Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is 'something god intended' controversy ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This discussion was closed as delete, with the possibility of merging. I don't think that's the appropriate course of action. Looking at the discussion, people proposing to either keep or merge the article seem to outweigh those arguing for deletion. In order to merge the content, we must preserve the page history by redirecting it. If this is not to be a standalone article, surely it should at least be merged and redirected with the article on the Senate race in question. Everyking ( talk) 22:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

It cannot be assumed that everyone calling for merge would want keep as a second choice. In fact, that is far from the case - many would clearly prefer delete judging by the comments in the debate. Spinning Spark 00:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to merge. There would plenty of editors making a well-founded case against having this as a standalone article. However, I see no arguments against merging this to either the candidate article or the article on the election, and plenty of editors made a good case for such a merge.
  The closure was illogical, because deletion removes the possibility of a valid merge which retains edit history. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Nothing wrong with the admin's conclusion following that discussion. As with most political AfDs, extra scrutiny is needed to weed out the "i like/hate it" crap. There is already mention of the event at Richard_Mourdock#Political_positions, therefore nothing to actually merge. Tarc ( talk) 17:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• A "delete and merge" close; those are sometimes a bit tricky. Technically it can be done, but it puts the onus on someone to preserve attribution because of the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA. Before we go any further, would the closer please confirm that he's performed the necessary history merge?— S Marshall T/ C 18:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• I have not, histmerge is impossible in this case due to overlapping edits and preserving the deleted page title is not appropriate either. The procedure described at WP:PV would need to be adopted, which I will happily carry out on request if an editor indicates that they actually want to merge some of the original material (as opposed to writing something in the article from scratch). Spinning Spark 19:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Well, we need to do something. Do the procedure and I'll merge the content. Everyking ( talk) 21:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • done Spinning Spark 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• As that page is only undeleted for attribution purposes, and the merge is done, shouldn't the page be blanked? Otherwise, it is a pseudo-article. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Agreed and done. Spinning Spark 12:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the close as it is now (i.e. with compliance with the CC-BY-SA/GFDL fixed).— S Marshall T/ C 08:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• FYI The page was moved to Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape and God's will controversy before being deleted. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Negative political advertising. It's sufficient significant to be included in the article on him, but having a separate article on him is excessive weight. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • It should certainly get some attention in the Senate race article. The section on the controversy is awfully short right now. Everyking ( talk) 21:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • I've merged the content into the Senate race article now. Everyking ( talk) 03:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse As the merge has been completed and the close was otherwise sound. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

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

(A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

I am requesting undeletion of Socialworkhelper.com. Although Socialworkhelper.com is an active social network, it also contains a free repository of resources as well as support groups for professionals and students. Additional, Socialworkhelper.com host the only live Social Work Twitter Chat in North America. Additionally, it is the only social network in the social work profession that utilize mobile web 2.0 and mobile app technology to engage users. Most importantly, the technology behind this network was created by a social worker, Deona Hooper, MSW. The relevance is that it's groundbreaking in a profession that has been very conservative in incorporating technology in both policy and practice. In the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0, I authored the Social Work 2.0 section, which any everything to do with Socialworkhelper.com was deleted. Prior to my additions, there were no mentions in Wikipedia as relates to Social Work and Technology. 08:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Userify - The Socialworkhelper.com topic needs to have received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the socialworkhelper.com subject to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article per WP:GNG. I haven't found any and socialworkhelper.com/reviews does not appear to list any Wikipedia reliable sources. Wikipedia:Userfication allows a copy of the deleted article to be place in your user space, such as at User:Dhooper383/Socialworkhelper.com where WP:UP#COPIES will give you about three months or so to work on readying the draft for article space. However, without meeting the requirements of WP:GNG, the user space draft will not be ready for article space and eventually even the draft article in your use space may get deleted. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 09:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Additional Sources -My question is why was there not an opportunity to update instead of direct deletion? Here are two additional sources:

Dhooper383 ( talk) 03:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

reading these, I don't see the network even mentioned in the first, the second a notice from the founder's alumni magazine, which doesn't really count as an independent source, & the third a mere mention DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

References

• The first link is still broken and the second isn't a reliable source. If this is what is out there than the deletion appears to have been well founded and I would oppose giving you false hope by even suggesting this has a shot at making mainspace. Endorse Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I don't see anything in the original article that would have qualified as an assertion of significance and the sources presented above don't demonstrate anything like notability per DGG. We could userfy it, I suppose, but I don't see any prospect at all of getting an article which meets our inclusion criteria. Hut 8.5 21:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Rainbow Dash ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Character is more than notable enough for an article. Has a large fan base, many appearances and volumes of coverage on other sites. I have a new version of the article in my userspace that I intend to use ( User:ResonX/Rainbow Dash). ResonX ( talk) 05:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• I'm struggling here. My first reaction was "well, you're taken the effort to write the article - at least we should allow recreation and a fresh afd" - but I'm not very sure about your sourcing. The bulk of the article has no inline sourcing, and the rest seems to be sourced from a forum and one blog. Is that enough? Hm.-- Scott Mac 19:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Hmm. My inclination is that it is not enough. The original AFD was strongly leaning toward merge, primarily because the only sourcing for notability as a separate character was blogs and fansites. Now we have a proposed new version that is sourced to... blogs and fansites. I'm sorry, but I don't see anything on the new article that particularly shows separate notability for the specific character. So my !vote could be summed up as Endorse status quo.- TexasAndroid ( talk) 21:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• And what's wrong with blogs and fansites? They should be acceptable as sources provided that they're popular enough, and they are clear demonstrations of notability. ResonX ( talk) 21:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Also, if you need me to cite episodes and such for most of the in–universe stuff, I can add that. ResonX ( talk) 21:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• The core issue here is Notability, as defined by Wikipedia. For a reference to help establish Notability, it generally has to meet three points. Independence, Reliability, and Non-trivial. Blogs fail the Reliability part of that. There are (very) limited circumstances where blogs can be a reference, but they generally cannot be used to establish notability. And Notability, or lack of it, specifically notability separate from the show itself, is the issue at the core of the AFD, and thus this DRV. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 21:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Browsing any site on the internet with user–generated content, you're going to run into ponies. These characters have HUGE fan bases that have written volumes about them and made enough art of them to fill museums. Rainbow Dash is the most popular of them all. There is no need for specific sources here, for a simple search will lead one to thousands upon thousands of hits for fan work about these characters. Also, "notability" as defined by Wikipedia is completely backwards and close–minded, and I've joined the site with the express purpose of having that definition changed. ResonX ( talk) 22:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Good luck with that. But until/unless it changes, we have to deal with the definition as it currently stands. And as it stands, you need non-blog articles about the character, or something similar, if you want to show she has notability separate from the show itself. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 22:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• She does. It's in the fandom. Didn't you understand what I just said? There are so many fan works about her, that combined they are all equivalent to several high–importance articles. Also, under the policy that I intend to push through, simply being storied enough would be enough to have an article. ResonX ( talk) 22:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• I agree that this page should be deleted. It doesn't comply with one of Wikipedia's most important article standards: notability. I'm on TexasAndroid's side. - by Kevin12cd... Tell me how I'm doing on my Talkpage! 00:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rainbow Dash is extremely notable. More notable than 90+ percent of fictional characters with pages on this site. Look at the statistics on fan pages devoted to her. How many more will it take to be enough for you people?! ResonX ( talk) 00:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• ResonX, you need to speak more civilly. Even though other articles may drop the NOT, the only reason they have not been deleted is because they have not been discovered yet. It doesn't mean you can drop it, too. - by Kevin12cd... Tell me how I'm doing on my Talkpage! 01:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• I'm sorry, but it's just that you people are really starting to vex me. There are few, if any, fictional characters today with bigger fandoms than the MLP characters. By denying them articles, you're basically saying that fan labor means NOTHING, no matter what the amount, and that only a few high–profile people that you've designated as "reliable" get to decide what matters. And obviously that's not the case. ResonX ( talk) 01:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• NOTE: I've just added a few more references to my article draft, to humor you. ResonX ( talk) 01:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• This seems to be a good faith attempt to create an article in this space, by a good faith user. If ResonX absolutely insists, then he should be allowed to put it in (without prejudice to a subsequent AfD). The material definitely would not survive AfD and I'm certain it would be deleted again in short order, because the sourcing falls so far below our standards. I think it would be better if ResonX didn't insist. But if he does, it's not really DRV's role to stand in his way.— S Marshall T/ C 08:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion "Popular" is not synonymous with "notable", which, as has been explained above, has a highly specific meaning on Wikipedia. Yes, many blogs, forums and fansites discuss Rainbow Dash. However, it does not appear that any reliable, independent sources do so. To take the version of the article currently at User:ResonX/Rainbow Dash, your sources comprise the following:

• My Little Wiki, which fails WP:USERG.
• A Google Trends chart which, for me at least, is blank. That may be a failure of my browser, but nevertheless, even if I could see it it would not sufficiently support the statement in the article which you are using it to source.
• An IMDb page - IMDb is specifically noted at WP:RS and WP:IMDB as an example of an unreliable source.
• Behind the Voice Actors is a fairly trivial mention, but as far as I can tell, might meet the requirements for a reliable third-party source.
• DeviantArt is, once again, user-generated content.
• TV Tropes is editable by members and hence - you guessed it - user-generated, again.
• Ms. Magazine looks like a magazine article, but is actually a blog. WP:NEWSBLOG recommends treating such sources with considerable wariness - Kathleen Richter, whilst a blogger for MS., does not appear to be on their magazine staff, and so I'd consider this source no more reliable than any other blog.
• The Ms. blog rebuttal is written by My Little Pony's executive producer, and is therefore not an independent source.
• Do I even need to explain why ScrewAttack fails the reliable sources guideline?

In all that lot, then, you've provided one source (Behind the Voice Actors) with a couple of sentences on the subject that may meet the guidelines for supporting the topic's notability. Since the general notability guideline requires multiple sources, that's still insufficient to warrant undeleting the page. In short: "...what's wrong with blogs and fansites?" They aren't acceptable as sources here, that's what. Yunshui  雲‍ 水 08:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Permit draft to be moved to article space - The article was redirected in August 2011 as a result of the AfD. The current draft overcomes the reasons for the AfD redirect close. I think with some careful writing using available reliable sources, the topic can get past AfD. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 10:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Current draft doesn't appear to meet our inclusion guidelines as others have shown. I'm having a hard time imagining that sources aren't out there however. [1] has a reasonable mention. [2] also seems to have a little bit. I agree with S Marshall that ideally this would be fixed in user space first. But I'm okay with sending it to article space now as long as the author understands that A) as it stands it will likely be deleted and B) once deleted getting it back again is going to be harder. Hobit ( talk) 15:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Allow move to Article space - I've not changed my basic position, but I'll concede that DRV is not the right place for this discussion. Allow for movement to mainspace of the new draft, but allow/expect an almost immediate new AFD (likely filed by myself) if Reliable Sources are not added before that happens. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 16:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

And... changing back once more to Endorse. With ResonX blocked, and his "I don't care for WP rules" attitude anyway, the chances of his current userspace draft being given proper RS is looking to be slim to none. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - keep as a redirect. Bronies cobbling together a few blogs and other non- reliable sources does not overcome the reason why this thing was deleted in 2011. Yunshui's source analysis above nailed it. Tarc ( talk) 13:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Note ResonX's account is currently blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing; any move to userspace or expectation that the page will be improved there should probably take this fact into account. Yunshui  雲‍ 水 13:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• endorse - while theoretically it seems possible (and even perhaps likely) that reliable sources exist that would cover the topic in a sufficient manner to allow a creditable article, the current user space offering does not overcome the objections raised in the AfD, and I was not able to find any of those reliable sources that might exist somewhere. And this particular user being indeff blocked from even their talk page is not likely to be able to bring it up to standards anytime soon. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

List of DirecTV channels ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This and similar articles, some editors feel serve the encylopedic purposes of academic and other types of research by enabling readers to compare and contrast television offerings by different providers. I believe that no consensus was reached in the discussions, and that too much weight was given to the vaguely-defined and poorly underpinned argument WP:NOTDIR and/or to spurious arguments on the Delete side, while cogent arguments for Keeping were overlooked and/or lumped together with some spurious arguments for Keeping. Also, suggestions to improve sourcing issues seemed to be overlooked.

For a more complete discussion of my concerns, please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination).

Also, though I have not been involved in many AfD disputes, the entire process used here seems odd. A "test case" was done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels. That AfD, dealing with a single article, drew an audience of editors with about 25 !votes, about 19 Deletes and 6 Keeps (no comment on relative strength of arguments). It was closed in 8 days. The AfD subject to this review, the second "test case", drew about 26 !votes, about 15 Deletes and 11 Keeps, more of a balance -- at that point, the 8 day mark, this AfD was relisted, and was open for 15 days.

One AfD instruction seems to hold that only essentially identical articles may be bundled, while another instruction simultaneously holds that similar articles may be. During the second AfD, the nominator stated that s/he wished to AfD all similar articles, but that "as soon as you get past a certain number of related articles, you will get people trying to discredit the entire bundled nom due to the size issue. Handling smaller batches allow judgement if exceptional articles should be kept." Thus, similar AfDs were broken into smaller bits. I have no reason to doubt the nominator's intent, but an easily-anticipated consequence of this bundling style might be to limit the audience for each AfD, since most editors don't seem to look at Village Pump or Project pages, and only seem to get "up in arms" if they notice that one of "their" articles is in danger of deletion.

So we have/had to date Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd bundle of channel lineups, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television stations in New York and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK). Additionally, the "3rd bundle" contains List of channels on RCS&RDS, which had a "no consensus" AfD of its own on 5 June 2012 and Virgin Media Channel Packages, whose AfD was closed as "redirect" on 14 August 2012.

In spite of the comments earlier about allowing judgment for exceptional articles, the NOTDIR argument is cited (by most nominators and Delete !voters) for each bundle in total and additionally cited as justification is that the similar AfDs were successful. So much for evaluating each article on its own merits. Chaswmsday ( talk) 15:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Just as a clarifying comment and not an endorse/overtune, I had originally AFD'd the AT&T list, and stated in that that pretty much all articles in Category:Lists_of_television_channels_by_company had similar problems and ergo this was a test case for further deletion. I then proceeded to start a small batch based on a region, just in case there were parts of these articles worth keeping to give time for arguments to be made and content to be kept. (Unless there's crystal-clear consensus, a 100-article multi-AFD is almost always knocked down on basis of size and complexity, and not necessarily on actual merit for deletion). However, I will point out that VPP had been notified as well as the WP TV project, so it is not isolating the deletions to limit audience size as Chaswmsday suggests.

Note that I did not expect that the AFDs on the New York state or UK Terrestial channels to ever be considered (they are not in the above category). The NOTDIR approach specifically was focused on the business of one carrier, and ergo only to be applied to the carrier lists. -- MASEM ( t) 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

And thus, "give 'em an inch..." crops up. The followup nominators and/or !voters are still citing the same spurious arguments about how all of the articles are exactly the same as an electronic program guide or a TV Guide... -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 16:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

No, no one has said it is "exactly" an EPG. The delete !votes generally say these fail WP:NOTDIR, which like the rest of NOT is not fully inclusive of what WP is NOT. You've mentioned your problem with the vagueness of NOTDIR, but that's not a problem, that's design by purpose. -- MASEM ( t) 16:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus There was no consensus here. You don't automatically delete articles because something you believe similar got deleted. That's not how it works. Dream Focus 17:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • It wasn't just similar, it was the exact same format and style, just with one provider's offering swapped in for the other. -- MASEM ( t) 18:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus Agree with User:Dream Focus and User:Chaswmsday. The topic was closed with no consensus and then swiftly reopened because it would seem some didn't like that result. No consensus was ever achieved. The arguments for deletion mostly revolved around WP:NOTDIR, without ever stating what exactly that meant or how the page 'failed it,' excepting statements along the lines that 'It obviously fits.' Stating unceasingly that something is an electronic programming guide does not make it so. Making arguments along the lines of 'We won the other AfD, so we'll win this one, too' are also unhelpful and create the impression of a zero-sum contest. - Canadian Bobby ( talk) 18:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  Comment Just to clarify your first statement (if I'm reading it correctly), the AfD was in fact erroneously closed as a keep at first, by a non-admin. This was a clearly inappropriate non-admin closure (the discussion was heavily contested by both sides and clearly controversial, thus making it inappropriate for non-admin closure), and that was why the decision was made to relist, not because "some didn't like that result." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 00:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. There was no consensus on this one. We make too many mistakes to go by the precedent of merely a single AfD or even a group of similar articles at the same time. It is at this point equally likely the other ones were the ones in error. Long term consistent decisions at AfD do establish a rough precedent, but even those based on consistency over multiple AfDs for multiple years are subject to challenge. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Arguments for keep were mainly "Its useful" and "I like it", which are prima facie invalid as a standalone rationale. There was a very weak but somewhat valid argument proposed by a few keepers that it aids in organization of the encyclopedia, though little rationale was offered to explain how this is the case. The arguments that the articles would inevitably fall out of date were rebutted by the claim that they are well kept, but those rebuttals miss the point that Wikipedia articles should not be ephemeral in nature, they should be converging toward enduring coverage of a topic. This sort of ephemeral material being inappropriate for an encyclopedia is exactly the reason we have many of the things we have in WP:NOT, which is a core policy. We are an encyclopedia, not a periodical, and our coverage should be of enduring things. I endorse the closure as a reasonable application of policy and proper discount of weak or invalid rationales. Gigs ( talk) 20:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Another case where the local consensus was at odds with the wider community consensus. What the wider community believes is summed up in WP:NOTDIR, and the view that was expressed most succinctly by Postdlf during the discussion we're considering. The local consensus was divided, and although a correct weighting of the !votes after subtracting those that should clearly be disregarded does lean towards "delete", it was probably still within the "no consensus" range. The question for this DRV is whether it should be the local consensus or the wider community view that prevails. Reasonable people might disagree about that. I'm going to endorse on the basis that the close was within Drmies' discretion. I do think that in the circumstances and considering Drmies was closing against the apparent consensus, a much fuller and more complete closing rationale would have been helpful.— S Marshall T/ C 20:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, without question. Per comments by Gigs, 80% of the "Keep" comments were "It's useful" or "I have been using this list for years and years" or "I put a lot of effort into these pages," and did not address any Wikipedia policy concerns at all. WP:NOTDIR is the policy for which the articles were nominated against and for which they were deleted. To say it is against community consensus is absurd. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd bundle of channel lineups (and soon-to-be-deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups), which provide broad evidence that the community stands by WP:NOTDIR on several occasions. I am the nominator of the 3rd bundle and should agree with Masem that the articles in the Lists of television channels by company Category were identical in content and structure, not similar. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 20:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Also the nominator's citing the List of channels on RCS&RDS AfD as "no consensus" is hilarious as one person voted (!!). -- Wikipedical ( talk) 20:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I see no point on evaluating arguments other than to win over. The whole list is too clunky, too inconvenient, and too time-consuming to edit, and I'm glad that it is gone. Now this nominator thinks these pages still have historical potential. Undeleting the whole page and changing decision to "no consensus" would lead to greater disaster than before. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as plainly within reviewing admin's discretion. I agree with previous suggestion that a longer rationale would have been helpful, given the length of the discussion, but that's neither here nor there. Striking previous as I see that the closing admin did indeed supply a rationale at the AfD's talk page. This was a very heavily contested discussion but I think the result is hardly the type of clear miscarriage of Wiki-justice that would justify a DRV overturn. Full disclosure: I voted !delete in this discussion so perhaps my POV is biased and should be disregarded. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 00:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. If you read all the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) not just the votes, you'll see that there was no WP:Consensus to keep or delete. Powergate92 Talk 00:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I would also urge everyone to read the full discussion. Most of the "Keep" voters' arguments can be summarized at WP:USEFUL, WP:EFFORT, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. User:TomCat4680 in particular also focused on WP:NOTPAPER as well. None voting "keep" (and none looking to "overturn") have successfully countered the WP:NOTDIR policy claim. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 01:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, regardless of the numbers, the "keep" votes were not soundly based on policy or guidelines. Notwithstanding straw man mischaracterizations above, the "delete" votes were substantial, and did not merely rely upon the mere fact of the prior AFD but instead upon it having an identical deletion rationale, because these lists were subject to the exact same problem: they were a directory of the cable/satellite TV services provided by individual companies, certainly a reasonable application of WP:NOTDIR. It is unfortunate that a couple editors have so poorly understood that result so as to attempt the deletion of all channel/station lists, but as is clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television stations in New York we don't need to keep the cable provider lists as a bulwark (re: "give an inch" comment above) to ensure that the valid channel lists are safely kept. postdlf ( talk) 13:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. A single argument solidly grounded in policy can trump a much larger number of arguments that have no basis in policy. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 14:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. While I do have a problem with some other editors taking this and the Uverse AFD as a means to nominate articles like the list of New York stations for deletion, that's not a reason to invalidate this one, only to provide clarity on those other AFDs that the same reasoning shouldn't be used. (I specifically was focused on channel lists of specific providers, recognizing that national/state-level media is more an encyclopedic topic than provider channel listings). -- MASEM ( t) 16:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - AfDs are not votes, and if a pile of keeps are 100% without merit, then they ar treated as if they do not exist. Good, bold call for a change. Tarc ( talk) 17:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse AfD closing is much more than a demonstration in counting, no one advocating keep articulated how these articles were not a directory. Mt king ^(edits) 07:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - While it would have been incredibly useful for the closing admin to give a bit more of an explanation for why he felt the consensus was being made, and I think this deletion review is well justified in the context that this was a contentious deletion discussion that was repeatedly relisted due to a lack of consensus, I think the ultimate decision based upon the general discussion was legitimate. It would have been better had some sort of compromise been offered and genuine consensus really was never achieved in the discussion... instead it still broke down into two camps of one trying to delete and the other trying to keep the article. I am endorsing so far as I think the arguments in favor of deletion really did win the day in a battle of arguments. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 14:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment If anyone is curious, the closing admin did offer a rationale subsequent to the actual close on the AfD's talk page, here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 16:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment I'm not sure if, as "nominator", I'm allowed to !vote here. And while I'm not keen on re-litigating the original AfD discussion, I do find that the points I mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) (such as encylopedic purpose and non-provider sourcing) have gone largely unaddressed here -- to wit, the main focus has been on the more spurious (almost straw-man) Keep rationales. On the Delete side, NOTDIR has been parroted ad nauseum -- without really defining what that instruction means.
No, @Masem, contrary to your statement, it has been said that these articles are EPGs. From @Wikipedical's nomination in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups: "they all fail WP:NOTDIR, as they are clearly electronic program guides..."
As for @Wikipedical, I didn't appreciate the tone of your comment, "citing the List of channels on RCS&RDS AfD as "no consensus" is hilarious as one person voted (!!)" I didn't reference those articles as to the quality or lack thereof, of their AfDs, just to the AfD doctrine that articles recently nominated should enjoy a "reasonable" cooling-off period before they're re-nominated.
How would one ever counter a NOTDIR policy claim, as this very "policy" is nebulous and is defined mainly by how many !voters can repeat it.
And I have found that objections to the allegedly invalid OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument are often used as cover for disingenuously maintaining or manufacturing distinctions between ILIKEIT articles and IDONTLIKEIT articles. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 20:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Hi, Chas. I would say that like an electronic program guide, these channel listings are guides and are frequently updated to maintain current listings, which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. While they may not be listing programs, it is close enough to label them as directories and failing the spirit of WP:NOTDIR. I would also ask you to assume good faith. The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments do not hold up against Wikipedia policy, not because I don't like or dislike these articles. I don't think it is constructive to question other editors' motives rather than actions. Thanks. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 20:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Filip Filipi ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

Notable artist and creator of Political and Charity Organisation 28. Jun which raised over $1.5 million of medical supplies to the poor in Kosovo. http://www.hiphopcanada.com/2012/10/music-for-healing-bc-rapper-filip-filipi-raises-1-5-million-article/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.126.39 ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 29 October 2012 This entry was added to the log for 28 October, but since the timestamp is 29 October (UTC), I am moving it. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment about the background to this nomination: There have been numerous attempts over the course of several years to get articles on this subject, under various titles such as Sin (rapper), Filip Filipi, Filip Filipi (Rapper), Sin Sizzerb, Sin (musician). There have also been several articles on closely related articles, such as Sizzerb Inc, Big Mike, Nu Jerzey Devil & Watsman Present: Sizzerb Mixtape Vol. 2 - Sin's City and others. There have been to my knowledge at least three AfD's, all of which closed as "delete". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin (rapper), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin Sizzerb, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin (musician). There have been numerous re-creations of the article under various titles, and numerous re-deletions under speedy deletion criterion G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). The present deletion review is the latest in a long string of attempt to get this article kept by one means or another. The person who created this deletion review entry did not inform any of the administrators involved in any of the AfD closures or other deletions. The deletion of the version of the article named in this review was a G4 deletion by me.

Comment about the claim of notability, and its relation ship to the deletions: The nomination appears to rest its claim of notability on the fact of the subject having set up a charity which raised a lot of money. Since this fact was not mentioned in any version I have seen of the deleted article, it cannot be directly related to any of the deletions. Whether or not there is enough coverage of this one event to provide enough evidence of notability to justify a new article on the subject is another question. JamesBWatson ( talk) 12:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review I decided to restore this particular one, among the others mentioned, since it is the one being appealed, so non admins can see what we are talking about. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and closure based on the three AfD discussions above, solid consensus closures. Since article recreation has proven to be a problem, I suggest salting all of the article names mentioned here. Stuartyeates ( talk) 08:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The Filip Filipi topic has some source information Press & Sun-Bulletin July 11, 2008 (two sentences mention him), Gulf News February 19, 2011 (one sentence), Hollywood Reporter June 23, 2011 (one sentence), Corriere della Sera October 18, 2011 (name mentioned), World News Connection March 26, 2012 (two sentences). Not enough for a stand alone article. In any event, DRV probably would need to see a draft first before allowing creation of an article on the topic given the topic history. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 15:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

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

If one looks at the actual discussion, there is clearly no consensus. The votes are evenly divided between keep and delete votes. Moreover, the closing admin even acknowledges that the strength of each argument is similar. The argument to redirect to United States presidential election, 2012 is very questionable. There are very few votes to redirect. The closing admin uses the argument of that ObamaCare is redirected to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The logic of that redirect seems simple to me. ObamaCare is a common word (now used by supporters, opponents, and is in the general vernacular) for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. If a person wants to find information concerning the use of Romnesia, does one simply think that United States presidential election, 2012 is the same topic? There is a clear and logical consensus that synonyms of the same subject should redirect to one page. THat makes it simple for the reader. However, this isn't the case here. For those reasons, I which to challenge this AfD result. Casprings ( talk) 02:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• . Note I understand that a non-notable topic will be redirected to a subject that covers it in a boarder context. That is not the case here, as the closing admin clearly states that the topic is WP:N.

• Support close by Splash. The first flush of strongly worded (and apparently partisan) keep and delete votes gave way to a clear preference for merge / redirect as tempers cooled. There was considerable diversity as to where it should be redirected to, but a neutral page was picked and seems sane. As for whether ObamaCare is a common word, I don't recall hearing it outside of this AfD debate, YMMV. Stuartyeates ( talk) 02:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment  The review argument seems to be that since all redirects are synonyms, the close was erroneous.  If so, this is a false premise, as Redirects are commonly used for non-notable topics that are covered in the encyclopedia in a broader topic.  Unscintillating ( talk) 06:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

WP:n was adknowledged by the closing admin. Casprings ( talk) 08:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus - A discussion of forty people in which maybe three mention redirection (and for none of who does it really seem like they think that's a good idea) can't be closen as redirect without a super-compelling policy reason. There's no real compelling policy reason either way here - it's a simple content management question being blown out of proportion because of the election. Under any normal circumstances, most of the votes would be along the lines of "Who cares? AfD isn't here to nitpick how to present content." I suspect in three or six months, such questions will have more obvious answers (and the outside influences will be considerably lessened). In the interim, it needs to be accepted there's no consensus and one shouldn't try and force one where there isn't - how to best present recent events will always be tricky, and they become basically impossible when ballot box concerns (or however Americans vote?) outweight encyclopaedic concerns. Wily D 09:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus - in his closing rationale, Administrator Splash writes the following sentence: "However, a number of the keepers do a fair job of defending against claims of neologism (mainly that Wikipedia is clearly not being used to create the phrase itself), and thus have a WP policy basis that has not been successfully challenged, in my judgement" (emphasis mine). Reading through the Afd, one cannot but realize that even though the article is about a Neologism, yet from the 29 editors who ivoted with delete/speedy delete/merge/redirect, none was able to explain how the article violates Wikipedia's Policy on Neologisms (WP:NEO). WP:AFD clearly stipulates that "...when making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". Since the article is about a neologism, it is expected that editors who are for or against the article should mention the content of WP:NEO and then explain how, in their opinion, the article either fulfills or fails WP:NEO. From the delete/speedy delete/merge/redirect ivoters, four mentioned WP:NEO, but all four editors did not explain how the article fails WP:NEO, and all four editors ignored the inclusion criteria found in WP:NEO. If, for instance, we have an Afd about a new band or a musician where notability is not clearly established, experienced editors know that the artist may be notable if s/he fulfills one of the 12 inclusion criteria found in WP:BAND. Unfortunately in the case of the neologism Romnesia, the inclusion critera were ignored in the Afd ( exceptions confirm the rule). Since the closing administrator admits in the closing remark that "...a number of the keepers...have a WP policy basis that has not been successfully challenged", the Redirect should be overturned into No consensus. Amsaim ( talk) 11:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  I think further reliance on WP:NEO, by either keep or delete sides, is probably not useful in terms of this article. Splash - tk 20:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Support close Actually, eleven people suggested redirection, although there were differing suggestions as to the target should be. I was one of them, with the note that I preferred outright deletion. To do a head count (and yes, I realize that head counts are not a substitute for analyzing the rationales of each), there were 19 keeps and 17 deletes, plus eleven who suggested redirection as one of their choices. While I would have chosen a different target, I see nothing wrong with the close, especially noting the thoughtful analysis the closing admin used when looking at the rationales. Horologium (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Counting, a total of five editors bring up the idea of redirection (six bring up merger, although at least one editor lies in both groups). Combing both is pure hookum, as redirect is fundamentally a delete vote (destroy the content, then create a redirect) and merge is fundamentally a keep vote (keep the content, but organise it differently). Wily D 11:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • No, "delete and redirect" is different to merely "redirect" since the former is a stronger AfD outcome, implying that the content was so bad that it should not even remain in the history of a redirect. A simple redirect outcome is somewhere between "delete" and "merge", since the redirect target would probably at least have a nod to the existence of the term, but might not, whereas for a merge you'd expect to recognise parts of the merged article's content in the target. Splash - tk 20:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
      • The content is still available anyways, it's just a bit more of a pain to get. "Redirect" is fundamentally "we shouldn't have this content", while merge is fundamentally "we should have this content". "delete & redirect" is no different from "redirect" Wily D 09:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

*Endorse close You might have guessed that it was the US silly-season again. One side coins a partisan neologism, it unsurprisingly is reported in the media, and certain Wikipedians insist it justifies a standalone article because of x-g-hits. Unfortunately, our processes don't deal well with type of stuff and in the circumstances the closer's assessment is perfectly reasonable (and he's British which give me more confidence). Look, can't we debate this again in a few months - by then we'll be able to assess if this becomes a major election meme (unlikely) or deserves a line somewhere under "2012 partisan spin". Right now, we're not going to get a sane debate let alone a sane response.-- Scott Mac 16:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Support A good compromise close. When there is no consensus about whether to keep or delete and there is a reasonable intermediate proposed, it is open to an admin to do so instead of saying non-consensus, if there is sufficient explanation of why it is in fact a reasonable alternative, and there was. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• I wasn't aware of this discussion and don't have a position on the procedural validity of the close, but it appears that Romnesia redirecting to United States presidential election, 2012 is a poor choice. Since "Romnesia" doesn't appear anywhere on that page, I'm not sure it would even survive RFD. -- BDD ( talk) 19:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Some notes:

• A redirect could be to any number of targets, I chose one that was intended be Obama/Romney neutral, and actionable to avoid vagueness. DRV is not really the place to determine a redirect's target; an article talk page should be used for that.
• Time and tide can alter the final disposition of a page not actually deleted at AfD. Patience may be in order. Splash - tk 20:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Yup, there's been no actual deletion to review. This discussion probably belongs more on the article talk page than here. Trying to get a definite outcome in cases where there really is fundamentally no consensus across the encyclopaedia—as in this case—isn't usually very productive, unfortunately.— S Marshall T/ C 20:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Delete. Mention of the catch phrase would be perfectly appropriate at the Obama campaign article, but same editors that don't want it there, want a big separate article. Makes no sense. Either not Undue there or not notable here. At most, since it was introduced as a campaign strategy late, it will last another 10 days, hence no probability of continuing notability. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 12:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus clearly notability is established in the article. The historical significance of the term 'Romnesia' is established. When the 2012 presidential election will be covered in the future 'Romnesia' will be mentioned and discussed. With coverage of the coining and usage of the term being equally covered on both sides of spectrum of the main parties it is evident that there should be an article from a neutral point of view that informs those coming to Wikipedia to learn about it. 85.170.164.197 ( talk) 13:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Close - The closing administrator seems to have provided an adequate interpretation of the discussion.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 19:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus. Notability was clear, and the closure was improper. Everyking ( talk) 16:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist closing admin admits closing error with notable topic. Deletion discussion did not establish a consensus. Paum89 ( talk) 04:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Errr, no. I don't know where you get that from, but I haven't written anything of the sort and, to avoid confusion, I do not admit a closing error. Any improved reasons, seeing as the page is not deleted? Splash - tk 07:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • • Did you state that the topic was notable, met the WP:GNG, and was sourced to reliable sources? I read that you did. Did you state that the arguments for deletion were weak? Yes, in your first sentence. Did you state that the arguments for notability were strong? Yes. Was your decision out of proportion to the numerics? Yes. Was your decision out of proportion to the strength of the arguments? Yes. If you disagree, please explain why. Paum89 ( talk) 15:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Note that Paum89 reverted your redirect with an edit summary that echos exactly what he said above. I have restored the redirect and come here to weigh in. If this user is flat-out lying, and making controversial edits based on a lie, then that may need admin action to intervene. Tarc ( talk) 14:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Question for Administrator Splash: According to my understanding of Wikipedia's Policies & Notability Guidelines, there are specific policies & guidelines for each individual subject by which editors can determine the notability of the subject and by which editors can determine if a subject deserves an article in Wikipedia. For example, there is WP:MUSICIAN for musicians & bands, WP:ORG for organizations & companies, WP:PEOPLE for living people, WP:BK for books, WP:NF for films, WP:MUSIC for music, WP:TITLE for article titles, and so on. Now, the only policy in Wikipedia on Neologisms is found in WP:NEO. WP:NEO is part of Wikipedia's Content Policy. A policy, as you know, is "...a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow...". You posted this message as a reply to my posting, saying: "I think further reliance on WP:NEO, by either keep or delete sides, is probably not useful in terms of this article". Please help me out here, because with this remark from you as an administrator I'm a bit confused about how Wikipedia's policies should be handled. Am I missing something here? Are you are saying that in order to determine if the neologism Romnesia should have an article in Wikipedia, then the only policy which Wikipedia has that directly addresses neologisms is "...not useful...", and therefore that policy should not be taken into consideration? If the answer to this question is yes, does this also apply to other topics in Wikipedia? If we as editors are to regard WP:NEO as not useful for a neologism article, shouldn't that policy be deleted so as to avoid further confusion? Please clarify this issue for me. Thank you. Amsaim ( talk) 09:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for the question. For the deletes, their attempt to claim authority from NEO had been stopped, in my judgement, by the keepers' argument that Wikipedia is not being used to promulgate the term, thus NEO is not useful to that side of the debate. For the keepers, relying on NEO to say that it should not have been deleted when it hasn't been is not useful, and NEO does not appear to have an opinion on redirects. Therefore, at this stage of proceedings, where we are at DRV, NEO does not seem to be further useful. NEO may be useful in deciding what sort of mention to make in whatever article the redirect points to, though. Such a discussion belongs on some suitable talk page. On your broader question regarding other topics and other policies, no all-encompasing answer can be possible, since each page is carefully treated according to its own circumstances. Splash - tk 18:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The nom and the bulk of the overturns are predictable "I don't like it" claptrap. There is no major error or misjudgement in the closer's decision. You don't get to overturn because of simple disagreement. Tarc ( talk) 14:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Anonymous209.6 Arzel ( talk) 15:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Looks like a decent reading of consensus and strength of argument to me. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Question since when did Articles for Deletion become Articles for Redirection? Either an article merits remaining in place or else it is deleted. Why is this article being redirected as a result of an AfD? 85.170.164.197 ( talk) 19:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Answer someone should probably read the first paragraph of the AfD process page: Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Then the page may be kept, merged or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy.. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

If one looks as Reasons for deletion not one of the reasons enumerated suits a decision for deletion of this article (or redirection for that matter). Again, there was zero consensus in the AfD for deletion or redirection. 85.170.164.197 ( talk) 19:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

If one looks, one sees "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Seriously, I've laughed in real-life at your comment. What you wrote is laughable. 85.170.164.197 ( talk) 19:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Thankyouverymuch. I am here every Thursday Friday and Saturday night with shows a 6, 8 and 10. Don't forget to tip your waitsatff. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

adore this response. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 20:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to non-consensus. Valid arguments were made on both sides but i don't see that the delete position was overwhelming or compelling. Insomesia ( talk) 03:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to non-consensus No compelling reason with majority to delete, arguments were presented for several options and keep seems feels reasonable. Cluetrainwoowoo ( talk) 09:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Excellent close. Really, top stuff. A thorough and correct reading of the discussion, and a sensible exercise of discretion to reflect it. If "Romnesia" gets lasting coverage, then the consensus would no longer apply and an article may be warranted. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 09:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep Sourcing clearly rises to meeting WP:N. Arguments for deletion are pretty much "it's a short-lived meme" which doesn't rise to a policy-based argument ( WP:EVENT doesn't apply, WP:NNN was found by the closer not to apply, while WP:NTEMP does). The analogy to Obamacare is on the surface somewhat compelling, but it is a false analogy as there is a very clear redirect target that literally discusses the same thing that phrase refers to (and WP:OTHERSTUFF may apply in any case). I'm also seeing 32 uses of the phrase in Google news in the last 24 hours and have no doubt at all this phrase will see analysis post-election in reliable sources (and if Romney wins it will see continued use in response to his actions). So we have pretty massive sustained coverage and no reason to believe it will stop (at 32 articles per day it could drop a LOT and still see use once/week a year from now). I agree the keep arguments weren't great (at least one was a personal attack), but when a topic clearly meets WP:N there just isn't much a keep voter can do. Hobit ( talk) 13:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oh, I do applaud the closer for a clear and well-written close. I disagree with it pretty strongly, but it is exactly what a good close of a difficult topic should look like. Hobit ( talk) 13:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close - reasonable decision, well-justified by closing arguments, within the bounds of administrator discretion. Robofish ( talk) 13:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The closing admin does not state the topic is notable in the close (not sure where Casprings got that from), and has not advanced any argument of their own (i.e no supervote). The careful weighing up of the different arguments according to policy and guidelines is what we want admins to do. Good close. IRWolfie- ( talk) 16:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close per DGG and the very reasonable rationale that Splash attached to his decision. Splash is entirely correct that there was no consensus for deletion, and his evaluation of the issues at hand to make an editorial decision to redirect were based on sound policy and common sense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close. Although I recommended deletion of this article, the closing admin's decision to redirect was a reasonable way to resolve the discussion. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There really ought to be a standing WP:NOTNEWS rule that these campaign outbursts don't get articles until a year or two after the election, but in any case the decision to point this back into the election article is a perfectly reasonable resolution. Mangoe ( talk) 18:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Operation Tight Screw ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was closed as keep, however those who voted keep did not give a single reference to back their claims that this is an ongoing military operation. Quite simply it is not, it was announced and then dropped. It is neither ongoing or is about to begin. Pakistan's interior minister has said this is not going to happen [3] background on it and “This is the most delayed campaign in the history of modern warfare.” Most recent report from just four days ago Earlier this year, around the time of Eidul Fitr, speculation was rife that Operation Tight Screw – the code name of Pakistan’s so-called planned offensive in North Waziristan – would commence soon after the holidays. Now another Eid is upon us, but no military operation in North Waziristan is on the horizon I asked the closer how he came to the keep conclusion and he believes there is a consensus to keep. I disagree as this operation has not actually happened. Darkness Shines ( talk) 17:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Darkness Shines ( talk) 17:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment- It was a non-admin close, just re-open the damn thing. Umbralcorax ( talk) 18:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Fair reading of the discussion. Feel free to find any admin to re-close. Conside my advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment  Here is the state of the article at the time of the AfD closure.  Unscintillating ( talk) 06:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but suggest a merger to War in North-West Pakistan is more appropriate as an outcome. Mangoe ( talk) 16:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There was strong consensus to keep, and the basic deletion reason, "Not actually happened" , was not a reason for deletion--if a political or military proposal is substantially discussed in RSs, it meets the standard. I'd be glad to reclose on that basis as an admin. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Note: The source in the article saying that it is an ongoing operation was removed after filing this DRV. -- SMS ^Talk 19:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Ernst-Wiggo Sandbakk ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I want to contest the delition of Ernst-Wiggo Sandbakk. This Norwegian drummer is really one of the notable drummers in Norway. He has played a series conserts, festival performances and records, with musicians like Thorgeir Stubø, Frode Alnæs, Palle Mikkelborg, Art van Damme, Asmund Bjørken, Terje Bjørklund, Bjørn Alterhaug, Nils Petter Molvær, Knut Riisnæs, John Pål Inderberg, Henning Sommerro and Hans Rotmo. ^{[1] [2]} These references are serious sources of Information: Norsk Jazzarkiv/Juli 2005, wich is based on information at The Norwegian Jazz Forum and University profile at NTNU. Actually I thought the deletion propsal was a joke and forgot about it. "Mentoz86" have been bullying me at no:wiki, and I don't want to dicuss or accsept him deleting my work! Best wishes Knuand ( talk) 12:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Did you ask the closer? Would you like this relisted so that you can respond seriously? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment  Where is the discussion with the closing admin?  Unscintillating ( talk) 07:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I notified him, see User_talk:Beeblebrox#Ernst-Wiggo_Sandbakk. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 08:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Sandbakk was/is a member of a notable band, he has collaborated with multiple notable Norwegian jazz personalities as a sideman, and is known as a jazz popularizer in Norway (director of the Trondheim Jazz Festival). The article is in good shape, well referenced. It is possible to find out more about him: [4], [5] for example. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 09:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - DRV is not AfD round two, and the discussion and the closure was after the book. Even though I failed to deliever a message to the OP about taking this article to AfD, he commented on the AfD and later edited the article a couple of times during the three weeks the discussion was open, so he had plenty of time to participate in the deletion discussion. I think the OP should learn to respect the outcome of AfD in general, instead of recreating the article and opening a DRV when he disagree with consensus, just like he did the last time one of "his" articles was deleted. As a sidenote: When my name is mentioned specifically in an discussion like this, I feel that I should have a message on my talk-page (just like the closing admin), but the OP failed to notify any of us. That I have been "bullying" or "campaigning" against Knuand has previously been discussed at ANI. Mentoz86 ( talk) 10:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

@User:Knuand, @User:Mentoz86: We should focus on debating the subject and its notability, not individual editors. Please, put your personal disagreements aside and focus on the subject. I think this DRV is justified, as the initial AfD had two !votes to 'delete' ( User:Mentoz86 (nominator) and User:Batard0) + two users contesting deletion ( User:Bondegezou and User:Knuand, who did it rather indirectly and now continues here). Please, let others comment on this. Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 11:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I agree that this DRV is justified, but I disagree that we should debate the subject and its notability, as that should be discussed in an AfD, while DRV is for discussing if anything was done wrong with the AfD and the closure. Mentoz86 ( talk) 12:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - DRV is not AfD round two. None of the specific concerns of the delete !voters was addressed (in particular the concern no"reliable sources independent of subject" was never countered) giving them considerable weight. Stuartyeates ( talk) 17:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Endorse own close (I would note for the record that I was not afforded a chance to respond to questions on my talk page before this was brought here.) It was not my job to form my own opinion but rather to evaluate the arguments for keeping and deleting. If the person challenging that outcome did not wish to see the article deleted, they should have at least said so at the AFD. Thay participated in the form of asking why the person was not notable but offered no argument to keep the article. The only comment directed toward keeping the article was based on the fact that he has an article on another project, which is not a valid argument, and that he was a member of a notable band, which is not in and of itself sufficient. If there were other arguments that could have been made AFD was the time and place to make them, not here. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment At the moment the article is not deleted, because a re-creation at G4 was declined, presumably on the grounds that this version has additional information that might reasonably show notability. I could restore the deleted version, but it seems more reasonable to discuss what should be done on the basis of the present version, which is a little fuller in several respects. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Wait, what? Ok, I had assumed it had been restored for discussion here, as is normal. If it was recreated from scratch and improved then why are we even having this discussion at all? The users wishing to challenge the AFd close need to decide what it is they want. Do they want the previous version restored based on the idea that the AFD was improperly closed, or do they wish to see the new and apparently improved version retained? Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment  This is a pointless discussion.  It is a review of an article that has been deleted, and no one wants it restored.  There is a newer article that one editor wants to bring to DRV, but because of the confounding DRV nomination, this discussion is obfuscated, both on the closing admins talk page and here in the current DRV discussion.  There is a simple path forward, close this DRV with no prejudice to a speedy AfD nomination of the new article.  One of two things will happen, either someone wants to nominate it and will do so, or no one wants to nominate it.  Add that the DRV nominator should be reminded in the closing that Wikipedia is a community effort.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

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

Article was deleted about 2 years ago, but Toby "Tobuscus" Turner could be relevant now with his appearance in Smiley and overall 5,2 million subsribers on YouTube. Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 00:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply

The article could indeed have become relevant. The problem is that this article is, perhaps, only a stub. Then a restoration would not be worthwhile. Would be a sysop so kind to send Lukas or me the deleted article via E-Mail? Besides the article is protected against creation. Regards, Vogone ( talk) 00:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• I think the article should be kept in this version. His appearance in Smiley is crucial. Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 00:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep Deleted this has been deleted many many times already because no sources have been provided, no new sources have been provided yet again, so the notability remains unchanged. Please create a properly sourced draft first.-- JacktheHarry ( talk) 15:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep Deleted for now. If a well sourced user-space draft can be presented as a proper version of the article, then it'll have a chance. Until then, it should stay deleted in it's many, many unsourced forms. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 14:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted I see no hope of sourcing the current content. Mangoe ( talk) 16:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright_and_legal_threats Nobody Ent 11:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

List of unreleased Brandy Norwood songs ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Although I personally think these articles should exist, no significance to keep this article as a standalone. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unreleased_Lana_Del_Rey_songs_(2nd_nomination). This article contains mostly BMI/ASCAP registers and very few news articles. TV ( talk) 18:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

This has been discussed before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unreleased Brandy Norwood songs). As mentioned back then: "The article is sourced and absolutely similar to the list of unreleased Britney Spears songs or the list of unreleased Michael Jackson material, both of who are featured WP lists. Otherwise, those would have to be deleted, too???" - Noboyo ( talk) 21:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I made similar claims with another article but this is not significant enough to keep the article. This article lacks reliable 3rd party sources. I don't see sufficent sources such as Huffington Post, Entertainment Weekly, etc. talking about unreleased material. This article is full of ASCAP/BMI entries. -- TV ( talk) 19:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't get the point. Why is Huffington Post, Entertainment Weekly, etc. more reliable than ASCAP and BMI where all songs are listed? Just because an author mentions it in an article? Kinda abstruse, I think. - Noboyo ( talk) 21:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I completely agree with you. However, per Wikipedia, this article is not acceptable. To sum it up, there needs to be various independent articles talking about Norwood's unreleased discography as a set. -- TV ( talk) 21:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• The last nomination was closed as no consensus over a year ago. This discussion needs to be at AFD so why don't you just renominate the article and have that discussion. DRV hardly ever overturns a NC close and certainly won't do so for an article that is clearly ripe for relisting anyway. Just do it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The discussion was overwhelmingly tending to keep -- and in jumps an admin who thinks his views count for more than those of the rest of the community. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I corrected his error. He probably didn't look at the page history, and didn't know that it was the topic of a community discussion. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

You didn't quite - it needs an admin to extract and restore the category description. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 09:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

For ease, here was my deletion rationale:

speedily deleted under WP:CSD G10 "attack/disparage" (with a bit of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND thrown in) I've no involvement in the current Malleus Fatuorum/Arbcom dispute. I can see many good people were outraged by stupid JClemens "not a Wikipedian" remark. But creating categories to attack an editor for a remark he made isn't how we do things. We AREWikipedians that means we discuss things together, and we use proper mature methods to do this. We don't tar and feather people (and I think that exactly the reason people rightly objected to JClemens' remark). We don't engage in puerile [[WP:BATTLEGROUND| battle ground tactics]] - we don't monumentalise the folly of others. Where would it end? Do we end up with "Category:Wikipedians who are fuckers" in protest at things Malleus has said? Please, step back and cool down everyone. When we have a dispute, and real Wikipedians try to use discussion and dispute resolution methods to, well, like "resolve" the dispute, not stunts and protests to ramp it up. Take this to deletion review if you must, but ask yourself how you are helping Wikipedia. Your valid point/protest has now been made."

The tagline to the category at the time of deletion was "In protest, referencing a comment by an ArbCom member"

The "discussion" was simply part of the same battleground, and not based on policy. Anyway, if DRV thinks I've done the wrong thing, then I give up.-- Scott Mac 09:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. The Speedy Deletion was out-of-process for two reasons:
  1. The category had already been nominated for CSD:G10 and declined by User:LadyofShalott before it was taken to CfD.
  2. Speedy deletion is only for obviously uncontroversial cases, and this is clearly not one of them.

The deleting admin's reasoning was honorable, but his action was technically incorrect. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 09:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Do we now do "technically incorrect" > honorable and useful? Anyway, I don't think it was technically incorrect. But if you think undeletion helps here, whatever. -- Scott Mac 09:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Boing, are you honestly arguing this _isn't_ an attack? Your argument here is about process (something I'm a huge fan of in fact), but not about the meat of the matter. Could you explain the purpose of the category if it's not just an attack page? Hobit ( talk) 12:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

If I was arguing that it isn't an attack, I would have argued that it isn't an attack - but as I didn't, you should be able to work out for yourself that I'm not. My argument is that this was a "supervote" abuse of admin power against a clear majority of the !votes so far, in the midst of a furore over perceived abuse of power - and that was pretty much guaranteed to cause a shitstorm. The point is that it is not blatantly and uncontroversially an attack and therefore is not subject to CSD:G10, and the community should not have its power to decide for itself taken away. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 13:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Again, it singled out one person's (widely disparaged - and rightly retracted) remarks, and served to invite people to participate in memorialising them. If that's not an attack, and attempt to disparage or a battleground tactic, can you explain what purpose it served? I keep pressing this, but get only evasion. I'm not trying to "badger" you, but the answer to this is at the root of it. If there's were a valid policy-based alternative purpose for this being articulated, then speedy deletion would indeed be inappropriate. But is there? What is yours? The reason you gave at the CFD "*Keep. If the definition is good enough for a serving member of ArbCom, then it's fucking good enough for me" seemed to be further disparagement and not at all policy based. -- Scott Mac 13:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

As I have pointed out several times, whether it is an attack is not the issue here - as it was clearly not uncontroversial, that is something that should be discussed and decided by the community on the CfD page, and by you personally with your speedy deletion. Your continuing to argue your personal opinion about the category is just reinforcing the point that you did not act as a disinterested admin, and I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the limits of your powers as an admin. If you do not understand that point, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to try to explain it again. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 13:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

If you aren't willing to argue it's not an attack, you really shouldn't be using process to try to keep it around seems unwise (changed wording as it was much more confrontational than I'd meant). Much like a BLP violation, purely process-based arguments should be used very carefully with respect to things that are attacks. Thus my endorse. I don't mean to pick on you, I just know you are a really reasonable person so you're the best person to discuss this with IMO... I'll duck out of this discussion at this point and let you have the last word here if you want it. If you'd like to discuss further, feel free to do so on my talk page. Hobit ( talk) 13:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Hobit, I would be happy to discuss the category in the deletion discussion, but I was denied that opportunity by an incorrect admin action. That action should be reversed, and the discussion that was closed should be allowed to resume - and the consensus should be judged by an admin who is capable of doing so neutrally. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 14:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

"Honorable and useful" is not a valid Speedy Deletion reason. Further, your responses indicate you are not acting as a disinterested admin here, and are effectively supervoting. As I said, I believe your actions were honorable, just incorrect, and I really think you should stop badgering now and just leave DRV to do its job. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 09:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - per Boing!'s points - Sitush ( talk) 09:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - per the technically correct points made by Boing! (Also, in comment, I note that the cat was deleted on the grounds that it represented the actions of Wikipedians who are not "real Wikipedians", thus proving the usefulness and validity of the category in the first place.) Keristrasza ( talk) 10:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Ignore all rules, keep it deleted and just stop. Go back to working on the encyclopedia, instead of worrying about this category created so Wikipedia has another martyr that divides the community on a hot button issue. What is the point in it being re-created? Potential collaboration of spiteful editors? You also do realize categories still work whether they are blue or red, right? So, instead of being adults and moving past what Jclemens said (despite how wrong you may think it was), we are going to resort to petty name-calling, creating categories for the sole purpose of harping on his comments, have Wikipedia disrupted first through categories for deletion, and now deletion review, only to be brought back to CFD later? Just stop, let it die, for the sake of the time users are going to be wasting on this stupidity. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 10:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  Red and blue categories don't work the same - you can't have a category description if the category itself doesn't exist. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 12:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  Because no one knows what this mysterious category is about, right? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  Why is it that everybody I try to talk to these days seems to argue against what I haven't said? Oh, wait a minute - could it be because my statement was irrefutably correct? -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 12:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  You implied that the category needed a description, which is the only difference between it being red and it being blue. My point is that everyone who has been sent the link to the category and everyone else who added themselves knows precisely what the category is about. Not only that, but the original "description" was that it was created "in protest." Does this need more explaining? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  Bit of a snarky response there from me - I apologise. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 13:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  The description could have been amended without deletion of the category. The CSD was overkill and an abuse of G10: it isn't as if the subject of the category was/is not being discussed elsewhere. I understand the rationale for using G10 but, well, it was just asking for trouble, wasn't it? Comment at CfD, by all means, but don't be heavy-handed when you are aware that there is a huge furore regarding the underlying issue. - Sitush ( talk) 14:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  That's alright, Boing!. Like Sitush is saying, I think, if the description is amended so that it is not an attack on Jclemens on the category page, I have no problem with it personally. However the "in protest" language makes it very much an attack page on him, and it probably should be avoided at all costs, otherwise the precedent could be made to start other categories for whatever one Wikipedian says, which very much should be discouraged. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Close by administrative fiat against overwhelming consensus to keep. Joefromrandb ( talk) 10:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - per Boing!'s points. Send it back to CfD if then so inclined and let the discussion run to its end. -- Beetstra (public) ( Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} on public computers) 10:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Mostly per Boing, with a note that the "attack"-iness of the category has been disputed by numerous editors at the CFD. As Boing said, clearly not uncontroversial. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Per Boing and overwhelming consensus to keep. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 11:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Incredible assumption of bad faith when ignoring the consensus. No where is Jclemens listed, nor in any way does this category require someone have an opinion of him in order to join, so the deletion rationale is inherently flawed. There is no "attack" in someone feeling disenfranchised even while they continue to participate, and this category doesn't differentiate the reason for the disenfranchisement. Too much assumption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • As a matter of correcting fact, the category description at the time of deletion was "In protest, referencing a comment by an ArbCom member". Assume what you will from that.-- Scott Mac 12:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Scott, I've already said that I don't mind the description being tweaked, and if that diff is left out, that's fine too: it will be a mysterious category only for the in-crowd. Drmies ( talk) 18:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse It's a clear attack IMO, no if ands or buts. A very justified attack, but Scott is right here. I'm a huge fan of process, but let the ArbCom election be the process to address this, not sniping like this. Please folks, put down the stick. Hobit ( talk) 12:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Not often do I find myself in agreement with Scott MacDonald, but Hobit is exactly correct. With all due respect, Dennis Brown's ABF claim has zero basis in reality. As Scott pointed out, the description at the time of the deletion leaves no doubt that the (quite unwise) comment by Jclemens was the focus of this category. T. Canens ( talk) 13:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment: What I'm looking at here is the definition of G10 from WP:CSD#G10: "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose." I don't think this was justified under that criterion. It's the "and serve no other purpose" bit that bothers me: the first thing I thought of was that this category was pro-Malleus, not contra-Jclemens. This does have another purpose: to show solidarity with another editor. I'm not !voting myself, because there's been entirely too much drama over this already; I didn't feel strongly enough about it to put myself in the cat to begin with, and I don't feel strongly enough about it now to vote overturn. But it does appear to me that the G10 is out-of-process (not so important), and given that the discussion was tending towards keep before, the sudden shift in burden of proof from deleters to keepers unfairly changed the dynamic of the discussion (more important). Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 13:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse After all, a lot of the people calling for an overturn have made it clear that they aren't Wikipedians (you determine if I was being serious or not). Why should their opinion mean anything, especially while they are all acting like children? For those of you who have threatened to leave, do you actually have the guts to follow through and do it or are going to stay here and continue with your battleground-mentality disruptiveness? Automatic Strikeout 13:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Being an admin doesn't gives you the right to do whatever you want. This decision was completely different from the consensus. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, it does. Otherwise, how do you explain Floq blocking an arbitrator for a personal opinion or Drmies giving Malleus a barnstar for making personal attacks? Automatic Strikeout 13:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I deleted this as an attack. I'm not arguing that was a consensus position, however, the "debate" on the CFD did not contain one policy-based reason not to view it as an attack. Typical of it was Boing!'s ""*Keep. If the definition is good enough for a serving member of ArbCom, then it's fucking good enough for me". That's not a valid argument on Wikipedia - and we don't count votes as consensus. Anyway, I wasn't summing up consensus on that "debate", I was speedy deleting an attack/disparage, because we always delete attack/disparage items. Had there been a serious, non-battleground, argument for keeping it going on, then I would not have speedy deleted it. Can someone give me a use for this that doesn't relate to attack, disparage or battleground? I've been asking that without reply. Oh, btw, I'd have deleted an anti-Malleus cat just as quickly.-- Scott Mac 14:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Of course there were policy-based reasons at the CfD when you deleted. Most obviously, this was that contributors self-categorise on numerous bases and thus there is precedent. You should have raised your points at that CfD, not used a hammer in an out-of-process manner, imo. - Sitush ( talk) 14:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Speedy deleting attack pages is not out of process. The question is, is it an attack or attempt to disparage - or does it serve some other purpose? No one, as yet, has suggested any other purpose.-- Scott Mac 14:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

By the way, in case anyone hasn't understood why I used the word "fucking" in my comment, it was to ensure that I qualified for the category. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 14:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)Solidarity and support of an editor, and sympathy for the perceived abuses inflicted on him, perhaps? This ain't a zero-sum game; supporting the one does not mean attacking the other. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 14:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, indeed, This was mentioned at CfD prior to the CSD. - Sitush ( talk) 14:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, except it wasn't Category:Users who want to cuddle Malleus - it was users who want to keep banging on about a remark JClemen's made (and retracted). The rationale, was indeed, quite explicit.-- Scott Mac 14:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I for one have never wanted to cuddle Malleus. But I remain disgusted at both the direction that "request for clarification" took, so speedily, AND JClemens obscene remark. Yes it was retracted, partially and grudgingly, and far too late.  pablo 14:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Scott, I provided policy based rationales for every action. I'm not a member of the category, I haven't gone on strike, I'm not "one of them", I'm just another administrator here who has been trying to bridge the two sides rather than point fingers. You might not agree with my rationale, but they are policy based, that editors are allowed to categorize themselves by religion, political philosophy, etc. My observations are not so easily dismissed. If it was affecting their article contributions (the reason we ARE here) then it would be arguable as a disruptive influence, but short of that, it is a form of censorship. This is a volunteer project, not their day jobs, and the intolerance for free expression by people who deeply care about the project is disturbing. The only disruption that has come out of the category was the deletion discussion and your hasty decision to speedy delete it. Had people left it alone, no drama would have come of it. The core of the current drama is an intolerance of a few in allowing editors to peacefully categorize themselves. I don't have to agree with their philosophy to respect their right to do this. Again, no disruption has come from this except by its detractors. This is no different than a category "People who think Wikipedia needs administrative change", except it isn't sugar coated. It also isn't an attack on any individual, no matter how poorly worded the original summary was, and no matter who was the "straw that broke the camel's back". The one comment isn't the only common concern expressed by the members of the cat. This smacks of censorship, and I find that offensive, much more so than a peaceful grouping of individuals that share a common concern over the direction Wikipedia is headed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I don't think we're on the same planet. Peaceful?? There ought to be calm discussion about MF, and JClemens and arbcom - absolutely. No view gets censored. I don't even know what mine are. But what this was was a battleground tactic from people determined to ramp up the debate and the attendant vitriol, rather than to seek resolution of the disputes. The same was evidenced at the CFD. It may be, with hindsight, I should have ignored it (that's a valid point) but to say I caused drama when people were peacefully over there doing something undramatic and peaceful.....? Hey, ho. Oh, byw, how will restoring it serve to keep the peace either?-- Scott Mac 15:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Scott Mac, I didn't think a category would solve any dispute--I'm not that dumb (yet). But I certainly didn't seek all this, battleground and vitriol and all. Those who disagree with its very existence can always turne over the leef, and chese another tale. In much the same way that I'll simply disregard your use of the word "puerile". Drmies ( talk) 18:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Not sure how the "planet" rhetoric is beneficial to the conversation, but the act of creating or joining a category is a peaceful act. Even this discussion has been relatively peaceful, in spite of how disruptive it is. Talking about a problem that many people agree or disagree about isn't "unpeaceful". Insisting that people who agree on an opinion can't identify with each other in a formal way, ie a :cat, isn't peaceful, it is force. Again, I don't belong to the group, but it seems everyone is so blinded by their opinion of Malleus, that they can't see the forest through the trees here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment Well, congratulations to Rob & Scott - what was a fairly peaceful protest is now a fully-fledged draaahhhhma publicised at even more venues.  pablo 13:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist - I was the admin who initially declined the G10 nomination because I don't believe it is an attack. I think BoingSaidZebedee nailed it on the head that this was closed with an out-of-process supervote. The discussion should be allowed to continue. Ladyof Shalott 14:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist SM's out-of-process closure disrupted the community's discussion, which should continue. I created a similar category, for Category:Wikipedians who are a net negative as an influence on Wikipedia. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • That's useful, mature, conciliatory, and assists in building consensus and defusing heated community debates. Thanks.-- Scott Mac 15:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Scott, Sarcasm and name-calling don't advance conversations. Why do you keep saying that the JClemens-inspired category (or the new AGK-inspiration) increases heat or is a battlefield tactic? A show of solidarity (which strikes many as humorous) causes no threat to anything. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Another administrator has deleted the page, again speedily, as an "attack page", despite that description being contested here. Again, another administrator out-voting the community, and misusing speedy deletion. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
        • • But another Paladin, Buck, has nominated it for discussion. I've suggested that the community apply its decision in this category to that category. Buck disagrees, in triplicate. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I'm not really concerned whether this category gets deleted, renamed, or not. Would like to point out, however, that this category meets a long-held sentiment of mine, à la Groucho's quip of not wishing to belong to a club that would have him as a member ( proof of me having held this sentiment almost 4 years ago). Sure, I added myself to the category out of solidarity with Malleus Fatuorum, but that's not the only reason, and I might have added myself without knowing about the Arb-kerfluffle too. --- Sluzzelin talk 15:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist Speedy deletions of material up for discussion at XfD is sometimes justified - usually as an instance of IAR. However, as explained above, those are the exception and not the rule. This closure has already produced more heat than light - and therefore shown that IAR was not appropriate here. Since the category was ineligible for speedy deletion apart from IAR, the decision becomes "overturn and relist." -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 17:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• If there was ever a discussion that reminded me why I'm glad I handed in my bit, this is it. Revolting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Suggestion: Perhaps instead of a category, a userbox could be used to identify editors who share a specific view about the Wikipedia community? I believe whimsically-named userboxes have a long tradition, and that there is generally a relaxed attitude towards their naming. isaacl ( talk) 17:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Wikipedians are encouraged to be bold, but not with their administrative tools. This is why. I know Malleus is making a lot of Wikipedians tired at the moment (and, no doubt, vice versa); I know that boundaries are being tested, and so are the limits of the community's patience. But unilateral administrative actions don't reduce the drama level. Ever. This is a rule, henceforth to be known as Marshall's Law.— S Marshall T/ C 18:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Its an attack category - being used to continue to bring attention to, and so deride and demean the original commenter to a poorly made and considered my many/almost all to be attacking comment made by a living person and then retracted. IAR is a fine close for such a creation. I support Malleus and his content work here and I have commented negatively about Clemens in regards to his comment but the election is the place to deal with these things - Clemens is finish in authority here and will not stand as he knows he has no support anymore - so forget him - Malleus is under no threat of much at all in the Arbitration motion - creating this cat is too reactive, its basically over already. Youreally can 18:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Rob - your ill-thought-out deletion rationale and attendant badgering have done more to increase the drama levels here than any other user's action. Pipe down.  pablo 21:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

No, we won't "forget him", lest the arb who takes his seat act in a similar manner. Joefromrandb ( talk) 19:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per all above. The revolution MUST be televised!. We are the Loyal opposition. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I appreciate the kumbaya implied in Scott Mac's rationale, and I mean that sincerely. But I do not believe this deletion was done properly, for reasons outlined above, by Boing for starters and then by others. I see now that the description I added to the category, at least its phrasing, wasn't very helpful--but that entire Clarification Request wasn't very helpful, unless its purpose was to cause more division. If anything should be speedily dealt with, it's that. But the description can be edited; maybe it is already. Jclemens's comment was an immediate cause, of course, but the more important thing (for me, anyway) is that baiters can easily turn anything done by one editor into an ArbCom matter--and let other things slide. Jclemens wasn't the only one who said some pretty horrible things, and it's the general attitude, where an editor gets singled out and pounced upon, that creates the camps where in the end one camp can claim proper Wikipedianess and deny it to the other camp. And there really weren't camps to begin with. The category name is of course based on that now-retracted claim, so maybe the one shouldn't exist while the other is detracted--one could argue that, in a deletion discussion. (I don't agree, but that's something that someone could argue). This, this discussion and the conflicts that gave rise to it, will continue of course until the underlying matter is dealt with, and I for one still feel uneasy about even showing up here and doing various other household duties. Drmies ( talk) 18:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, but if (in reference to Malleus Fatorum's jibe) I created Category:Wikipedians who are fucking cunts and then argued it was really about supporting people who felt demeaned and insulted by vested contributors who (they felt) were allowed to ignore civility with impunity because of their prolific contributions, shouldn't it be speedily deleted as trolling (at least)? Or would that be acceptable? (PS not going to do it, before someone shouts POINT)-- Scott Mac 21:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• • Nobody has raised any objection to your starting a category for yourself and for anybody who wants to identify as a fucking cunt, the way that some of us have identified with Malleus as net minuses or not a Wikipedian. The community should tolerate self-identification. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Interesting scenario. I'm not sure which CSD category would be appropriate, but it could well be considered eligible for G3, vandalism. However, should it have been nominated and the speedy deletion declined by an admin, and had it then been taken to CfD and a clear majority in favour of keeping it was developing, then no, it would not be acceptable for another admin to exercise a supervote and speedy delete it regardless. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 21:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
      • The fact you think that's a question at all is the problem. I was offering Reductio ad absurdum, and you've failed to notice the absurdity. Had a created such a category it should be killed with a stick, and I should probably be blocked for trolling and disruption. Justifying breaches of a clear Wikipedian civility ethos by extraneous wikilawyring is precisely what Wikipedia is not about.-- Scott Mac 21:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

        Obviously, I did not think that your starting a category "fucking cunts" was a question. Rather I thought your action entirely appropriate, for reasons that cannot be said on Wikipedia. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

        • Well, if it was the obvious uncontroversial speedy that you suggest, then it would have been speedy deleted without being declined by an admin, wouldn't it? And it wouldn't have gone to CfD and wouldn't have generated a majority in favour of keeping it, would it? That's why your "fucking cunt" example is not a valid analogy for your own deletion of the "not a Wikipedian" category. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 21:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Just an additional point - if what you see as a Reductio ad absurdum is challenged, it's not necessarily because your opponent did not understand the absurdity - it may just be because he thinks the reductio is false. (Honestly not trying to "pull rank" or anything, but I do have an MA in Philosophy) -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 22:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Having thought about this, and I do understand Scott's reasoning, I am going to go for overturn. I think that the "attack" rationale is wrong. This was always far more a "I am Spartacus!" reaction to Arbcom's direction on this "request for clarification" (and by the way, is any clarification emerging? Didn't see any the last time I looked) than "Arbitrator X is a <insert descriptor of choice; adjectives optional>.  pablo 19:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep- the consensus was clearly that the category should be kept, and that it was not disruptive. This close was just plain wrong. FYI- I have no real involvement in the Malleus situation. Reyk _YO! 21:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• This is what you are supporting as well - divisive and disruptive just the same - Category:Users that support civil discussion and the banning of (add username here) for his/her repeated violations of the Wikipedia:Civility policy and for repeated personal attacks on other users in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy - Youreally can 21:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  Sigh...

  1. You support X
  2. I think X is equivalent to Y
  3. Therefore you support Y

  That's a false syllogism. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 22:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Perhaps support was the wrong word - but it is my opinion that by supporting this cat - (created as the user who created it said in solidarity with Malleus - then you allow for the other side - you are encouraging and allowing/accepting the opposite to be created - Youreally can 22:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • OK. In fact, I do support the right of people to create user categories expressing solidarity with, say, Jclemens - subject to proper policy-based discussion and not deleted by individual admin supervote. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 22:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Solidarity is what it was. If a whole bunch of editors get called "fucking cunts" (or "dishonest twats"), and one of them, disappointed that there's no block on such utterances, wants to create a user category with that term (to get back to your point, Scott), I couldn't care less. Seriously, they have my blessing, and I'll grant them the right to explain on the category page as well. Many user categorizations are POV: "Christian" doesn't mean the same thing for all Christians; "PhD" implies, to some, an educational arrogance; "Wikipedian sexworkers" apparently is a hot-button issue. The BLP argument brought up here by our resident BLP warrior, who has quite a history in divisiveness, does not apply: we're not dealing with living people, we're dealing with "editors"--and on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog anyway. Scott, I don't think you and I ever got into it over something, and I don't intend to change that. I'm sorry if you felt you had to take the course of action that led to all this; if all this blows over, and your deletion is endorsed (it doesn't look like it right now) I'll still buy you a beer. If your deletion gets overturned, well, I'll also still buy you a beer. But it might be a PBR. Drmies ( talk) 22:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment I very much respect Scott's effort here in a IAR sort of way, but I think it's also a very incorrect reading of consensus. I'd also mention that many people are upset by the situation; and sometimes these little things can have a cathartic effect in letting people voice their feelings. — Ched ZILLA 22:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  I similarly respect Scott's effort - his intentions are undoubtedly entirely honorable. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 22:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  I never doubted that for a second Boing - and I very much agree with everything you've said here. (I was going to mention "super-vote", but saw that you had already done so.) — Ched ZILLA 22:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  Sure, I commented more to let Scott know than anything -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 23:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per WP:POINT.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 23:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I said it before, and I'll say it again. WP:POINT-- Go Phightins ! 23:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - WP:POINT. Let's not make attack categories on a level with the inappropriate comments. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 00:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per WP:POINT. I was going to wait for this to be relisted and then !vote to delete, but that seems like a waste of time.  Ryan  Vesey 01:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Relist Per Kiefer Wolfowitz. While I feel that this category should be deleted as a nonconstructive category violating WP:BATTLEGROUND, it does not meet the requirements for speedy deletion. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I don't feel that rules preventing speedy deletion of this category prevent Wikipedia from being improved or maintained, so this does not fall under IAR. In addition, the large number of editors who wish for the category to be kept shows that invoking IAR would be far too contentious here. A full discussion should occur on this topic.  Ryan  Vesey

• Overturn and relist While I appreciate Scott Mac's reasoning, I have always been an advocate that G10 is to be narrowly construed to include only things that no good-faith editor would believe are not an attack. Furthermore, I would be quite hypocritical if I supported a deletion of anything as a personal attack that was in response to (well, "throwing back in my face" might be a better description) something I said which wasn't intended as a personal attack in the first place. Jclemens ( talk) 01:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Jclemens, by now I am less concerned with the particular remark as I am with the more general divisiveness; I can't really look at the actual discussion and its various motions. I (still) have very mixed feelings about the whole thing but I certainly don't want to single you out, although I realize very well that my 'definition' of the category suggests that. On the one hand, I'm sad at you (syntax coined by my daughter) for having said it, but on the other hand I don't want to denounce you as a person or an editor. As I suggested (on this page? on the original MfD?), the category description can be altered and it need not include the remark you retracted (would that we could unsay things). The solidarity I meant to express was with one particular editor, not against one other particular editor, though I understand that others read that differently. Drmies ( talk) 14:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Speedy deletion had already been declined by another admin and only applies to "the most obvious cases"; I think the CfD discussion shows that this was already not an obvious speedy deletion candidate. Whether or not it should be deleted was being discussed at the appropriate venue, and consensus should determine the result, not an admin's opinion. - Sudo Ghost 02:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment - This entire episode is ludicrous. Lame. Doc talk 09:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• I much preferred when people were protesting this crime against humanity (nay, the Earth itself, if not the Milky Way in its entirety) by not editing at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 10:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse for increase of wikidrama. Mangoe ( talk) 12:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the category clearly had no purpose other than to attack an editor. That by attacking that editor it also expressed support for another editor makes no difference - if I wrote a disparaging article about a company it wouldn't be disqualified from G10 by the fact that it was expressing support for the company's competitors. Nor does the category serve any useful purpose. User categories exist "to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia", not to further political wikidrama. Hut 8.5 12:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and overturn per chris cunningham and writ keeper. -- regentspark ( comment) 13:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - the category is a joke and an attack. The "discussion" was a joke and a series of attacks. The administrator was right to delete it. Buck Winston ( talk) 15:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. This type of category is clearly prohibited at Wikipedia:User categories#Inappropriate types of user categories. Specifically, "Categories that are divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive. ... This also includes categories created in protest or to make a point (e.g. Wikipedians whose religion has been deleted by Wikipedia)." -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I once encountered a fascinating thought at a previous deletion review: "Deletion review is not AfD2". The points many of you are making would be perfectly reasonable -- if only we were having an AfD discussion. We're not -- because it was closed via an improper CSD by an admin who took it upon himself to ignore the discussion at the AfD that was underway. We are here to review that decision in light of the policy that governs the deletion process. Opinions about the desirability of the category are then quite beside the point. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 16:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Wiki-retardation at its finest here. Using categorization to disparage others should not be encouraged. As for the vote tally, who gives a fuck? That such a thing wound up with more keeps than deletes is only indicative that sometimes mob rule needs to be overruled by saner voices. Tarc ( talk) 17:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Tarc, why would you want to phrase it that way? I'm not sane? I'm part of a lynch mob? Drmies ( talk) 17:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • And why the Ann Coulter-style "retard" insult/prejudice? Go watch The Kingdom, and remember that "the evil eye sees everything". Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Your opinion on this is without value. If you have a beef with someone, you don't get to make a wiki-category to trumpet that beef to the world. We're here to simply review the close though, and if a closer took action to get rid of the miserable piece of shit of a category, then he should be barnstar'ed. Tarc ( talk) 20:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Tarc, My opinion is worth more than yours, because of my superior intellect, education, character, experience, and contributions. Notice that nobody has endorsed anything you've written. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Don't you think that's just a wee bit egotistical? Reaper Eternal ( talk) 00:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Scott's closing comments, WP:POINT and WP:BATTLE. Not to mention that the argument that the CFD was trending to keep is based exclusively on the vote count, which is not how we weigh these things. Virtually none of the keep votes actually presented a policy-based rationale. Given that, and given this category is very obviously intended to flame another editor for a comment - poor as it was - means this should leave little choice other than delete for anyone considering this in a rational, dispassionate matter. This category does not aid the building of this project. Reso lute 20:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• in the current climate I am definitely not a Wikipedian. A Wikipedian apparently is someone focused on his or her particular ideas of what is civil, pretty much to the exclusion of anything else. I'm all for basic courtesy, but these self-styled "Wikipedians" often push obnoxious civility POVs, and are themselves amongst the most discourteous members of the user community. I wish to distance myself from this group so I can be justified in returning to content building (which I have stopped). A category like this enables me to do that. As such, it is most certainly an aid to building the encyclopaedia and should not be deleted. The pointy behaviour and battle mentality evident here is coming from people who want this category suppressed. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 21:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• One does not need to be a member of a juvenile catetory designed to enshrine a dumb comment by another editor to distance themselves from that dumb comment. As such, I reject your notion that this category aids building the encyclopedia in this manner. However, I do respect that you at least tried to craft a rationale, which is more than can be said for most of the keep !votes in that CFD. Reso lute 21:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Reading through this back and forth, it sounds like a CfD disucssion, not a rationale to endorse a deletion through an admin's supervoting. If you think it should be deleted, there's an appropriate venue for that. You should also read WP:NOTPOINTY, you're rationale doesn't seem to apply here, and is a deletion argument, not an endorsement argument. - Sudo Ghost 22:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Precisely. People seem to be forgetting that "making a point" is not the same thing as "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". There has to be actual disruption, which there isn't in this case. Reyk _YO! 22:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• I think it strains credulity to suggest that creating a category that flames another editor for a controversial statement could not be expected to add more drama to an already intense dramafest. And while I do add some CFDesque commentary, the bulk of my comment is to endorse the closing admin's G10 deletion while also highlighting that the "there were more keep !votes" argument carries little weight given how few of them were based in policy. Reso lute 01:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• ...and that G10 deletion was already shown to be invalid. WP:CSD ":Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Not only did the CfD discussion highlight that this was not the case, a speedy deletion was already declined by another administrator. "As such, I reject your notion" that G10 was a valid action, because it most certainly was not. It would carry more weight for you to point out "how few of them were based in policy" if only your own rationale was supported by the things you linked. That however is not the case. - Sudo Ghost 01:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as correct application of WP:IAR & WP:ROUGE. If you dislike Jclemens vote him out of office (assuming he even runs again.) This immortalization of a gaffe is just battleground. Tijfo098 ( talk) 20:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and keep: Seems to be a harmless enough category in which many people wish to be included. If it's a cause of embarrassment to certain arbs and admins, then it can serve them as a useful reminder that Wikipedia is inclusive not exclusive. Arbs and admins are subject to the will of the editors rather than here for the megalomaniacal ego trip on which so many seem to be on; of which speedy deleting this was a prime example. However, I shall not be joining because I am a Wikipedian and no incompetent, self righteous, small minded Arb will ever be permitted to take that away from me. Giano ( talk) 21:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Then Giano I suggest you do join. This is about Wikipedians, the real Wikipedians who are not "Wikipedians" -- Epipelagic ( talk) 21:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per POINT. This is why we say !vote — there were lots of keeps, but few were based on policy. I thought the original comment repellent and look forward to not voting for JClemens (and maybe voting for some of those who are exercised on this issue). But this is pure battlefield. Kanguole 23:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Actually, it was the proposed deletion that had no basis whatsoever in policy. Joefromrandb ( talk) 23:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• • From Wikipedia:User categories#Inappropriate types of user categories "any grouping of users on the basis of a characteristic that, unintentionally or by design, triggers a negative emotional reaction in others, is detrimental to an environment of constructive collaboration ... This includes categories for enmity toward a particular group of people, ..., or support for or opposition to a controversial person, group, project, idea, policy, or activity. This also includes categories created in protest or to make a point (e.g. Wikipedians whose religion has been deleted by Wikipedia)".-- Scott Mac 00:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

That is clearly too sweeping and needs rewriting. As it stands, it is as bad as the notorious section 5 in British legislation. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• • • That's a good point. It's almost as if that would be the subject for a CfD to determine, instead of a single admin's supervote. - Sudo Ghost 01:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn the speedy Relist, discuss alleged "attack" aspects, and reclose. Bad G10 call. Had previously been declined. Speedy deletion should never be used to short circuit a discussion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn for three reasons. First, it was technically an abuse of policy, as several have pointed out above. Secondly, the discussion seemed to be trending to keep; IAR does not trump CONSENSUS, except in cases like clearcut BLP, which this was not; leading into thirdly, legitimate criticism of the horrible and abusive actions of people in power should not be stifled. This gives the appearance of censorship, which is unfortunate (though I am sure it was well-intentioned). -- John ( talk) 17:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • You did raise a point I was wondering about. I'd claim that purely attack pages and BLPs are on a similar level and IAR to keep BLP violations are clear personal attacks out is within bounds (and on that basis I endorsed the deletion). A number of level-headed (and uninvolved from what I know) folks seem to think otherwise. My basis for putting them on the same plane is that both address personal attacks against a living person. Clearly you disagree and I'd like to hear why. Or put differently, if you felt that there was a clear BLP violation, I assume you'd remove that violation until the issue was resolved (at the least). How is this different? Are personal attacks (in category space of all places) not as important as a BLP violation to deal with rapidly? Or do you just not feel this one is clear-cut enough? Thanks! Hobit ( talk) 18:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • My explanation is that the personal attack "not a Wikipedian" (like "a net negative") was so stupid that nobody joining the category takes it seriously.Imagine a category like "Wikipedians whose mothers wore Army boots" or "Wikipedians who are boogers". People join for solidarity, and it releases some steam, in a harmless way, well away from the article space. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • In my opinion (and I think that of the majority of reasoned arguments here), the need for legitimate dissent against abuses of power outweighs any modest BLP concerns. User:Jclemens made an extremely egregious personal attack, from a privileged and protected position, on one of our community, which he has not fully withdrawn or apologised for. He remains in his position, from where he can continue to damage and undermine the community. Those of us who are withdrawing our participation in the project should have the right to show our protest in this way. How does it benefit the encyclopaedia? I would have thought it obvious that allowing proportionate dissent is a necessity for any community. -- John ( talk) 22:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Well said. I also think there's a difference between criticizing someone's words and actions, and personally attacking them. Many people seem to miss that difference. Reyk _YO! 22:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Oh, "well said" my ass. I've had my share of beefs with Clemens over the years over his rabid ARS inclusionism. But this is just pathetic, you all come across as a bunch of wannabe Che Guevaras, complete with tacky little berets and the self-delusion that you can march into a jungle and hold a revolution. Build a bridge and get over it. Seriously. Tarc ( talk) 23:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
          • • • • " He was the first man I ever met who I thought not just handsome but beautiful. With his curly reddish beard, he looked like a cross between a faun and a Sunday-school print of Jesus"? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they probably begin by calling “charismatic.”

• • • • • • • Perhaps that's what this is, a bridge of sorts. Think about it. Of course the category is ridiculously silly. What the heck is it supposed to mean anyway and it'll be an amusing memory in a few days. About the only thing sillier than this category is this discussion about deleting/endorsing/overturning. We all, pro-categorians as well as anti-categorians (if I may be permitted to coin those terms) need to learn to leave well alone. -- regentspark ( comment) 23:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete wikipedia is not a democracy. No matter how many people clamor for keeping a category that clearly violates policy, we should still delete it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Well said John - Scott's post just above makes it very very clear that in policy delete in the only policy outcome for this category. - diff so the deletion was absolutely correct no many how many users support creating it , its against guidelines/policy - its divisive and disruptive as is this review - Youreally can 20:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • I suggest that you go to WT:DEL and propose that WP:DEL be rewritten to include something like "Any admin may at any point do what they like and tell the community to piss off." Once it says that, actions of the sort under discussion here will be perfectly kosher. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 20:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • I'm amazed at the lack of logical sense in YRC's comment. Scott, who deletes, gives a reason for deletion, and therefore the deletion was correct. Bravo. Drmies ( talk) 22:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Per most of the reasons above. Intothat darkness 22:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support deletion i think this a mild abuse of the categorization system, regardless of any good intent or positive solidarity message (which i do get). I would strongly support someone creating a UserBox with this message however, so people can stand with fellow editors in a way that doesnt interfere with categorizing. however, i will point out that if this category is chosen entirely in a humorous manner, and where all sides find it funny, then im ok with it staying. if anyone finds it offensive or passive aggressive, or pointy, it probably should go away. OK, now im starting to sound like im Splunging here... Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted regardless This cat is a useless drama magnet, not an aid for navigation of the project. Perhaps the deletion was done slightly out of process, I for one don't care. This category serves no legitimate purpose and may run afoul of WP:POINT. If it were up to me I would WP:SALT it as well. Look at all the energy wasted discussing a category that does nothing whatsoever to improve the project, quite the opposite. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • The wasted energy is yours, in trying to delete it to suppress dissent. My energy is just fine. -- John ( talk) 23:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • There are some arguments with merit both ways, but the "OMG censorship" "I need to express dissent" is just silly. No one is stopping you expressing dissent. There's lots of places to do that, and even an election in which you can give dissent expression and power. However, the validity of the dissent does not give validity to all possible means of expressing it. I can say I don't approve of David Cameron, I can express that disapproval in many ways, not least at the ballot box - that's democracy. But when authorities prevent me spray-painting political attacks on Cameron in inappropriate places, it is no defense to say "I demand the right to express dissent" - nothing but bad behaviour is being suppressed. There's lots of people who share your dissent, but support the deletion of this nonsense.-- Scott Mac 23:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply
      • To follow your analogy, your misguided attempt to delete this out of process was the equivalent of the government banning spraypaint. Anti-wikipedian, counter-productive, and drama-enhancing. Just let people register their protest peacefully. Or look silly. The choice is yours, and you've already made it. Undoubtedly well-intentioned but then so was Nicolae Ceaușescu. Where is he now? -- John ( talk) 23:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • If it "may run afoul of WP:POINT" then there should be some place to determine that. We could call it " Categoriess for Deletion", and use consensus, as defined by Wikipedia policy, to determine the appropriateness of the category. I think that would be much better than speedy deleting the category in a way that runs afoul of WP:CSD. - Sudo Ghost 23:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • If there was a reasonable case to be made for the usefulness of this category, then a debate would be appropriate. Lacking any, even conceivable, utility then it is simple wikilawyering. But a debate is not a bunch of people using it as a pretext for a point making protest against one user's retracted remarks.-- Scott Mac 23:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Never mistake arguments you are unable to understand for wikilawyering. Aren't you at all concerned about WP:INVOLVED in your adventures trying to get this deleted? -- John ( talk) 23:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Nope, I was not involved in any way. And I didn't have adventures in trying to delete this - I just deleted it.-- Scott Mac 02:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
          • I must actually support Scott on this specific point - up until he actually deleted the category and closed the CfD, he had not taken part in the discussion, and he was therefore not WP:INVOLVED. However, as his subsequent strong expressions of opinion regarding the category have shown, he was not neutral and was therefore not able to close it in a disinterested way as required. As his closure was based on his personal opinion of the category, it was an out-of-process supervote (and he admits below that he does not "share the addiction to process"). -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 07:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
            • Fair enough, I accept that Scott was not strongly emotionally invested until after the out-of-process deletion. -- John ( talk) 08:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I am very glad you are not the decider of such things, if "I don't see a reason so nobody gets to discuss it" is how you think Wikipedia should operate. However, this DRV is to determine if the close was appropriate. Per the wording of WP:CSD, it was not an appropriate close. - Sudo Ghost 00:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Actually, no one has given any reason why this is useful at all. Anyway, I disagree with your analysis that that his how Wikipedia should or does operate here (it's not a bureaucracy). This isn't all about Wikilawyering about CSD. Anyway, since neither you nor I are the decider of that, let's leave it be.-- Scott Mac 00:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
          • This is about CSD, that's what this DRV is discussing, whether it was appropriate or not. You cannot circumvent discussion by speedy delete something in an inappropriate way, and then claim that it's "wikilawyering" to say that maybe we should operate by consensus instead of a single admin's decision to circumvent both policy and the consensus building discussion that was already taking place. - Sudo Ghost 01:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
            • I accept that's your opinion about what's most important here, and what happened here, however I (and evidently many others) see it otherwise.-- Scott Mac 01:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
              • ( edit conflict)If it's as blantently destructive and useless as you're suggesting, then that will become obvious in a CfD, but don't prematurely shut down a discussion and then claim that "no one has given any reason why this is useful at all", that's what that discussion was for, and you disrupted that process. It's fine that you see it otherwise, but you and others are arguing for the deletion of the category, not endorsing the way it was deleted, and that's not the purpose of WP:DRV: "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." - Sudo Ghost 01:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                • We're going around in circles. I don't share the addiction to process. We speedy attacks and pointless disruption, and in this.... No, forget it. We see things differently here. Let's just leave it at that - I'm not going to restate what I've said above several times. If there was something important to review here it might be worth arguing with you, but not for this useless shit. I'm unwatching.-- Scott Mac 02:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                  • "I don't share the addiction to process." That's a chilling statement to read from an admin. Such a comment does not inspire confidence. - Canadian Bobby ( talk) 15:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                    • Indeed. "I prefer being able to use admin tools in whatever way I please." Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                      • Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. -- John ( talk) 21:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                        • I believe I did just that. Show me the policy that says process is vital and must always be followed slavishly even against commonsense?-- Scott Mac 22:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                          • Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases (specific policy against this type of deletion) and Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms (policy which explicitly points out how decisions are made in general here). Your action (and again I give you credit for acting with good intentions) breached those two policies. We do also have Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, but we also have a well-regarded essay that states that "Ignore all rules" is not an exemption from accountability. You're still responsible for reasonably foreseeable effects of your actions on the encyclopedia and on other editors which is hard to argue with. By deleting this, rather than letting the deletion discussion run its course, I'd have to say you increased the level of drama and division, which is the last thing we need at the moment. Or are you honestly still saying that your deletion fulfilled Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion (policy again, my emphasis)? -- John ( talk) 22:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                          • As per John. Speedy deletion is for obvious things that don't need any discussion. It is for saving time and effort. This speedy deletion has not saved time or effort, and so was a bad speedy. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply

That comment is garbage Scott Mac, and you should strike it. Just to speak for myself, I am no way a wikilawyer, and I have clearly indicated why I think this category has some inherent worth. You may disagree, but please try and ground yourself in some reality. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 23:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry you feel that way. I believe I answered that specific point in the latter part of this comment. -- John ( talk) 22:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply

If you like, I can tell you reasons to keep, reasons why this usercatergory has non-zero worth. However, that would be a discussion for a talk page or a CfD discussion. But to begin: where someone asserts that something is nonsense, and someone else asserts that it has value, then there is a need for discussion, not administrator-privilege-empowered action to terminate. With regard to what invalidates a speedy, CSD is deliberately narrowly written to be exercised conservatively. It is not true that the only problem is that it increased drama. The most basic problem is that the level of offensiveness did not rise to the level of G10. Note its wording inlcudes "and serve no other purpose". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per User:Tijfo098 above. We have long since moved on from our attempt to see if two wrongs make a right, right now we are busily trying to see if we can make something like seventeen wrongs make a right. This is something that fails to improve the situation... it only makes it worse. An attack page does not require XfD to delete it. The deleting admin was correct in his application of a speedy delete, regardless of any presumed consensus. Trusilver 08:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  The CSD:A10 speedy deletion request had already been declined by another admin, and the deletion was clearly not uncontroversial - therefore it was not a valid speedy deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  Because I tremendously respect that other admin, I reserve any further comment in the matter other than to say she was mistaken. A person attack is a personal attack, regardless of what kind of facade you attempt to legitimize it with. Trusilver 20:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  Where's the personal attack inherent in this category? As I see it, this is in protest at this personal attack. A protest against a personal attack is not automatically a personal attack. -- John ( talk) 21:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I get that it was intended as a joke/protest in response to a widely criticized remark by a sitting arbitrator. I for one don't think it is a personal attack. It also is not a category that actually aids in navigation of the project. That is what categories are for and it is obvious this was never intended to be helpful to anyone. If you want to have a protest, write an essay, open an RFC, campaign to get the offending Arb thrown off the arbitration committee, etc. Just don't ask us to pretend that this category serves any legitimate purpose for this project when it was never intended to do so. That is what we should be discussing here. How is anyone, ever, going to be aided in using WP by the existence of this category? Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Utility of the category? Joke/protests have utility in providing an alternative, non-obvious perspective, and as such can aid discussion and learning.

“That is what categories are for”? Says who? Why are usercategories more sacrosanct for experimental uses than userspace and project space?

How is anyone, ever, going to be aided in using WP by the existence of this category? Usercategories enable shared identification, and they do so in a way that is more likely to be kept current than a list. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Recently many of our best content contributors have left or ceased contributing. This has resulted from insistent demands by a segment of users that everyone else conform to their own versions of what they call "civility". The alternative they offer is to leave the project. These users also indulge in a characteristic moral indignation. A similar flavour of indignation and contempt is occurring on this page, where some users are making sweeping dismissals of the people who want to retain this category. An erosion is happening to the ability of editors on Wikipedia to state things plainly and honestly. The category has, in my view, the legitimate purpose of allowing editors who are concerned by this development to express that concern. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 16:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per wp:POINT, this is extremely disruptive, coercively disruptive, also per Scott MacDonald's deletion rationale. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 13:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Please read WP:NOTPOINTY, and the speedy deletion rationale was invalid per the speedy deletion policy itself. - Sudo Ghost 13:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Have checked on NOTPOINTY. It reads "As a rule, one engaging in "POINTY" behavior is making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition". Certain editors were upset with the "not Wikipedian" statement, in solidarity they call themselves "not Wikipedians". that is classic POINT! SM's deletion rationale as explained here is what I refer to, apart from POINT, the category is also a blatant case of wp:BATTLEGROUND. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 13:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
      • That's an interesting interpretation of "making edits which s/he does not really agree with", especially when you seemed to ignore the preceding sentence. Following such a literal yet broad interpretation, you might as well try to get Jimmy Wales and most of Wikipedia blocked making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition. I also don't think you've read WP:BATTLEGROUND, otherwise could you please point out what part of WP:BATTLEGROUND this is supposed to be violating, especially so egregiously that it warrants ignoring Wikipedia policy in order to speedy delete the category? - Sudo Ghost 14:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
        • I do not understand the Wales analogy. Well we can agree to disagree on that point. Hope you read BATTLEGROUND one more time, the sub-section also has the policy shortcut wp:NOTFACTIONS, brings to my mind user:tarc's comment to the effect: Mob rule needs to be overturned by saner voices. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 14:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
          • I have read it, and I see nothing that warrants disrupting a CfD discussion. You believe that the category violates WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT, others disagree. If you're going to ask that WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT be followed, it's not appropriate that you at the same time ask that WP:CSD and WP:CONSENSUS be ignored. Wikipedia operates by consensus, not "mob rule needs to be overturned by saner voices". - Sudo Ghost 14:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
            • CONSENSUS: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms. SG I agree with SM, the category is so egregious that it necessitated the action taken. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 15:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
              • What you quoted from WP:CONSENSUS has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, and I'm truly at a loss as to why you even copied it. Consensus was bypassed here, there was no consensus-based close in any stretch of the imagination. WP:CONSENSUS does not say "If the speedy deletion policy does not allow a deletion, any admin can bypass an ongoing consensus-building discussion in order to implement what they believe is best for Wikipedia." That's what consensus is supposed to determine. You believe it is "egregious", other people disagree. How do we solve that? Through consensus, because everyone thinks they are right, consensus is the only way things can get done if everyone thinks their way is correct and everyone else is "a mob rule that needs to be overturned by saner voices". If the category requires action, consensus will determine that, consensus is not a vote and if that's the correct action then a consensus will reveal that, but you don't ignore two policies in order to enforce your interpretation of another, especially when that same policy you're claiming needs to be followed also says that "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion," It does not say "Disagreements are resolved through admins enforcing their interpretation." - Sudo Ghost 15:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                • The words to watch are "legitimate concerns" and "Wikipedia norms", SM acted well within these boundaries. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 16:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                  • That's a leap of logic there that isn't found in what you quoted. If someone has a legitimate concern about something, it is discussed. That's the very basis of how Wikipedia operates, and the basis of what you just quoted. You discuss concerns, you don't violate one policy to enforce what you believe is found in another policy without discussing it. "Wikipedia norms" are determined by consensus. There was no consensus here, so how do we know how "Wikipedia norms" apply here? We don't, it's a bunch of differing opinions and no consensus whatsoever. - Sudo Ghost 16:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                    • Well it looks like we are two people with two different opinions on what is best for Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 16:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                      • If you truly believe that one single editor prematurely shuting down and stopping any discussion in order to enforce their opinion is somehow in line with WP:CONSENSUS, then yes, we have different opinions on what is best for Wikipedia. I believe that consensus is best for Wikipedia, otherwise we have a bunch of editors believing that they know best and ignoring any discussion taking place, and that's not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Administrators enact consensus, they do not bypass consensus in order to enforce their opinion. This close did not allow a consensus discussion to even take place, instead the decision was made by a single editor. That flies in the face of what makes Wikipedia what it is. You think the category doesn't belong, and that's perfectly fine, but that's what CfD is there to determine. You have a right to explain your position on the matter and if an administrator had decided to "speedy keep" the discussion based on their opinion you'd think that wasn't right and would want the ability to discuss it as Wikipedia policy intends; the fact that their opinion agrees with yours does not mean other editors have no right to even discuss the matter. Wikipedia operates by consensus; if you think consensus should be ignored when you agree with the one that did it then that's fine, but that's not what's best for Wikipedia. - Sudo Ghost 16:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                        • While disgruntled elements created and support a terribly pointy, disruptive and divisive category, you lay so much emphasis on numbers and taking a discussion to its logical conclusion, considering your suggestion, we should understand that Wikipedia has about 17 million named accounts, 3-4 thousand editors make over 100 edits per month (reference Wikipedia:Wikipedians). Many a times there are indefinite global bans or blocks, which are exercised as a result of consensus. These are enforced with 10 - 15 editors comprising the consensus. For all practical purposes the sun is no nearer to a person standing on the top of Mount Everest than it is to a person at sea level, as is evident SM acted in the best interests of Wikipedia, to nip mischief in the bud. Does consensus mean agreement among a tiny fraction, described as "mob" above by a comrade editor ? Do they represent the consensus of 17 million, or even the 3- 4 thousand most active? If you insist that we seek a broader consensus in case of such a flagrant debasement of all that Wikipedia stands for, don't you think that it be the norm in case of other important "community" decisions. Anyways I wonder what your opinion on the category created is? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 04:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                          • It seems your views on how things should work are not in line with Wikipedia's policies, if you think that we shouldn't bother with consensus just because there are a lot of accounts. That this is a "terribly pointy, disruptive and divisive category" is your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but that does not make it any more valid than anyone else's opinion. The point of DRV is to discuss whether a given deletion discussion was closed properly. This one was not, as it bypassed an ongoing CfD discussion and speedy deleted the category in violation of Wikipedia's policy on speedy deletion. You're welcome to your opinion that Wikipedia shouldn't operate by consensus, but that's not an argument that the deletion discussion was closed in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. You're also welcome to your opinion on the category, but WP:CfD is the place for you to present that opinion, Not DRV. - Sudo Ghost 13:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                            • it is always easy to attack a strawman. The interpretation of "consensus" is left to the judgement of the interpreter, it is not a head count. SM did not err in his action, it was perfectly kosher as far as policy goes. The category hurts the project, it is a manifestation of rotten mind sets. Such is my opinion and as I glance up and down the opinion of quite a few who endorse SM's actions. Thank you very much. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 14:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                              • Please don't claim something is a strawman, and then go on to say that a consensus is not a head count. Nobody said that it was, or even alluded to such a thing. The issue is that where was no consensus close here, I don't think anyone is even coming close to suggesting that consensus played any part in how this was closed, because that's absurd. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CSD are both policies, and the close violated both of those, so it was also not "perfectly kosher as far as policy goes". Your opinion that the category "hurts the project" is what WP:CSD is for, your opinion on the category itself has no weight in a DRV discussion, that is not the purpose of DRV per the instructions that apparently were overlooked. - Sudo Ghost 14:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete Appropriate speedy deletion as a intentionally POV and divisive category, created, as I think even the keep arguments show, for the purpose of expanding an already divisive argument. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Thoughtcrime? -- John ( talk) 21:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Gotta love delete !votes at deletion review -- yet another participant who has mistaken this venue for AfD... Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 22:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • You are referring to someone who has more knowledge about XfD procedures and the relevant policies than anyone else I know. I am quite sure he understands where he is. Trusilver 00:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • It is a shame that knee-jerk snark was the automatic response here, when it is pretty clear that DGG just put the wrong word in bold, and the gist of the text after that actually does address the merits of the close rather than the merits of the category. It's a shame that neither John nor Nomoskedasticity had the maturity to go to User talk:DGG and say "hey, did you mean to say "endorse" ? Tarc ( talk) 16:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete in this context is a shorthand for Endorse the Deletion. Was anyone actually confused about what I intended? (I add this comment only because it was mentioned on my talk p., but Tarc is right that when one is reduced to trying to take up such extraordinarily minor & peripheral side issues, it is usually because one had no valid arguments on the actual matter at hand. Anyone who knows the background and is being honest with themselves would realize that both the category and this DelRev were intended to prolong trouble is deluding themselves. FWIW, I have previously made no comment in any direction at the underlying RfArb & various subsequent attempts to extend it. DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• I find that the more this is discussed the less I care. think ignoring this as part of the ridiculous forest fire that has spread from the underlying incident is the best course of action. I still think the category is useless and deliberately divisive but if we take a "let the baby have its bottle" approach to it this acrimonious and completely unproductive discussions are more likely to fizzle out. please feel free to heap all the abuse and backhanded accusations you like on me for making these comments as I will not be watching this or replying further. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • When does anything like this actually fizzle out, though? If anything, it will be cited as precedent the next time a similar situation comes around, and one of these yahoos on the support side will make a essay about it. Tarc ( talk) 13:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Arguing against what you see as an attack page by making personal attacks against those you disagree with probably isn't the best thing to do. - Sudo Ghost 14:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
      • The entire aim of this categorization is itself a personal attack, so if you as one of it's rabid supporters feel attacked yourself, well that's just too bad, now is it? This is already a simple and straightforward WP:IAR case anyways, to which you and the other support yahoos have mustered little rebuttal. Also, please let me know when you're done trolling me via edit summaries over a few typos I made earlier. I mean, we all know that one someone starts pulling on the Grammar Nazi act, they have lost the argument, and lost it badly. But still, it wouldn't hurt for you to try. Tarc ( talk) 14:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
        • "It's"! Huh. This used to be an encyclopedia, and now it's a social networking site for semi-literate teenagers. -- John ( talk) 18:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
          • Administrators used to be the model users for those who don't storm off in a tizzy when things didn't go their way, either. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
            • Care to rewrite that so it would make sense in English? Actually, don't bother. I think I understood what you were trying to say. Do consider suing your high school though. -- John ( talk) 19:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
              • Let me see if I can clarify this for you then. From your userpage: I do not feel I can contribute while the person who authored this personal attack is in a position of power. I feel like creating category "Category:Wikipedians who are semi-literate teenagers", and I refuse to contribute until this person is out of power! Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per WP:POINT and WP:DEADHORSE, not to mention WP:IAR. Deescalate, don't escalate. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 15:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• 'Overturn and keep If editors want to petulantly self-identify with an inherently self-contradictory category, why not? (deescalation, in this context, is simply ignoring the category) Nobody Ent 15:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  Do you really think just ignoring problems makes them go away? Tarc ( talk) 16:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  Depends on the problem. Since we're not going to get a quick, clean consensus to delete the cat the best approach is to ignore it. It's an attention seeking device, all this discussion provides positive feedback to the behavior. Nobody Ent 17:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse WP:POLEMIC and WP:POINT. Just look how damaging and divisive this poorly-thought out template has been to the community as a whole ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 15:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Looking at the contributors on this page, the main general divide is between those who have contributed substantial content to Wikipedia and those who haven't (there are exceptions of course). The damage was done to the nature of this divide long before the template was thought of. The contributors want to keep the template, and clearly want some sort of voice on Wikipedia, however tangential and faint. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 18:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I find the see-no-evil-hear-no-evil mentality amusing, honestly; Drmies "...it will be a mysterious category only for the in-crowd" and Nobody Ent's ignore attention seeking behavior in particular. With all the hemming and hawing about declining admin corps, vanishing new editors, and the miniscule % of female editors lately, you essentially wish to let a group of users have their own insular Skull and Bones club. I mean, when is an insult not an insult? Does being insulting somehow become ok when you obfuscate what you're actually talking about? Rename it to Category:Wikipedians who think JClemens is a colossal d-bag, let's see how far you get. Tarc ( talk) 18:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Tarc, there is plenty of bad faith to go around here on both sides, and you just added considerably to yours. I don't think Jclemens is a colossal douchebag, or even a tiny one, and that's just one of the fake rhetorical flourishes in that comment. This has what to do with female editors? Hot air, that's all it is. Drmies ( talk) 18:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

    • ${\displaystyle degreeofhyperbolicrhetoric={k \over actualgroundinginpolicyorconsensus}}$ -- John ( talk) 18:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply

    • There's no bad faith on my side at all, I'm afraid. A bunch of jokers, as John so eloquently reminds us with his non-substance reply directly above, want to categorize themselves into a little pity party that doesn't like what a particular Arbitrator said. This category was created at 17:59, 23 October 2012‎. You tell me, was the Wikipedia improved from how it was at 17:58, 23 October 2012‎? Give one credible, reasonable argument that says the creation of this thing was a net positive, Drmies, because Lord knows none of your comrades have been able to so far. Just try...one simple, good argument that doesn't involve " it's harmless" or " improper". Tarc ( talk) 19:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
      • There are actually a lot of credible and reasonable arguments on his page for overturning the improper speedy (which is what this discussion is about) and also for keeping the category. I realise accessing these would mean reading all those damn words, and that would be a lot of work for you. Much easier to just throw some cheap red herrings around, eh? Should you wish to read my carefully considered "overturn" argument, and assuming you can't be bothered reading through the words, the diff is at 1. -- John ( talk) 19:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Your argument was crap, to put it mildly. IAR does override consensus, that's kinda the point of it, so that wipes out #1 and #2. #3 was laughable; you don't have a "right" to free speech here, so there is nothing to stifle. If you have a beef with an Arb, then vote for someone else to take his place at the next election cycle, or initiate a community discussion to remove him from power. You don't get to sit on your user-page and fling your poop like a monkey, which is pretty much what this category amounts to. Care to try again John, or is it time to retreat? Again. Tarc ( talk) 19:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
          • I thought it was asking a lot for you to read and understand my post. Never mind. -- John ( talk) 19:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
            • Much like the unfortunate row over grammar earlier today (now smoothed over), it is also unfortunate that some people find themselves mired in a desperate "if you disagree with me it must mean you don't understand me" dead-end. You think IAR doesn't override consensus, while I think it does, otherwise why have it at all? I shouldn't have to remind you what WP:IAR actually means, but if so it is "if a rule prevents you from improving an encyclopedia, then ignore it". IMO, the closer saw that the removal of a divisive, disruptive, and pointy category was to the betterment of the project, but rules about consensus, MfDs, and such prevented him from undergoing that improvement, so those rules were ignored. IAR's a tricky devil though, it can't just be "I don't like it", but when it is invoked correctly...and in this case I believe it was...then we are all better off for it. Tarc ( talk) 19:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
              • • Clearly, as the miles of discussion above illustrate, the removal of the category ended up being more divisive and disruptive than the original creation of the category itself. No question but that, in hindsight, it was a terrible decision. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) -- regentspark ( comment) 20:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                  • Sometimes a little pain is necessary when doing the right thing, it serves as a reminder to others to proceed at one's own peril. I had to pry Marcus Bachmann from the vice-like, grippy fingers of the LGBT activists, the liberals, and the inclusionists last year. It was a painful process with much angst all-around, but it was worth it since at the end the right result came about. Tarc ( talk) 20:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                    • So, for the sake of the long term good, you support deletion via the long hard road of standard process dragging the community to a concensus, and reject the quick and easy speedy deletion option? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                      • I support whatever is necessary to arrive at the right decision. In the case at hand here, the community at large was too short-sighted and petty to comprehend the fact that this categorization was a bad idea. So, the decision was made for them. Simple. Tarc ( talk) 23:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC) reply
                        • The speedy deletion is not so simple. If it becomes acceptable for admins to play wise superuser and override the mistaken plebs then it devalues the community. The stakes here were not even significant, nothing like Marcus Bachmann. I support a straight reading of the intent of WP:CSD, starting with its first sentence. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. After all of this discussion it appears to have been the correct decision. Closing needs to be based on more then simply counting !votes. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - and enough of this. Divisive at its core, it's based on one comment from one editor, a purported rallying cry for some ill-defined revolution. Get rid if it and move along. Doc talk 00:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Henk Rottinghuis ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The Henk Rottinghuis Wikipedia article was deleted by HJ Mitchell on 9 December 2011, citing the following reason: 'G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: see Wikipedia:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations'. The Henk Rottinghuis article included factual and well referenced information, much of which can be salvaged and rewritten. I would appreciate it if someone could review the article to see what options are available. Thanks, Vivj2012 ( talk) 14:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Vivj2012 ( talk) 14:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• So everyone is aware, there is a declared COI issue here. That said, I'd support userfying this to Vivj and seeing what they can do in user space. I'd want their promise not to move it back to mainspace without bringing a draft to DRV first however. I'm basing this on the idea that the article, as it was, had reasonable sources (I can't see it, so...) Hobit ( talk) 18:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• I've restored it so people can see it. It's not a particularly good article or anything, but I'm not sure I can see it as spammy enough to be a G11. Wily D 10:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Adrianne Ahern ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Appears to have been speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G4, though the addition of this source, from a reliable source (though not of sufficient depth) is too much for G4 to be valid. A cursory search on my part also revealed [6] from a second good publisher - probably others exist. Either way, G4 is inapplicable, and a full AfD could reasonably come to a keep or no consensus decision. The admin who speedily deleted it ignored my request to undelete the article and re-open the AfD. Wily D 07:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Could we get a temp. undelete so that the 2009 and 2012 versions can be compared? If those sources were in the article in 2009 this is probably a valid G4. Hobit ( talk) 10:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Neither was in the 2009 (only a link to her presskit). I'm sure someone will give a temporary undeletion, but I'm obviously involved. Wily D 11:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Done. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy and list at AfD with additional sources and ~3 years later I don't see how this can be a G4. That said, I don't see enough sourcing to believe this will make it through AfD. But that's what AfD is for and maybe we'll get lucky! Hobit ( talk) 18:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• endorse deletion I think an AFD for this will be WP:SNOWING heavily, as the article has a strong promotional cast, and the additional source is essentially a primary source. We are close here to a WP:BLOWITUP situation even if an article is merited. Mangoe ( talk) 11:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy and list at AfD - There's more source information: Publishers Weekly January 22, 2007, SF Examiner August 15, 2007, Spokesman-Review September 1, 2008, Reno Gazette-Journal January 25, 2009 [7]. Seems reasonable to have AfD reconsider the topic. List at AfD with these links and see what the outcome is. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 14:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Tune In, Tokyo... ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe Beeblebrox's close of "no consensus" ignores the policy- and guideline-based rationale for deletion (lack of significant coverage of this topic in reliable secondary sources), which was agreed to by 4 additional editors in the discussion. At least 3 editors, including myself and the article's creator, searched for secondary source coverage and found nothing more than track listings and a single chart position, which is already noted at Green Day discography#Live albums. Since the closure I have come across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tune in, Tokyo..., a previous AfD from 2009 which closed as delete for this very reason (I was previously unaware of the 2009 discussion; it did not come up when I nominated the article due to the capitalization difference of the word "in"). This prior AfD demonstrates even more editors searching for significant secondary source coverage and coming up with nothing more than track listings. Had I known about the 2009 discussion, I would have speedy'd the new article under GCSD no. 4. I have discussed the issue with Beeblebrox, and even he has said "I agree, and so does nearly everyone else, that it should not have a stand-alone article". Yet he insists we go through a merger proposal to merge the article to Green Day discography...even though this EP is already listed there along with its chart position! I am well and truly flummoxed: We cannot delete an article on a topic even when it has received no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, even when the article was previously deleted for exactly that reason, and even when the closing admin agrees that we shouldn't have an article on it? We must go through a merger discussion, even when the target article already contains the relevant content? This must be what going mad feels like. IllaZilla ( talk) 03:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Redirect it- your concern at Beeblebrox's talk page seems to be that someone will sneak back later and undo the redirect, so you'd prefer it to be deleted and then a redirect made. I would say, just redirect it and then if that does happens you can ask some admin to redirect & protect. Reyk _YO! 05:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  It already happened. More than once, from different titles. That's how it wound up at AfD in the first place: [8]→ [9]→ [10]→ [11] and [12]→ [13]→ [14]. What I'm requesting is that the content be deleted and then a redirect left in its place. I have no object to the title existing as a redirect, but since there appears to be consensus that we shouldn't have an article then the content ought to be deleted to help avoid re-creation. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 06:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  In that case, I am amending my vote to redirect and protect. Reyk _YO! 21:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• I think it is pretty clear that what this is really about is a concern that a particular user will edit war to retain the stand-alone article. That is a behavioral issue, not a content issue. If what the nominator was after was a delete and then a redirect they probably should have said as much in the nomination at AFD. It's likely it could have changed the outcome and there would be no need for further discussion. I would also note that despite the nominator's objections to a merge discussion one is taking place. Somce it was opened before this DRV we now have the risk of one consensus being established there and another one here. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  There is absolutely no point to a merge discussion because there is literally nothing to merge. This is the part I cannot wrap my head around: Why you are insisting on a merge discussion when the target article already contains the mergeable content. You cannot merge A into B if B already contains A. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 18:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  You may be interested in the User:BDD/Merge what? essay and related discussion at WT:Articles for deletion#Merge votes in AfDs. Flatscan ( talk) 04:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• endorse It was certainly leaning toward deletion, but I don't think there was a better closure to be had than NC though I'd have endorsed a "redirect" outcome (basically a delete for now) also. I don't see any reason to delete the history here, if it does get unredirected (should merge/redirect become the outcome at some future time) then it can be protected. Hobit ( talk) 18:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  Since there is both past and present agreement that this is an unsuitable article topic, and since it has already been un-redirected multiple times, deleting the history is the logical thing to do. Why hang on to content we agree we don't need? -- IllaZilla ( talk) 18:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  Two points. #1 no such agreement existed in the last AfD. #2 We might need it at some point (should new sources appear or be found). As there is a valid redirect target, protection, if needed, is more than enough. We have an article per the last AfD, arguing for history deletion of the redirect is getting a bit ahead of ourselves. Hobit ( talk) 18:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• It is too bad we were all unaware of the previous AFD, it may have changed how things turned out but at this point I think the merge/redirect discussion is the most pertinent discussion. If a consensus is established to redirect it and a particular user refuses to accept that consensus they can and should be blocked for disruption. If IPs or whoever are repeatedly undoing the redirect protection will put a stop to it. So insisting on deleting the history is not really necessary, we already have the tools we need to stop any future disruption. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - there's no consensus in that discussion; and the whole issue is already being more appropriately discussed at Talk:Green_Day_discography#Proposing_merging_Tune_In.2C_Tokyo..._to_this_article. Wily D 07:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, good close. The closer can't magically create a consensus where there is none. There are conduct issues here, but they don't fall within AfD or DRV's purview. The attempt to use AfD for cleanup has now irretrievably failed. It would be nice if Wikipedia had effective dispute resolution procedures but it doesn't.— S Marshall T/ C 11:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, as no consensus, redirect, and delete all fall under admin discretion. I'm not pleased that Black60dragon's behavior has effectively been rewarded by the article not being deleted. Talk:Green Day discography#Proposing merging Tune In, Tokyo... to this article seems to be stuck, so I expect that the eventual solution will be renomination at AfD with comprehensive background. Flatscan ( talk) 04:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Good close. No clear consensus. Deletion is not preferred while there is a merge option. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• 'Keep the Page What do you mean by behavior be rewarded. Keep in mine its not my page and that I wasnt the only one that said keep. If anything Zillas shouldnt be rewarded because he has tried probably 7 times to get it deleted BlackDragon 22:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I really wish the two of you could just shut up already. Your constant attacks on one another are what got us into this mess in the first place. Since it is clear neither of you have the self control to restrain yourselves and I frankly don't really give a shit about this anyway I am just going to walk away from this situation. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply

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

I would like to request un-deletion of Elixio. Elixio is a global online community for business professionals.The network been around for about 5 years. Below articles mention Elixio as an emerging social network for business professionals:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/jun/21/social-networks-emerging

http://mashable.com/2012/02/19/niche-job-networking-websites/

http://www.business2community.com/b2b-perspective/4-b2b-social-media-networks-you-should-know-about-0153340

http://wave.wavemetrix.com/content/upcoming-social-networks-find-their-niche-00115

Kind regards, Elmaacho — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmaacho ( talk)05:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Restore and list at AfD so the community can decide. Imo the Guardian coverage puts it over the bar for speedy deletion and a proper discussion is warranted.— S Marshall T/ C 22:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• List at AfD I honestly think this was a reasonably speedy--I'm not sure a one paragraph mention is enough to "indicate the importance or significance" of the site. But given the other articles listed above this is probably a better case for AfD than speedy deletion. Hobit ( talk) 18:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Restore/list at AfD the source coverage provided is enough to warrant further review, and it was present in the article at the time of deletion. Hut 8.5 09:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete. WP is a spam magnet and the deletion processes and guidelines we currently have in place are insufficient to counter the flood of this type of article. User:Elmaacho ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is clearly a WP:SPA attempting to promote Elixio. It is a waste of editors time in putting it through the Afd process. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 02:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Third Way (Belarus) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This page was speedily deleted as not indicating importance or significance. My memory (which may possibly be faulty) of reading this page before it was deleted is that it contained references to reliable sources, so those references were indications of importance or significance, which is supposed to be a lower standard than notability. I have attempted to resolve this with the deleting admin here and given a reminder here, but have had no reply, although that admin has been editing in the meantime. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply

The list of sources was as follows:

• My position for the moment is restore, unless and until Schuminweb has the courtesy to acknowledge Phil Bridger's question about this.— S Marshall T/ C 18:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Struck because of what Phil Bridger says below.— S Marshall T/ C 09:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• I have temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review. I was the one who tagged it for speedy deletion as A7; that was an error--I should instead have tagged it as G11. Judging from the Google translation of its website, ref. 2 above, I should have marked it as copyvio as well DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Now that this has been restored I see that it is a valid G11 deletion, although not a valid A7, so I'm happy to withdraw this request. This could have been handled much more simply if the deleting admin had replied to my questions. Phil Bridger ( talk) 08:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment Almost certainly a notable topic on which a good article could be written. But this article isn't even a good start other than a couple of the sources (maybe). So overturn as an A7, speedy as a copyright & G11 issue. Hobit ( talk) 18:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Prime Time Begins at 7:30 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I debated on whether to bring this to deletion review, especially since the page hasn't actually been deleted, but I strongly feel WP:IAR was misused here. Consensus seems to be in favor of keeping rather than merging (the nom reasons for deletion were not elaborated on beyond "non-notable subject",the only deletion vote with elaboration was flawed from the beginning and seemed to be based on the author's personal knowledge of the subject rather than policy, only one other editor was in favor of deletion and one in favor of merging while four were in favor of keeping) and, with at least one editor offering to work on the article should it be kept, it seems appropriate that the article be kept and that merging only occur as a result of discussion should this editor not fulfill the promise to expand the article. At worst, this should have been no consensus. Please note that I am the one editor who was originally in favor of merging and am bringing this DRV because I may have been persuaded by subsequent comments to keep and allow chance for improvement. Redfarmer ( talk) 23:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Given the IAR nature of the close and your opinion changing, I'd guess the closing admin might be willing to revisit this close without DRV. I didn't notice any discussion on their talk page. Perhaps you could withdraw this for now and see what you two can work out? It is a step that is supposed to happen first in any case. Hobit ( talk) 00:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I iVoted keep in the AfD based on the references I found. However, I don't disagree with the close assessment of consensus: "a brief promotional experiment that got some coverage, but there may not be enough to say about it for its own standalone article." In that discussion, I thought there may be enough to say about the topic, but Batard0 reviewed my post and had different observations. postdlf mentioned merge candidate but also indicated keep. Scottywong close appeared to be based on rough consensus. I don't see the close being based on IAR, even though that is what he posted in the close. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 04:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• "Merge" is the correct policy-based outcome, but the consensus was to "keep". DRV won't normally overturn a "merge" to a "keep" or vice versa because that can be done without administrative tools on the basis of a local consensus (e.g. on the article's talk page). That being so, it's not necessary for DRV to disturb Snottywong's close in this case, so we shouldn't; but I'd prefer not to use the word "endorse".— S Marshall T/ C 11:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Closer comment - If you simply count bolded votes, then yes, the keep votes have a small majority. 3 delete, 1 redirect/merge, 4 keep. Whether or not there was an actual keep consensus is debatable. However, if you actually read the editors' comments, you'll find that at least half of the editors (both delete and keep voters) mention that a merge/redirect is an acceptable (or even a preferred) outcome. I didn't feel comfortable closing this one as keep, as there didn't seem to be strong enough agreement that this subject deserves/requires a standalone article. Rather than close it with no consensus and send the article to limbo, I believe that merging the article is the ideal outcome, and it is supported by the comments of the editors involved. Had Redfarmer contacted me on my talk page to discuss this AfD, I'm not sure what I would have done, but I would have listened with an open mind. However, now that we're already at DRV, I guess I just have to defend my close and wait to see what happens. -Scottywong | spout _ 14:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• I think that merge is a bit of a forced compromise. I prefer "no consensus. I am redirecting as a normal editorial decision. [detailed rationale]" Flatscan ( talk) 04:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Bigg Boss 6 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The article in question was incorrectly closed as Merge over Keep, No Consensus, or a relisting. It was initially proposed for deletion due to copyvio rather than placing {{ copyvio}} on the article. The copyvio was (apparently) cleaned so any delete !votes related to copyvio are no longer relevant. The keep !votes were generally not supported by policy; however, one keep !vote mentioned notability and systemic bias. There was only one merge !vote, which was not supported by policy. It was focused primarily on the quality of Bigg Boss 6 relative to Bigg Boss, which is irrelevant per WP:NOTCLEANUP/ WP:RUBBISH. It also violates precedent, which is separate from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because consensus can be determined from precedence.   Ryan  Vesey 18:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Ryan Vesey for president. Who's with me? --  I'm Titanium  ^chat 18:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. The TV show in concern is one of the major reality shows in Indian TV, with major coverage in entertainment-related media. So, it meets WP:GNG. Copyvio concerns have been addressed. So, the merge decision should be overturned, and the article kept.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 18:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  
• Overturn and relist :Same reason as Dwaipayanc. It's a Major reality show. Major. Major. La Major. Even here in Pakistan, we watch it. As i said, it's MAJOR.--  I'm Titanium  ^chat 18:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• AFDs have two outcomes, delete and not-delete. All of the various not-delete outcomes can be amended by editorial discretion (i.e. BOLDness), especially if they overcome the reason for the particular decision. Stifle ( talk) 20:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Frankly, you don't have to deal with the edit wars that can potentially happen on these pages when one editor attempts to improve the article and another constantly reverts, citing "consensus" in the AfD. Merge decisions should only be used where there is clear consensus to do so to avoid such needless conflicts. Redfarmer ( talk) 00:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • What he said. Stifle, your logic is faulty. In addition, if that is the argument you are making, an AfD should never be closed as merge. Instead, it should be closed as "keep with recommended merge" or something along those lines.  Ryan  Vesey 00:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Stifle's "logic" is in fact an accurate description of DRV's normal attitude.— S Marshall T/ C 17:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Both merge and redirect are valid AfD outcomes, per WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011). WP:Non-deleting deletion discussions agrees with Stifle and S Marshall that DRV tends to ignore these details. Flatscan ( talk) 04:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, reasonable close of a crappy discussion. T. Canens ( talk) 20:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Closer note My reasoning was that people who supported deletion cited copyvios, which were removed. The later comments indicated the remaining article was insufficient to stand on its own when compared with the parent topic. As noted, I considered the keep comments unconvincing as being insufficiently grounds in policy. MBisanz ^talk 22:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist, keep votes being insufficiently grounded in policy is not a reason for a merge decision, especially when delete votes are equally unconvincing. As noted, copyvios have been removed and being a poorly written article is not grounds in itself for deletion/merging. This should have been a no consensus close. Redfarmer ( talk) 23:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• relist given there was very little useful discussion after the copyright problems were fixed, I'd say a relist would have been the best discussion. In response to Tim, I'd argue crappy discussions should be relisted, not merged. Hobit ( talk) 01:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment - It's transparent what the article is being used for: Weekly Summary, Weekly tasks, Voting History, Dance-off Chart - the artice is a WP:COATRACK to maintain an ongoing, up-to-date diary that includes excessive listings of statistics contrary to WP:NOT. Does the topic Bigg Boss 6 meet WP:GNG? It probably does. Beginning with Daily Times (Pakistan) November 17, 2011: "'Bigg Boss 6' will go nude: Rakhi Sawant," there's a lot of write ups on the topic. However, adding WP:GNG material to the article appears to be a secondary, perhaps third, interest in editors maintain that article. There was enough participation that discussed the topic outside of the copyvio issue for MBisanz to close the discussion. His Closer note above provides a rational basis behind his decision. There no reason we can't wait until after Final Week 14 before visiting the issue again. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 04:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment - If anyone of you thinks that the weekly summaries, voting history, weekly tasks etc are sufficiently unnecessary to be kept on the article then i suggest to post an AFD on 13 Big Brother UK, 9 Celebrity Big Brother UK, 9 Big Brother Australia and, God knows how many, Pinoy Big Brother articles. And these are just three countries. You'll still have half of wikipedia left to cover for only the Almighty God knows how many similar-to-Bigg Boss articles we have. --  I'm Titanium  ^chat 09:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I agree with T. Canens that this was a reasonable close of a crappy discussion.— S Marshall T/ C 17:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment: With many users voting on Overturn and widely opposing the merge, why is this topic left to rot? Nobody seems to be giving a s*it about it anymore. Don't tell me we have to make banners to protest that unpredictable decision of yours, MBisanz! --  I'm Titanium  ^chat 13:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• I'm Titanium, there's 2 editors who explicitly agreed with the close, and one who didn't comment on the merits of the close as it related to the discussion, but felt that it was the right close. With that in mind, I hope you see how silly you sound when you act like this was the worst close ever made.  Ryan  Vesey 13:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Don't start with me. Don't start with me. Just don't. You get me started and you'll regret that you ever tried to call me silly. --  I'm Titanium  ^chat 15:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Statistics

So, Who are you listening to? Or more precisely what are you listening to? Still puzzled? Like Seriously? What kind of discussion is this? People are voting as reasonable close to a crappy discussion is this a vote, fact, what? Should this be counted? I thought it wasn't a popularity contest and the right approach shall be considered. LOL --  I'm Titanium  ^chat 15:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply

This isn't a vote, and opining that the result of the deletion discussion be overturned isn't the same as opposing the merge. It is quite possible that some editors believe that the article should be merged, but that the deletion discussion should be overturned because of procedural irregularities. Don't be surprised if the result ends up being overturned, and then some of the editors here who supported this course of action end up arguing that the article be deleted or merged once the article is relisted for deletion. — Psychonaut ( talk) 13:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I really do not see why a copyvio conflict ended in a merge despite the content being entirely removed. :S What more does the article lack? Why not point out the mistakes and rectify them?--  I'm Titanium  ^chat 14:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Sometimes what an article lacks is independent notability of its subject. In such cases proposing and carrying out a merge (or even a deletion) is pointing out and rectifying the mistake. — Psychonaut ( talk) 10:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

It's so stupid talking to you. You really are a Psycho.--  I'm Titanium  ^chat 10:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

For those of you who din get what i said. I meant Psycho as a nick name. Spreading the love peeps. :* (flying kiss) Angel of peace. Yeah. Ahan. --  I'm Titanium  ^chat 12:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Relist Given the existence of similar articles for other seasons, it seems there is some chance that a discussion on the current state of the article might keep it. It is quite clear, however, that the previous discussion was thrown off by the copyvio issue. The attempt to work around that and pull a consensus out of one response is hard to justify. Mangoe ( talk) 12:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Relist I disliked the merge closing and voting for relisting! -- Tito Dutta ( talk) 12:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Relist (disclosure, I had a delete rationale of it being a copyvio). I would however like to see this closed before we can make a true assessment on the copyvio nature of the article(s). Legoktm ( talk) 00:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that the CCI should be resolved – at a minimum, this article should be cleared by a copyright regular – before anyone merges copyvio that will require WP:Revision deletion to clean. Flatscan ( talk) 04:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Question: In the current state of the article, after removing copyvio, with all those itsy-bitsy he-sneezed-she-coughed details, would the article have been passed had it been submitted at WP:AFC? I ask this to all the experienced editors. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 05:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• I honestly couldn't say. My notion of the appropriate level of detail for an encyclopedia article is much lower, it would seem, than the median for this subject area. Mangoe ( talk) 12:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Ofcourse! The necessary encyclopaedic information needed for the existence of this article is low. But what do we do when over-information is given? Would Barack Obama on social media been cleared from AFC had all his tweets been mentioned in the article? Would biography of some celebrity been cleared when their daily schedule was mentioned? §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 15:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

You guys talking about details? Take a look at these would you? [27] [28]--  I'm Titanium  ^chat 12:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Pierre William Johnson ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article was marked for deletion with the following reason: "I believe the subject fails WP:GNG, however, I could be wrong (maybe more French references?) The article also has no reliable sources and was created by the subject." on September 29th, 2012

The article was in the course of being written, and references couldn't be added in the English article on time before deletion.

The author is well known in French, and his Wikipedia page in French was not started by him, but by his editor, though we had to change the name (initially Pierre Johnson, which was ambiguous), thus creating another article. References were soon added to the French page, showing that the author, not an academic but an independant activist and researcher, is well known, not only in France, but also in the Americas, for his work on Fair Trade and other issues.

Here are some of the sources you can check, which answer to your question about references:

• Publications of the author referenced by the Fair Trade Institute (USA): [29]

• A well-known and extensive publication on Fair trade in Guatemala (2006): [30]

Please not that Google Scholar is by no means an exhaustive ressource, as it refers only to scholars, and not to other kind of publications.

The book mentioned above is referenced in Google Books: [31]. This publication has had an important impact in Guatemala, as it served as a basis for defining the interinstitutional policy on Fair Trade in Guatemala in the years after 2006, as can be demonstrated in the following document: [32] Plan for the development of Fair Trade in Guatemala (2007-2013).

• There are other references posted in the French version of the page, which we will include in the English version, as soon as the page is restored.

Please reconsider deletion after viewing those references, which mean that the main reason mentioned was a misperception.

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Not being able to read Spanish puts me at a significant disadvantage. That said, there seems to be the potential of a good case here. I'd prefer userfication in the hopes that the nom can finish up the article as time allows before putting it in mainspace. Hobit ( talk) 18:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Restore: Do not delete. Reasons in Administator discussion: Includes a lot of information, large document with long history and many editors, deletion arguments dim since not specified arguments, not convincing arguments to delete, reasons vague and not proven correct, only few participants in the deletion discussion, no consensus. Original article should be returned. Watti Renew ( talk) 14:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion, with no objection to starting the article from scratch. I don't think there was a clear consensus that the article shouldn't exist, but the arguments for deleting the article as it stood at the time were overwhelming (copyvio alone was enough, but neutrality seemed to be a really big issue too). — WFC— _{FL wishlist} 15:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Amtrak Joe ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This redirect to Joe Biden was speedily deleted twice by user:Horologium under criterion G10. user:Purplebackpack89 recreated the page with just an RfD template and then listed it for discussion at today's RfD with the rationale "Restore redirect. Article was twice deleted by the same admin, claiming it was an attack page. I believe that it isn't. The moniker has been used in numerous articles in a non-negative light".

This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Restore - a web search finds NYT [33], ABC [34], HuffPost, American Prospect, none of which are using this as an attack label. Appears legit per RS, to the point where Joe Biden gets better search engine position for the "Amtrak Joe" moniker (without quotation marks) than Amtrak president Joe Boardman. K7L ( talk) 18:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Restore as original nominator per my above statement about it being used often positively p b p 19:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and start RfD G10 is for things that are unambiguously attack redirects. This doesn't meet that very conservative threshold, and needs to be sent to an appropriate discussion forum, rather than deleted again. Deleting administrators should be especially cautious in deleting a redirect as G10 without another editor nominating it first, and even more cautious when they are tempted to delete a redirect a second time, because doing so implies that the editor who has recreated the redirect is an outright vandal, rather than an editor in good standing who does not believe that the redirect meets G10. Jclemens ( talk) 16:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Have an RfD What Jclemens says. — Tom Morris ( talk) 19:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• restore clearly not an unambiguous attack. I'd say not an attack at all. Hobit ( talk) 21:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Restore without recommending RfD. I have heard of this term several times and never was it used to portray him in a negative light. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Restore - There are no Criteria for speedy deletion that justify the deletion. Although the same admin speedy deleted the redirect twice, the deletion actions were ten months apart, making them separate actions rather than a reaction to opposition to the first speedy deletion by an editor in good standing (which would be much worse). That being said, I agree with Jclemens' post. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 12:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Restore per above. Go to RfD if desired. Note that a wikipedia search for "amtrak joe" gives Joe Biden as the first result. The wikipedia search function is must better that it once was, and these redirects are now unnecessary. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment If the person who objected to my (second) deletion had waited more than two minutes after leaving his initial message on my talk page before recreating the page and leaving me a snotty comment, I would have restored it. When I went to restore the redirect (less than five minutes after his first request), I discovered that it was no longer a redlink, but had an RFD template. As I noted on my talk page (the first part of my original response was prior to the edit conflict and the page recreation), I was more than willing to restore it, after a more thorough reading of the article made it clear that it wasn't a attack against Joe Biden (in opposition to some of the other redirects I have nuked because they serve to disparage their targets). I believe in a liberal application of speedy deletion when it comes to BLP subjects, and politicians (especially American, but Anglophones in general) are common targets for nasty backbiting. I think it's better to not have a redirect than to have one which was created to score cheap political points. Sometimes, I err on the side of caution (as I did here), but I'd rather go too far than not go far enough. YMMV. Horologium (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• I think it is fine to err on the side of deleting redirects on the basis of a hint of a BLP issue. However, once there is a single voice of opposition to the deletion, the case should go to XfD. Your first deletion was fine. You second should have been an RfD nomination. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • No, the first one was NOT fine; please refer to Wikipedia:CSD G10#G10. It was incorrect, but perhaps excusably so. The second one, no matter how far separated in time, is not excusable, and deserves to be called out as poor administrator judgment. Defending that poor judgment, especially in the face of unanimous opposition at DRV, simply compounds the problem. Crying "BLP" on a redirect that wasn't even clearly negative in the first place is a worse idea still. Jclemens ( talk) 06:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply

You know, it's pretty obvious (from my reaction on my talk page) that I have acknowledged that I was wrong. I GOT IT. At this point, I wholeheartedly endorse recreation of the page. (Any administrator should feel free to close this discussion at this point and restore the redirect, to make it explicit for the record.) I was in the process of restoring the link when I discovered that it had been recreated, which (at least to me) seems to be an indication that I have acknowledged that my judgement was wrong. I am not going to fall on my sword and beg forgiveness, though, and citing an essay that was initiated by you and is largely your work is not, in my opinion, a particularly convincing argument. Again, YMMV, but I'd rather be conservative (by being bold) and nuke a redirect that might be a slur than leave it there. If you believe that Senator Sandwich or I never inhaled or Ass juice or Hell no you can't or Obamaville or Bushville or Tony Blur or Mr Long Legged Cleggy Weggy or Snipergate or Ronnie Raygun or Rod Blasonofabitch or Herr Gropenfuhrer or Joe Liarman or Rotten egg fart or Hot Tub Tom or Juan McChink or Please refudiate or Wienermania or Teflon Bill or Make no mistake or Let me be clear or San Fran Nan or Oxymormon or Goodhair Perry or any of the many other gratuitous attacks launched by redirects are acceptable, then I doubt that BLP means anything to you other than an obstacle to be overcome in creating a complete "anything goes" compendium. Horologium (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I think Jclemens was being unnecessarily harsh. That's a funny list of redirects there. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Rashmi_Singh_(author) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Inappropriate use of non-admin closure in violation of Wikipedia:NACD#Non-administrators_closing_discussions which states "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." There was substantial and ongoing discussion on this item, including attempts to fix the article itself, but a consensus had not yet been reached when some random and unknown user suddenly shut the entire discussion down by misusing non-admin closure. The discussion should be allowed to run its course, User has been notified at User talk:Hahc21#Rashmi Singh. K7L ( talk) 02:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Boldly reverted closure per WP guidelines requiring an admin to close a contested Afd; this one is definitely contested. Churn and change ( talk) 03:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC) reply

File:BornToDieParadise.jpeg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

This shouldn't be deleted. It's a re-release like Roman Reloaded. The previous deletion was an obvious no-consensus as well. MrIndustry ( talk) 22:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Support - I think this file might have been deleted, because, at the time, it was a duplicate of a lower resolution version. Both were mistakenly marked for deletion and subsequently deleted. Either that, or the this file was confused with File:Paradise EP.jpeg, but there are subtle, important differences that justify the inclusion of both images, the former on Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album) and the latter on Paradise (EP), since they are a re-release of an album (with a unique cover, when compared with the original) and a separate extended play. -- Thevampireashlee ( talk) 23:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - the other duplicates of this file were File:Paradise Edition of Born to Die by Lana Del Rey.jpg and File:Lana Del Rey Born to Die - The Paradise Edition.jpg. See also here: [35]-- Thevampireashlee ( talk) 23:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The image still isn't discussed critically in the article. User:MrIndustry has misunderstood WP:NOTAVOTE: it is not the number of votes which matters, but the reasons for keeping/deleting a file. For example, User:SuperHotWiki doesn't refer to any policy at all. Besides, this nomination violates the deletion review policy: you have to discuss the matter with the deleting administrator before starting a discussion here, but I see no prior discussion at User talk:SchuminWeb. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 12:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC) reply

My watchlist says De728631 deleted it. So I wrote on his talk. It's a WW re-release. Its album cover is completely different than the original release. This is literally ridiculous. -- MrIndustry ( talk) 16:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC) reply

User:De728631 deleted it as G4 because someone had re-uploaded the image without respecting the previous deletion discussion. You are supposed to contact the user who performed the initial deletion instead, and according to the instructions, you have to discuss the matter with the user before bringing something here, not just post a notice about the deletion review after starting it here. Indeed, as you wrote, this is literally ridiculous:

• Book articles don't get an extra cover image only because there was a reissue with a different cover. For example, there are lots of different covers for The Fellowship of the Ring, but there is only one cover in the infobox.
• Computer software articles don't get an extra cover image only because there was a reissue with a different cover. For example, there are lots of different covers for Microsoft Windows, but not a single one appears in the article.
• Video game articles don't get an extra cover only because there was a reissue with a different cover. For example, the European and Asian covers of Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) are completely different to the American cover, but only the American one appears in the article.
• Films don't get an extra image only because there is an alternative poster or a DVD cover or something. For example, the article Avatar (2009 film) only has one poster, but google:Avatar+movie+poster shows that there are plenty of very different posters available.

Why exactly do you think that this CD is any different? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC) reply

You act like it's just re-released. It's being re-released with 9 new tracks. -- MrIndustry ( talk) 15:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, compare with Little Busters!, then. It was first published as "Little Busters!" in 2007, and then remade into pornography as "Little Busters! Ecstasy" in 2008. The article suggests that a lot of new content was added in the second version, but there's no cover of "Little Busters! Ecstasy" in the article. Or, for that matter, Le Monde, which is published everyday with completely different material, but only has one cover in the article. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm not familiar with Busters so I can't understand it completely. It looks like there's FIFTEEN versions of it so that's probably why. Your argument is really petty talking about Le Monde. Why are you comparing a re-release of an album with 9 additional tracks with a newspaper that sells a new issue every day? Seriously? Why are you in this debate? -- MrIndustry ( talk) 16:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn: Music albums are known to be identified by their album covers, and in this case a new cover has been released for this subsequent edition of the album. Various other articles on Wikipedia feature alternate album covers, so there is no reason why Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album) should be treated any differently. The original FFD discussion was also leaning to "no consensus", but it was closed citing WP:NFCC. Alternate album artwork is certainly not forbidden to be used on Wikipedia, even though it appears some editors would wish it to be that way.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 15:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Music albums are known to be identified by the music. Exactly how is this any different from the four examples I listed above? Also see WP:NFC#UUI §2: if you are trying to turn the infobox section into a discography of versions of this album, then you can't include images of all of the different cover variants. About the "various other articles", see WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • OTHERTHINGSEXIST is the worst page to come out of this project in some time. When you explain that there are hundreds of other articles on this project that feature a certain aspect, then by all means that shows that there is a standing precedent on Wikipedia that clearly allows for this kind of content.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 12:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• The article for this album currently has 166 cited references. If the different cover artwork is truly as significant as it's made out to be here, surely sufficient critical commentary can be found on the subject to add at least one reliably-sourced sentence about it to the article. That's all it really needs. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 16:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• I'd like to note that I didn't delete the original file, that was done by SchuminWeb; see the XfD link above. I even !voted to keep that. But since it was uploaded again after the first FFD, if under a different name, I had to delete it per policy. You should have raised this deletion review right after the first deletion instead of uploading the image again. De728631 ( talk) 18:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn original AfD Policy is not sufficiently clear and unambiguous on this point that a 2/2 split can be closed as "delete" by an impartial administrator. A "no consensus" would have been a perfectly fine outcome, but a relisting would probably have been simpler all around. We do have precedents for multiple album artwork, like Virgin Killer, and the discussion should have turned, but didn't, on the adequacy of critical commentary for the new album artwork. Jclemens ( talk) 04:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment - What article do you plan to use File:BornToDieParadise.jpeg in? From the FfD, "there is already a different cover in the article." What article? What different cover? Is the different tracklists in the article, as mentioned in the FfD? Is there an Infobox album in an article into which File:BornToDieParadise.jpeg will be placed? -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 13:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  If you click article it'll take you to the article.-- MrIndustry ( talk) 16:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  The above DRV request is to place the WP:NFC File:BornToDieParadise.jpeg (pic) in the subsection: Born to Die: The Paradise Edition#Born to Die .E2.80.93 The Paradise Edition. What Non-free use rationale template do you plan to use? I found two references mentioning the upcoming November 13, 2012 re-release: Billboard September 25, 2012, mentions "a fancy deluxe box set". Billboard October 12, 2012 has no mention of cover artwork. Why should Wikipedia include a copy of the album image in its article when the reliable sources evidence judgments to exclude a copy of the re-release album image in their published article or provide any comment on the re-release album artwork in their published article? -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 13:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  Before it was deleted, it appeared in the main infobox (see Special:PermanentLink/517276711 for the last revision before the first deletion). When it was reuploaded, it was again placed in the main infobox at the top of the page (see Special:PermanentLink/518081015 for the last revision before the second deletion). Although the file has been deleted, you can still see the redlinked text "The Paradise Edition" in the infobox, indicating where it was used. Are you saying that you are planning to use the image in a different way than the way it was used before? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  Critical commentary of the alternate cover was reported in this source by Stuff on September 25, 2012. It was added to the article in this edit. Surely it is sufficient and/or likely that additional commentary exists in other third party sources. It would seem to have a better rationale that articles like One by One (Foo Fighters album), which merely use multiple non-free content covers as decoration with minimal to zero documented commentary. -- Thevampireashlee ( talk) 20:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Allow uploading and allow relisting. The source "Genevie Rosen (September 25, 2012). "Lana Del Rey releases afterthought". Stuff.co.nz. Retrieved October 17, 2012." appears to be a Wikipedia reliable source and discusses the new artwork. The Stuff.co.nz source is significant new information (at least new to the FfD discussion) has come to light since a deletion per WP:DRVPURPOSE. The album was released on January 27, 2012 and they are releasing a new one eleven months later with significant changes. That is very odd and likely to have generate reliable source discussion. Album artwork is a large part of identity of a musical work and changing the album artwork after such a short time likely will have generated reliable source discussion. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 05:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. G4 is correct, and the original FfD close was within admin discretion. T. Canens ( talk) 10:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  While we are discovering that G4 was applicable to the initial FFD last month (the closure of which is still a little problematic to me), the issue now stands that this new cover is the subject of critical commentary, which allows it to pass NFCC 3a & 8.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 11:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Additional Comment The Fame Monster is its own album and it has an alternate cover. It's even a "good" article. Can someone explain?-- MrIndustry ( talk) 15:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. WP:NFCC #3a and #8 are not negotiable nor can consensus overrule it. Stifle ( talk) 20:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply

  3a) Invalid. Born to Die original artwork can't convey the message of a re-release. 8) Of course it increases the readers understanding of a re-release.-- MrIndustry ( talk) 21:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. There was no consensus to delete in the FfD, and the policy situation isn't so clear cut as to allow judgment calls by administrators; these aspects of NFCC compliance are a matter of editorial judgment about which editors may in good faith disagree.  Sandstein  08:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Well within admin discretion. Moreover, observe that Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album) and Paradise (EP) both have individual covers. The fact that File:Paradise EP.png exists and the cover in question is essentially the same as it except for the text means that any critical commentary about the re-release cover in Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album) can merely link to the article Paradise (EP), saying that the cover is similar. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
• Relist the discussion should have turned on the issue of sources describing the image, it did not. Uzma Gamal has identified a source that does and there may be others that go into more depth. Relisting seems the way to go forward so a discussion can be had if this meets our NFCC guidelines now. Hobit ( talk) 00:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • The discussion about the image that User:Uzma Gamal found isn't part of Wikipedia. It is irrelevant if there are documents outside Wikipedia which mention the image; the purpose of an image is to help users understanding a Wikipedia article, not to help Wikipedia users understanding an external document. Also, as User:King of Hearts wrote, there is an almost identical image in Paradise (EP). Quoting WP:NFC: "If another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, referring to its other use is preferred over repeating its use on the list and/or including a new, separate, non-free image." -- Stefan2 ( talk) 00:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Regardless, they're two different albums and need to be treated as individual. People keep altering the EP article with re-release info, and including the SAME cover will only confuse them further. -- MrIndustry ( talk) 00:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
      • WP:NFC says that you should refer to the cover, not include it. That is, you should add a link to the other article where users can see the image. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 00:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Not like it's a tremendous issue, but I was the one that procured the source and used it in the article (see above). I wiki-linked the article text on Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album) to point to the image description page. But, honestly, I don't see how "referring" to the image is better than simply posting it in the article. One way or the other, the reader is going to see it. Why add the extra hassle? Including the cover art, on two articles about the albums, in no way inhibits their ability to sell either album. If anything, it promotes it. On top of that, the cover is of reduced quality, is accompanied by critical commentary, and I think the article suffers without its inclusion to which there is no free alternative. If that doesn't satisfy NFC, then I don't know what does. -- Thevampireashlee ( talk) 01:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, that's a source outside of Wikipedia. And yes, that means we have a source that discusses the image. And yes, that can be a good reason to keep a non-free image (WP:NFCI #1). Is it enough? That's what we have FfD discussions for. DRV's role in this case (in my opinion) is to allow a wider discussion about if the image is needed. Hobit ( talk) 02:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, that is a source outside the Wikipedia article. However, as I wrote, it is irrelevant if there are sources outside the Wikipedia article or not; it only matters if the Wikipedia article itself critically discusses the image. The purpose of the image is not to illustrate the external article but to illustrate the Wikipedia article. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 12:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
        • As of today, the Wikipedia article does contain a critical commentary: The reissue's cover art released on 25 September. It features Del Rey with her hair free flowing against a tropical backdrop. [94] Genevieve Rosen, writing for Stuff, said the cover art was "looking slightly more luxe than in her stark and minimalistic original Born To Die portrait."[94]. So there is an appropriate reason to illustrate the WP article with said alternative cover art work. Referring to the similar EP cover would only confuse the general reader, so we need to display the real re-release cover in the album article. De728631 ( talk) 13:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC) reply
          • The image is just mentioned briefly and the text seems to provide a replacement of the text. See WP:NFCC#1. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 00:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC) reply