 9/11/2001 attack on the World Trade centre. It may have information about or be connected to the intelligence services and other 'insider' data. (Anyone who has experience with such info will tell you that deniability and source-outsource separation is always a number one priority in intelligence so proof of this connection is by definition very difficult. Plausible deniability )" In the absence of sources one cannot tell if the organization is potentially notable. I consider this borderline speedy, but i would have checked for sources first. The mere assertion that there it an organization devoted to such purposes with no further information does not necessary imply notability. there are many non-notable political groups. DGG ( talk) 16:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Nothing to userfy; DGG just quoted the entire text. Stifle ( talk) 16:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion The article clearly met the speedy deletion criterion for organizations because it merely asserted existence and nothing about importance, fame or notability. I have no objection against recreation if such information can be found. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Looks like a reasonable A7. Userfication seems pointless, per Stifle. decltype ( talk) 05:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Venture Capital Investment Competition ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

It was nominated for speedy delete on the basis that the editor thought it was spam. I objected to the speedy delete because it is actually an organization, and many notable universities around the world participate in this. A few hours later, it was deleted. I believe if someone still felt it should be deleted, it should've gone to AFD to form a consensus. It did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I have spoken to closing editor [29] already, who disagrees with me, and said I can just take it to the deletion review if I wish. Dream Focus 19:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. This was actually deleted under WP:CSD#A7 rather than as spam. The claim that 50 top business schools participate in this competion is clearly a claim of importance or significance. I note that the deleting admin cited lack of sources as the reason for deletion [30] (putting the justification on Dreamfocus's user page rather than the user talk page), which is explicitly not a reason for speedy deletion. Notwithstanding any of that, sources can easily be found. [31] [32] Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

In my haste to get my initial feelings about this known I didn't notice that this article is also about a subject to which WP:CSD#A7 doesn't apply, being about a competition, not "a real person, an organization ... or web content". Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• The G11 speedy was declined, but the page was later deleted as A7. I'd like to see some refs for this, because it would be dysfunctional to overturn it only to delete again at AFD for lacking notability. Stifle ( talk) 20:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • If you'd like to see some refs then just look at the searches I linked above and take your pick. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

    Google searches are not references. Stifle ( talk) 08:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

    • What an absolute non-sequitur. Google searches are not references, but can be used to find references. You can't expect me to add any of them to the article, because there is no article to add them to. The place to discuss whether any particular sources are sufficient to provide notability is AfD, not DRV. Phil Bridger ( talk) 08:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn due to significant process problems. Stifle, I think that raising the bar beyond what speedies are for is the wrong thing to be doing here. Hobit ( talk) 01:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I found this page on the "unpatrolled" log, which is odd considering the number of contributors who seem to have looked at it. I don't have any axe to grind, as I wasn't familiar with the subject matter. When I looked at the article, I saw a speedy delete nomination, which, on looking at the article, I felt was justified. For me it's not only borderline advertising but it also looks like a commercial venture - see the website's message to potential sponsors: Your tax-deductible contribution helps support a great educational program and puts your firm in good company - and I don't see evidence of notability in the article. Maybe a $10,000 prize is indicative of some level of importance, but then Readers Digest offers people that kind of prize every day. I would have been quite prepared to discuss it, but I don't restore deleted articles just because other people demand that I do. I certainly did not cite lack of references as the reason for deletion; the reason for deletion is clear from the deletion log, but I pointed out to the complainant that he had been advised to include references by User:Astronaut, whom he was quoting as a backer of his comments. As for putting my response on the user page instead of the talk page - well, you'll have noticed that User:Dream Focus doesn't sign with four tildes, so I think that was an excusable error. Deb ( talk) 12:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Sorry if I worded my comment badly - I wasn't trying to imply that any blame attaches to you for putting the comment on the "wrong" page, but simply pointing out where it was in case other editors hadn't been able to find it. Phil Bridger ( talk) 13:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

It was deleted under CSD A7

7. An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

The administrator's reason given was: (Deletion log); 20:58 . . Deb "Venture Capital Investment Competition" (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)

It listing all the notable universities its involved with, should've been a clear indication. Dream Focus 14:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

(Overturn I am not sure the competition is separately notable in the absence of 3rd party references, but this is a question for AfD. Completely invalid A7, since it is not one of the permissible categories, being neither an organization nor a group, but an event. And the deleting admins justification is in part that the website--the website not the article -- was partly promotional. We obviously need to tighten, not loosen, the requirements for speedy --and the attention paid to what admins do. Unlike the deleting nominator, I do restore deleted articles and send to AfD when a plausible case is made in good faith by an established editor (which is rare: most challenges are not plausible in the least). Perhaps we need a rule about that as well. DGG ( talk) 16:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• • As you well know, and as I have said above, I am quite prepared to restore articles and have done so many times, when contributors have made a good case. This is not what happened. Deb ( talk) 17:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AFD per DGG. Looks like there is at least a minimum indication of importance. As he put above, notability is a different thing and can be addressed at AFD. MuZemike 17:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AfD. Let's charitably assume the admin concerned suffered a momentary lapse of judgment.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 23:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I did, in at least one respect - I believed that the "little R" mark indicated a registered company, but it seems it's just a trade mark. Deb ( talk) 11:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

It means a registered trademark. It's harder to own a registered trademark than a registered company, and registered trademarks are rarer.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 21:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This article was speedy'ed by User:Altenmann because "‎G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pentax K-7)" The previous article was entirely speculative, as it was about an unreleased product for which no reliable information existed; however, now that the product is released, there's loads of verifiable, reputable info. I was in the middle of adding reliable information when the article got unceremoniously speedy'ed yesterday. See discussion on Altenmann's talk page. I'd like to request immediate undeletion, as I believe a speedy-delete is inappropriate to this case. Moxfyre ( ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 15:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn as it seems clear that the rationale for deletion no longer applies. Stifle ( talk) 15:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment As a deleting admin, I have nothing against recreation of the article based on "loads of verifiable, reputable info". I deleted the version which was not and which was recreated minutes after its first deletion. I restored it per request in my talk page for work purposes, assuming that the requesting editor will follow cite only reliable sources. - Altenmann >t 15:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

template:nearest tube ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was a non-admin closure marked as no consensus. An examination of the debate indicates that the bulk of the replies are for deletion, along the lines of the nominating rationale; there are only two editors leaving substantial keep comments, neither of which address the points made in the nomination. Seems to be adequate consensus to delete. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

template:nearest tube ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."

There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more, disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects for instance, so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion.

*Very Important - This template, if anything, discourages pages being written as tourist guides as it does not need there to be a section on transport links necessarily. It is a quick visual aid that adds great ease of use and has great value as it enables users to quickly find out information regarding the location of a place within Greater London. It would be a great shame should it be deleted as it improves the ease at which users can access information regarding transport on wikipedia. George5210 ( talk) 13:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse own closure as a reflection of the consensus. This DRV seems like a vexatious request because I amended the non-admin closure, as any admin is permitted to do. Stifle ( talk) 11:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure and advice Erik9 again to only close discussions which are unambiguous keeps. Garion96 (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• I have provided a compelling explanation of why the closure as "delete" was incorrect. To offer, as the sole justification for Stifle's closure, that I, being a non-administrator, shouldn't have previously closed the discussion, is vacuous, and bears little relationship to the matter at hand. When an XFD closure is challenged at deletion review, the closure must stand or fall on its own merits; to impugn the perceived motives of the editor bring the matter to DRV certainly does not serve as a basis to sustain an otherwise indefensible closure. Erik9 ( talk) 23:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• I think that you should only close unambiguous keeps but that was not the reason at all that I endorse Stifle's closure. I endorse Stifle's closure because it was better argumented and a better reading of the consensus at that discussion. Garion96 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Since the administrator closing this deletion review will presumably weigh the strength of the arguments offered here just as much as you and Stifle claim to be doing with respect to the original TFD discussion, your opinion would carry considerably greater weight if you explained why you believe that Stifle's closure "was better argumented and a better reading of the consensus", rather than simply making a conclusory assertion. Ideally, it would be helpful if you could respond discursively to the argument against Stifle's closure that I presented. Erik9 ( talk) 23:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn The delete arguments are not policy. 1/that in London it cant be done just by geocordinates--quite true for almost anywhere, but the template doesn't do it that way, the stations are inserted manually by the editor 2/that it encourage guidebook writing -- just the opposite , it presents appropriate geographic information in a good standardized way 3/that its non-encyclopedic--but the 5 pillars says specifically that wp incorporates elements of a gazetteer, & the examples at NOT are very different from this 4/the icon is not a good choice--just a question of editing. 6/ that it could be done for 100s of other cities also -- yes, and a good thing it would be, too and 7/ (which most of the deletes said, that a better more general template could be used--absolutely true, and when it is, we can retire this one. That's not an argument for deleting what we currently have because we could do it even better. Erik got the right closure--unless one threw out the delete arguments as totally without support in policy and concluded it as Keep, but an non-admin shouldn't have done that Stifle did not do it right. Its entirely the opposite of what he said, he based his decision on exactly those arguments not supported to policy, and did a rough count instead. DGG ( talk) 05:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  And the keep arguments hardly seemed policy based, why just discount or give less weight to the deletes whilst giving full value to the keeps? For a couple of your responses (2) So those commenting believe one thing and you believe something else, don't see how that weakens their argument (3) The 5 pillars may say it incorporates some elements, it doesn't say all elements, so the commenters see what those included elements should be (or how they should be included) differently to you, again I dodn't see how it weakens their argument. (6) Again your view, how does that weaken others comments. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 06:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  Fortunately, we need not entirely discount the arguments favoring deletion to conclude that there was no apparent consensus in either direction, so long as the arguments favoring retention are properly credited. Erik9 ( talk) 22:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  Which fails to answer the question. The issue is why give less weight to the weaker delete arguments whilst giving full weight to the weaker keeps arguments. It also fails to address how the determiniation of those delete arguments being weak seems to be solely on the basis of the individual commenting having a different view on the matter and very little to do with policy as claimed. And yes I know you believe it was no consensus, you don't have to reply to every comment restating it. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 07:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  As an afterthought in circumstances where the closing admin has passed judgement on the arguments in such was as those 3 points, they've found themselves here criticised for closing the debate rather than contributing to it. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 06:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  That's why discussions in which there is no consensus are properly closed as such :) Erik9 ( talk) 22:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

  Which again misses the point. Admins closing discussions reading opinions and discounting them because they personally disagree with them (rather than their being a strong policy basis), is not a reading of consensus, it is the admin giving greater weight to their own point of view. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 07:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. DRV isn't a do-over of the AfD. Stifle's evaluation of the relative weights of the arguments presented in the AfD as it played out is correct. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply