Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Db-movedab (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is a speedy deletion template that was deleted by Fastily under the T3 criterion as unused and redundant (although it is not specified to what it is redundant), and it is used and recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages for non-admins who cannot move over redirects to malplaced disambiguation pages. Note also that the T3 criterion includes a seven-day grace period, and I am pretty sure that it wasn't tagged with {{db-t3}} for seven days before deletion. Fastily was not contacted before this DRV because it says on his talk page that he will be away until late November. Logan Talk Contributions 21:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I speedily restored it. It was tagged for seven days, but I don't see the harm it would do to discuss this at TFD if it is indeed used often for that Wikiproject. NW (Talk) 23:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Second Front (Digital Performance Group) /Second Front (Second Life Performance Art Group) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Page was created for an assignment for Univversity and was deleted under speedy deletion regulations, and we never got the chance to contest the deletion. Also, we found our sandbox had been deleted which we believe is a violation of our rights as wikipedians. RuthyRainbow (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The deleted article is Second_Front_(Digital_Performance_Group) this was moved from User:TimoWardX21/Second Front (Second Life Performance Art Group) - the act of moving this to main space removed it from your sandbox. I cannot see the content which was deleted so can't really comment much on the validity of the deletion, but assuming that it's not fundamentally inappropriate content for the encyclopedia, I doubt there should be any issue with restoring it to your sandbox for further work/guidance on meeting the criteria. Have you discussed this with the admin who did the deletion? (Usually the fastest way to get it restored)
    Rights on wikipedia are limited, certainly merely signing up for an account doesn't entitle you to have put whatever you want on wikipedia, in a sandbox or otherwise. Now of course we want to encourage new users to be active participants in the project and so offer some leeway, however I guess if there is no way it's likely to meet the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia we wouldn't be doing you any favours to encourage you to keep on at something which will never make it into main space or will be deleted by a full community discussion. As above I can't see the article to make such a judgement, but this is the hardnosed view of it. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've undeleted the article and moved it back to User:TimoWardX21/Second Front (Second Life Performance Art Group). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much. --RuthyRainbow (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bert Oliva (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Briefly: Notability has been the issue. It was fixed. Then deleted for recreation of older version. In Detail: I am a student at FIU and need some help with one of my recent projects; to create a wikipage for Bert Oliva(motivational speaker, etc.). "Bert Oliva" was deleted because they said it was a recreation of an older version. I worked with other people including screwball23, c.fred, and others on creating new material, verbiage and references. To be honest "recreation of an older version" is actually a recent issue, we usually get the notability problem. However when we thought that we gave it enough support it was taken down in 2 weeks. How can I get this turned around? I think this wasn't a valid deletion and I am just in need of some help putting it back up. Also I'm not sure if helps the situation further but Fastily, the deleter, is on a month long break, conveniently right after the deletion, and it does say on his talk page this: Admins, in my absence, you do not need to ask for my permission or input to reverse one of my administrative actions. Hope that helps. Thank you very much for your time and help, it is greatly appreciated! Michaelparks (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article temporarily restored for visibility at DRV. The most recent version is here and the version deleted at AfD is here. JohnCD (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. One could argue about whether the new version is "sufficiently identical" with the one deleted at AfD, but it still does not establish notability, so does not address the reason for deletion. There seems to be something of a campaign to get this guy into Wikipedia - pages about him had already been deleted six times before the AfD and salted, the history is full of SPAs, and I note the phrase "we usually get the notability problem" above - but still I see nothing to suggest that he is more than a run-of-the mill "motivational speaker". The El Nuevo Herald references are behind a paywall, but none of the results produced by a search for his name mentions him in the first few lines, still less seems to be primarily about him; the South Florida Business Journal just gives his name as one in a list of 60 winners of an "Up and comers" award six years ago; in the Charlotte Observer he is one of three people who give brief quotes; the three Youtube references are his own shows. This is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If this is the best his supporters can do, it is time to face the fact that he is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. I think relisting at AFD would be a waste of time. JohnCD (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I fail to see notability any more now than apparently he had before. And the use of YouTube fails to impress either. Sorry - to overturn the deletion requires far better than this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse inclusion I have never heard of him before the wikipedia notice a few weeks back. I have seen several motivational speakers with wikipedia pages and I do not see any reason to believe that there is a standard of "run of the mill" versus multimillion-dollar Tony Robbins-types that makes the difference for notability. If there was such a standard, it would certainly be worthy to look into it. I see a lot of "run of the mill" politicians and musicians on wikipedia that would be easy targets if this standard was applied. I also am against the elitist attitude that a page can be shooed away because of the WP:SPA accounts involved. I've had this argument with Collect before, but I believe you might be open-minded to hear this : yes, Michaelparks is probably a zealous supporter who has strong promotional tendencies. However, many people on wikipedia will edit articles that they have interest in. Doesn't it make sense? It's natural, and I can't understand how someone like Collect could supposedly claim that he has no bias, no political views, and believes every editor should be barred from editing a single article because it displays "too much interest". I know, I'm venting, but he never reached full sanity after a battle we had on Linda McMahon :-) . Anyway, I would argue that many potential contributors are being pushed away and hard-bitten for writing about their interests, and in this situation, that's exactly what's happening. Now, Michaelparks is placing a legitimate interest in our hands and allowing us to make the changes necessary to remove cruft and in-perspective info. Why waste that and go for sniper-fast deletions when the article could easily be salvaged? All that needs to be done is a reduction of the photo so it doesn't look like a fan's poster, and the opinionated information can be taken down, which I've been doing all along. I took down the marketing information and the list of products that this page started with, and I am confident that the info on the page is encyclopedic and can be made even more so with minor changes. I understand the fact that he has a lot of youtube links that don't really help, but the truth is, with the huge transition of media from TV to the internet, he gains notability in the same way that Kassem G or other internet personalities do.--Screwball23 talk 06:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack Collect because you disagree with him. All he has said here is that the article does not show notability. The fact that the author may be a supporter is not a reason for deletion, nor is the presence of SPA accounts, nor the fact that the article has previously been deleted so many times; but they are reasons to look hard at the evidence for notability. Michaelparks has made a neatly-presented article, but the way to encourage him is not to bend the notability standard for him, but to explain it clearly so that he can choose a better subject for his next article. The only question here is, does the article show evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? JohnCD (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is far from his only personal attack on me, nor is it the worst (see WP:WQA for prior reports, inter alia) . He has been reported multiple times, and not been blocked once for this sort of stuff -- and I am getting very tired of it. Will someone actually deal with him? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Screwball23 also seems to have a bone to pick with Fastily [1]. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - AfD was right the first time, and nothing has changed in the attempted rewrite. Subject is quoted in a syndicated column about staying positive in the recession, and another is just a listing of his name and an award won. The youtube links count for squat, while the El Nueva Herald is just a link to search results and not an article. But judging by what it is sourcing, the content would just be about a photo website his team created, and not be about the subject himself. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: No question close was correct based on discussion. As for whether the subject merits an article, I am not seeing sufficient sourcing out there.--Milowenthasspoken 15:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: My comment is pointing out that the original AfD close was correct. As for the recreated version, I haven't looked to see if it was substantially the same or not -- if there's an argument for notability, we could send new article to AfD, but I did not see one.--Milowenthasspoken 17:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I do not think there was any case for notability before, or at present. I was a little earlier asked on my talk p. to restore this, and gave the same response. I was then asked whether a Youtube channel of testimonials to him would help the sourcing, and that pretty much indicates the state of things. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse inclusion Okay so I didn't post this here for you guys to tell me the same thing I've been told. Thats counter-productive... I'm just looking for someone to help me out. From my POV, not knowing of him before this college project, and not really knowing this industry too well, I've found out most of what he does through videos. That's just the way his stuff gets out. It shows him speaking at very large events, with Trump, he has surprisingly branded a band of reality shows pretty well, testimonials, there are different videos for each breakthrough he talks about... So from my POV with no restrictions of resources I can see what this guy does, who he's been with, and how long he's been doing it. But unfortunately this stuff is all in videos. It was already spoken of earlier that there are people that are in wikipedia solely because of videos on YouTube. It's the 2nd largest search engine in the world, only behind GOOGLE. I mean seriously? When is Wikipedia going to modernize or at least not play favorites with who can use videos as sources. And on top of that being their sources, NONE of them are 3rd party. My brother in California used to work for one of these guys and they al know each other. They run ad campaigns for each other for more hits! So the issue being "notability because videos aren't a reliable source" is unacceptable. I asked for help, not a "let's deny so we can move on". --Michaelparks (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
let me try again to explain
his own videos talking about himself, or anything else he wrote, or anything derived from a press release by him, or any interview with him that essentially consists of him talking about himself, are not sources that show his importance. What is needed to show his importance is references to 3rd parties, independent of him, talking about him in a substantial way. Are there such sources? If not, there is no point in trying an article. I do not ordinarily oppose incubation, but in this case I would. If there are other people with equally poor sourcing, please let me know, and I will nominate them for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • History of All My Children – Although arguments are marginally split, the deleted articles have absolutely no sources between then and therefore count as original research. DRV can't be about restoring unreferenced and unverified OR so the outcome has to be endorse deletion. My advice to the nominator is find some sources discussing the history and write a new article and see how it fares. A 4 year old AFD isn't going to have much value in considering a G4 of an entirely new article but please be aware that GNG applies and if you produce something without references then it will end up at AFD again. – Spartaz Humbug! 04:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
History of All My Children (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
History of All My Children (1970-1979) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
History of All My Children (1980-1989) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
History of All My Children (1990-1999) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
History of All My Children (2000-present) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The essay, WP:AADD, is not followed, although it is not a policy. The closer nominator was banned for sockpuppetry. I don't know why the AfD's decision should be overturned, but many people voted delete for similar reasons in AfD, and the articles were deleted four years ago. However, the arguments may not meet current administrators' standards of judgments from administrators, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Guiding Light and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of As the World Turns may result either keep or no consensus. I will withhold my vote until I see majority of endorse. To be honest, these articles may have been very messy without proper citations and notability before deletion. I would recommend userfication or similar before these articles are officially recovered by consensus. Gh87 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)—Gh87 (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC) --Gh87 (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse last time I checked wp:PLOT was still policy, so the argument for deletion in this AFD has not changed a bit. Thank you for pointing out those AFDs. The first As the world turns one is heading towards merge, but the second one is a problem. Yoenit (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So I went there to teach people about wp:PLOT and ended up voting keep all in the guiding light AFD. Still pondering the implications of that, but I might change my vote later on. Struck some parts of my earlier comment at least. Yoenit (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until we see the result of the two AfDs mentioned. I agree consistency is a virtue, and the decision on those is likely to show whether consensus has changed. I certainly hope it has: WP:PLOT remains policy, but only because stonewalling has prevented sufficient agreement of a consensus wording to replace it. But it is best interpreted by considering that it refers only to the total Wikipedia coverage of a fictional topic; since the fiction is covered in considerable detail in other respects, a split of the plot from the general article can be justified for a sufficiently complicated fiction. Clarity will benefit from having them merged into one article, however, and I hope the current AfDs lead to that result. If, as Yoenit says, they result in merge, than a reversal of the decision toa restore and merge would be the best result here. DGG ( talk ) 07:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean the nominator, don't you? Mailer diablo (talk · contribs) is a current arbitrator. T. Canens (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies: I have corrected my error. --Gh87 (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not accused closing admin for abusing discretion. For your information, I have recently corrected my grammar, so I hope for no further misleading interpretations. --Gh87 (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
new New World Order (politics) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I remember of a page on this topic about six months ago which I consulted after a talk discussing the notion of post-New World Order at a University in Taiwan. I have now found a mirror of the original article new New World Order (politics) . I am no expert but it seems very well put to me. Does this very aggregation constitues Original Research? Actually if the article had been published elsewhere we could not reproduce it per copyright infringement. I see only five people discussed the deletion of this entry and most where coming from the French discussion where the article was legitimitaly closed as the term has no notability or third-party coverage in the French language... I do not have the time to review the Frech discussion but as for the English article, I submit emotional snowballing has biased its discussion into an unfair assessment. GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - Deletion Review is not for cases of "I disagree". If you want to request a copy of the article be placed in your user-space to attempt to work out the problems (though in my opinion the very nature of the article is inherently problematic with WP:SYNTH concerns raised at the AfD, and an article that tries to make hay out of an "Obama bowing controversy" is a non-starter), any admin can do that. There was nothing remotely wrong with closing an AfD as delete that ran 5-0. Tarc (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean that: the article needs to be wikified rather than dismissed as a whole. I am ready to do that. Also, as a journalist, I had heard a lot and covered the "bowing controversy" although I did not know it had a name. It was quite famous as a discussion in East Asia. Here are a few references from the web at large and from the googles news archive with clear citations from Fox News, MSNBC and others. If this section must be deleted then, why not do it in the wikifying? Besides, although it is in the norm to give five people the right to deny an entry it is neither morally fair nor scientifically legitimate: truth is not democratic. GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ask the deleting admin to place the article in your userspace so that you can improve it in the WP:INCUBATOR. Dualus (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • before I do that I need a wikibuddy to give her/his opinion on what is original and what is not. To me there is no OR in this article, and the ips voting in the French review have gone as far as saying the deletion was a cognitive bias of Lock-in namely one primer gives hs opinion with emotional intensifiers and others follow. I am not sure it is that, but I cannot see any original conclusion being made out of the synthesis: namely I cannot see anything being said in this article that has not been said by a third-party before, which means to me it passes the OR test. If you move it to my user page I'll do my best to improve it thoughGrandPhilliesFan (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Restore, improve, and possibly have another AfD. DR can reverse for any reason that has consensus. Wikipedia is NOT BURO. That consensus may have changed, that there were factors overlooked in the discussion, and t=people judged without thinking it through, are all good reasons for reversal. Correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do so is a mistake in following Deletion process. A close that does not fairly evaluate the topic is an eror in everyone's judgement, and can be reversed. It's only equitable: if people can bring repeated AfDs of a keep decision they dislike, there has to be some equivalent way to challenge a delete decision. Whether this is true in the present case, however, is the question. It would appear to me from the recovered article that the phrase is sufficiently used to justify an article, and that the people at the AfD may have been overhasty in judging it OR. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, I see you are a librarian, would you help me objectively find out whatever this article has said that may not have been said by any third party source? After a thorough reading of the entry I see that the only possible OR may come from the first paragraph entitled "scholarly overview" in which the editor(s) have hastily asserted that the Obama discourse pursued the Brzezinski doctrine without sourcing this statement. There is also a parenthesis comment which could be suppressed. Apart from that, tha article totally passes the OR test to me: namely I fail to see any assertion made in this article that has not been fully made by third party sources, even in its synthesis. Cheers GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (yes, if you spam Jimbo Wales, you catch his fleas as well, in a rather mixed metaphor). Original discussion was unanimous and correct (linking e.g. the Obama bow controversy with the new new world order is WP:OR or at best something that doesn't appear in reliable sources: [2] and the same search in News, News Archive, Scholar, and regular Google). Userfy and turn into a completely different article if you think you can make something good out of it: but don't put this into the mainspace. Fram (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • well I'm happy to meet you Mr/Ms Flea. I don't consider it a spam but merely " being bold". As per the bowing section why don't we just cut it out of the article then? My argument is that no assertion claiming something that has not been written by a third party source has ever been singled out. This means the article passes OR. Cheers to you Mr. Flea --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I actually find it very rude of yours to call it a spam when it has a legitimate goal, is a short and clear edit and is even recommended by the user... but you are free to call a request a spam --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just singled out a whole section, so claiming that "no assertion claiming something that has not been written by a third party source has ever been singled out" is a bit strange as a reply. I haven't checked whether the other sections are or contain OR, nor whether the whole article is OR synthesis: the people in the original AfD did this, and they were unanimous. You disputed their correctness (and indeed, unanimity doesn't mean correctness), but your claim to do so, "I fail to see any assertion made in this article that has not been fully made by third party sources, even in its synthesis." is clearly incorrect, so overturning an unanimous decision based on your incorrect reasons is not something I can support, and I have to endorse the original decision. Why don't you want to userfy and thoroughly rewrite the article? Fram (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. Your canvassing belongs on Jimbo's user talk page, not on his user page. Fram (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok calm down, relax and take a deep breathe. I wanted to do just that. But I want others' opinions before starting it. Your opinion leads me to think I should absolutely not for example. And I value it. And you may be right. And forgive me for the straightforward editing of the Master's page. Do you want me to delete the edit?GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: what do you mean "canvassing"GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite calm, thank you. No idea where you got a different impression. When you invite a user to participate in a deletion discussion or DRV where they have no relation with, and when that invitation is not neutral but clearly biased towerds the opinion of the poster, then that is often considered canvassing (also known as internal spamming). Singling out Jimbo also gives the impression that you are looking for an argument from authority, even though he has no more authority in these discussions than other editors. Fram (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You meant no harm, but meanwhile you have posted[3] a similar biased request for involvement in the DRV to User:Mike Cline, self-declared inclusionist. Please read and follow WP:CANVASSING. Fram (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
very few people presently active in Wikipedia are inclusionists on everything. Mike is a respected and even-handed administrator. Just as people who ask me to discussions are not necessarily please by my comments; I think this is also true about him. Unless you have solid information otherwise, you should in all fairness rephrase your comment here. I look forward to seeing his views; I have no idea what they will be, but perhaps they will clarify things here. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no comment about or judgment on Mike Cline, but it is from the perspective of the canvasser perhaps not surprising that they invite a self-declared inclusionist to this DRV. That doesn't mean that the canvassing would have the desired result, canvassing often doesn't work, but that doesn't make it any better. Fram (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much too humbling if the community declared me an inclusionist, so I did it myself to save on the embarrassment. By the tenor of the comment, one must assume such a label (self-declared or not) carries with it great power. Unfortunately such power eludes me at the moment. Fram, thanks for giving visibility to my views, us inclusionists need all the support we can muster.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Visibility <> support (nor necessarily the opposite). I personally loathe both labels, inclusionist and deletionist, as being divisive and usually not representative of the actual views of people (except some of the most extreme ones), but everyone is free to label themselves however they like. Fram (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD was perfectly clear, not to say unanimous, and the reasons presented (OR, SYNTH, and the fact that searches did not suggest any established consistent use of the term) were in accordance with policy. It could not have been closed any other way, and the fact that only five people took part and a theory about "emotional snowballing" are not reasons to overturn its result. No objection to userfying, if GrandPhilliesFan thinks s/he can make something of it, though it seems to me a case of "If I wanted to go there (an acceptable article) I wouldn't start from here (this version)." JohnCD (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was nothing wrong with the close, despite the fact that the debate was pitiful. But that deletion does not in any way have to be viewed as permanent. New, New World Order is factually a phrase that has and is appearing in international political discourse. However, global doctrines sometimes take years to mature into something tangible in the media and in academia, so on this the jury may still be out. I have no idea why GrandPhilliesFan reached out to me (probably my association with ARS), but all that did was bring accusations of WP:CANVASS with little or no mentoring explanation as to what that means. Shame on the community, here we have a new editor (< 200 edits) asking legitimate questions about WP:OR and WP:SYN in the context of a deleted article. Although DRV was probably the wrong place to ask, as those of us in the community that routinely participate in DRV (I don’t because it’s a broken process) should have immediately recognized the Newbi nature of the questions and behavior of this editor and begun mentoring that editor on their talk page about the best way to handle these kinds of questions. Clearly GrandPhilliesFan’s questions would have been better addressed at an OR noticeboard, but I doubt a new editor--GrandPhilliesFan for example-- even knows that board exists. I know I didn't when I had 200 edits. Instead GrandPhilliesFan got chastised for CANVASSING and curt recommendations to do something different, even when it’s evident the editor didn’t even understand what people were talking about. We have to start behaving better toward new editors. It’s not just civility, as there is nothing (so far) uncivil in this discussion so far. It is about recognizing that new editors are going to do things that are perfectly normal in collaborative environments outside the walls of WP. Inside those walls, we have many norms that are inconsistent with good collaborative behavior (WP:CANVASS for one) that take a while to learn, understand and apply productively. We are Building an encyclopedia here. Our workforce are our volunteers, our editors, and if we don’t mentor the newbies with vigor and conviction, our building will suffer in the long term. I will discuss options with GrandPhilliesFan later.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had no idea there was an OR noticeboard yes. And I may underline Ignore all rules I wanted to improve wikipedia in good faith, and I do not like being patronized or fustigated rather than plainly informed for my initiatives. Newbies (oh and by the way : Don't bite the newbies) are here to help wikipedia evolve. If you are merely dismissing this input of new blood with the back of your hand you become responsible for the overall damage inflicted on WP. WP is the "Free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" not "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit according to her rank in the WP hierarchy and given her navigation knowledge of the elaborate bureaucracy " or maybe I had the motto wrong when I registered? Thus may I userfy the page or not? --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that while I indicated the error of canvssing and the errors in his expressed views regarding the lack of OR in the article, I also indicated in that first reply here that he could have the article userfied. I don't mind explaining the positive possibilities to editors, but that doesn't mean that we have to ignore the errors they make. And canvassing is not "good collaborative behaviour" at all, quite the contrary. Fram (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The debate was anemic, but the debate doesn't exactly need to be very lively when everyone agrees with each other. That alone is a pretty good reason to judge the outcome as consensus. Also, I have seen it done probably dozens upon dozens of times and invoking WP:IAR as an end-run around notability in an AfD or deletion review has a success rate of exactly zero percent. Trusilver 16:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
PunBB (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

PunBB is well known open source software with 8 years history. 1) the software is used by millions of people and thousands of sites around the world, hence deeming it popular; 2) Google search returns a lot of websites when you search “Powered by PunBB” - discussion boards and sites with extensions developed for PunBB. If it wasn't a significant project, then Google would not return as many results; 3) Facebook Developers were using PunBB engine for a long time, therefore it aided in creation and advancement of Facebook as we know it, pretty significant; 4) There is still an article on FluxBB on Wiki that wasn't deleted after a deletion discussion, hence it is only logical that the project that was foundation of FluxBB should be described as well; 5) there are many books in Google Books about PunBB, nearly 119 items are returned, with at least 6 solid books that can be quoted and referenced. Last 3 month we try explain this to moderator who deleted page, but no results. Its strange and looks like personal interests or double standards. Dimkalinux (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dimkalinux, please retract your speculations with regards to the administrators motivations. User:Jayjg responded to your concerns on his talkpage, but nothing happened because you did not reply back. Had you done so this could have been sorted 3 months ago. Yoenit (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist a Google book search shows a few sources with coverage ([4] being the best, just a couple of paragraphs). A number of academic papers use it as a standard workload [5] for example. I'd say given the very limited discussion and the wide number of RSes that discuss this software at least briefly (I found about 40 RSes total just in books and scholar) that a new/better discussion is warranted. Hobit (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my speculations. I`m have not much time for discussion in last month because of personal issues. Im just not understand why on deleted PunBB page keeping redirect on page for software with less sources and less well known (its not making its bad). We try get answer to this simple question 3 month. Anyway, our primary goal is restoring page. Many PunBB users waiting for it. What we can do for make possible restore PunBB page?

What you are doing right now. The community will have 7 days to evaluate whether the PunBB page should be restored. It will help if you can find sources (books, newspapers, scholarly articles) which discuss PunBB such as the link Hobit gives above. The more of these sources you find, the stronger the case for restoring the article. Yoenit (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn, relist if desired The AFD atracted minimal attention and the claims that no mentions in reliable sources could be found for the software is obviously false, as demonstrated by the sources that Hobit found. A quick search did not reveal any other sources with significant coverage besides the two Hobit identified, but I agree with his assesment a new discussion is waranted. Yoenit (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no article is re-created, I hope that it can stay as a redirect without being deleted again. It is mentioned in FluxBB and the redirect would have helped me searching. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 00:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Relist. Without even considering the sources that Hobit found, I think it's clear that there was insufficient discussion to warrant deletion of this article. Two deletes and a keep are not enough to establish consensus on anything. Trusilver 06:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Romsey Town RollerbilliesDeletion Endorsed The new sources at the end appear to have mostly been in the article at the time of deletion and the best of them - stars and stripes - was explicitly discussed and refuted in the AFD discussion. The clear consensus here is that this doesn't past the GNG and by clear precedent, DRV tends not to overturn deletions under a SNG if there is good evidence that a page fails the GNG anyway. This is consistent with the concept that SNGs are supposed to indicate areas where an article is likely to have sources instead of an excuse for them to exist without sources existing. The SNG for this sport appears to be in dispute in any case and there can be no doubt that deletion was in accordance with widespread meta-consensus on where the threshold for inclusion should be – Spartaz Humbug! 03:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Romsey Town Rollerbillies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Basic criteria, the deleted article clearly includes multiple published, non-trivial, reliable, intellectually and otherwise independent secondary sources.[6][7][8] Therefore I believe at least five editors on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romsey Town Rollerbillies are mistaken and this deletion should be overturned. Dualus (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First source is good, though their independence can be debated. The second one is hardly a reliable quality source ("Brighton’s honour is at stake, so make sure you come on down to support your local derby team."), and the third is purely local coverage, which is usually dismissed, certainly for sports teams. Fram (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, which reflected the consensus of the discussion (even the recommendation to keep from Nemonoman seems sensible to the argument that the available coverage is insufficient at the moment). There is also consensus that this may be revisited once a ranking system is established, but the discussion was closed just a few days ago so the circumstances remain the same. In the meantime, a redirect should be placed to United Kingdom Roller Derby Association, as suggested by The Bushranger (I didn't want to create it now in case the article is restored for review) — frankie (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dualus (talk · contribs) has asked me to userfy the article, which I've done at User:Dualus/Romsey Town Rollerbillies. causa sui (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative request Given the comments from Fram and frankie, I also request undeletion so that a rescue tag can be added for a three month trial. Dualus (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, what? An article is deleted, so you want to restore it for three months with a "rescue tag", which is only supposed to be on the article during an AfD? Why would we start keeping articles around for three months instead of the 7 days of normal AfDs? Bring it to the incubator and ask for help at a Wikiproject of your choice, but assuming this DRV doesn't overturn the deletion, it should not be brought back into the mainspace without serious improvements (meaning a lot more authoritative sources or other clear claims of notability; and for the record, if there would come a championship with only one or even two divisions, being one of the "top division" clubs still wouldn't count for me: highest level appearance only counts when there are a sufficient number of other levels, otherwise "highest" becomes meaningless). Fram (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your evaluation of the sources is generally good, but the extent to which it shows that this is a borderline case reinforces my belief that it deserves a rescue tag with a three month trial per WP:NOTPAPER and [9] and I would be interested to learn if there are any reasons to the contrary. I was unfamiliar with WP:INCUBATOR#Incubation vs rescue and I have moved the article to the incubator and will alert the correct Wikiprojects, while still arguing that deletion should be overturned based on the fact that the deficiencies of the second and third sources cancel each other out. Thank you! Dualus (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternative request withdrawn while request to overturn the deletion stands: BBC News source mentions team. Dualus (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, that would be the best example of a trivial mention I have seen this year. Yoenit (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The BBC announces a match, and it's trivial? Why, because the team name is in parentheses? Because it's in a sidebar? The BBC is the national news authority in the team's country. Dualus (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Doesn't matter if it is scripture divined from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it is a mere namedrop with no substantial information provided about the team. The example at the bottom of the notability policy might help in understanding the difference between a trivial mention and substantial coverage. Yoenit (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have never read such deletionist drivel in my life. Are we honestly discouraged from sourcing the name of Bill Clinton's high school band simply because his biographer only gives mention of it one sentence? You may submit your definition of what is and is not trivial to the desperate vagaries of deletionists' attempts at policy footnotes, but I maintain that an announcement by the BBC, or any local news authority, is not trivial, even if it is only one sentence. Dualus (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • We can source Clinton's biography for the name of his high school band, but you can't use it alone to justify notability, as the notability guideline requires significant coverage. You really can't argue with a straight face that the BBC mention is "significant coverage". Sceptre (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The consensus in the AFD was a clear delete, although several participants expressed they would support recreation if additional sources could be found. The only source added to the article since the deletion is a trivial mention BBC News, which does not establish notability in any form. Yoenit (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubated and ready for WP:GRADUATION. I added another news source mention and their facebook, blog, myspace page, forum, and team email. There's plenty more on Google so I'll just keep adding stuff until someone moves it to mainspace. Dualus (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore & list as desired No real discussion of sources at all in that discussion and discussion of GNG was highly limited. Two good sources [10] and [11] that are reliable sources with solid coverage (and I can't see how Stars and Stripes (newspaper) isn't reliable.) Hobit (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have added four sources, reworked all three paragraphs, identified their current practice location and schedule, added seven external links including three videos, and now I think I'll check out their Facebook. Dualus (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- close adequately reflected the discussion. DRV nominator should remember that DRV is not AfD Round 2, and that calling people names is unhelpful. Reyk YO! 23:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another source Official UK government source. Dualus (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no good reason to overturn. I would note that this is being undeleted by stealth, with a redirect in mainspace that's been added to multiple articles and mainspace categories added to the article.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closing admin's decision properly reflected the consensus at the AfD. AfD review is here to determine if the discussion was closed correctly, it's not AfD round 2 for you to continue arguing the merits of the article. Trusilver 03:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not arguing the merits of the deleted article, I'm arguing the merits of the incubator version which now has thirteen sources (seven more than when it was deleted -- all secondary), a new logo, seven additional external links, and a complete re-work of all the prose and reference formatting. It's a completely different article. I just added a half hour Affinity Radio Cambridge program from a noted sports broadcaster. The incubated article is now so far within the inclusion criteria I see no need to prolong this absurd DRV. Dualus (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apart from the fact that none of the sources you added seem to meet the standards for sources from WP:N. Note that your BBC source, or the Newark source, are truly extremely passing mentions, that your "government source" is an ad for another roller derby team on their community website, mentioning again this team in passing only, that the wereallneighbours source is clearly not an independent reliable source but an advert, and so on. While the page now has a lot more sources, it still isn't any nearer our guidelines than the deleted one, and isn't ready to be brought back to the mainspace at all. Oh, and please don't reactivate the categories, Lifebaka helpfully deactivated them but you just turned them back on. I have deactivated them again. Please stop your efforts to get this page as it stands listed in the mainspace. Fram (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "None?" You completely ignore their coverage in the regional match reporting authority, the half hour radio interview, and other sources I've added. And you deleted the redlink from the United Kingdom Roller Derby Association leagues' template -- a completely Orwellian attempt to erase mention of them from other editors' work. I most certainly will not stop any efforts to get the page listed in the mainspace, and I intend to raise issues pertaining to your conduct with other administrators. Dualus (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Feel free to do so. Deleted articles are routinely removed from navigational templates, because, well, you can't use them to navigate anymore... Euroderby.org is passing mentions, not significant coverage, leaving only affinitydab. This "noted sports broadcaster" (in your words) is a local digital radio station from the city of the league itself, which started on April 8 2011. While it is indepth coverage, it hardly is the kind of reliable source we are looking for. See e.g. the guideline WP:ORG: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". An interview on a local, recent, digital radio station doesn't meet the standards of our notability guidelines. If any of the other new sources are better, please indicate which ones you mean. Fram (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Can you point to another example of a deleted article from a well documented set (of leagues in this case, or teams, or any set where the membership is not in dispute) being removed from a navbox instead of being left as a redlink or unlinked? The word you are overlooking in the guideline you quote is "solely." Roller derby has been identified on the Wikimedia Foundation's Gendergap mailing list as a frequent subject of systemic gender bias, and I urge you to reconsider your decision before it is necessary to scrutinize it further. Dualus (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Modern Athletic Derby Endeavor is an example. There were several red links to the article after it was deleted that were removed: one and two. --LauraHale (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, you got me there. I removed a redlink to this article in a navigational template because I'm a misogynist. No need to scrutinize this any further, I confess. I'll think I'll stop discussing this with you if that is the level we have reached... Fram (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am not being sarcastic. You speedily deleted the article, then nominated it for deletion less than an hour after it was recreated, and subsequently have heavily involved yourself in both the AfD and DRV. Do you think sarcasm is appropriate when you are asked for an example which would show that your actions are not out of the ordinary? The article now has 17 sources and I again urge you to reconsider your decision. Dualus (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Original AfD was fine, clearly reflecting the consensus to delete. The incubated version still does not pass the general notability threholds, and is typical of what you see when a fan of the subject matter scrapes the google searches for any and all name-drops of said subject. Primary sources, calendar entries at the local government webpage, and so on. An encyclopedia is not a platform from which to advertise one's favorite Parks & Rec activities. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I am not now, and nor have I ever been a fan of roller derby. I have never attended a roller derby match and I have no desire to do so. I have never been to Cambridgeshire or anywhere closer to it than Heathrow airport once in 2000. I have not seen the movie which recently sparked interest in the sport. My sole source of information about this topic before I started editing the article was the Wikimedia Foundation's gendergap mailing list. Dualus (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In response to the original deletion request for this article, we worked to hammer out a set of notability requirements for roller derby leagues that can be found at Wikipedia:NSPORTS#Roller_derby. Most of the notability requirements that appear in the criteria were reasons why this article was originally deleted. I'd argue the league is now notable because of July 2009, they participated in the first European roller derby tourney, "'Roll Britannia, at Earls Court.". That said, I would like to see the article expanded to include more information on tournaments of this type they participated in. It is on the margins of being notable by these standards but could use more help getting there. (Almost, not quite.) --LauraHale (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The proliferation of yet another so-called WP:SNG (single notability guideline) would be precisely the way I would not want to proceed here. The ones we have lying around the project at present are thin enough as it is, but crafting one specifically for roller derby of all things, just to squeeze in articles that are an otherwise notability failure is an awful idea. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roller derby is one of the fastest growing women's participation sports in the Australia.[12] and possibly the world. [13][14][15][16][17][18] So yes, there is a need for such a guideline to distinguish between what leagues are notable and what ones are not. --LauraHale (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because disk space is too expensive? Because readers will somehow be confused if we have an article for every Podunk team? I hate how much attention sports get on Wikipedia, but I see no reason for these ridiculously exclusionary notability criteria. What are the actual reasons for them? Dualus (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines as they were proposed were intended to help demonstrate who would pass WP:GNG and protect those on the margins. I'm all for being inclusive, but unless it can be shown in general that almost every roller derby league that exists would pass WP:GNG, then we'd be opening a can of worms that I'd rather not see open and having to fight. --LauraHale (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded at WT:NSPORTS citing WP:CREEP after the roller derby section break. Dualus (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn The use of a specialized notability guideline is exactly the way we ought to proceed here, and according to the evidence just represented, the league can meet it. I would certainly be much happier if the sport did have a ranking system we could instead refer to, but in the absence of one we have the right to do whatever is reasonable. My view is the opposite of Tarc's, which will surprise nobody: special guidelines usually more often correspond to the facts of the matter, and lead to more rational choices. The GNG has its place, but its not for specialized topics for which there are rational subject-based criteria. And I consider this to holds in both directions: if a specialized guideline were more restrictive the the GNG, it will usually still be the better choice. I think of myself as wanting to make subject based decisions--if that leads to a tendency to include more articles in some fields than the GNG would do, it shows merely the lack of real-world applicability of the GNG. It equally in some fields will lead to fewer articles, similarly showing the inadequacies of the GNG. The only thing which would show its adequacy is if it led to generally the same result. DGG ( talk ) 07:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I have to agree, SNGs are the best way to keep articles that otherwise wouldn't meet our GNG. Let's lower the bar for our pet articles if keping them otherwise would be impossible! Your circular reasoning is that the GNG is incorrect, because the SNG will lead to mroe articles, and the fact that these articles would be deleted under the GNG shows how incorrect it is... Claiming that this are "rational" subject-based criteria is irrelevant, the GNG is also a set of rational criteria, and it has global consensus, while you are suggesting to overturn a deletion on the basis of a not accepted local SNG... Fram (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The purpose wasn't to be more inclusive but rather to make it easier to delete ones that clearly weren't going to pass WP:GNG. Melbourne Men's Roller Derby League is not going to pass WP:GNG and the guidelines work to exclude them. Light City Derby is not going to pass WP:GNG and the guidelines again keep them out. (So we have some one suggesting that the guidelines are too exclusionary, and another person arguing that the guidelines allow everyone. Isn't this jolly good fun?) --LauraHale (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: people have taking into consideration tha the league supposedly "participated in the first European roller derby tourney". However, the team did not particiapte, some members of the team were part of a mixed team of people from different leagues... Fram (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are conflicting sources on that. Dualus (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
? Please tell us which reliable, independent sources disagree with my note. Fram (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ian Smith (minister) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was speedily deleted under A7. This is a total misuse of the CSD. The subject is the Principal of the Presbyterian Theological Centre. This is certainly an assertion of notability, and probably passes Criterion 6 of WP:PROF - "has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution". The deleting admin referred to WP:NOTINHERITED, which clearly does not apply here. StAnselm (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn clear assertion of notability. Admin's comments on his talk page imply he might be well served to review WP:N and WP:CSD#A7. An article need only assert notability, it need not document it. And it something that may meet one of our SNGs is also generally not a good A7 candidate. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn  Based on the credible explanation from the nom.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
DeusM (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Not appropriate for speedy deletion. Admin Phantomsteve supported speedy deletion because "The first two references appear to be press releases - so not independent. I can see nothing to indicate their significance..." Notability (if this what is meant) is a non-criterion for speedy deletion unless the article gives no "reasonable indication" of notability. In fact, the article -- which was newly created -- was supported by references to articles in two national journals, complete with link, date of publication and byline. Phantomsteve first claimed that the articles were "press releases". Since on examination this was unsupportable, Phantomsteve claimed they might be based on press releases: this is speculative OR and -- even if correct -- overlooks that use of press releases by journalists is standard practice; it's why press releases exist. Speedy deletion is for articles which are unambiguously inappropriate and have no chance of being made encyclopedic. In this case it was premature, and the reasons given are inoperative. WebHorizon (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

  • In the talk page discussion, Phantomsteve was out of line. Administrators are elected to delete material (a) where there's a community consensus for deletion, (b) where there's an expired prod, or (c) where certain narrowly-defined speedy deletion criteria are precisely and exactly met. If none of those criteria obtain, then the administrator should seek consensus, not just impose their personal opinion about what should happen. Administrators should not set their own judgment higher than that of other editors, and neither should they be intransigent or obstructive.

    In my opinion, when it became clear that there was a discussion to be had about whether the article was really sourced to a press release or not, Phantomsteve should have deferred to the AfD process.—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete and send to AfDas a reasonable contest of an A7 by an editor in good standing. If the newcomer wants a discussion,let him have it. The purpose of speedy criteria is not to prevent discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 11:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and send to AfD, as above. It smells speediable, if not by letter of the law. I don't much fancy its chances in AfD, however. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, and send to AfD In the discussion at [19], the admin said "Firstly, the "significance" I mentioned above was not referring to the amount of coverage in the individual references, but to the significance of the company itself." The discussion on the references can be seen as a side issue, which will of course be relevant at AfD. The article as I see it claims 3 industry awards which is an indication of notability if the prizes are even possibly significant in good faith (obviously claiming bogus awards or self-awards is not an indication of significance. I see no reason to think they're not genuine and on that rationale, I would not have deleted, However, I interpret the admins other discussion as giving advice of whether the page will stand at AfD, or discussing the fact that a decent reference for a 3rd party source sometimes is seen as an reason against speedy deletion, though there is no rule to that effect. In giving advice, I will usually in addition to explaining why i deleted or choose not to delete, give some reasons why the article would probably not pass AfD in any case, but it's necessary to very carefully separate this from discussing whether the speedy was justified. DGG ( talk ) 12:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If restored, more references can be added. It was a new article and there wasn't a chance between nomination for speedy deletion and deletion to add anything of substance.WebHorizon (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
I guess someone will close this eventually?WebHorizon (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This is an image taken by me from my book स्वाधीनता संग्राम के क्रान्तिकारी साहित्य का इतिहास Swadhinta Sangram Ke Krantikari Sahitya Ka Itihas(Part-III) ISBN 8177831224(Set) page no 863. I am the author of this book and also hold its copyright. This image is freely released by me in the public domain. You can see this image in wikimedia commons. This is a historical document which should not be deleted.Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma (talkEmail) Krantmlverma (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This is an image taken by me from a book सरफरोशाने वतन Sarfaroshane Vatan published in 1999 by Swaraj Bhawan Bhopal (India). This book does not have any copyright. This image is freely released by me in the public domain. You can see this image in wikimedia commons. This is also a historical document which should not be deleted.Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma (talkEmail) Krantmlverma (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Same reply as above. It's unnecessary to store this file on both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, one or the other will suffice.—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This file hasn't ever existed. I assume you're instead referring to File:LalaHarDayal294.GIF. I'm only going to reply to one of these because the issue is the same on both. If a picture appears in a book, the assumption is that whoever wrote the book owns the copyright of the picture. If you take a photograph of the picture in the book, that is a derivative work, which you do not own exclusive copyright on. In order for you to publish those pictures under the license you did, the book would also have to be available under a compatible license, which we highly doubt (for some reason, publishers like to actually own their books). Now, copyright law might work massively differently in India, but this is how things work where most Western Wikipedians are, so we tend to assume this is also how things work elsewhere; if I'm wrong about the law, please do correct me. Oh, and endorse the deletion. Cheers. lifebaka 13:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lifebaka, are you under the impression that the copyright in a book normally belongs to the publisher? Because if so, I'm afraid you've been misinformed. The copyright in a book's text normally belongs to the author and in its images belongs to the photographer or illustrator. There are exceptions where the author is an employee or operates under a work-for-hire agreement of some kind, but these are not normal.—S Marshall T/C 13:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think either of you are exactly right. It's not a question of copyright law, but of contract, and depends on the individual case. At least for US , it is normal for the author of a trade book to own the copyright but assign the publisher an license, which may or may not be exclusive for a period of time. If exclusive, they cannot give it to us also. If the author asserts they hold the copyright, and asserts they are free to license it, and there is no information otherwise, we accept that statement. On the other hand, the publisher almost always obtains only a non-exclusive license from the photographer, who will normally hope to sell he photograph elsewhere also, in which case the photographer can indeed give us a free license as well. If a person asserts themselves to be the photographer as says he has the right to the photograph , and there is no information otherwise, we accept that statement. DGG ( talk ) 14:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, DGG: the publisher typically licences, for example, First North American Serial Rights, or First Indian Print Rights.—S Marshall T/C 15:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion for this article was closed on 25 November 2009 by Jayjg (talk) and re-deleted by Jayjg on 23 October 2011, with the decision that may not have reflected the significant new information that has come to light since the deletion. There were four delete and one redirect on 25 November 2009. Beside it being deleted on 25 November 2009 by Jayjg. I would like to know the reason for the deletion of Tinchy Stryder's song "Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)", by Jayjg once again on 23 October 2011, after 4 years and 7 months of the song being released as the first official single from Tinchy Stryder's debut studio album Star in the Hood on 9 April 2007?. I have left Jayjg a message on their user talk page, but I have yet to receive a reply to the explanation of the article being re-deleted. The reason given for deletion on 25 November 2009 by Jayjg was that the song lacked notability to Tinchy Stryder. But here in 2011, I have collected this Twitter status from Tinchy Stryder from 18 October 2011, clearly confirming that the "Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)" is a notable song to Tinchy Stryder after 4 years and 7 months. Here is the Twitter status of the song confirmation, just click on this link ----> http://twitter.com/#!/TinchyStryder/status/126257795321430016, so what I'm trying to get at is that if Wikipedia administrators such as Jayjg are deleting articles or not including songs that a notable artist clearly states as one of their notable songs especially one that is the first single from their debut studio albums, then what good does it do to the artist work throughout their music career and for people using Wikipedia as a verifiable and correct information website or encyclopedia on peoples. I find it amusing that the website http://www.grimepedia.co.uk/wiki/Breakaway and http://www.grimepedia.co.uk/wiki/Star_In_The_Hood gets the information about Tinchy Stryder and his 2007 single "Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)" and 2007 debut studio album Star in the Hood more accurate than that of Wikipedia. I would possibly go as far as to say perhaps people should visit that website for a verifiable biography of Tinchy Stryder. Please if you can possibly now un-delete the "Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder)" Wikipedia article that I have recently re-created for this reason I have stated above. Thank you.
MarkMysoe (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The Risky Business (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer, King of Hearts has closed The discussion has been closed with results that may not have reflected inadequacy or insufficiency of arguments and consensus. There were three delete and one redirect. Also, the closer has been under the administrative review which puts his duties into question. Gh87 (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC) --Gh87 (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A) I'd strongly suggest you strike the "under administrative review" part. That's voluntary and certainly doesn't say anything negative about the admin (the opposite in fact). At DrV it's wise to not comment on the closer, but rather on the close. B) Redirect is the standard outcome in situations like this and it was suggested in the AfD. So endorse Hobit (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Hobit. I don't see even the hint of an argument here against redirection. postdlf (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and suggest that other encouragement may be needed to get the nom here to actually read and understand the deletion policies. He's been on a campaign to delete--rather than just redirect--TV episodes. If an episode isn't notable, it should almost always redirected to the show or season article, regardless of the head-counting in the AfD, because of WP:ATD, which is policy. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination is totally without merit and should be closed.—S Marshall T/C 09:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Natalia Fowler – Per WP:NACD, non-admin closures should be limited to uncontroversial cases and may be reopened by any administrator. The fact that a review of the decision has been requested indicates that the decision is controversial. I am therefore, in my individual capacity as an administrator, overturning the closure and relisting the discussion. I advise Rcsprinter123 to be more cautious when closing deletion discussions. –  Sandstein  07:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Natalia Fowler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Arguments from those who voted keep are based on knowledge of soap operas and their entities, NOT on establishing notability of this article's subject. However, it was a non-administrative closure by Rcsprinter123, and the arguments that favor merge have become less reliable in the wakes of recent events, such as removal of "List of All My Children miscellaneous characters" under WP:G12. Honestly, the latest keep argument points out merely the reject proposed policy on fictional characters. I thought: arguments appear insufficient to conclude a discussion; I demand a relist, and I demand to add more of my arguments, if possible, can help. --Gh87 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC) --Gh87 (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Gh87's deletion rationale in the AFD was invalid, as it was entirely based on the current state of the article contra WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP, and failed to consider alternatives to deletion. Jfgslo's !vote was the same unelaborated boilerplate in every pop culture-related AFD he participates in (one part WP:VAGUEWAVE, one part "it's just not notable"), and the other deletion !vote was also just a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Which at a minimum leaves the deletion side without a compelling argument, just opinion, and at most means this could have been closed as "no consensus" given that the bare opinions in this AFD were split. However, DGG's comments were the most substantive and consistent with consensus, so together with the other keep !voters, it certainly wasn't unreasonable to close this as "keep" and that result is not contrary to any policy here.

    Re: the DRV rationale above, the deletion of a character list because it contained copyright infringements has absolutely no relevance to anything here. And Gh87 should take care not to "demand" anything. postdlf (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • If you thought my arguments are invalid and other deletion !votes vague, what about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Passions, volume 1? That resulted a delete: isn't it to you premature to conclude? --Gh87 (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe yes, DGG's argument was "most substantive and consistent with consensus." Morever, it wasn't "unreasonable to close this as 'keep'." However, it was enough for the non-administrator, but what about administrator's judgment? I've read over and over DGG's argument, and I've conclude: the argument was a pledge to educate major fictional elements, notable or not, sourced or not, to readers; the notability of the "major" character and reliability of sources were absent from the argument. I've been thinking: would the administrator close it as "keep"? --Gh87 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This is a defensible closing, the AfD was already relisted once, and this is not a BLP or other page where incorrectly keeping it creates any real-world problems or risks. As a point of etiquette, in suggesting the outcome of an XfD or any other discussion on Wikipedia, the phrase "I demand" comes off sounding extremely strident and should generally not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck it right now for your request. --Gh87 (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the above. Nom has repeatedly demonstrated a basic failure to understand or abide by deletion policy. Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination is totally without merit and should be closed.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is an appropriate NAC, and I'm of the view that NACs, especially inappropriate NACs, are not entitled to the deference we usually accord to admin closes, and should be sustained only if there is no reasonable alternative close, which is not the case here. Overturn and reclose. T. Canens (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt this'll be closed any other way, but as an NAC? I'm not convinced. Four keeps against three deletes, with very little discussion actually based on policy/guidelines... overtutn and reclose. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This is the kind of discussion that I wanted to close as a non-admin but usually didn't because I was afraid of being bitten. It is on the border of "Keep" and "No Consensus" and so arguably not obvious enough for a NAC but equally clearly not closable as a "Delete". Since admins have no special ability to read consensus (as opposed to their special ability to delete) there is no reason to force a re-close with the same result. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, in this case keep vs. no consensus is a judgment call. And there are practical differences between the two (a no consensus makes a subsequent AfD easier to bring) so it's not a purely semantic issue. At least in theory, the quality of judgment of an admin has been tested at RfA, but the same cannot be said for that of a non-admin (and the very fact that a non-admin decided to close this AfD when it's pretty clearly non-obvious arguably shows questionable judgment). T. Canens (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, administrators do not have a monopoly over decision-making functions on Wikipedia, and no, passing RFA is not test of your quality of judgment. Our admin corps is by and large well-meaning, but it contains children, self-confessed drug users, and a small percentage of complete and utter fools. Many who have the tools wouldn't have a snowball's chance of passing a modern RFA, and there are some who'll lose them when we eventually find a mechanism for community de-adminship.

        Anyone can close a discussion as "no consensus" or "keep", and that's as it should be. For DRV purposes, the only question that should matter is, was the close correct? The status of the closer would only be relevant if they were a sock for a blocked user.—S Marshall T/C 19:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Though obviously I think the close correct, since I argued for keeping at the AfD, it should not have been a NAC. NAC's of disputed articles with relatively borderline consensus tend to come here; it would be better to avoid them in order to try to eliminate unnecessary further argumentation. Not that all admins necessarily do better closes than all non-admins, but at least an appeal of an admin close will need to focus on the actual issues. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Silver Medal (Zoological Society of London) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Stephen Palmquist (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm new as a Wikipedia editor. I registered a few days ago, soon after discovering that a valuable article that I had consulted previously had been deleted. The article is about a contemporary philosopher, Stephen Palmquist, who, in my opinion, is one of the leading experts on Kant’s philosophy. I located the deleted version, then read the Talk page that ended in the initial deletion decision. I then uploaded my significantly revised version, with numerous changes that I believe satisfy all the requirements of Wikipedia's Notability rules, as I understand them. To my surprise, it was deleted via speedy deletion, without any discussion of the merits of its significant revisions! Dao4Andrej (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • My request is not to undelete the original page, deleted in August 2011. I agree that the original deletion decision did follow correct Wikipedia policy. I am asking to undelete the revised version I created on the 14th of October 2011, so that anyone participating in this discussion can have access to the new evidence to show that the subject now passes WP:PROF. On that "Notability (academics)" page, the first and I think most important criteria is: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I guess any living Kant scholar who now has a Wikipedia page would, if asked, say that Palmquist undoubtedly passes this test. As evidence of this, my revised page cites numerous independent reliable sources that were not on the original page but are now included in the footnotes of the revised version I created. These include: (1) several books by scholars who offer lengthy, detailed discussion of this philosopher’s influence and work, including books published by Indiana University Press (2009) and in the Stockholm Studies in Philosophy series (2004); (2) multiple books that contain explicit statements confirming that this person is one of the most influential living philosophers in the field of Kant studies and that go on to expand on this philosopher’s theories in various ways, including books published in Northwestern University’s Studies in Phenomenology & Existential Philosophy series (1997), and by Ashgate (2007); (3) one example of a journal article, published in a major philosophy of religion journal, that is entirely devoted to an analysis of one of this philosopher’s arguments; (4) references to translations of several of Palmquist’s books into both Chinese and Indonesian; and (5) a reference to a new translation of one of Kant’s major works, published by Hackett (2009), with the scholarly introduction written by Palmquist. All of these qualify as reliable sources as per WP:RS, and more could be cited. But these changes surely do provide significant proof that the criteria of WP:PROF have been met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dao4Andrej (talkcontribs) 02:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we have the subject material temporarily restored for DRV purposes, please. I would like to see this for myself.—S Marshall T/C 11:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clear Xfd. The nomination argument is that Palmquist is an author of sources for Kantianism. This is true, but does not speak to the wikipedia-notability of Palmquist. Email the deleted verion requested to User:Dao4Andrej for him to build a better article with the sources he mentions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temp undeleted for review. On a side note, I'm not certain whether I am being reviewed here for the AFD or Fastily for the CSD, but if anyone needs a comment from me about the AFD, you can ping me on my talk page.--v/r - TP 12:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, TParis. I should be clear that I endorse the August 2011 deletion as a correct reflection of the consensus at the AfD, but I also think that's uncontroversial, since the nominator isn't challenging it. The question is whether we'll allow a replacement article to be created.

    By convention, DRV will allow recreation of an article where the reasons for deletion are overcome. In this case, this is slightly complicated because the AfD's conclusion—"fails WP:PROF"—relates to a specific notability guideline, and DRV will not normally uphold a specific notability guideline. It will be in order to recreate this article based on evidence that the subject passes the general notability guideline.

    Has such evidence been provided? No. Stephen Palmquist's corpus of academic work is substantial, but that does not mean that Palmquist himself is notable. There are no independent sources about him. We have excellent sources by Palmquist, but no independent sources about him. The distinction is important. A topic is suitable for Wikipedia if, and only if, there are reliable independent sources, and the only information we have about basic biographical details comes from one of Palmquist's own publications.

    I think it's important that we explain to the nominator here the reasons why Wikipedians are very careful, very conservative, and very rules-orientated, when it comes to biographies of living persons. The rules themselves are at WP:BLP, but the context and history that led to the rules is at Wikipedia biography controversy, which makes sobering reading.—S Marshall T/C 16:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse no sign of meeting WP:N, no sign of meeting WP:PROF per the AfD. The discussion had strong support for deletion. I see no basis for undeletion at this time. Hobit (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation The original one was indeed unacceptable, and the combination of CV-like writing and the apparent advocacy of his views undoubtedly contributed to the discussion. Some of the views expressed in that AfD were very aberrant, including the view that h index has any relevance in the humanities. I did not participate in this one, but I would not have found it easy to argue for meeting WP:PROF on the basis of the material presented. In my opinion, the simplest way to go ahead is with WP:AUTHOR--the requirements for that are actually very easy to meet. Do you have available reviews of his books? Two substantial reviews for each of two books will normally meet it. If so, I will help you with the article Let's see them--and where is your proposed new version.? DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good thought. I'd suggest we hold off on restoration until two such reviews are found. I would think that given the number of books he's written that should be trivial, but I've not been able to locate any after a short search. Not my area though... Hobit (talk)
  • Endorse deletion. But I have no prejudice against a new article on Palmquist that makes his notability clear. (By the way, Dao4Andrej, your article is styled a bit like a CV, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. That would have to change too. (Though it's not relevant to whether the article should exist or not.)) Ozob (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be relevant that palmquist started an organization in Hong Kong (I know as I used to live there) called the 'Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe" back in the 90's. It now has lots of branches and a yahoogroup mailing list with something like 700 members last I knew. plus there've been tons of articles in the local newspapers talking about how popular it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeledrop (talkcontribs) 20:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you find an article (in any language) that lists him as the founder and discusses the group? It probably won't be enough by itself, but it would help. The more it discussed Palmquist the better! Hobit (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I remember there was a feature article in the South China Morning Post, back in the 90s. I think that's where he first announced to the public his idea of starting the philosophy cafe. The newspaper charges to download its articles, so I can't get a url for the original, but I found the article text on several other websites. Try this: http://geocities.ws/centersophon/press/newagesa.html. I tried to search for some of the other articles on the paper's website, but seems they only let subscribers do the searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeledrop (talkcontribs) 08:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Assuming good faith that that is a copy of a real article, restore. That article is one RS with reasonable level of detail. The other sources added to that give us enough for WP:N. Hobit (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his comment on 21 October 2011, S Marshall says "There are no independent sources about him. We have excellent sources by Palmquist, but no independent sources about him." I'm confused by this, as it is not true about my revised version, unless I'm wrong about what counts as an "independent source". In my above posting, I gave examples of five types of new sources (some with multiple examples) that are provided in my revised version, and these are all "independent" sources. That means that none of them are written by Palmquist, right? Also, they are all published in WP:RS venues. Why is something more than this necessary to confirm that WP:RS has been met? I admitted from the start that I imitated the format of the original version when recreating this page. So, if the problem is with the CV format of that original page, then maybe someone who has a clearer idea of what that means can help by revising the text so that appearance is no longer there. Dao4Andrej (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources also need to be independent of the topic. That means not written by him or in a work he controls (introduction to his book for example). Can you identify reliable sources in that article that have that property? Hobit (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please check the revised text, which is now available online. If you look at footnote 1, you'll see the reference to Quarfood's book published by Stockholm Studies in Philosophy. Likewise, footnote 3 has the reference to Cutrofello's book, published by Northwestern Univresity Press, though I now see that the publisher needs to be added for that one. Footnote 5 has the references to the Indiana University Press book (okay, that one was co-edited by Palmquist, so it doesn't count as fully independent) and the Ashgate book by Peter Byrne. Footnote 7 should have a reference to the entire article by Perovich, but I see now that it only refers to Palmquist's rejoinder, so the details of the original reply article should also be added, once the page is reinstated. The reference to Palmquist's scholarly introduction to Kant's book is in footnote 8; and by the way, I disagree with the claim that this isn't "independent". Perhaps I didn't make clear before: the book is a different scholar's (not Palmquist's) translation of Kant's book on religion, and a publisher will never invite someone other than the translator to write a scholarly introduction like that unless the person is among the most well-respected scholars in the field. Moreover, the author of such an introduction definitely is NOT in control of the book, as it is not his book; in this case, the book is (translated) by Pluhar. Finally, the details of the Chinese and Indonesian translations are given in footnote 15. If an academic has had substantial work translated into multiple languages, isn't that evidence of notoriety? I think one of his online CVs says his articles have been translated into something like seven language. If it is not already on WP:PROF, then perhaps someone should add "a substantial amount of the person's work has been translated into other major languages" to the criteria listed on that page, because surely this is one of the best proofs of notoriety! Dao4Andrej (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a new question; I haven't seen that discussed before. If I write a work, and someone else translates my work into a foreign language, is their translation of my work an independent source about me? My instinct says "probably not" but I have yet to think that through thoroughly, and at this stage I'm very willing to be convinced on the basis of reasoned debate that I'm wrong.—S Marshall T/C 23:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The things you are listing, from my reading of the article still aren't things about Palmquist. So your note 3 says "For example, Andrew Cutrofello cites Palmquist as the originator of this idea in his Imagining Otherwise" - that doesn't say he writes biographical information about Palmquist. The fact that he was invited to write an introduction, also isn't any actually about Palmquist. The idea his work has been translated into multiple languages also isn't anyone writing about the author. To me all this indicates that people are interested in his work and/or the subject matter of his work, but if no one is actually writing about him, then they aren't particularly interested in the person behind that work. And that's what notability is about for a biographical article, have people taken note of that person such that they write directly and in detail about that person? --82.19.4.7 (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where did this come from? WP:PROF lists nine criteria for academic notabiliy and none of them say that someone else must have already written a biography of the guy in order for a wikipedia biography to be allowable. Anyway, the link I provided before does fulfil this requirement, if it is a requirement. Much of that newspaper article is about "the person behind" his work. But if this decision is going to be based on WP:PROF, then this shouldnt be an issue. We should be looking at whether or not the article shows that "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeledrop (talkcontribs) 02:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your first comment in this thread quotes S Marshall on exactly this subject : "...S Marshall says "There are no independent sources about him. We have excellent sources by Palmquist, but no independent sources about him.""
              The first sentence of your quote is exactly this, which is the bit you claim to be confused about. So it seems your confusion is further than that, read S Marshall's original comment in full rather than pulling a small piece out of context. Just prior to your quote he states "In this case, this is slightly complicated because the AfD's conclusion—"fails WP:PROF"—relates to a specific notability guideline, and DRV will not normally uphold a specific notability guideline. It will be in order to recreate this article based on evidence that the subject passes the general notability guideline". So there is your answer, it's a requirement of the WP:GNG that the subject receive coverage, directly and in detail, in multiple third party reliable sources. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Restore. We seem to be talking past each other here. I thought you were saying that someone has to have actual biographical information written about them in order to have qualify for WP:GNG. I don't see that requirement stated anywhere in WP:GNG or any other guidelines. If all your saying is that "the subject receive coverage, directly and in detail, in multiple third party reliable sources", hasn't Dao4Andrej given ample evidence of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeledrop (talkcontribs) 18:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Erm no, that's the point. There have been provided references to his work and other people referencing his work, but nothing about anyone writing about the person themselves. I'm not sure how else a third party source can write directly in detail about the person without it being at least partly biographical, so the GNG may not say that directly but it seems pretty much implicit to me. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't see how the view being promoted by 82.19.4.7 could be correct. Where is there anything on either WP:GNG or WP:PROF that even comes close to implying that the required independent sources must be "at least partly biographical" in order for a person to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia? The vast majority of references to other persons in academic literature has no biographical content whatsoever. It's about the ideas. If independently published biographical material were an absolute requirement, most current Wikipedia articles on persons would need to be deleted. In any case, this is a moot point, because Adeledrop has provided such a source in this case. Dao4Andrej (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • WP:GNG '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail' - if you can show me material which address a person directly in detail which isn't a least biographical that's fine. You haven't produced any such sources biographical or otherwise. Believe it or not my saying I believe it's implied is not trying to trick you or change the rules, it's actually trying to help you understand why what you've produced so far is not convincing at least some of the people here. The material you've given addresses the persons ideas and works, not the person themself. I'm not going to keep on repeating myself, so if you haven't got it and just keep on waving towards the sources you've got then so be it. If the material references the persons ideas, then that's what people are interested in and that's what we should have an article on.--82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Once again, I repeat, the sources cited in the revised version do "address the subject directly in detail", as does the additional (biographical!) source provided by Adeledrop. The books I listed above are not just "other people referencing his work", as 82.19.4.7 claims; they are massive, detailed discussions extending in most cases to many pages of independently published works. Anyone familiar with philosophical literature will know that this is all you get when you do philosophy! You just don't get "the person", except in extremely rare cases. If we take this "implicit" rule that 82.19.4.7 is suggesting as a new norm, then the vast majority of pages about living philosophers that are currently on Wikipedia will need to be deleted. A quick review of random examples shows that hardly any living philosophers who currently have Wikipedia pages would pass this stringent test. Dao4Andrej (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
UTC 01:30 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

It is not covered in South African Standard Time, the deleter User:Jimfbleak didn't even bother to make a statement in the talk page, where it clearly says "Namibia is NOT covered in the article South African Standard Time.". TZ master (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the logs, Fastily seems to have violated the sentence in bold in WP:WW, but I'm sure that was an accident. You're right to say that summary desysopping is technically possible for wheel warring, but that does not seem to be a reasonable or proportionate response in this case. I'm sure Fastily will restore the contested material as soon as he becomes aware of this discussion.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From looking further into the revision logs, it appears that when Jimfbleak restored the article, he didn't remove the CSD template which put the article back into view of the CSD admins. No doubt it was an oversight that Fastily hadn't seen that it was recently restored. I cannot find a reason for the restore though. Jimfbleak didn't leave a edit notice in the restore, there is nothing on their talk page, and nothing at WP:REFUND giving us a hint what their rationale is. Either way, TZ master's request to desysop Fastily just isn't going to happen over a matter as small as this and it's a bit personal attackish.--v/r - TP 12:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I now see that the 3rd A10 undeletion request on this review page, namely Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh was also deleted by User:Fastily. Big problem with that user. TZ master (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your turning this into a witch hunt against Fastily. He made a mistake so did the admin who restored It by not removing the tag. The issue involving Walsh is completly different. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Five pages are listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 20. Of them 3 deleted under CSD A10, all by Fastily. You can call that "a mistake", but counting brings it to "3 mistakes". At Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/New pages experiment it is described what trouble these deletions cause. How many editors left WP due to deletions that violate CSD A10? TZ master (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're oversimplifying the WP:DRV process. DRV isn't a "Mistake or not" discussion. It discusses the merits of deletion discussions and rationals on a broader scope than what normal processes allow. It's more like a "Meta"-discussion. Getting overturned at DRV doesn't necessarily mean someone is wrong and likewise, getting endorsed at deletion doesn't mean someone was exactly accurate either.--v/r - TP 17:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the time wasted on this would have perhaps been better spent researching misapplication of CSD A10 as a whole and then considering a community wide RFC. We've already had RFCs on other forms of CSD in the past, and if there is a larger pattern of misapplication of A10, then a well written RFC with links to such cases would be of benefit to the community. This particular DRV here with jabs at Fastily does not benefit anyone, however. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
having been involved at new pages I agree that New users could be discouraged through speedy deletion. However in most cases it is the correct outcome if not a bit harsh initially. In this case a mistake was made by two admins which has been acknowledged. Please remember we are all volunteers and our admins do a job that is hard to please everyone. In at least one of the other cases on this page it could of been deleted under several codes. Although I am not an admin I feel that this should be lesson learn and moved on from I do not see how Fastily should have his admin powers removed over this. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)J[reply]
If Fastily applies CSD A10 with a lower error quota in the future and would show that he understood the mistake - I have no objection at all of him remaining an admin. TZ master (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm going to be frank. Your objections to Fastily's adminship are noted but irrelevant to this WP:DRV. WP:RFC/U is the proper location for such proposals.--v/r - TP 18:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's your opinion, fact is I am revealing his mistakes and make suggestions how to avoid further such mistakes. What would you suggest how to avoid deletions by Fastily in the future that violate deletion rules? TZ master (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its fairly obvious you have an issue with Fastily you have been doing so here and on his talk page please stop attacking him. How many times. This is not the place you have been advised where to go if you want to take further. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, my opinion is that you're using this DRV as a platform to attack the deleter. Yes, that's a big no-no at DRV. DRV does not discipline administrators. We have no mandate to do that and we do not want one. DRV is about content, not conduct. If you think there's an issue with Fastily's conduct or judgment then the correct venue is supposed to be RFC/U, but the honest truth about that is that RFC/U will not avail you, because (1) there's no real problem with Fastily and (2) even if there was, it's still practically impossible to get someone desysopped unless they've done something completely egregious. For the vast majority, adminship on Wikipedia is for life.—S Marshall T/C 19:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Donald Braswell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First, I'm a novice at wikipedia and probably will not have the proper editing in this request I find working in Wikipedia very complicated and difficult. So I beg forgiveness in advance. That being said, please consider restoring this page (Donald Braswell). It was deleted with a speedy delete without any discussion. I requested it be restored and it was, but before I knew it was back, it was deleted again without discussion and I was not able to modify it. The info in the article is accurate and sanctioned by the talented gentleman I'm trying to honor, but he has been relatively unpublished. He authenticated the data in the article. Could it be put back at least with a brief mention of his achievements that any of these sources can help show that he did exist and was important in his day and enhances the information in wikipedia? Couldn't the pieces that people don't think are documented well enough just be deleted from the article, rather than deleting the entire piece? In my discussions with the admin who did the final deletion, he (politely) felt the additional sources were not enough to overturn the deletion and that there had to be more documentation than this. I'm hoping someone will help me get the page in acceptable format and restored with at least a minimal mention of his career on Broadway. (Without making it a full time job for me to do it.) I do hope those reviewing this deletions will read the original article (if they know how to find it, which I don't). Thank you.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001341/otherworks http://www.ibdb.com/person.php?id=96795 http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Fanny_4457/ http://broadwayworld.com/people/Don_Braswell/ http://www.science24.org/show/Donald_Braswell http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/DonaldBraswellSr http://www.facebook.com/pages/Donald-Braswell-Sr/227932103885580 http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_srch_drd_B00498VEK4?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=digital-music&field-keywords=Donald Braswell, Sr http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/Donald Braswell, Sr./a/albums.htm http://blog.mysanantonio.com/jackfishman/2011/03/whats-braswell-singing-this-weekend/ http://www.amazon.ca/American-Tenors-Patinkin-Stanley-Robinson/dp/1155841042 http://www.instantcast.com/AllStars/Donald_Braswell http://www.donaldbraswellfanclub.org/don_bra swell_sr.html http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Fanny_4457/ http://www.guidetomusicaltheatre.com/shows_l/lil_abner.htm http://www.ibdb.com/production.php?id=2585 http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Li'l_Abner_5574/ http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/people/Don_Braswell/ http://www.mindenmemories.org/Don Braswell.htm

These are the factual highlights of his career that I had in his wiki article, but there is little out there to source it.

1946 Singer/Entertainer At 17 years old Braswell, Sr opened the inaugural ball of newly elected governor of Louisiana, Earl Long 1952 Singer/Entertainer The Vic Dimone Show, Fort Bliss TX 1952 Singer/Entertainer El Paso Symphony Concert 1953 Touchstone Shakespeare's play "As You Like It" - A. A. Milne's play "The Fourth Wall" 6/1954-6/1955 Singer, dancer, & sailor The musical "Fanny" (on Broadway with Florence Henderson) 1955 Singer, dancer & Dogpatch Character The musical "Li'l Abner" (On Broadway) 1956 Singer, dancer & Dogpatch Character The Ed Sulivan Show - episode with skits from Li'l Abner 1956 Filch The opera "The Beggar's Opera" (at the Met) 1956 The Soldier The opera "The Soldier" by Lehman Engel (At the Met) 1958 Finalist Competition with the Met

San Antonio Career: 1960-65 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Cantor High Holy Days 1960 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Handel's "Mesiah" 1961 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Verdi's "Requiem" 1962 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Saint-Sans Christmas "Oratorio" 1963 The Count The opera "Barber of Seville" 1963 The Count The opera "Barber of Seville" 1963 Freddie The musical "My Fair Lady" 1965 Gangster, Guts Regan Ayn Rand's play "The Night of January 16th" 1968 Cocky The Texas-Mexico Border Tour with the San Antonio Symphony Concerts 1968 Singer/Entertainer San Antonio Symphony Concert 1968 Singer/Entertainer Hemisfair concert with the San Antonio Symphony (World's Fair 1968) 1965 Balthazzar The opera "Amahl and the Nights Visitors" 1966-69 Singer/Entertainer San Antonio Symphony Children's Concerts 1972 Pertruchio The musical "Kiss Me Kate" 1974 Hajj The musical "Kismet" 1998 Singer/Entertainer Shreveport Symphony Concert (Louisiana) Wikiauthenticity (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin comments: This is a breakdown of the sources that I had left on my talk page:
My opinion that the consensus in the AFD was to delete remains the same.--v/r - TP 17:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the whole question is made much more complicated by the fact that we have an article called Donald Braswell II, who I understand to be the subject's son. The AfD began to examine the question of whether to redirect Donald Braswell to Donald Braswell II, but that conversation was never finished, as perhaps it should have been. I think the AfD's finding, properly understood, was that Donald Braswell I should not have his own article. It does not preclude a redirect. Also, it's clearly unhelpful that Donald Braswell is a redlink when Donald Braswell II is an article, and would clearly be confusing if a redirect was not explained. All in all, although I think TParis' close was a reasonable interpretation of the consensus at the AfD, I also think there's a solution that makes more sense, so I'll go with endorse but as a separate matter of editorial judgment undelete and smerge to Donald Braswell II.—S Marshall T/C 18:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Donald Braswell II, where he is currently named. The brief description of the father's related occupation ("Donald Braswell, Snr, is a classical crossover and musical theater tenor") is suitable for mention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • since the article was deleted I wonder if those of you who are in this discussion can even see the article in question as it was before summerPHD removed all of the paragraphs in the article. SummerPHD claimed it was copyright infringement, which it was not. The wiki article was taken largely from Donald Braswell II's fan club site, which was written by me in conjunction with Donald Braswell (the senior) and with the approval and consultation of his son. The information was taken from the "horses mouth" so to speak. There is nothing untrue in the article and it has the blessing of the person being discussed. He is noteworthy having 1) sung for the inauguration of Governor Earl Long in Louisiana; 2) performed in a number of plays on Broadway (including "Fanny" and "L'il Abner") with people like Enio Pinza, Florence Henderson and Tina Louise; 3) appeared on the Ed Sullivan show; 4) performed in the opening ceremony of the 1968 World's Fair; and 5) performed in many Symphony concerts not to mention countless off-broadway shows. He has his own album. All of this was documented in the original article, but I don't know that you all can see that. I cannot. Isn't one of the goals of wikipedia to give the public the opportunity to learn about history they may not have known before? Is it right to get hung up on technicalities and throw the baby out with the bathwater?Wikiauthenticity (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question about visibility, as of today, the "Article" page has versions in the "View history" link.  The "Discussion" page is not currently visible to non-admins.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you unscintillating for this and for your other analysis below. I don't understand it much I'm afraid, but it sounds like your are trying to be even-handed. I hope someone will see the value in the history of the fifties entertainers. A lot of hard work went into researching and publishing the page a year ago and it is disheartening to have someone in one week toss it into the trash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiauthenticity (talkcontribs) 02:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked this to you several times, but have you read WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.--v/r - TP 12:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Soft Delete 
Examples:
  • Keep Meets WP:NORPolicylover 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. – Pilingiton 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why...
As noted above, deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus....Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article.
If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. Common options include, but are not limited to:
  • relisting the discussion (see the section 'Relisting discussions');
  • closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination (NPASR); and
  • closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. Soft deletion is the closing of an AfD with minimal participation as "delete" with the understanding that anyone who wishes to contest the deletion at a later date may request restoration for any reason at WP:REFUND. This achieves an effect similar to WP:PROD.
Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Regarding analysis above by administrator TP:
  • (a) One of the statements is:

    http://broadwayworld.com/people/Don_Braswell/ - Another mere mention, not significant coverage per WP:GNG

    But WP:GNG does not use the term "mere mention".  Here is a quote from WP:N#General notability guideline:

    * "Significant coverage" is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

  • (b) IMO, the analysis shows a pattern indicating a lack of impartiality, for example, the statement,

    "Barely more than a mention, only lists a few details. Does not have significant coverage per WP:GNG"

    could have been written, "More than a trivial mention, lists a few details, by itself lacks sufficiently significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG."
Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that he deserves an article because of the references that wikauthenticity mentioned --alireza5166 02:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Wrong to speedy since reason given, "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Jackson Walsh", does not apply because the criteria for A10 deletion were not met. Article was also speedied a very short time after creation without a chance to discuss. Deleting admin has so far refused to discuss his rationale, other than to say he endorses another editor's remarks. I initially recreated the article, but have re-deleted it to request deletion review. Please see also discussion on the deleting admin's page. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThere is nothing that can be said in the article that isn't said in the stand alone articles. All reception that exists or development info can be placed at Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh - The storyline information already exists in both of those articles, and has been edited and condensed down. What we do not need is yet another article documenting the fictional lives of these two characters - and basically saying the same development information, just reworded by you. Another thing is that this couple have not been documented in reliable sources as a "Supercouple" - they have been relatively popular with viewers of Emmerdale alone, there is no evidence to support a following outside of the serial. So there isn't enough weight behind this topic to jusify a split-off article. Your choice in sources was bad, episode summaries are not saying a thing to do with why these two are notable and why we should grant them an extra article. In US Soaps during the 80s-90s ratings boom there was a real phenomena around supercouples - ratings declined and there haven't really been the same following since - do not think that some fans of forums and the net is sufficient representation of societys whole view. The sourcing for this article relies heavily on DS, youtube videos which are copyvios, blocks of quotes which are copy vios and two non free images where there fair use is only applicable to there stand alone articles.RaintheOne BAM 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete' would clearly be duplicated information from Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh. No more can be added as one character has left the soap and i do not feel sources merit this additional page. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • <ec>overturn I really can't imagine this will be allowed to stay, but I've been known to have a limited imagination. In any case, A10 is designed to be extremely narrow and I don't think this meets the criteria. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just in response to comments above, the article's structure was based on the article John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean, which survived a deletion attempt although both characters have their own stand-alone articles as well. Like those two characters, Aaron and Jackson are a highly popular couple whose story was central to the programme for about 18 months, and generated some of the show's highest ratings. In general, it's better to merge duplicate information into a different article. The Jackson character is gone, and his article probably can't be expanded much further, but Aaron is a long-running and continuing character and his article inevitably will be expanded. The two characters are inextricably linked by the nature of their storyline. We currently have much the same information in both the characters' articles; since only having it in one of their articles wouldn't work, because they're inextricably linked, it seems far better to place it in its own article, which is why I created it. There is also ample evidence to support a following outside the serial, plus a lack of sources isn't a valid reason to speedy delete an hours-old article. Additionally, for A10 to apply the article must duplicate an existing topic and not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article on the subject, and have a title that is not a plausible redirect. Also articles that expand or reorganise existing ones or that contain referenced, mergeable material should not be deleted under A10. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If it was recreated it would have to be straight to an AFD. You may have a point about the code used on the speedy delete however i doubt it will survive an AFD without you greatly expanding sources and proving they are a supercouple. Without that it is basicly a complete duplicate of the original articles. Also you really shouldnt of recreated it without coming here first when you did it was full of copy vios which mean you cant do that. If article stays will you be able to adequately source it without those copyvios. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, again, a lack of sources isn't a valid reason to delete a new article, and as I've already said, the intention was to merge information from two other articles into it, but it was deleted before I had a chance. If there were copyvios, which I wasn't aware of, they came directly from the original articles, which I didn't write. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ExplodingBoy - you say Aaron and Jackson gave Emmerdale some of its highest ratings? Only I know of two time periods the serials ratings were much higher off the top of my head - compare Aaron and Jackson's 8 million era with the 1990's Emmerdale plane crash 18 million and the 2005-06 when it hit 10 million again - it has not since. Not sure you should be citing WP:OTHERSTUFF either - I've already explained that the obvious difference is that JP/Craig described in media as a super couple - these are not. So there is no real weight behind having a seperate article. Jackson's whole Storyline was built around Aaron - from begining to end - so everything you could say would be already placed in his article. Most of Aaron's notability came of the fact he was a gay characters, thew sources support my claim - as there are more on that subject that any other - Jackson was the main story arcs for that storyline - so why have an off-shoot article taking away what simply can be said in the stand alone. Also Wikipedia is not a fansite, so a group of fans in a forum doesn't prove anything - there are hundreds of things that gain a niche following that we wouldn't dream of including here. However the characters themselves have enough weight behind them to establish notability. The whole point of a super couple article is to prove they are one, discuss the hype in the media, the fan following etc - it is minimal here - with the usual old rags, entertainment websites and expectedly lgbt websites reporting on them.RaintheOne BAM 22:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The copyvio is your fault then - you just copied information from Aaron Livesy - and you claim it wasn't a copy of another article? LOL If you were familiar with any policy on here you wouldn't have done it in the first place. Just like you recreating the article before coming here first.RaintheOne BAM 22:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. First, as you say Jackson's whole storyline was built around Aaron. But the same information about their shared storyline is now still in both the Jackson Walsh article and the Aaron Livesy article. I've already explained this twice before. Second, whether or not Aaron and Jackson are a supercouple is actually irrelevant to this deletion discussion: the supercouple question is a minor content issue, separate from both the speedy deletion issue and the question of whether the article should exist. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "expectedly lgbt websites," as though it's somehow strange or less valid for LGBT media to report on a same-sex couple. Third, since when is it a copyvio to copy information from one WP article to another? It's one thing if the original information is a copyvio (which nobody has thus far actually demonstrated), but it's quite another thing if you're talking about information merely merged from 2 source articles into a third article. This article was deleted before I had a chance to finish what I was doing anyway, so it's hardly fair to criticize it (or me) on those grounds: this article was not sitting around for months, it was no more than a couple of hours old when it was deleted. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of sources proving notability is a reason for an article to be deleted as it does not sufficiently indicate why the subject is notable. Anyway thats not the issue it is if its recreated can you establish notability. I personally would vote overturn if you agree to it going straight to an AFD.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any question of notability: if there were, then we wouldn't have the two stand-alone articles either. And yet again, a lack of sources isn't a valid reason to delete a brand-new article. Frankly, I don't see why my agreeing to send the article to AFD should be a consideration in the discussion here either, because anyone's free to nominate an article for deletion if they think it should be deleted, but for what it's worth I've already said that AFD, not speedy deletion, is how this should have been dealt with in the first place. And if it does get AFDd then I'll make the same arguments in favour of keeping it, it will get input from the wider community, and it can stand on its own merits. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Clearly an unnecessary WP:FORK and deleted as per policy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain what policy you are referring to here? Is there something other than A10 that allows for a speedy of a fork? Are you saying A10 reaches this far or that clear forks should be speedied per policy? Thanks Hobit (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe Bwilkins was referring to a WP:Content fork. But as that guideline states, "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject . . . editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material . . . This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article." Exploding Boy (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, I'd just like to remind everyone that what we should be discussing here is whether it was valid to cite A10 as the criterion for speedying the article. A10 is to be used when a new article simply recreates an existing one, which this one clearly does not. A10 explicitly does not apply to content forks, and it does not apply to articles that have a title that is a plausible redirect or that contain referenced, mergeable material. If people feel strongly that the article shouldn't exist because the characters aren't important enough or because there's not enough information to justify it, those are separate issues and they can discussed in context of an AFD. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it does not expand or improve upon what is already there so is a dupliacate so a10 applys. If you could prove with good sourcing they are a super couple then maybe but as expressed above by another editor I don't think you can. It could of been deleted for copy vios as well. The deleting admins opinion would be helpful though. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all those issues EW. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Time in Portugal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Grossly wrong to delete it since "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Time_zones)" is not met. TZ master (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problems there are (a) TZ master is working on a LOT of articles that are linked - this means many will be redlinked or have templates that don't properly transclude, and (b) (which created a situation where I proposed other 5 speedies), he's not using the underconstruction template or completing work on one particular item before moving on.
I do not think the articles and potential for additional Wikipedia content should suffer due to that - I think instead that some help for him and his efforts would be a better solution. If one were to look at some of his contributions, I am sure you will come to the conclusion that they are A10 worthy, as they are copy/pastes of existing information. I did that same thing. BUT, if you dig deeper into his contribution history, you'll see previous other articles that, for the same reasons, were A10 worthy, that are now articles with a lot more depth and with no word-for-word duplication in the main article. I thus suggest patience and help instead of further A10s. And the discussion suggested above by "Have m..." Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. I don't see how this duplicates either time zones or zone.tab or List of time zones by country or any other article. Asking readers to peruse three huge lists to find all this information about a given country is absurd. The is some material in common between the article and those lists. But this is not a straightforward duplication so CSD A10 is quite inappropriate. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A10 is narrow, as are most speedy criteria. This kind of thing is what people worried about when A10 was proposed. It's a reasonable way to present the material that has a history here. It's not someone recreating an existing article in a clueless or malign way. Hobit (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • RESTORE - *I* proposed this for speedy deletion because duplicate information existed in the two time zone pages in MAP form. In (a) giving it further thought and (b) in seeing the expansion TZ master has been working on for all such articles, and (c) in rethinking things and realizing the text information provided by TZ on the page, though duplicative to the maps, is actually accurate on a "scientific"/mapping level and provides the information in a different type of context that's more suited to certain audiences (namely an entire class of viewers interested in such coordinate precision). Thus, as the speedy tagger I strongly support restoration. I've also already asked the deleting admin to do so. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Jenna Rose – Closure endorsed. While there may be some small support for overturning to no consensus, this would be a result that would not change the outcome of the article. There is clearly no consensus here to delete the article, though another AFD in a cople months time would be acceptable. – Courcelles 02:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jenna Rose (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This close by SilkTork gives too much weight to the keeps and is very biased. Mabixiyi (talkcontribs) 23:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC) shes an autotune singer and isnt notable. SlickTork is a good writer but to biased in close Mabixiyi (talkcontribs) 23:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close. While acknowledging a concern when an hours-old account, has as his very first edit ever the initiation of a DRV, a newb has the same right to seek overturning an AFD close as anyone else. And while I am amazed that a brand new editor knew immediately what to do and where to do it as his very first-ever edit, I am not suggesting sock. While his user page shows a personal dislike for the article topic which is mirrored in his statement above, a personal disagreement does not equate to a case against the closer or his closing rationale. There was no flaw in the closer's careful rationale and AFD is not a count of heads. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural endorse - The closing rationale is a pile of horse puckey, to be honest. Blogs don't establish notability, and the scant sources that remain focus more on the fad of "yet another Rebecca Black" than on this Rose person herself. But a bad-faith DRV filing should not be endorsed or encouraged, for this or any other XfD. Legitimate users do not make their very first wiki-foray into DRV; this is either a block-evading or an identity-hiding user, and they should not be rewarded for these antics. Tarc (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse about as weakly as Hobit. While I supported deletion, the numbers of voters on each side were roughly equal and the closing Admin offered a thoughtful analysis of the strength of argument on each side. He didn't introduce anything of his own opinion that hadn't come up in the discussion, and his evaluation of the arguments did not blatantly contradict any established guidelines. So I'd say the closing is within the acceptable amount of Admin discretion for a closing. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Endorse - What Tarc says is correct re this DRV being illegitimate, don't waste our time. On the merits, the close was within the admin's discretion. The AfD was open for days just awaiting an admin willing to make the decision.--Milowenttalkblp-r 04:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse, though I would have preferred a "no consensus" close, as I probably would have closed it. Otherwise, there was no consensus for deletion at least here. –MuZemike 06:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy procedural endorse per Mark Arsten and Tarc. I supported "keep" & worked on the article during the AfD. Re this DRV nom, I am boldly suggesting WP:DUCK. (Tarc, in my opinion, no blatantly unreliable blogs were cited, only those under the auspices of an organization, or a well-known notable person deemed to be reliable about his opinion, were cited. The article is light on primary sources.) Two questions: do DRVs normally happen often when keeps occur? And if this DRV closes unendorsed, can we expect another DRV, or is there a natural stop to the deletion choochoo train? Links are welcome in lieu of discussion, or reply on my talk page to avoid a digression. --Lexein (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes, DRV can be an appropriate way to challenge a keep close. There is always the easier option of simply challenging a keep by another AfD, but since it is strongly discouraged to do it immediately after, if someone is in good faith convinced a serious mistake has been made it's not inappropriate. One of the purposes of Del Rev is to improve the quality of admin decisions by discussing possible errors. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse outcome. Might have been better closed as no consensus, but clkearly no consensus for deletion. Whack Mabixiyi for the "SlickTork" comment and propel them back into the sock drawer. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I would have gone "no consensus" as well, and on my reading of the closing statement, the closing admin arguably crossed that admittedly very blurry boundary between assessing the objective merits of the arguments (ok) and preferring the arguments of one side to those of the other, by doing things like forming their own view of the sufficiency of the sources (not ok). But "keep" vs. "no consensus" is usually an inconseqential distinction not meriting DRV intervention. Oh, and sometimes the bad faith/sock/nutbars get their noms up. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well not completely, because when we get to inevitable 4th AfD on this fairly terrible article, you'll get the usual suspects yelling "But it was a Keep last time, and notability isn't temporary!". (Yeah, I know WP:CCC, but you get the drift). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. A terribly explained close with hints of supervote that should clearly have been No Consensus, but sometimes you have to fight the battles you can actually win round here. Edit: mind you, I've just noticed the below DRV, where the same admin closes a clear NC as Keep based on his own opinion... Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, educate me, by linking to an example of a high-quality AfD 'keep' close of a long, contentious discussion which could arguably have been NC. (Is there a Hall of Fame for excellent AfD closes for hard cases?) For some reason I don't see the hints of supervote you saw. To avoid cluttering this, feel free to reply on my Talk. --Lexein (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so you're saying it AfD/D of GR was a high-quality close, but it still smelled a bit of supervote? Will every assessment of discussion points and closing based on them therefore smell like a supervote? (by supervote I presume you mean either overriding against consensus, or putting a thumb on the scale to push !votes one way). --Lexein (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Supervote for the common definition of the term at deletion review.

    I wrote that NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs)'s closure seemed to be a supervote based on the vote count. But when the arguments of the "keep" and "delete" sides were considered, the community endorsed the closure at the deletion review, affirming that it was not a supervote.

    It is difficult to determine whether the close of a numerically close debate is a supervote when the closing admin chooses either "keep" or "delete". The closing admin's rationale must be analyzed. Some questions to consider:

    Is the rationale an unbiased assessment of the opposing sides in a debate?
    Has the rationale relied solely on the arguments advanced in the discussion, or has the closing admin introduced new arguments?
    Has the closing admin relied on his/her own interpretations of the relevant policies and guidelines or the community's?

    I have read SilkTork's closure but do not intend to read the AfD, which has too much acrimony for my taste. Cunard (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A pox on both your houses- Obvious sockpuppet objects obnoxiously to a bad close on a terrible article by an admin who doesn't understand that keep !votes go underneath all the other votes and not in the closing statement. Reyk YO! 00:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The SPA's timing,[24] ability to navigate Wikipedia, and laughable imitation of poor spelling and grammer, leads me to believe that there was an entirey different motive to his DRV than what is found in his initial statement and its accompanying insult. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It was almost 24 hours between close and account creation, then 7 minutes until DRV creation. What I wanna know is, what was he doing for those 7 minutes? We can only guess at that, and at what sort of sock was involved. I'm guessing, a gray gym sock. --Lexein (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. While I know the practical result is the same in the sense of not deleting the article, the implications are quite different, and there was clearly no consensus here to keep. The closing admin says that keep arguments were stronger but gives no indication why that is the case, or why the delete arguments were of less value.Griswaldo (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While he does not offer a point-by-point rehash or analysis of the discussion, he wrote "a number of the keeps are better argued", a comment that essentially invites us to those arguments. He also wrote "some delete votes don’t fully support their 'not notable' assertions, or are hesitant – suggesting that the article can be reinstated later", by which I infer 1) he had analyzed the discussion and 2) he is inviting editors to themselves re-read what was said by others. Though a no-consensus is a consideration, his close statement seems a calm and reasoned rationale which addresses the discussion as a whole and acknowledges the strengths or weaknesses of the arguments of all who commented. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Calm" has nothing to do with it. He mentions the discussion but does not actually "address" its key points. That's the problem. It doesn't matter if he offers vague opinions like "those are better argued." Why are they better argued? That's the question, and I see no answer to it. When you make a close that goes against the vote count, you have to be specific in your rationale. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calm and reasoned does have merit, specially as discussion on Silk Tork's talk page[25] indicated he is always willing to go and expand on a summary and/or change to no-consensus. What also has merit is that this DRV was sneak-attack filed by a SPA/SOCK without his having notified Silk Torc or even discussed it with him... and quite suspiciously only minutes after the DRV below was initiated. Tarc stated it best above: "a bad-faith DRV filing should not be endorsed or encouraged" and I agree with him. We do not reward socks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Socking has nothing to do with the merits of his close, and to argue that we ought to disregard basic procedure to punish a sock is completely unacceptable. If this DRV was closed as soon as it was opened on procedural grounds because it was started by a sock I would not have complained. But if the question is going to be discussed then we we ignore who started it and evaluate the question on its merits. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already commented above and pointed out that ST had already showed willingness to change his close to no-consensus and expand further on his closing summary. The actions of a sock in ignoring WP:DELREVD and bringing this out of process DRV acted to prevent the nominator responding and addressing before the DRV was initiated. Any DRV, specially one insigated by a sock, where the initiiator purposely does not attempt a discussion with the closer beforehand runs contrary to WP:DRV#Instructions and should always be seen is bad form. Toward Silk Tork, I do not see him as being anything but agreeable and willing to discuss. As the DRv was a sneak attack and out of process, why not simply close this one and alow ST to act as he has indicated he would on his talk page. This DRV promotes totally unneccessary drama and angst. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. The closing statement is essentially an explanation of why the closing administrator personally feels the subject is notable. I am slightly disturbed by the statement that the article is soberly and carefully written, firmly sourced, and avoids any dubious scandal, because it is possible for something to be a BLP violation even if it is all of these things. It's true that some of the Delete opinions didn't support an assertion that the subject wasn't notable, but many of the Keep opinions were little better ("Keep and LOL Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (2nd nomination), is the nominator has problem with this person or what?", for instance). There were two opposing arguments at the AfD: that the article should be kept because the available sources showed the subject met the general notability guideline, and that the article should be deleted because the sources are mainly from local news and focus on a single song combined with the potential BLP issues of having an article on a 12 year old. Both opinions are reasonable interpretations of the subject and I don't see a consensus to put one viewpoint above the other. Hut 8.5 15:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SilkTork has already said on his talk page that he'd be "quite prepared to change the outcome to "no consensus" if that is seen to be appropriate". Since nobody is arguing that this should have been closed as delete (not even the SPA nominator), can't we just let him do that and close this now? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • While not adverse to this, or even to the article being incubated for a while, the previous no-consensus was seen by its recent nominator as tacit permission to renominate just 20-days-later when, with a no consesnsus, it would haved seemed more prudent to me to follow guideline instruction for such and have allowed it a reasonable amount of time for possible improvements to be made, rather than arbitrarily decide that 20 days was enough time. That was the initial point made in my own original keep in this last AFD. If changed to no consesnsus as a result of this DRV, let's actually give this one a reasonable amount of time before its predicted AFD #4. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't oppose SilkTork's suggestion to change the close to no consensus, that is what I thought would happen to the discussion (and how I would have closed it myself). Frankly, if this gets overturned to no consensus, it will be a great precedent for overturning 'delete' outcomes in similar debates.--Milowenthasspoken 19:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would that that were true. I've never seen precedent matter before; if it did, that really would be a precedent. AFAIK precedent has always been dismissed as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. But seriously, with no firm rules, there can't really be rulings, and hence no precedent. --Lexein (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really talking about the concept of precedent on substantive subject matters (e.g., should every high school have an article), but procedurally about how AfDs are handled on closing. And although wikipedia "precedent" has no binding force, it can have persuasive force. Its no secret that its difficult to get a consensus in contentious AfDs, but there is some temptation to brush that under the rug to get the "right" result in an AfD. The "right" result, however, is no consensus. The system is intended to be biased in favor of keeping content, over and above single subjective judgments of unworthiness. If SilkTork had closed this as delete, would we have as many editors suggesting the proper result was no consensus? I think not.--Milowenthasspoken 04:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see your point. But if we know (and closers know) that "no consensus" always results in repeated result-shopping AfDs (which are train wrecks, and go against WP:NOTAGAIN by not bringing up unaddressed reasons and not allowing time for improvements), what then is the "right" result at AfD? IMHO, unless strict no-renom quiet periods (NRQP) for article development are really enforced, closers must take that into consideration. If that NRQP really existed as policy, I'd agree with "overturn to no consensus" right now.
Tangentially, I see that of the two examples of DRVs endorsing deletion you mention, the second was recreated anyways. So AfD, DRV - 50% effort seemingly just wasted (more, for multiple AfDs!). The only upside is that hopefully article improvement occurred.--Lexein (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that quite a number of the usual suspects have shown up and voted "delete, JNN" and I'm pleased to see a closer who's had the bottle given their nonsense absolutely no weight whatsoever. (I said "vote" not "!vote" there, and that was deliberate.) I'm not thrilled to see a long DRV discussion arise from a sockpuppet's nomination. But equally, many of the keep !votes were also weak, and it seems quite obvious to me that there was no consensus in that debate.—S Marshall T/C 09:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close The closing administrator did properly explain their rational. There was significant coverage found in this AFD, which happened just a month after the previous one closed. The majority of those wanting delete did not comment on the sources, simply stated they didn't like it or didn't think she was notable. Dream Focus 22:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First of all, there were 18 deletes to 15 keeps and most of the keeps were not policy-based, but instead explicitly said they liked it because it promoted their POV. There are several policy-backed arguments for deletion, which the closing admin does not appear to have read or understood given the discussion on his talk page - he seems to be ignorant of WP:POVFORK, for instance, claiming that content is never a reason to delete. Further, the closing admin, instead of judging the consensus, made new (non-policy-backed) arguments not found in the discussion as the reason for this decision, meaning this doesn't seem to have been an actual review of the consensus, but a new keep vote masquerading as a closure.

So, I don't think the closure can be trusted, so let's review the arguments actually made.

This is a WP:POVFORK of the main articles, which we have three other ones of. Compare this article to Global warming controversy#The mainstream scientific position, and challenges to it, where all the arguments in the quotations in this so-called "list" are discussed, the major climate contrariansd are namedd and discussed, and all that you could say, in an NPOV wand sourced way about this subject is put in context in the debate, instead of only presenting one side. Putting a half-arsed explanation of the mainstrream position in (without giving the evidence FOR that position) does not balance the article, or make it anything but a WP:POVPUSHing WP:COATRACK.

There were sources given on the "keep" side, but none of them was a list of this sort, and all they showed was that global warming denial arguments were notable. However, that's why these arguments are covered in great detail in global warming controversy, including naming the notable scientists. NONE of the sources provided was a list of this sort, NONE of the sources provided went into this much detail about the number of specific contrarians, and all the arguments the sources covered are covered in global warming controversy. Insofar this isn't WP:Original research, making a type of list that has not been assembled anywhere else but Wikipedia, this is a WP:POVFORK. Further, such lists are a long-standing tactic in fringe circles, see A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism (and I believe similar ones have been made for things like smoking supposedly not causing cancer), so we're actually fostering a WP:POVFORK that takes the form of a known type of propoganda, but one which doesn't even have a notable example in this field off-Wikipedia.

After six years, it's time we said enough already 86.** IP (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Declare AfD closure as improper, and therefore null and void (See below - ATG): Further to the above, consider Wikipedia:Afd#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed: "After seven days have passed, the discussion is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and an uninvolved (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin or editor in good standing (observing the recommendations for non-admin closure) will assess the discussion and make a decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion. If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept". I consider the statement in the closing summary that the closing admin used the featured status of the Global warming article as grounds for a 'keep' decision as tantamount to an admission that he/she based the closure not on a "judgement of the consensus of the discussion", but instead on his/her own judgement of the appropriateness of the article - this would clearly contravene the accepted closure policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The main point of the close was that, while the article had issues, they could and should be dealt with by ordinary editing such as RfC, which is now happening. So, the points made against the article were respected and a constructive way forward has been recommended. Whether this is called a Keep or No consensus is just nitpicking - the practical effect is much the same. Also, the DRV nomination above talks of "explicitly said they liked it because it promoted their POV". I'm not seeing where that's coming from. Some editors such as NewsAndEventsGuy and Q Science indicated that they personally disagreed with the scientists but felt that their views should still be recorded. Warden (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn- I'm not usually a fan of playing the "supervote" card, but this here is a textbook example. The closing administrator made the existence of a related featured article, and his own opinion on MOS:LIST, rationales for keeping when neither of those things had been mentioned in the debate. Those are things you mention in a keep !vote, not in a closing statement. I also feel that SilkTork's reading of the debate was highly one-sided; it does not appear that he has read or properly understood the delete side of the debate. According to SilkTork, one editor who provided some sources was enough to answer the concerns of the other side. But if you actually go and read the debate you'll see that that argument is strongly debated and refuted, on the grounds that it misses the point. I did not participate in the debate and I don't know how I would have voted in it, but it is unacceptable to ignore one side with such disdain. Reyk YO! 22:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closer seems to have substituted their own opinion for an accurate reading of the discussion. The main thrust of their closing statement is that The main concerns about this article are that it is original research and is not neutral. These are editing issues. However the people arguing that the article should be deleted repeatedly stated that the existence of any article on this topic would be non-neutral and that the OR issues were sufficiently serious that deletion was warranted. The closer should not have substituted their opinion for that of the people commenting in the discussion. The fact that the material under question mostly concerns living people should also have been taken into consideration, but there's no sign that it was. On SilkTork's talk page s/he states that The more I looked into the discussion the more I felt that this was a content issue that should be resolved via other channels. The function of an AfD closer is not to have a "feeling" about something but to judge consensus, the two do not overlap.

    The closing statement also mentions several other factors which were either not brought up in the discussion or which were frankly irrelevant. SilkTork notes that the list appears to meet MOS:LIST, and provides both information and navigation. This issue was not mentioned in the discussion and the fact that a list passes MOS:LIST does not make it encyclopedic. The closing statement also said that The parent article, Global warming, has also been a major cause of concern, but through careful editing (and ArbCom sanctions) is now a Featured Article. (which again was not mentioned in the discussion and is totally irrelevant), that the article is prose linked in related articles on Wikipedia (not just templated) (why is the fact that this article is mentioned in another article relevant?), that Lists by their nature sometimes fly close to OR as there are sometimes no sources available which group items together the way that Wikipedia lists do (which, again was not mentioned in the discussion, and was the personal opinion of the closer).

    86 is not correct to say that debates should not be closed against majority viewpoint, however it is true that several arguments in favour of keeping the article merely stated that the nomination was an attempt to censor critics of global warming. These arguments should have been ignored entirely, however the closing statement implicitly agreed with them: This article has caused concern for some years, though that appears to be due to the controversial nature of the subject matter rather than that it specifically meets deletion criteria. This debate should have been closed as No Consensus or Delete, and a Keep closure cannot be justified on these grounds. Hut 8.5 23:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Arguments about censorship have validity because it is our policy that Wikipedia should not be censored. Such arguments are therefore policy-based and so cannot be dismissed on procedural grounds. Warden (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither the AfD nominator nor any of the participants in the discussion wanted to remove the article in order to suppress the anti-AGW viewpoint. If someone disputes a point nobody has made and assumes bad faith in doing it, then that opinion ought to hold little to no weight. Reyk YO! 23:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) No. Nobody tried to argue that the article should be deleted because its contents could be considered offensive, the arguments for deletion were based on WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP. A mere assertion that the nominator is trying to censor Wikipedia is not addressing any of those arguments and is little more than a personal attack. Hut 8.5 23:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination specifically argued that the list should be deleted because it was referred to by other sceptics. In the discussion, the nominator stated, "I think I have made it entirely clear why I think it should be deleted; it's horrible." It seems that the list offended him and he wished to suppress it for ideological and political reasons. That's censorship. Warden (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That wasn't what the nominator was saying. Their argument was that the existence of such a list is inherently non-neutral. The fact that climate sceptics cite it was offered in support of that (with the obvious reasoning being that they cite it because they think it supports their position). "It's horrible" just means "the article is a horrible violation of our policies and guidelines", not "I am personally offended by the existence of this article". Removing NPOV violations is not censorship (or, at least, it's not what WP:CENSOR is talking about), even though it involves removing material because of the position it advocates. Hut 8.5 11:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Censors usually claim that they are acting in the public interest — protecting weaker minds from corruption and heresy, &c. It's clear from cases such as WP:SPOILER and Rorschach test that we are not in the business of suppressing information which some editors would prefer to remain hidden. Our guideline is notability - if other publications write about it then we can too. Warden (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. No flaw in the closer's careful rationale and AFD is not a count of heads. From the article's history, yes, it is a controversial topic, but agreeing or disagreeing with the topic does not equate to non-notability, and disagreeing with the truth or not of a demonstrably notable topic does equate to "delete at all costs". Wikipedia strives for balance, and as long as opposing topics are covered in enough detail in reliable sources, we worry less about the "truth" of either side, and more about each side having verifiability. The nominator made a careful and well-reasoned close that granted the controversial nature of the article's topic and suggested it be better dealt with through regular editing and encouraged those with concerns toward validity of the topic or its coverage to hold an RFC. The closer's actions seems quite reasonable, and not POV-pushing of some personal agenda. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC not that that actually changes anything significant. If anything can be said with certainly about that discussion, it is that there was no consensus. Is it a valid topic for a list? Perhaps. Is it really poorly written and a POV problem? Almost certainly. Is it so bad we should just start over? There is no consensus. I do think the keep close has elements of a supervote, but I also don't see how a deletion result can be reached. I think an RfC on the format is called for, per the closer. Hobit (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Troika proposal. Because this is such a controversial list, perhaps the technique used in other cases, where three administrators make a call should be used here as well. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn and delete – At the very least, "keep" was not a proper decision by the closing admin. A good amount of the arguments for retention were significantly weak or did not address the concerns of the deletion side. I would be fine with a "no consensus" close as a 2nd choice, if only to leave the door open for further discussion down the road, but a "keep" close and the accompanying rationale serves to shut that door. –MuZemike 00:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an excellent point. The article clearly has a lot of serious issues that need to be addressed but that will be more difficult now. A keep result is effectively a seal of approval on the article in its current state, and editors anxious that the article should remain an anti-AGW soapbox will just point to the AfD result if anyone tries to fix it and claim that any concerns are not relevant. Unfortunately, that claim has much more strength when the closing statement says pretty much the same thing. Reyk YO! 03:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think by Wikipedia offering a sourced balance by showing both the con and pro sides of the GW issue acts to serve our readers understanding of a topic. Additionally, I do not believe any of the four "keeps" for this article since 2007 acted as a seal of approval, as it continued to be edited after each and every one. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, no. We don't provide balanced coverage of a topic by setting up two equal and opposite soapboxes. And one of the things brought up in the AfD was the determined resistance by the POV-pushers to any and all attempts by anyone else to fix the problems. Reyk YO! 20:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, basically. (Although I think No Consensus would have been a better close). The numerical quantity of voters was roughly equal, and in that situation admins are permitted to weigh the strength of the arguments involved rather than counting votes. In this close, ST gave less weight to votes that advocated deletion due to fixable problems, which I think is a basically acceptable way of judging the discussion. (I didn't vote in the discussion). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The closure does not attempt to determine consensus on the basis of the opinions that have been submitted, but imposes the opinion of the closer as the outcome of the discussion. This is disruptive. The discussion should instead be closed as "delete" on the basis of the strength of the arguments, for the reasons I advanced in the discussion.  Sandstein  06:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to the stats, 255 people watch that page, the talk page has been viewed 704 times in the last 30 days, and the main page has been viewed 12,528 times in the last 30 days. The page obviously serves a purpose. If the users want it, why should a few editors be trying so hard to delete it? If you want to build a house, and the zoning forbids it, you go for a variance. Once. This page has been granted a effective variance 4 times. Enough already. Q Science (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Is this a joke? You don't get the result you like, after four nominations, ten days of vigorous debate in the most recent nomination, and you immediately appeal? "No consensus" would probably have been more accurate, but I certainly can't see any reason to overturn the decision. It shouldn't be allowed to try again, and again, and again, forum shopping if necessary, until you get the result you want. The rest of us are now concentrating on improving the article on its Talk page; I suggest that's the most useful use of people's energies at this stage. --Merlinme (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Change to Overturn to No Consensus (see below after discussion with Hut 8.5. --Merlinme (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't forum shopping, DRV is the right venue (and the only right venue) for contesting the closure of AfDs. The most recent AfD was over two years ago (consensus can change) and even that was closed as "no consensus", so you can't argue that there was a standing consensus that the article was acceptable. Hut 8.5 08:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At best, that's an argument for changing the result to No Consensus. How you can change it to an Overturn and delete, essentially ignoring ten days of finely balanced discussion, is beyond me. --Merlinme (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous discussions the article went through aren't an argument for closing this discussion as anything at all. The only thing that is relevant to closing this discussion the comments put forward in it. Hut 8.5 10:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see a case for asking three administrators to decide whether the request was correctly closed, and whether the result should stand; I can see a case for changing the result to "No Consensus"; if for some reason procedures were not followed, I can see a case for re-opening the deletion nomination, although that seems rather pointless as it is very hard to see why it would get anything other than the previous result. I cannot see a case for ignoring the deletion debate and saying "we'll ignore everyone else and delete the article because we know better". --Merlinme (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't said that, nor has anyone else. The problem here is the other way round: the closer imposed their own opinion on the discussion when closing as Keep. Hut 8.5 13:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be curious to know if there are any other cases of reviews with an 18-15 split which after review were closed as "Delete". In any other debate I've ever seen on Wikipedia, an 18-15 split is "no consensus". To overturn the close as "Delete" is a travesty of the whole AfD process. --Merlinme (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But then that surely brings us back to my previous point, which is that you are essentially saying that you ignore the 15 Wikipedians who voted Keep, because You Know Better. I repeat, I have never seen a Wikipedia debate as close as this decided as anything other than No Consensus. I find it difficult to see how it could be seen as consensus, unless perhaps there were signs of sock puppeting or canvassing. --Merlinme (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a start you're misrepresenting my position. I think No Consensus would have been a reasonable reading of the debate, and if it had been closed that way I would not be complaining. Secondly if the debate had been closed as Delete then that would not have meant the people arguing the article should be kept were being "ignored". The deletion guidelines permit (indeed they require) the closing administrator to take account of the strength of arguments. Raw headcount is nothing more than a very vague expression of consensus in cases like this, and deletion discussions can be (and are) closed in favour of a position most participants argued against. Hut 8.5 15:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologise if I've misunderstood your position- I'm not quite sure how we got into such a debate when I hope it was fairly clear that I thought No Consensus was probably the correct closure. Suggest we leave it there. --Merlinme (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you change to "overturn" if you don't agree the closure was proper ("overturn" in this context doesn't necessarily mean "delete it"). I still don't agree with your reasoning for taking that position though. Hut 8.5 15:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um. If I were comfortable that would not be taken as tacit agreement to Delete, I might agree. However several people have been arguing for "Overturn and delete", which I strongly disagree with. As I'm now going offline till Monday, I'm rather reluctant to change my vote and come back to discover the article deleted. In general I would probably support a further process to consider the correct closure; AndyTheGrump seems to understand the point I'm trying to make. --Merlinme (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus I still strongly object to an immediate attempt to overturn the decision of the 5th nomination without notifying the interested parties. (That's fifth, not fourth, by the way, for some reason the third nomination in the article milestones was not marked as such.) I also don't think comments in this review which essentially boil down to "Delete for the reasons I advanced in the discussion" are very helpful, and certainly not without notifying the people who were arguing the other side. However. My more considered view is that the close as "Keep" was inappropriate. In general I think that people should be very wary of discounting clearly taken positions by experienced Wikipedia editors "because they don't fit with policy". I'd argue that there has to be a very clear failure with very clear policies for this to be a reasonable thing to do, because apart from anything else, who is to judge which policy has been violated? I disagree with the whole principle of "super votes"; where on earth is that laid down as policy? Copyright violations, defamation, ok fair enough, but not normal content. If you cannot get community consensus that policies have been clearly violated and the article should be deleted, but you cannot get community consensus that the article is clearly a worthy Wikipedia article, then I don't see how you can argue that the result of the discussion was anything other than "No consensus". For example, in this case one side thinks BLP is violated; the other side disagrees and thinks that as long as quotes are clearly sourced, challengable, etc., then BLP is not violated. One side thinks that the article is Synthesis; the other side disagrees and thinks that as long as the scientist has clearly taken a position disagreeing with the consensus position (as advanced by the IPCC) it is not synthesis. One side thinks that the article breaks the rules on Due Weight; the other side disagrees and points to the lengthy lead presenting the consensus position and the graphic and caption showing the small number of scientists disagreeing with the consensus. One side complains that the article is a Quote Farm; the other disagrees as the quotes are pertinent and serve a useful purpose. So in other words as far as I can see the two sides presented fairly evenly matched arguments for ten days, and there are few or no votes which I think should be completely discounted. With that in mind, an 18-15 split with a result of "No Consensus" seems to me a very accurate reflection of the debate. There may well be areas in which the use of the quotes can be improved, or the means used to identify the scientists changed (for example, using third party reporting in addition to the quotes), and these are being discussed on the Talk page; but these are content disputes, and have no part in a deletion discussion. The vote in favour (18-15) of deleting the article was actually weaker than in the previous deletion nomination (which was 45-31); the earlier "No Consensus" decision was reviewed and found to be a reasonable decision. The !vote this time round has apparently been more closely balanced despite a large number of climate change editors having since been banned or topic banned as a result of various ArbCom decisions. I sincerely wish that people would accept that "No Consensus" to delete is a proper reflection of the current community feelings on the matter, and that those arguing in favour of deletion have not been able to achieve anything like consensus among the community to delete, despite five attempts; in the light of that, we should be returning to what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, i.e. improving the article's content. --Merlinme (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse With all due respect to the folks who are seasoned Wikipedia contributors that have been contributing to this discussion, I'm a user/Wikipedia fan putting in her two cents for keeping the page. I have visited this particular page periodically for research purposes and do not see it as an illegitimate WP:POVFORK. Instead, I would say that it is an example of a legitimate WP:SPINOFF. I agree that Wikipedia has good pages discussing the controversy surrounding global warming; however, it should be noted that users who visit this particular list are not looking to sift through the content of scientific arguments. Users like me are specifically looking for the names of sources of these arguments. For this purpose, this list is an excellent summary and is presented in a NPOV. VS 78 (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems to me that this discussion has been sidetracked into becoming another discussion on the merits of the article. This however is irrelevant. The AfD was improperly closed by an admin who chose to base his decision on his own opinion of the article, and on factors that nobody else has had a chance to respond to: effectively appointing himself 'Judge, Jury, and Executioner'. This is a gross distortion of the AfD process, and frankly, I have to question whether the person involved is fit to remain an admin. I have asked him to clarify whether he considers references to other articles, and to evidence not previously discussed, as normal behaviour in the process of AfD, but so far I have had no response. If this actually is normal (I sincerely hope not), then we clearly need to make this explicit in policy, rather than giving a misleading impression of the process. It seems to me to be dishonest to tell participants in a debate that their opinions will be considered, and then have decisions made by fiat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think rather we are getting sidetracked from saying "the Keep closure was incorrect" to saying "the Keep closure was incorrect therefore the article should be deleted", which is a non-sequitur if ever I saw one. I've seen sensible arguments why the closure as Keep was incorrect; I've yet to see sensible arguments why such an evenly split AfD process should now be closed as "Delete" rather than "No consensus". --Merlinme (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - the correct procedure at this point would be to declare the AfD closure as null and void - though how we proceed from then on is unclear. I have therefore revised my previous 'Overturn', above. For the record, I do not accept that there is 'no consensus' for deletion (if the AfD is properly closed) - but this is irrelevant at this juncture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Declaring interest as I argued to keep. The point made by the admin who closed the debate was that the reasons originally given by the nominator were not valid deletion criteria WP:DEL#REASON but editing issues. I was expecting "no consensus", but I can see the admin's point. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning to overturn. SilkTork said in hir closing rationale that AfD was not cleanup, but many of the delete voters were clear, and some explicitly stated, that they did not believe the OR, NPOV and BLP problems were fixable through cleanup. Closing admin's own belief that they are fixable can't override, so hir dismissal of these users was improper. Many of the "keep" votes were irrelevant or flawed (eg. "it keeps denialists out of other articles," "global warming controversy is notable," "I agree with these scientists," "censorship!", justavote), but the problems with these don't seem to have been taken into account, while imagined problems with "delete" votes were cited. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, since even Ray Charles could see that there was no consensus in that debate.—S Marshall T/C 18:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article (not previously counted), and endorse the closure. I particularly object to the statement "they liked it because it promoted their POV", which misstates the arguments. That this issue has been raised repeatedly suggests an attempt to win by exhaustion, and that itself should be a point against. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, SilkTork has yet to respond to my questions regarding what seems to me to be clearly an abuse of process, in that he considered 'arguments' (his own) that weren't presented in the AfD discussion at all. This is the fundamental issue here.
Andy, that's not quite a fair comment, imo: Silk Tork has explained that he will be offline for a few days, and he is being cooperative and civil in discussing his close. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I made it, it was entirely reasonable: check the timestamps. SilkTork had made a substantial number of edits after I posted my question, without any response - he had apparently chosen not to respond until I asked the same question again. That he has responded since I posted the above is no indication of any unfairness at the time it was posted. And yes, have had a civil discussion - can I suggest that you not suggest otherwise by implying unfairness on my part? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree your discussion with Silk Tork was/is civil, but I don't think an out-of-date comment should be left hanging here. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the comments by the person initially calling for review (and by others arguing one way or another about the merits of the article), there is a more fundamental issue, which must be addressed - is it legitimate to close an AfD based not on the discussion, but on WP:OTHERGOODSTUFFEXISTS and on other matters not even raised? I don't believe for one moment it is, and until this issue is addressed, any further discussion on the article are moot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the OP, 86*** helps his case by remarking "Oh, come the HELL on" and "That's bullshit" over at Silk Tork's talk page. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so either - though I can understand his/her frustration. Now how about actually responding to my concerns? (For the record, SilkTork has now replied to my questions on his talk page, though I'm unconvinced that his answers actually address the real problem). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that SilkTork now regrets mentioning the parent article, but I found his explanations for this, and for his closing statement, reasonable and convincing. Other editors (and the closing admin for this review) should read them at his talk page, and judge for themselves. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but it wasn't SilkTork mentioning the 'parent article' that was the problem - it was that he considered it relevant in the first place. He clearly based his decision on factors not discussed in the AfD - factors, moreover that are of no relevance to a proper AfD closure. Yes, others should read SilkTorks comments - though I can't help wondering if he might have been better off responding here - or is that not appropriate in a deletion review? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus or at least Relist (which is going to happen to this article anyway, because it's clearly not tenable), the close doesn't reflect the discussion at all. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and have it re-closed, perhaps by a triumvurate which would reduce the risk of error and give the final decision some legitimacy after 4 AFDs. This close trespassed way past the blurry line I referred to in the DRV above. Maybe "keep" was the right outcome; maybe not. On my reading of the closing statement, the statement discloses that the admin preferred one side of the argument and applied the admin's own view of applicable policies to the admin's own view of the facts (eg the sources). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This closure was shockingly horrible. At best there is non consensus here, and there is no way that the strength of argument leaned towards "keep." Add to that the fact that the closing admin made novel arguments in the close, and used the existence of another article in his rationale. Andy is right, this was an abuse of process. Now we find out that the closing admin also made this controversial closure just before a planned hiatus from Wikipedia, which boggles my mind.Griswaldo (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small clarification: SilkTork indicated that he will be away over the weekend (running a marathon) - not a major hiatus as I see it, though inconvenient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have already made some comments on my talkpage regarding this close, and I'm not sure how much I can add here which will be of benefit. It is possible that regardless of the outcome of the AfD there would have been people who would have been dissatisfied, and a DRV would have been called. In the circumstances, given that nobody is going to be satisfied, a no consensus close would have been less contentious and more diplomatic. I would have liked the chance to consider altering the close to no consensus, however, within 45 minutes of first contact on my talkpage, and while I was still engaged in discussion, and was making an offer to look again at the close, this DRV was opened, and shortly after that the DRV above which also names me was opened by a SPA which may be seen by some as an attempt to suggest that my judgement is generally poor. Of course it is possible that my judgement was poor in this case, which is why I was willing to look again, and which is why I am comfortable that we have the DRV process to check if a decision that was made did overlook something. Closers are human and are fallable, and even though closing in good faith and with care may err. I do agree that my closing statement had the potential to misdirect people. The mention of the Global warming article was to illustrate my opening point that an article with contentious subject matter and/or other problems is not neccessarily grounds for deletion, but grounds for improving through discussion and editing. That opening viewpoint was separate and additional to an assessment of consensus in the AfD. It can be struck as it makes no difference to the close. I would say though, looking again, that I over-emphasized the strength of opinion that the article could be cleaned up, there are a significant number of people in this AfD who feel that the issues are not resolvable through editing. I don't think I made clear enough that I had looked at the arguments for deletion, which are mainly based on concerns of original research and biased point of view, and felt those concerns were addressed in the discussion and by relevant policies and guidelines. Warden's evidence that there are reliable publications which talk about the "The Scientist Deniers" (that is a group of "scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", the specific topic of the article under question) was compelling, and fitted in with our inclusion guidelines and policies. We summarise the ideas and knowledge that are published by reliable sources. That reliable sources feel compelled to write not just about the debate itself, but about the group of scientists who do not agree with the mainstream view, indicate that we should have an article on them. From reading the views in the discussion and consulting the policies and guidelines I concluded that the topic was viable, and a keep close was appropriate. That the article we have is a poor quality one has clearly caused people concern, and that is why I felt it appropriate to offer not just a close summary, but a suggestion that editing and discussion was an appropriate solution to the problems. I accept that in the circumstances it would have been better if I had stuck to the deletion debate, and offered suggestions on opening a RFC on the article talkpage afterwards. I have found the comments on my close to be instructive, and will take on board what I have learned. I will in future consider more closely the option of closing as no consensus, and will clearly separate or even withhold any extraneous comments. Should my close be changed to no consensus? Possibly - though is that because the issue needs discussing further or because it is a bordeline issue which cannot be resolved? I wouldn't like to see this matter drag on - this is the seventh discussion (five AfDs and two DRVs) - and it would be good to draw a line under it and get on with editing to see if that will resolve the matter. But if people feel that more discussion would be worthwhile, then perhaps a relisting would be worth considering. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you would consider rewriting your closing statement and posting it here for discussion? I'd hate to see your standing, and/or motivation for taking on difficult closes, suffer as a result of this review. I'm impressed with the amount of thought and effort you put into the close (caveat: I agree with your decision), and with your cordiality and civility when your decision was attacked. You've clearly learned not to stick in extraneous stuff, like the comment on the parent FA. Wikipedia needs more admins like you! Hope the race goes well, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, as has been said repeatedly, we do have an article on global warming deniers - it's called global warming controversy. This article serves as a WP:POVFORK of that one. No references - not one - has been offered to show that such lists of people have ever been made before, or that such large numbers of people are notable on the denier side. 86.** IP (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm concerned that if the sentence, "The parent article, Global warming, has also been a major cause of concern, but through careful editing (and ArbCom sanctions) is now a Featured Article", is part of the logic leading to a keep, it may be worth researching if it contains a factual error. The wording implies that careful editing and ArbCom sanctions led to FA status for Global warming. That article was promoted to FA on May 17, 2006, according to the 'Article milestones' on its talkpage. I don't know of any ArbCom sanctions that could have led to improvements in that article prior to that date (although I don't know how to reliably search all ArbCom sanctions prior to that date to confirm this). I'm just worried that the implication, from the preceding sentence, about the article causing "concern" due to the "controversial nature of the subject matter" rather than due to policy-based reasoning, may be that the editors of these climate change articles are such a rowdy bunch that unless they are given very strict policing, they can't get anything much done. I do not think that is a good basis for an admin decision, I do not think it is true, and I do not think it can be verified from the actual facts as stated. --Nigelj (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There were two arbitration proceedings on the general topic area of climate change that occurred during 2005. Climate change dispute 1 and Climate change dispute 2. The sanctions imposed narrowly addressed a few individuals, and I don't want to speculate what the impact was towards FA promotion, but climate change related work and editors have been in and out of arbitration for a long time. However, many of the cases focus on specific individuals rather than the entire topic area, and it is only relatively recently that broad sanctions have been placed across the entire topic area. Dragons flight (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the links. Yes, I don't see any direct evidence there that the sanctions imposed contributed to the parent article, Global warming, becoming FA. --Nigelj (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They didn't. There has been no Arbcom case that directly influenced the global warming article. All of the Arbcom cases have been about periphery articles, user conduct and in one case about changes in reference style. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - I'm actually scratching my head as to how that was closed "keep". Sandstein above is right that the closure was done on the basis of wrong-headed "vote counting" rather than consideration of policy and, specifically, the policy-related reasons that were or were not given by the participants in that discussion. Volunteer Marek  03:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been done on the basis of "vote counting" it would have gone the other way. In any case, given that SilkTork has conceded that his 'keep' decision was questionable, I cannot see any alternative here to declaring the result null and void: or as 'no consensus', in which case another AfD will undoubtedly be started soon, given the issues raised. Either way, this AfD has achieved little beyond illustrating that controversial AfDs need careful closing, with all significant comments actually addressed, and with no suggestion that the closing admin is bringing in issues not discussed at the AfD. Basically, if there are issues which should have been raised, the prospective 'closing' admin should instead raise them in the AfD itself, and leave the closure to another - I note that this is precisely what admin Sandstein did: [26] - If Sandstein had taken SilkTork's attitude to the closure, it would have been closed as a delete. Actually, I'd like to see SilkTork's response to Sandstein on this. How can it be possible to read Sandstein, and then ignore the fundamental point about 'supervotes'? I think that, yet again, this illustrates that SilkTork's decision was not based on a proper assessment of the arguments presented at the AfD, and therefore cannot be allowed to stand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-list. Or at the very least, overturn to no-consensus (I won't repeat the arguments already given above). If the article has seen improvements, then a new round of AfD should show a stronger consensus in one direction or the other. Cutting the laundry-list of quotations and merging the result into a parent controversy article would be a good choice too. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The close was essentially an administrator !voting rather than a proper procedural close. It would be a good idea to get a wider swathe of the community to review what happened and get more input at the very least. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my close. Having had a chance to revisit the AfD, I can see I followed procedure and assessed the arguments raised in the discussion against our policies and guidelines. The topic is sourced and notable as pointed out in the discussion. It meets our inclusion criteria. The main concerns in the AfD discussion were that the article violated some aspect of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and/or Wikipedia:No original research. I did examine those concerns, and found the arguments against these concerns were quite compelling - particularly that the article was linked from within related articles in an appropriate manner, and that there are reliable sources which discuss the "global warming deniers". A reading of WP:UNDUE, which was cited as a concern, shows that the way to treat "fringe theories" is to have a standalone article which discusses the matter - which is what this one is doing. A concern that there are other articles which already treat the topic is also addressed in the discussion by pointing out that this article is part of a set which deals with different aspects of the topic.
This DRV was brought as it was felt that I hadn't given enough consideration to all the deletion arguments, and that I introduced new arguments in the manner of a supervote. I agree that I gave a general comment on the need to clean up the article, and gave a suggestion as to a way forward on that, and I also gave the view that the main problem with the article was that the subject matter was contentious rather than it fitted our deletion guidelines. At the time I was thinking that it would be helpful to put the discussion in some form of context and suggest a way forward. Given that this is a contentious subject, and that the outcome of the AfD would likely lead to a DRV regardless of the outcome, that was unwise of me, though was not part of a supervote. I've looked again at the deletion arguments and I agree that I did not give enough weight to those who felt that the article was not editable - however, a belief that a contentious topic is not editable is not grounds for deletion, and is countered by examples of excellent articles on contentious subjects. On Wikipedia we do not avoid notable topics because they are difficult. There are no BLP issues as the statements are all sourced as being said by the people concerned.
I have looked again to see if "no consensus" is the more appropriate close, as there were more !deletes than !keeps; however, the arguments put forward by those saying "keep" were more in line with our policies and guidelines, and arguments for "delete" were adequately addressed within the discussion. The wider consensus of our policies and guidelines over-rules any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, unless the local discussion provides a convincing argument for why the policies and guidelines do not apply in that instance. This AfD discussion did not provide that convincing argument. I can see a political and social sense in which a "no consensus" close would be fitting, and would be quite comfortable with the close being changed to "no consensus", though I feel my close of "keep" was within due process. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are making yet more of your own arguments for keeping the page, and for opposing the delete arguments. You are exemplifying the supervote you made in the first place right here, right now. You are not to refute delete arguments in your close, or in the reasoning of your close as you do above -- which is not the same as showing how "keep" arguments made by others adequately answered "delete" concerns. I think you acted in good faith, but I'm beginning to believe there is a competence issue here when it comes to the difference between a supervote and a proper close. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide an example of an argument that I used in the AfD close that is a supervote argument. It would be helpful for me to look at it carefully - at the moment I seem to be missing it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andy already pointed out above that your suggestion about the "parent article" and its status as a FA amounts to this, but here's another one:
  • Lists by their nature sometimes fly close to OR as there are sometimes no sources available which group items together the way that Wikipedia lists do. However, the list appears to meet MOS:LIST, and provides both information and navigation.
You made your own interpretation of how lists do and/or do not fit with the original research policy here. This was done through a claim that I can't find made by anyone in the discussion that the list meets MOS:LIST and that the original research arguments made by "delete" voters are contravened by that part of the manual of style. I happen to disagree with your assessment here, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that you are making these arguments on your own, not repeating them because they were a major part of the arguments made by others. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned by the amount of comments saying that they feel my close was a supervote. I am called upon on occasion to close tricky discussions, to help out at disputes and look into POV issues in articles. This is because I am seen to strive to be balanced and neutral, and to be quite firm on following policies and guidelines. I would like to closely examine this, as it does have implications for my future involvement in closing tyricky discussions. I am aware that my general comments which included mention of another article did have potential to be misread. I have taken that onboard and am comfortable that the existence of another article did not impact on my close decision, but that mentioning it was unwise and misleading. I am unclear, however, how mentioning a relevant policy or guideline can be considered a supervote. This is a concern to me, as my understanding is that any closer should be taking policies into account especially if they have not been raised in the discussion. How is referring to the wider consensus outlined in policies and guidelines somehow inappropriate? Any closer who is looking purely at the local discussion and disregarding wider consensus is surely not appropriately applying consensus? SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies...These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. (WP:DGFA). However that's not applicable to the situation you describe, partly because it is talking about core content policies such as verifiability, NPOV and BLP (MOS:LIST is a style guideline) and partly because it is talking about situations where the closing administrator can overrule local consensus and delete something, not keep it. MOS:LIST wasn't mentioned in the discussion, and for good reason. It describes what the purposes of lists are, and if a list doesn't fulfil one of those purposes then that would be an argument for deleting it. This doesn't mean that a list should be kept if it passes MOS:LIST because there could be other things wrong with it. Hut 8.5 10:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to what Hut wrote, your personal interpretations here do not amount to clear cut policy enforcement, which is what you're implying. Where do you get the idea that a style guideline contravenes concerns with BLP and OR policies? As I pointed out already that argument was never made in the discussion, and as Hut adds it wasn't made for good reason. You claim to be appealing to a broader consensus outside the discussion but I don't see it anywhere. If you are going to make such an appeal you better have some good evidence at hand, like prior community wide RfCs, or other discussions which clearly support your interpretation (and yes it is an interpretation and not a clear cut policy matter as I already stated). Another point Hut made also bares repeating. The relevant portion of WP:DGFA is about cases where articles need to be deleted because they are in violation of policy. Whereas policy might dictate the need to delete an article there is no policy imperative to keep any article. There never is. The editors who behave as if there is are a very well known minority here on Wikipedia (I think we all know who they are). If you allow their minority opinion to form a basis for making controversial closes you are not, in my opinion, fit to make such closes. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DGFA says, in bold in the original: 4.When in doubt, don't delete. That sounds to me like a pretty clear-cut policy basis for not deleting articles unless there is clear consensus or clear core policy violation, neither of which I believe to be the case here. --Merlinme (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a completely different argument, and not one that either SilkTork has made, nor one that addresses the current criticism of his close either. If there isn't a clear consensus and there isn't a clear core policy violation the correct close is "no consensus" which, as you must realize, also amounts to not deleting the entry (also fulfills "don't delete"). Had SilkTork closed in that manner we would not be here right now. SilkTork's argument is that he closed as keep (which is beyond not deleting) based on what he claims is an obvious reading of policy/guidelines about lists. He ignored the lack of consensus, in other words, for his own reading of policy. If you don't see the difference here I'm not sure I can help you, but it is pretty huge. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to your statement that "there is no policy imperative to keep any article", which seemed to me to be being used as an argument that the article should be deleted, as several people in this discussion have been arguing (and which I can see little or no basis for). I've already argued in favour of an overturn to No consensus. I apologise if I misunderstood your position.--Merlinme (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked again at my closing statement. It is a poor piece of writing, and certainly the worse close I've written. If I subtract the additional comments all that is left is this: "The main concerns about this article are that it is original research and is not neutral. Arguments of fringe and undue are well countered both by the sources provided by Warden, and by awareness, as pointed out by NewsAndEventsGuy, that the article is prose linked in related articles on Wikipedia (not just templated)." The additional views, not essential to the close, are very misleading, and - as I have agreed earlier - I do not adequately deal with the delete views. I have accepted from the first query that the statement wasn't clear, but as I understood my own close, and the thinking that led to it, I felt that the close was acceptable. What I was looking at was: 1) Does this article meet our inclusion criteria? The answer is yes - and the arguments and evidence for that are found in the discussion. 2) Does this article meet our deletion criteria? The concerns were OR and POV, and I found those concerns addressed within the discussion in the article, so the answer is no. Having found those two main questions answered I found that there was no consensus to delete, and that as the concerns had been appropriately addressed, the outcome was keep. I then made additional comments that have clouded the issue. The main discussion about my close is that I made a supervote by including those additional comments; my argument has been that those additional comments were not essential to the close, and so - while unwise - did not impact the close. As an extension of that discussion, there is the question regarding how much a closer should not consult or make reference to relevant guidelines and policies. My understanding is that a closer should be aware of the relevant guidelines and policies. The sticking point here, perhaps, is if the advice of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists consists of sufficient Wikipedia consensus, and/or is relevant enough to be consulted in an AfD discussion - it is a MoS guideline after all, rather than an inclusion guideline. I did not use that guideline as part of my keep assessment, but used it as part of the contentious additional comments; however, be that as it may, mentioning it has added to the confusion here, and I fully accept that.
Where I am now with this, is thinking that I did not fully take into account the delete concerns, and apply the third question: 3) Are there arguments here that allow special considerations to apply? My feeling at the time was that the arguments that the article was POV and OR were adequately addressed within the discussion, and so a keep was the right outcome; however, looking again I can see that there are sufficient genuine concerns that the article is and will remain problematic to allow a "no consensus" close. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"There are no BLP issues as the statements are all sourced as being said by the people concerned". Really? To quote admin Sandstein: "In the light of WP:BLP, a list of living people selected on the basis of having taken a controversial position should only be compiled if the person is explicitly stated by a reliable source to have taken the controversial position. But in this case, editors have applied their own judgment as to whether the quoted statements constitute "opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", which is inadmissible original research". I would like to see a proper response from SilkTork on Sandstein,s comments at the AfD [27]. SilkTork and Sandstein have evidently reached entirely contrary conclusions regarding the article, but whereas Sandstein was prepared to make arguments in the debate, SilkTork took it upon himself to impose a decision by fiat, apparently disregarding fundamental tenets of Wikipedia policy regarding BLP's and OR. Is it really acceptable to have an Arbitrary list of people we've decided have a particular opinion about something controversial on Wikipedia? I hope not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually think that it's not possible for something to be a BLP violation if it has a citation? That position is seriously at odds with consensus on the issue, to put it mildly. Hut 8.5 16:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been discussed before (and is being discussed again) the best way to present the citations, and whether the quotes should be additionally supported by secondary sources describing them as sceptics. I don't see this, in itself, as a reason to delete the article, as it's a content question which could be resolved by changing the format of the article.
Clearly something can be a BLP violation even if it has a citation; most obviously, the citation could be wrong. For example journalistic reporting of a person's beliefs could be incorrect. However we ascribe positions in biographical articles to people all the time based on material they've published themselves, and/ or third party reporting of their beliefs; for example no-one would question whether Richard Dawkins is an atheist, and I don't see why anyone would question whether Richard Lindzen is a consensus sceptic. Richard Lindzen is described in the lead of that article as "a well known skeptic of global warming". --Merlinme (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a degree of not making points clear, and for that I apologise. The principle that you cannot have a list of global warming deniers is refuted by evidence brought up in the discussion that there is a group of such people, and there will not be a BLP issue if a statement has a reliable source, such as the sources that are in the article or were raised in the AfD discussion. Sources such as this show that such a list is well within our policies. That is not to say, of course, that the article at some point now, in the past, or in the future will not have problems because some people are inappropriately included or inappropriately sourced - but such problems are common to many articles and are not grounds for deletion of the whole article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
respectfully, that's one part of the problems, and you've never yet responded to any of the other ones. The list, in structure and function, exists to push a POV. It's a type of list known to be used as a propaganda tool. Noone else has ever constructed such a lits that can be found. It serves as a WP:COATRACK to push a pov, and fundamentally, in its construction, violates WP:UNDUE. Editing will not fix any of these problems, short of cutting the list down to nothing but a list of names, which the WP:POVPUSHers will not allow under any circumstances, particularly not when you close it as "Keep", thus giving them all the justificatoin they need to keep violating core policy. . 86.** IP (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O, I fully accept that people have concerns that the article is a POV vehicle. I also accept that the article is problematic. What I looked at were the relevant policies and guidelines and what people said in the discussion to address or refute those concerns. What I found convincing, and which I mentioned in my close, and which I keep restating, but which is perhaps not being given due credit, is that Warden put forward arguments and evidence that reliable sources are dealing with the topic of the global warming deniers, and as such the topic becomes appropriate for Wikipedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even LOOK at Warden's references? They mention a couple people, yes. They dio not mention the dozens of names seen here. 86.** IP (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources list more than "a couple of people". Per WP:LISTN, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.". The sources present these people as a group or set. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anyone wonders aboout Warden's sources
I looked at them. They don't justify the list at all.
These sources do not show that such a list is viable, encyclopedic, nor do they justify making the list a giant WP:COATRACK of denialist claims. 86.** IP (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you even understand the argument in favour of deleting the page. Even if the article was impeccably sourced to third-party references that directly supported the material quoted in the article and there are abundant lists of global warming deniers out there in reliable sources that is completely and totally irrelevant to the question of whether the existence of this article is neutral and thus does not refute the arguments in favour of deletion. It's true that there is abundant coverage of people who don't think global warming exists (or who don't think it's manmade) and that it is in principle possible to write a neutral article on them, which is why we have an article at Global warming controversy. It doesn't mean that it is possible to have a neutral article at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Hut 8.5 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, SilkTork seems to be trying to assert the validity of his 'supervote', while dismissing the reasoned concerns of those who point out the BLP and OR concerns in an arbitrary list compiled by Wikipedia editors on a controversial subject. Searching out individuals who meet Wikipedia's own self-generated criteria, with the express intention of including them on a list, is original research. This is self-evident. If SilkTork considers such behaviour to be appropriate to Wikipedia, he should call for policy to be revised. As of now, it is totally contrary to norms, and a violation of not only WP:OR but WP:BLP policy. The opinions of the individuals listed is diverse (or at least appears to be, from the material concerned - it cannot be presented as evidence for current beliefs), and the suggestion that there is a singe 'group' of 'global warming deniers' is itself therefore highly questionable - they often appear to have nothing in common in their criticisms, and have been lumped together to imply that the scientific consensus on the matter is weaker than it is. That other sources may have attempted the same POV stunt is rather beside the point - it is still material gathered to push a POV - in Wikipedia terms, a POV-fork. It stinks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- the close as written appears to be a supervote on the merits instead of an evaluation of the arguments. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per several others who are concerned about the super-vote appearance of the closing rationale; Griswaldo's remarks are very persuasive. I'd prefer to see it deleted because of the coatrack and OR potential, but no consensus is not an unreasonable close based on the arguments provided in the AfD. Horologium (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close AFD is not about counting numbers. Its about judging what was said. Many sources were given providing the subject notable. The article list people who have their own Wikipedia articles, and list the quote of what they have said about this. Their comments have all gotten news coverage. Rather encyclopedic article, since you can easily see what notable people covered in the media as being experts on this subject have stated about this subject. Dream Focus 22:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, really. Show me proof that these have been covered in the media as experts on the subject. Because that's never once been mentioned in connection to this list. 86.** IP (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I search for the first name on the list, and the word "global warming" and Google news archive search shows 189 results. [28] Here is a New York Times article about his belief concerning global warming [29]. So references aren't really an issue here. If the mass of references already in the article aren't enough, you can easily use Google news archive search to find more. Dream Focus 00:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being covered in the news is not one of the list's criteria, and you'd need to demonstrate that was true for all (or at least a majority) of the names in the list before your argument was at all valid. Also, the media actually sometimes presents, you know, actual climate scientists as experts as well, so it's not like "who the media consider experts" is limited only to climate change denialists, or a unique grouping. 86.** IP (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those who believe in global warming can have their own list then. No need to try to put them together, that not making any sense at all. Do you sincerely doubt that any of the names on the list won't have media coverage for their belief about global warming? This is something they get coverage for, therefor the list is valid. Dream Focus 02:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Do you sincerely doubt that any of the names on the list won't have media coverage for their belief about global warming?" Yes. until you provide the evidence, I do. Incidentally, that is 'beliefs', not 'belief' as the list makes clear - they don't all have even approximately the same views, all they have in common is that Wikipedia contributors think they belong on this arbitrary list. And no, we don't allow differing opinions to have their own articles - that is a POV fork, and clearly against policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Those who believe in global warming can have their own list then." I've said earlier in this discussion that the way to provide balanced coverage of a topic on Wikipedia is not to set up two soapboxes pushing opposite POVs. Reyk YO! 03:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closing admin made a decision (to introduce their arguments into their closing statement, as explained above), and is now sticking with their decision. While an understandable human reaction, it is not reasonable for a close on a topic like this to be based on a supervote. I might have missed it, but I see no explanation for how the close responded to the sound reasoning in the deletion discussion that a list of "scientists who have made statements that conflict with the mainstream assessment of global warming" can never be satisfactorily based on reliable secondary sources—such a list is the definition of cherry picking synthesis, a problem compounded by the need for editors to interpret most statements (as pointed out in the discussion, but not responded to in the close with more than a "These are editing issues" comment). Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is pointless. Whatever happens here the article will be up for deletion again soon and we will go through the whole process again and again and again. And there is no prospect of a consensus to delete. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be so sure of that Tigerboy. Many of us are new to this discussion. I'm of the firm belief that if the next AfD has wider input from the community this OR quotefarm will be swimming with the fishes. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep trying until you get the results you want? Tragically, that does happen quite often. If they don't get their way, one of those who wanted to delete it before, will just nominate it again in a month or so, several times in a single year even, determined to game the system. Dream Focus 14:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does seem to be some gaming going on. The nominator of the AFD ostensibly started editing this month. They started their objections to this article with their first post, not at its talk page, but at the Fringe Noticeboard and here they are, just a few days later, posting up a storm at DRV. How is that they are so expert in Wikipedia processes so quickly? My impression is that they are a banned editor, such as ScienceApologist, or one of the editors who was involved in the Arbcom case about Global warming articles. Warden (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are correct it has no bearing on the actual issue being discussed. For the record I had concerns myself when I first saw this editor post about the article at the FT/N, but that's really neither here nor there. If you think this is sock then file an SPI, but don't suggest that somehow the rest of us should be discounted based on that. That, Warden, would be gaming the system. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realise, Warden, that 86 found out about the existence of DRV after I told them here (this is the proper forum for contesting closures of deletion discussions, after all)? And that, according to their user page, the user in question usually edits while logged out, so evidently they have other editing experience? Assume good faith please. Hut 8.5 15:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Campaigning about this matter over at the Fringe noticeboard was not good faith action — it was WP:CANVASSING, as I observed during the AFD. It maybe that 86 is just naive but he's something of a bull in a china shop. Even an innocuous list like List of vegetable oils sets him off and he starts making wild claims like there being no such thing as tomato seed oil. If he wants to be treated as a good faith editor then he should calm down and not treat everyone else like a wild-eyed fanatic. User:SilkTork seems to have handled the matter with some thought and care and he deserves better than all this second-guessing. Warden (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Colonel Warden has legitimate reasons for suspecting 86.** is a sock of a banned user, he can take it to SPI. Making unfounded accusations on an unrelated discussion seems like mud-smearing to me. Reyk YO! 20:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warden, the FT/N discussion was prior to the AfD so it was not canvassing. Also you must have missed the fact that SilkTork has not agreed with all the people who think this should have been a "no consensus." So I'm not sure what you are trying to say regarding that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The canvassing post was this: "Hmm. Becoming a POV-fest. Lots of people claiming global warming denial isn't fringe, because... they hold the belief, so it's fine to have a huge POV push.". This was made during the discussion, not before it. Warden (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. The concerns about the additional comments have sidetracked me somewhat. I have spent most of my time since closing the AfD, thinking about and discussing those additional comments. The comments were poor and unwise and have distracted people, however, they were not part of the close decision. The area, however, where I have more seriously erred is in the assessment of the delete comments. I have three questions I consider in an AfD - 1) Does this article meet our inclusion criteria? 2) Does this article meet our deletion criteria? and 3) Are there arguments here that allow special considerations to apply? I did not look closely enough at question 3. There are sufficient concerns raised about the potential POV of the article to allow a "no consensus" close to be made. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse reasonable close based on strength of arguments. --143.105.13.115 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close - there is nothing new under the sun, lets stop wasting our time on this William M. Connolley (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is plenty new under the sun. Indeed the climate on our planet is constantly new under the sun, and not in a good way. Do you have an argument supporting this close or just resignation?Griswaldo (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - This article is clearly not going to get deleted at AfD. Overturning this to no consensus is useless, it will still not be deleted, and it will only encourage editors to start 19 more AfD's. —SW— converse 22:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect you don't appear to be actually endorsing the close as the right decision, but commenting on the futility of trying to have the article deleted. The right decision on this AfD remains the right decision on this AfD regardless of how futile trying to delete the article is in the future. Griswaldo (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of important publications in biology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Such a topic exists and is notable as references do exist, for example:

(Closing admin had been contacted)Curb Chain (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of important publications in sociology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Such a topic exists and is notable as references do exist, for example:

Article was deleted because there were no references but this is not a reason for deletion but for fixing. Closing admin was contacted per Step1. Curb Chain (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment: The article was deleted because the selection of "important works" it contained was original research. As I noted on my talk page, the two sources that are now being supplied do not draw this assessment into question, because the works mentioned in these sources appear to be mostly or wholly different from the ones previously mentioned in the article. These sources, therefore, do not justify the restoration of a original research list that is not based on these sources. At most, they justify the recreation of the article in a form that is based on these sources. Even so, I doubt that a university's English-language-only reading list and a selection of publications in Canadian sociology are sufficient to be the basis of a list of the most important publications in all of sociology, from all countries and of all time, but that is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  09:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Inherent OR and subjective calls of what is "important". --Crusio (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (or just overturn - added 19:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)) as incompatible with the later closes in most of the other afds. Though we don't go by precedent, some degree of consistency is important in an encyclopedia. As for the actual merits,, it was fully shown in the afds in general that that these are suitable topics, as documentation of what is considered particularly important is available in all fields. What will be supported by the documentation is a question for the editors of the restored article. We accept selected further reading in articles, and this is really just a break-out. Alternatively, just go ahead with the new list--since the content is admitted to be different, the objections do not apply, and it does not need agreement here--it would require another afd. I think the closer agrees on that--his opinion on the quality of it would be relevant as an argument in such an afd. Nobody is saying the new list is complete, so I don't see how its wrong to make a start & subsequently expand & discuss. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - As the list in the original article differed from the list provided in the sources, a recreated article using the sources would be a completely different article. Therefore, I think we need to be able to reconsider the new list, in light of the sources provided. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 19:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a recreated article using the sources would be a completely different article. But nothing prevents editors from writing that new article. That new article could in turn be made subject to a new AfD, as DGG says above, but I do not see how relisting the discussion about the old article, which is not based on these sources, could help here.  Sandstein  20:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the list needs to be sourced, and importance of each entry made clear. But it's easier to start with the existing material. Please move this list to the incubator as it was done with the biology one. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this helps. We seem to agree that entries on such lists must be sourced. It is better to find sources first and to rewrite the article based on these sources, than to try to find sources for already existing entries. When this article was briefly restored via copy-paste, the DRV submitter simply appended his new sources to the list and called them "references", even though they have nothing to do with the list content. This sort of intellectual dishonesty should not be made too easy. Instead, the list needs to be rewritten from the ground up.  Sandstein  06:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There were 7 keeps and only 2 deletes so to find a consensus for deletion in this is absurd and contrary to WP:DGFA which expects closers to "...respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.". The keepers included experienced editors such as DGG, who is a professional librarian at Princeton and so speaks with authority upon the importance of academic publications. The issue of sourcing was well addressed by Mike Cline who pointed to the International bibliography of sociology which seems quite respectable. The result of the other similar AFDs in this spree shows that this was an aberrant close, contrary to the consensus of this and the other discussions. Warden (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (1st choice) or relist. The argument that using reliable sources to termine what is important in a field is inherently WP:OR is absurd, and it has been refuted in many of the sister AfDs, so this argument alone cannot be used to determine the fate of this list. Wikipedians use WP:DUE every day to include or exclude material from many articles. If this "DUE judgement = OR" applied to all pages, Wikipedia would cease to function. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the case here is different though because an entry must be "important". That's the cusp of the problem and the argument is that it IS WP:OR to determine what is and what is not important.Curb Chain (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - WP:OR, WP editors are not to be deciding what is "important", reliable secondary sources are. WP:LISTN was never satisfied as no list was never pointed to "as a group or set " to make the List itself Notable. (Personally, I don't feel a bibliography counts here as they are just listings of everything.) Exit2DOS CtrlAltDel 02:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (without prejudice toward relisting) In this case, there was a clear majority of voters who argued that the article satisfied the list guideline. While the arguments of the delete voters may have been a bit stronger, I don't think that the keep voters were far enough from the established guideline to permit discounting their votes. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Sandstein's closure was reasonable. WP:OR is a core, fundamental policy, and arguments along the lines of "it has inclusion criteria", "it meets MOS:LIST" or "it's useful" do not address that concern. If someone does want to write a different version sourced to references such as the one above then I don't see that there's anything to stop them. Alternatively if someone wants to use the AfDed version as a starting point it could be userfied. Hut 8.5 18:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep The majority of people there said it was not original resource, and that the criteria for inclusion in the article was quite specific. Its casting a supervote to ignore them, and simply state your own opinion that the word "important" in the title somehow instantly made it original research. We had that same discussion in a group of other list articles that had the word "important" in them, all them ending in keep as I recall, since no one could think of a better word to use, and it was clearly defined in its use at the top of each article. Would the closing administrator have been satisfied if the name of the article was List of publications in sociology seen as notable enough by the media to be commented on and which also have their own articles in Wikipedia? Dream Focus 22:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wizard (American band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The explanation of the subject's significance was in the lead. It was an important, even if short-lived band and the AllMusic refs provided all the explanation that was needed on that. Speedy deletion in such cases, I think, is something quite unacceptable. -- Evermore2 (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the admin who deleted it. I felt it did not pass A7 when I hit delete but if there is consensus that it should be undeleted I will not oppose. Aside from that I am neutral. Alexandria (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the matter closed. -- Evermore2 (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • List of publications in lawEndorse but.. I'm not seeing a credible refutation of the scope element of the article so this stayed deleted but 5 year old AFDs are a poor guide as to whether we can now have a list/article and there is clear consensus that a new article from scratch with a new scope is acceptable – Spartaz Humbug! 04:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of publications in law (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A topic for a List of important publications in law does exists for example:

so a restore than a move to the new name is requested. I have asked the admin, but it seems that he has left Wikipedia for some time. Curb Chain (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question The two main arguments for deletion were problems with scope and redundancy to a category. The latter argument is (now) invalid per wp:CLN, but I do not see how your proposed move addresses the concerns about the scope. What will be the definition of "important" for the new article? Yoenit (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{List of publications intro}} is the best response to your question.Curb Chain (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I must oppose recreation, as I think it is a poorly defined scope and the concerns in the original AFD are thus not adressed. I would support a list of notable law publications though. Yoenit (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you oppose all such other articles?Curb Chain (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would have argued for deletion (or redefinition of scope) in the recent AFDs if I had been aware of them at the time. Yoenit (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore or Relist The objection to the article was inconsistent with most of the closings in related articles. Though we do not follow precedent, some degree of consistency helps . As an alternative argument, overturn as sources have been shown to be available. The proper scope of the article is for e discussion elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse by default because no intelligible argument is made why the discussion was wrongly closed or why the concerns identified therein have been addressed.  Sandstein  16:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be logical to restore the page, move it, then pare the list to important entries. This is better than starting from scratch.Curb Chain (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:MEC Flying Yankee.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

During the course of the deletion discussion about a replaceable non-free image, a free image of the same subject surfaced (File:Flying Yankee 1935.jpg). This, per WP:NFCC#1, replaced the non-free image. With a free image of the same subject located and replaced in the applicable places, the deletion discussion for this non-free image was inexplicably closed as "keep" by Fastily. This seemed faulty because a free image had been located of the same subject, thus the image fell short of WP:NFCC#1 since one had been found, and WP:NFCC#7 because it was no longer being used. When I contacted Fastily about the close, the response that I received was, "I don't think you need me to go into details, but there was never any consensus in the discussion to delete the file." Thus it seems as though policy, specifically WP:NFCC, was disregarded in the forming of this close, and therefore it should be overturned to delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist - the new file substantially changes the context of the discussion, which formed as a keep before the new one was found. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep No free image is available of this specific subject ("Flying Yankee" departing the Portland Union Station) which appeared in the article Railroad history of Portland, Maine to illustrate a paragraph in that article about the importance of this specific MEC train to Portland which the train both served and where it was based. (The generic free image referred to above is not an appropriate or adequate substitute for this one as it does not show Portland Union Station as well as the "Flying Yankee" train set.) As no other image of this train at Portland is available, this one does not violate WP:NFCC#1. The claim that this image also violates WP:NFCC#7 because it was "no longer being used" is disingenuous because it is the proposer of this deletion review himself who keeps removing this relevant and encyclopedically valuable image on the unsupported claim that it is a "blatant violation of non-free content criteria" for which he has made no case that has achieved the support of the WP community. As long as this image is available on WP (which the recent discussion closed in favor of "Keep" makes it), then arbitrarily removing it as being "vandalism" constitutes disruptive behavior and shows bad faith. The closure by User:Fastily of the discussion made in favor of keeping the image (in which no editor other than the proposer of both its deletion and this review spoke in favor of removing) accurately reflects the consensus of the community to keep it. That determination deserves to be respected and accepted as does its use to appropriately illustrate the article on the railroad history of Portland in which it was placed. Centpacrr (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not "FFD Part 2". The question is not about the image, but about policy and process. Was policy followed and was proper process followed? SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP policy and process certainly appears to have been followed to the letter here. Only two other editors commented in the original discussion and both favored retention. No editors (except the proposer) made any comments that favored deletion. The only reason that the image appeared to be "orphaned" as the proposer has claimed was that he had removed (and keeps removing) it from all articles on which it was being used. On at least one of those (Railroad history of Portland, Maine) there is absolutely no free equivalent that shows the "Flying Yankee" at the Portland Union Station which is the context within the article it illustrates. The original deletion discussion was closed correctly, and with respect this review request seems to be based more on its requester's disagreement with the result as opposed to the process by which it was achieved. Centpacrr (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy that was not followed was WP:NFCC. That is not only a policy, but a policy with legal considerations. Therefore, if non-free content slips beneath WP:NFCC over the course of the discussion, as this one did due to the introduction of the free image File:Flying Yankee 1935.jpg, it doesn't matter what the discussion comes up to. Non-free content policy says that it must be deleted if policy is to be followed. Therefore the closer was incorrect in closing this as a keep - for two reasons, actually. First, due to the free file's mere existence, it had fallen beneath WP:NFCC#1. Then due to the fact that it wasn't used anywhere at the time of the closure, it had fallen beneath WP:NFCC#7. As stated in the close rationale at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 25#File:Dale Robertson Racist Sign.jpg, "Finally, the delete vote by Schuminweb rightly points out that under F7 the image currently must be deleted, since it is in fact not used in the article." For those two reasons, this was a faulty close because it did not follow policy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have explained above, WP:NFCC#1 would not apply here as there is no available free equivalent (including the new "Flying Yankee" image) that is an adequate substitute for the "Flying Yankee" at Portland Union Station image as it is used in illustrate the paragraph in which it appears in the Railroad history of Portland, Maine article. (See also my comment on that article's talk page here.) The alleged "violation" of WP:NFCC#7, on the other hand, was completely artificially created by the deletion proposer himself by his unilaterally removing the image from all the articles in which it appeared and then claiming that it must be immediately deleted administratively because it is "orphaned." This appears to me to be an approach designed more to get non-free images deleted without having them go through the open discussion and consensus process. Centpacrr (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. The non-free image is nothing that we can't illustrate with the free image, especially lacking sourced commentary on that particular image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Still Strong Keep Well I've made my case with which you are, of course, free to personally disagree. I will instead let the consensus of all the editors who choose comment decide. However with respect I again counsel the proposer of this review (who is also an Administrator) to refrain from gratuitously accusing other contributors of "vandalism" simply because they happen to have a different editorial view of the "encyclopedic value" of an image or a different interpretation of whether or not an image fails to meet one or more particular subjective criteria of WP:NFCC or any other WP policy. Editorial differences are settled by discussion and consensus, not by making threats and exhibiting a lack of good faith. Such behavior only serves to discourage people from staying in the community and continuing to contribute their skills and knowledge to the collaborative effort of building the project. I will not comment further on this particular matter and will instead await its outcome with the hope that it will be decided objectively on its merits as opposed to fulmination and wikilawyering. Centpacrr (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The late appearance of free media inevitably prejudiced the discussion. I would never have made the comments I did had I been aware of said image, and the closing administrator would have been within his discretion to ignore my comments altogether (I would have in his place). I can't speak for Tryptofish (talk · contribs), but his argument also focused on the real difficulty in (now) creating a free image. These arguments were valid when made but moot by the time of closure. Mackensen (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See comment immediately preceding the "Relist" comment above. The "new" image is not a suitable replacement for the "Flying Yankee" at Portland Union Station image in the article Railroad history of Portland, Maine for the reasons stated both above and here. Centpacrr (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, if you spent as much effort locating and adding free content as you do in arguing about non-free content that clearly fails the non-free criteria, you might make a really great editor. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As surprising as it may be to some, there are actually times when there just isn't a suitable free alternative to adequately meet a particular application. And again with respect the proposer of this review might be a better and more constructive contributor to WP if he "spent as much effort" actually adding material and growing to the project as opposed to seeing how much of other editors' contributions (both text and images) he can take out as being (in his personal opinion) "decorative", "unencyclopedic", "unneeded", or suffering from some other alleged failing. Centpacrr (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Percisely what I've been trying to tell the man all along. ----DanTD (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Ben, to extend on what Centpacrr said, instead of wasting time deleting irreplaceable, historic, non-free fair-use images, why not just add some images that you don't have on your own site to Wikipedia? You're in the Washington DC area, so why not throw up a pic of the Funicular railroad at Huntington (WMATA station) that the article boasts about for example? And if it's not too long of a road trip for you, why not get a replacement for that Maryland and Delaware Railroad locomotive you deleted? It doesn't necesarily have to be at the Purdue chicken factory, as the previous pic was. Just something of the same color scheme and in decent shape. ----DanTD (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have several photos of the funicular from a few years ago. Not a bad idea. Will upload when I get home. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I got involved in this, there would have been no photo of the train at all if the vote was delete. Thought it would be a shame to lose the only image we had, so I managed to find the free use image. Seeing what's happened as a result of that, I regret doing anything. Have been actively trying to add free use images so there are more choices of free use content, thus in some cases, enabling replacement of the non free images for free ones.

NFCC #1 asks the question whether the free image can have the same effect as the non-free one. If we take an example of the moon landing, a NASA posed photo of the 3 astronauts could never have the same effect as a photo of the astronauts on the moon. The same is true for a performer, an athlete, and many non-animate items. Seeing a publicity head shot of the person or a publicity photo of the item doesn't have the same effect as seeing the item or person "in action". Understanding of what this item or person did is greatly increased by including an image of this type, if possible, and if cited commentary is present to warrant it being used. NFCC #1 has an "eye of the beholder" implication in the "same effect" statement. One person may see it as meeting critera, while someone else will not, which is why there are discussions before files are deleted. We are not going to be able to eliminate all non-free content for this and other reasons, but need to try to make more free use images available that may serve to be adequate replacements for some non free photos. We hope (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse It meets NFCC, for there is no other photo currently available of the subject it is now being for. Railway operation is among the subject for which illustration is the most essential for understanding, DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do realize that this is now a moot point, right? This image is orphaned, and therefore is now eligible for speedy deletion under criterion F5 regardless of the outcome of this discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moot point? Absolutely not. This file is currently "orphaned" for only one reason: because the proposer himself keeps arbitrarily removing it from the articles which it has been illustrating as a blatant subterfuge to create an excuse to "administratively" delete it irrespective of the outcome of the discussion. For that reason it would be completely inappropriate to consider this as a legitimate reason to delete the image as the "orphaning" has been artificially created by an interested party as a means to force an outcome he desires without regard to the opinion of anyone else. If this were allowed, it would constructively permit any proposer of deletion to then appoint himself the exclusive "judge and jury" as well simply by "orphaning" the image. For that reason this must be a prohibited technique as it clearly violates WP's policy of openness and serves to disingenuously bypass and defeat the free exercise of the community consensus process, something that this proposer surprisingly blatantly admits when he says that the "... image is orphaned, and therefore is now eligible for speedy deletion under criterion F5 regardless of the outcome of this discussion."
I had not intended to post in this particular discussion again as I had thoroughly presented my case earlier, but I also did not see how I could let such a transparent attempt to skew the results of the review go by without comment. An inspection of this proposer's contributions page reveals that he has done this same thing (i.e. arbitrarily "orphaned") to many other "non-free" images and then immediately tagged them for administrative deletion on that basis. To be respected and acceptable, deletion issues and other editorial disagreements must not only be decided exclusively on their merits but also on an unmanipulated, level playing field. Without that the consensus process becomes nothing more than an empty farce. Centpacrr (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we add many of the other articles that SchuminWeb is deleting images from to this list as well? ----DanTD (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that's going off topic. This is a discussion to review the result of a specific deletion discussion at FFD. It is not about any one person, nor is it a witch hunt or a public lynching. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to do that, but I think he might be right. You've overlooked too much evidence of FU and the lack of non-free alternatives on this latest deletion spree, and turned too many files into orphans when they don't have to be. ----DanTD (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The existence of the other photo was not known at the time when a significant portion of the previous discussion occurred. That is sufficient reason to relist. Is the other photo a sufficient replacement for this photo? I don't know, but given the new state of affairs it's not madness or idiocy to claim that it is. Therefore a new discussion is in order. The photo may end up being kept on the grounds that it does contain info that the other doesn't, sufficient to allow the photo being kept. If so, fine; if not, fine; but let the discussion be at the new relisting. Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "free" image is not an adequate substitute for the original image but is instead a generic photo of the "Flying Yankee" train set only. The image in question here is of the "Flying Yankee" as it is departing Portland Union Station on August 16, 1937, which is the exact context of the article Railroad history of Portland, Maine which it had been illustrating until the proposer arbitrarily removed it three times claiming first that it was "only mentioned in passing in the text, and so no need for a pic" on October 8, then because he claimed it was a "blatant violation of non-free content criteria" on October 18, and finally on October 19 to "swap" it for the inadequate generic "free" image which was not taken in Portland, one of the two reasons the other image was included in the article. The real reason that he keeps deleting the image is in fact so that the deletion proposer can then claim that it is "orphaned" and thus (as he actually admits above) would automatically be deleted administratively from WP "regardless of the outcome of this discussion."
As noted above, these repeated deletions of the subject image are actually a subterfuge practiced frequently by the proposer against this and many similar images that he wants to delete from WP for the purpose perverting the open FFD process by artificially creating a technical violation of WP:NFCC which did not previously exist. Employing such a technique (especially by a WP Administrator) which only serves to subvert the process of openly allowing the community to achieve consensus on issues of conforming to policies and guidelines, "encyclopedic value", and differences in editorial judgment, hardly seems to be consistent with the objectives of the Wikipedia Project. Centpacrr (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
actually, the technique can be used the other way also: to add a picture someone might want to add but that does not seem to be needed anywhere, people have been known to find an excuse for adding something that would seem to justify it but would otherwise not be included into an article, or even make an article that would not otherwise be made for that purpose only. But then, it requires or should require a community discussion at FFD or AfD to remove it,or at least consensus at the article talk p. and so should this--unless there is prior consensus, not just bold action, to remove the justification from the article, evading a discussion is illegitimate. The two questions of whether the article/article content is a justified and b justifies the picture should be discussed together. It's analogous to the widely practiced trick of deletion by pseudo-merging: first merge the content, then gradually remove it, than justify removing the redirect because it does not point to content. The policy that prevents this is NOT BURO: wikilawyering is not legitimate. I normally take resorting to it as implying one is doing something one knows or suspects the community would not approve of if done openly. Whether this can be called in good faith is an interesting question. it's in good faith in that it seeks to improve Wikipedia as the individual sees it; it's in bad faith as it indicates a refusal to abide consensus about what will improve it. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the proposer's contributions listing. He is currently doing this to dozens of excellent historical railroad photographs from the 30's, 40's and 50's that have been on articles for five or six years and in many cases are the only images on those articles. A typical reason he gives for the unilateral deletions is that the images are "not necessary" or "decorative". I have written four published books on railroad history in the last five years all of which are profusely illustrated because this is a topic that depends heavily on illustrations. The proposer seems to be on a crusade to remove as many fine and irreplaceable illustrations (such as this one) from WP as he can with as little discussion or input from others as possible. That is hardly a way to build the Wikipedia Project. Centpacrr (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is how we know you have no argument, and are grasping for straws. Question for you: What does this have to do with me? You should be arguing the image on its merits. It's not about me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, sir, you have completely missed the point and are failing to distinguish between yourself and your actions. For the reasons stated above it is those which are what I find to be objectionable, counterproductive, disruptive, contrary to, and violative of the policies, objectives, and spirit of the Wikipedia project. As for the image itself, it is exceptional, unique, has no available "non-free" alternative that adequately illustrates the "Flying Yankee" at Portland Union Station in the Railroad history of Portland, Maine article, objectively meets all the tests of WP:NFCC, and fully deserves to be retained on its merits. Centpacrr (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And replaceable. Showing it specifically in Portland, Maine is something that can be described textually. Let me demonstrate:
See this train? It's been to Portland, Maine!
It's that easy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You now leave me wondering if you have ever actually looked at the subject image which uniquely illustrates both the "Flying Yankee" train set and the iconic Clock Tower and train shed of the Portland Union Station, the most important historic railroad landmark in Portland, Maine, the railroad history of which the Railroad history of Portland, Maine article is about. The generic image shows only the train set which is not the same thing at all. That is the difference between the two images: only the "non-free" one includes both the train and the station as well as actually illustrates the unique historic relationship that forever connects them. "A picture is worth 1,000 words." Centpacrr (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it is strictly prohibited to run non-free content outside of the article namespace, so I have commented out your usage of the photo.
Also, if that is your justification, all of these images are replaceable by free content. A free image exists of the train, and the structures still exist. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no the structures do not exist. Portland Union Station was demolished in August, 1961 and the area it occupied has been a shopping mall -- the Union Station Plaza Shopping Center -- for almost half a century. (You can see what the current Amtrak Station in Portland, ME, looks like here.) Centpacrr (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I was looking at the wrong Portland (oops). However, there are still free images of the Portland, Maine Union Station, and so there is still no need to have a non-free image in order to show both in the same shot. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am gratified to see that you now finally understand what is under discussion here is an editorial judgment, not really a WP:NFCC one. That being the case, the objective then mitigates in favor of finding and selecting the image, be it "fair use" or free, that best depicts all aspects (and their relationships) of what is meant to be illustrated. In this case there is only one such image available: File:MEC Flying Yankee.jpg. Centpacrr (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is an NFCC issue. If it involves non-free content, it is always an NFCC issue. And there is a pecking order around here. Free content is much higher on the proverbial totem pole than non-free content, and we only use non-free content when we absolutely have to, not because we want to. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:NFCC issue here is "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." The "encyclopedic purpose" here is to illustrate the relationship between the "Flying Yankee" and the railroad history of Portland, Maine. File:MEC Flying Yankee.jpg does that and the "free" image does not. Therefore the non-free image does not fail the WP:NFCC test. Your view of NP:NFCC seems to be so narrow and restrictive that, in your personal editorial judgement, no "non-free" image could ever be used to illustrate anything found anywhere on WP. I do not expect to change your mind on that, of course, but that view simply does not conform to the Project's stated policies or objectives. Centpacrr (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What you described can be adequately understood with a textual description. No images required. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Therein lies the fallacy of your position and argument sir. The very definition of "require" and "requirement" ("Something demanded or imposed as an obligation") makes that a patently meaningless "standard" for the use of any images and illustrations (either non-free or free) on WP (or in any encyclopedia for that matter) as it can legitimately be argued that anything and everything can be "adequately understood" by way of "textual description" and therefore, by the standard you would apparently apply, there would not be a single image anywhere on Wikipedia because no images would ever be "required". The reason that millions of images and illustrations (both free and "non-free") are included on WP, however, is not because a single one of them is "required" but because each one has been added to assist and enhance the reader's understanding of the text. As no image or illustration is really a "substitute" for context but an adjunct to it, the real "standard" for inclusion of images and illustrations is instead "editorial judgement" as none can ever be said to be "required" or, for that matter, "not required". Centpacrr (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Drought Conditions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(I don't think the admin closed poorly here, but other considerations lead me to DRV this after speaking to him.) A sparsely-attended AfD resulted in the article on this West Wing episode being deleted early in 2010. However, not only is it literally the only episode for which we don't have an article, it also appears to be the only episode that was ever even nominated for deletion. To me, the lack of interest in deleting the others (before, after, or even during this AfD) implies a tacit consensus to cover episodes which overrides this individual AfD - consistency, and the failure of the AfD to serve as precedent for deleting similar articles, suggest that the article should be restored. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The important issue here is the idea that someone typing "Drought Conditions" into the search box is looking for a TV series episode. I think this idea is bizarre. What the AfD should have found is that Drought Conditions ought to be a redirect to Drought (disambiguation) and I suggest that we unilaterally overturn the AfD to that result. What Roscelese is asking about is whether it should be permissible to have an article called Drought conditions (West Wing episode), and I don't really care have no opinion about that.—S Marshall T/C 08:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation at Drought conditions (West Wing episode) for the sake of consistency. Every other episode has an article, but I think they are pretty weak stand alone article. Intereested editors should read WP:WAF. If a better mix of sources can't be found, I think mass merging is in order. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I pretty much agree. I suspect there are sources for many of these episodes, but most of the articles are so weak that a merge is a good idea at the moment anyways (I looked at the last 2 seasons articles and didn't see many (if any) reliable sources). There is a season page, so maybe just a redirect for now? Hobit (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is currently a redirect, but I think that the article should be restored, because the existence of over 150 similar articles suggests that the community is not overly concerned that we cover The West Wing in detail, and consistency is good. While it may not be necessary to cover individual episodes, the fact that we do means that we shouldn't have a gap between "Freedonia" and "A Good Day" that leaves readers wondering what happened. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 14:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation at Drought Conditions (The West Wing) per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is in essence a consensus can change argument. Rather than the normal vague wave to such, the evidence present does indeed suggest that should this be listed today there is a good possibility of a different outcome, as such this should probably be restored, if anyone feels strongly enough it could then be listed. Personally I'd go along with some of the other views above, that in fact I think there may (as some point) be a broader consensus to actually simplify the whole lot, and I'd agree with that, but that's not where we are right now. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and rename per the above "allow recreation" votes, difference being is that I believe if we're to keep an article that was deleted other than for G10-12 reasons, we should have the edit history appropriately recorded to honor the past contributors, even if what they did needs to now be completely updated to meet current inclusion standards. Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:EichmannSSdoc.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Upon request, I contacted the National Archives and had them e-mail Wikipedia to confirm that scans from the SS record microfilms and free and public to use on this site. The archivist who e-mailed me advised that he never got any kind of a reply from Wikipedia. He e-mailed the permissions address, and a copy of his e-mail was transcribed here [36]. These SS record scans are not copyrighted, yet every few years there seems to be an effort to delete them. I ask that this file be undeleted. OberRanks (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Beceni, Buzău (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion was closed as no consensus, but I feel as though it should have been either relisted or closed as delete. I informed the closing admin of my plans to take this to DRV. There were a total of four editors who expressed an opinion in the debate, with three arguing for deletion and only one arguing for the template to be kept (the template's author who "voted" twice. My reading of the arguments for deletion: First, the template is orphaned, and different than all the other templates in Category:Romania municipality templates. Second, we already have a Buzău County, Romania template. Third, the additional "component villages" navigation is useless since these are all red links or redirects. I did not express an opinion in the debate, but would be happy to if given the chance. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really? You're challenging a no-consensus close at DRV? Just wait a few months and renominate. This is not TFD round two, after all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And what will be different in a few months? Will a single vote from the template's author be enough to force no consensus again? This template was created back in January and is still unused. I see no harm in reopening the discussion for another week. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember that these sorts of things are not polls or votes, but discussions. It does not matter whether a person !votes more than once. If all I had to do in order to close these bloody things was count !votes, then I wouldn't have had to read all of this crap, and instead just make tick marks on a sticky note to figure out which side wins. But no, I read that blasted discussion, and that's how I came up with my decision to close as no consensus. Good arguments, no overarching consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse SchuminWeb's close there. I don't see any basis on which to conclude that the "delete" arguments decisively overwhelmed the "keeps".—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. WP:Relist discourages relisting debates like this that were well-participated and do not feature gross departures from policy on one side. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist and inform WikiProject Romania, this template goes against the wikiproject's policies and they were never informed of the debate (yes, i know WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but this is about informing, not using local consensus). By the way, we missed item 6 in the administrator instructions, which makes it harder to track the nomination history. Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Perfectly reasonable close. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - for one, the raw count was four plus the nominator supporting deletion, versus one (the template's creator) favoring retention. For another, the one "keep" voter didn't actually spend much time (other than at the very beginning of the discussion) addressing this specific issue. He threw a lot of mud at me, and he pontificated at length on wider issues, but said precious little about the template. Overall, those who argued for deletion had much better arguments (and all did make some argument), chiefly that the articles linked in the template don't exist except as redirects. (For the record, those redirects do exist, but naturally the template creator didn't even link to the correct redirects, not that such an exercise in futility would have benefited anyone.) - Biruitorul Talk 21:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The template is orphan as it has been deleted from the article Beceni, Buzău not for other reasons.
It was created as a model for similar cases. Obviously the first model of a category is

different from other templates. In any case, it has nothing to do with the municipalities, is was created for communes.

Communes as territorial units - the lowest level of territorial units in Romania. Communes contains different villages. For most countries in the world, there are templates of territorial units which show the components of the unit or the neighboring units.
The template does not go against a decision of the Wiki:Romania project. There was a debate regarding the articles of villages in Romania. The conclusion of the discussion was that no consensus had been reached on the problem of incorporating the villages in the articles of communes and consequently articles on villages were acceptable. This is exactly the oposite of what has been done.
The entire discussion simply ignored the facts and not the slightest effort has been done top investigate the situation.
I have raised the issue of articles on villages in a discussion at Village pump. The conclusion of this should be taken into account when the deletion of the template is decided on.Afil (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gillian Andrassy Lavery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The non-administrator ItsZippy closed the discussion and resulted it as redirect to List of All My Children characters. However, there is a difference between that page and List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. The closer did not interpret the arguments very well. Also, there should be reverts from what was already done. Many of those whose votes go for merge or redirect suggested List of All My Children miscellaneous characters, full of miscellaneous characters' brief summaries, as the candidate rather than List of All My Children characters, a brief list of ALL characters. I would say overturn to merge into List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. --Gh87 (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC) --Gh87 (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll do that now, then. I was cautious not to do anything to hasty, as that is what caused the initial problem. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 16:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Galveston Pirate SC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The main arguments for this page's deletion "non-notable local team" (registered 16 March 2011) and "lack of notability" (registered 19 March 2011) are no longer valid. As of 12 October 2011, the Galveston Pirate SC are members of the NPSL (NPSL announcement here) and are therefore as notable as the scores of other NPSL clubs with their own entries. Mrcrumley | Talk 17:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:OTAShirt-Back.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User:Fastily deleted File:OTAShirt-Front.png and File:OTAShirt-Back.png after it was pointed out they contained elements that were not "suitably free for wikipedia", and the images had already been updated with Public Domain artwork. The user has disregarded requests to restore the files in question. Belg4mit (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'new version' of this file the user uploaded is essentially the same as the original. No effort was made by the user to address the concerns raised at the PUF which led to the deletion of this file. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For reference: User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#OTAShirt-Front.2FBack -FASTILY (TALK) 23:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Also, there's no need to duplicate the conversation. There are two entries because two files were affected, and the template did not indicate that it was okay to list multiple files. --Belg4mit (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:OTAShirt-Front.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User:Fastily deleted File:OTAShirt-Front.png and File:OTAShirt-Back.png after it was pointed out they contained elements that were not "suitably free for wikipedia", and the images had already been updated with Public Domain artwork. The user has disregarded requests to restore the files in question. Belg4mit (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'new version' of this file the user uploaded is essentially the same as the original. No effort was made by the user to address the concerns raised at the PUF which led to the deletion of this file.-FASTILY (TALK) 23:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Public Domain[reply]
For reference: User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#OTAShirt-Front.2FBack -FASTILY (TALK) 23:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. They look similar, because the goal in both cases was to create a cartoon of the OTA shirt. However, the original was listed due to the use of deviantart T-shirt outline that was under a non-commercial license. The replacement uses an outline that is very clearly Public Domain, as noted in the the edit summary and SVG description. --Belg4mit (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If File:OTAShirt-Front.svg is another version of the deleted file (and it says it is), it looks to me that the the T-shirt outline comes from here which says "Unless noted, content on this site is waived of all copyright and related or neighboring rights under the CC0 PD Dedication", and not here. Belg4mit said at the XfD and says here that the deleted file had been recreated based on the new source before it was deleted. Fastily says it is "essentially the same as the original". The two external drawings look different to me. Is the claim that the two external sites have "essentially the same" artwork, or that the revised file (which I cannot see) did not use the PD artwork? Am I right in understanding the disagreement is only about the T-shirt outline drawing and not about what is "printed" on it? Thincat (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the T-shirt outline, there is nothing in that image that contains sufficient originality to be copyrightable, so Thincat is clearly correct to say that we're only talking about the T-shirt outline drawing. Could we have a link to the PUF discussion, please?S Marshall T/C 11:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Slightly later) Oh, I'm sorry, I see the PUF was linked in the nomination.

    I don't see this as a particularly difficult issue to resolve because it's not hard to come up with an uncopyrighted black and white T-shirt outline. I also think that proper communication between Fastily and the nominator would have led to this solution without the need for a DRV, and there are learning points here about being bureaucratic and obstructive.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I'm trying to understand what happened. I'm going to summarize what I _think_ happened and see if the DrV nom and the deleting admin both agree. First there was an image that included a non-free shirt outline. It was tagged as being unfree. During that discussion an svg file got uploaded that had the non-free part replaced with a free portion. I think up to here I've got it understood. What I'm lost on is if the png file was also updated before it was deleted. If it was, the deletion of the new image should not have occurred. If it wasn't, I'm not seeing why we are having this discussion. Could someone who can see the history or knows what happened with the png file chime in? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. Bkell marked the image at 03:00, 25 September 2011. I finished the SVG and reported back to the PUF at 05:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC) that an updated version had been created, and stated that for aesthetic reasons the PNGs would need to be as well, but had not yet been. I updated the PNGs circa 16:29, 25 September 2011. I neglected to report this on the PUF (not having much experience with contributions being removed, I thought removing the template and having an updated time stamp would be sufficient to demonstrate good faith effort to remedy the problem, or that admins would verify claims about content before removal). Fastily later deleted the PNGs at 07:20, 10 October 2011. I reported this as being in error at 8:06, 10 October 2011 and asked that the logs be checked to verify that the removed file was no longer the version that had been marked. (All times are UTC) --Belg4mit (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fastily, do you agree with the timing above? If so, is there some problem with the last version of the pngs that you see or some other reason not to restore at this time? Hobit (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read the original PUF discussion and noticed that the main concern was with the T-shirt outline, and not the logo as I had previously thought. Since it appears the outline was updated accordingly, there's no need to leave these deleted. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And moved to Commons now. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Henry Santos (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The artist released a solo album that charted on the Billboard Latin and Tropical Albums chart. Source. Erick (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is unclear to me. WP:MUSIC asks for ranking on a national chart. I've no idea if the Tropical or Latin charts generally count. Anyone? Hobit (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This really should go under WP:REFUND. There was nothing wrong with the original deletion: at that time, notability guidelines were not met. Charting on the Latin and Tropical Albums chart certainly does count as a national chart, so undeleting the article as a foundation for adding the new material is probably reasonable.—Kww(talk) 17:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, this was my first time so I didn't where to go. Thanks. Erick (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tidy Trax (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I created a company in 1993/1994, due to acts of a collusion i was not able to sustain the company in my name, I wanted to make an article to gain public interest. The interest i should gain could aid in justifying "anyone's claim made against me" "to my company Tidy Trax". I have not used any Materials the discussion Highlights of the Current Companies Logos, or copyrighted Materials, I originally made a Wiki Page that could be edited By me and with ideas of other Wiki Users who could have edited the on the age what they did not think was liturgical . before i could continue to Edit the brief Article, people made comments on minor errors that i had made. I dd not see the reasons provided for the deletion of my article Tidy Trax a violation/Breach of Wikipedia guidelines to result on the Article to be deleted. The people who requested the article be deleted refuse to join in to the fun Wikipedia advertises for people to be able to discus/change/Edit articles people post in Wiki. I see the Deletion of my article to be canceled, this would be fair. this would let me full use the skills Wiki has for users to abide by. I wanted to highlight that the Article I created was created with full intention's to have Wiki members participate in editing the page , The people who made a commercial disputing against my post are having fun, gaining satisfaction by abusing the resources, every one involved in Wiki Promotes there web pages, and promotes commercial disputes. I decided to create an Article that could be edited without harassment from other Wiki users . If the Speedy deletion is canceled , then users would be able to use the Article i created as Wiki explains people can do

Vaio12343 (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've just made a very good case for why it ought to remain deleted. Wikipedia is not intended for promotion, or to help someone maintain their side of a commercial dispute. Editing Wikipedia can be enjoyable, but it's not intended as "fun", but a opportunity to gain satisfaction from providing information about what's already notable as shown by 3rd party reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sustain this deletion. Best I can decipher, the person asking for review is either delusional or deeply confused as to the purpose of Wikipedia. I would also invite other editors to examine this individual's userpage, as it may violate our rules about attack pages and unsourced assertions of criminal activity by persons unnamed. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - the consensus was pretty clear on the AfD. The article itself made no real claims to the company's notability and was rather promotional in tone. If you're looking for a way to promote your company, you'd be better off looking at Gumtree as Wikipedia just isn't the place for this sort of thing. —BETTIA— talk 11:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. While AFD participation may have been a shade light, nothing said here indicates the close was inappropriate or that the subject has any claim to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Apart from the fact that the nominator appears to be a bit confused about the purpose of articles on Wikipedia, they do not provide a valid rationale for overturning the perfectly valid AfD result. If some reliable, independent sources could be found indicating the subject's notability then that would be a different matter, but none seem to be available -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 19:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Though the AfD did not get much comment, the nominator seems to not quite understand the purpose of Wikipedia. What he says suggests that the article will be inherently in violation of WP:ADVERT and there is no indication that the company is notable. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 18:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per everything the OP said (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion because, contrary to the implication in the nom, the original poster did not create, nor did he ever edit, the article Tidy Trax that this DRV is about. He did create a different article titled Tidy trax. If he wants to start a new DRV for Tidy trax, the article he did create, he should start a new DRV; this one has already been going on for five days and it wouldn't be reasonable to change which article this DRV is about when so many people have already provided their recommendations. However, I would note that Tidy trax was completely unsourced and written in an autobiographical style, and so it is unlikely that it would be restored in any event. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly deleting admin comments Metropolitan90 brings up a great point. I don't know which article this DRV was intended for, but if it truly was for the AFD I closed, then I wasn't notified of this and my lack of participation was not intended to be a slight to anyone.--v/r - TP 18:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Minh Nguyen (Wikipedian) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I'm here again speaking on behalf of a person who tried many times to give people what they deserve. I have been blocked for disagree so i couldn't participate in the last 5 days of the discuss and as the result it has been delete by false claims. The debate at AfD can be seen here. Many people said it has 2 sources but it clearly has 5 sources. If not include one source from Wikipedia then it has 4 sources, 4 articles. Two of them talk only about him and the other two talk briefly about him but for all four he is a main subject of the articles. Some people said they vote delete because they want to honor him. I think it's more like of insulting him if you delete the article about him. Some people claimed like no one is going to read this or no further expansion is possible, Wikipedia is not a place for futuristic predictions. Plus the policy clearly says the result will not base on amount of votes. Then what is a reason to delete this? The Afd didn't reach any kind consensus. As many people admit he does barely touch the requirement for notable (for myself i think he is for sure met the notability) then if he did meet, barely still he met it, it then i don't see any reason why they vote delete. It's not a matter of how much famous is he but does he qualify for an article? Barely = yes to me. For some people they claimed he (the subject of the article) requested a deletion for his article. As far as my reading goes i never see a single word related to that matter. The closest statement he said about it is he disagrees about he is famous enough to qualify for an article, which proven his modest right here. Why don't you just give what people what they deserve despite their modest? However there are some valid reasons, some people simply don't see him notable enough, i disagree with them of course but well after everyone has a right to express opinion. We each have different perspective on the subject. Why are so sure that the delete decision is the best in this case? That's not neutral point of view. Since there is no real consensus the result should be no consensus, it clearly says as one of the Afd policy. The article should be kept for future discussion if needed. The AfD result is unfair as far as i can understand. The result is caused by false claims, futuristic predictions which can't be proven and misunderstanding. Hope the community thoroughly read and understand my thoughts and share my motivation to fight for what is right. Trongphu (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Endorse - Deletion review is not AfD round 2. Seven editors advised to keep the article, twenty-six said to delete or merge. That looks like pretty good consensus to me. Also keep in mind that the editor above was blocked for his disruptive behavior and personal attacks during this AfD. Trusilver 00:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that consensus or counting on vote? The policy clearly said the result should not base on the number of votes. It is only good consensus if you can prove all 7 of us who agree to keep wrong. And i was blocked for saying the truth or insulting? And who provoked whom first? Let the community judge. It's not your turn to judge, you told me something similar once.Trongphu (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: "the community" you ask to judge is made up of individuals, including Truesilver. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: He had his turn before i think.Trongphu (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - When we come here we should mainly be looking at two things. First, did the closer accurately read the consensus of the debate. In this case I do believe that DGG accurately interpreted the consensus of the discussion. Next, is there new information available that would impact the outcome of the original AFD. In this case Trongphu has not presented any new information. He has only presented the same reasoning as presented at the AFD that did not sway opinions. GB fan 01:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The page was deleted properly per consensus at the AfD, and per GB fan above, no new information has been identified that should lead to a restoration of the page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the closing administrator. Wikipedia policy as given at WP:DELAFD is that a AfD that would otherwise close as non-consensus when the person is borderline notable can optionally close as delete, when the subject requests it. I 've said many times that this option should almost never be used; I may even have said it should never be used, in which case events have shown me otherwise. I consider this an appropriate case for that option. The notability is very borderline if at all, I interpreted the discussion as showing that the person quite reasonably considers himself non-notable; the insistence on an article for a fellow Wikipedian despite this seems incomprehensible to me, though I do not know what personalities may have been involved. The use of this provision is a matter for judgment. Judgement is always open for question about its reasonableness. Reconsidering it a day later, my own opinion is that I was reasonable, but that question is for others to decide. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The "votes" in this AfD were all over the map, but reading more carefully I see a consensus that we should not have an independent article on this person because he does not meet the notability requirements even if some minimal mention is reasonable in the Vietnamese Wikipedia article. Given that this is a BLP, DGG was quite right to carefully consider whether or not to delete in this circumstance when otherwise a redirect would be the normal compromise. In this case, his decision to give weight, small but ultimately dispositive, to the wishes of the subject is in accord with prior en-wiki consensus and does not result in a clearly perverse result, since deletion would have been a reasonable close regardless. Thus his well reasoned closure must be endorsed. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse — correct closure, nothing new. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse whether it should have been Delete or Delete and Redirect is the only issue, but since there was clearly no endorsement for a stand-alone article, there is nothing wrong with this close. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I agree there were lots of problems with the close. The massive number of WP:JNN !votes being the largest problem. And I do feel that DGG mis-characterized the subject's desire for deletion. Also, the subject's own opinion about his notability is irrelevant in any case. But the case for inclusion is weak (exactly two RSes by my count) and the !vote is strong enough in numbers (and the WP:BLP1E arguments which were fairly strong actually though I disagree with them). Deletion is clearly the consensus. A no-consensus close would have been a big stretch. Hobit (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Consensus was abundantly clear and claiming otherwise can only be seen as Refusal to get the point. Yoenit (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – A clear consensus for deletion (or, if you were really conservative, redirection to say the least) was established. The deletion was also consciously made out of respect for the person associated with the article and given the questionable notability. The closing admin made the correct decision here. –MuZemike 16:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. DGG's analysis was quite sound. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, per everyone except the nominator. A rare October snowfall.—S Marshall T/C 18:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The subject met (but only just met) the notability guidelines. Opinions saying the guideline had not been met were mistaken. However, a guideline is a guideline and it is right to take into account reasoned arguments that one should not be followed in any particular case. Like Hobit, I do not think the subject was requesting deletion but just expressing the view that he is not notable. So, there is no strong case for retaining the article and the closer's explanation of his rationale has been helpful. Thincat (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse Consensus in the AfD seems clear. If I had seen the AfD I think I might not have gone the same way as most of the people there. But DRV is not AfD round 2. I can't call for overturning an AfD simply for not fully agreeing with the community consensus. Note that if further coverage of Minh Nguyen does occur it may make sense to revisit this at that time. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know what are you guys thinking? You guys keep claiming that there are a consensus but wait a minute let carefully think about it. The merge, redirect, delete are totally three different groups, they all have different opinions on the article no matter if it's a bit different or could be a big different. You can't just add them up and say they are all agree with each other and get 26 votes. That's so not how to break it down. This is how it suppose to goes 7 keep, 14 delete, 9 redirect, 3 merge. Plus i think out of 14 delete there are some votes are from misunderstanding. Anyway even though delete get the biggest amount of votes but it doesn't reach more than half. I don't see how it can possible be a consensus there. For some redirect votes they clearly says redirect or merge or put all the relevant stuffs into Vietnamese Wikipedia. So basically the majority agreed that the article info should has its place in Vietnamese Wikipedia article and why i don't see it has been done so? Alright i'm guessing not many people think Vietnamese people are anything in the world so therefore i will be concession, i no longer think it's possible for that person to has its own article but at least fight for that person has its place in Vietnamese Wikipedia article and has the article redirect to the section in Vietnamese Wikipedia article.Trongphu (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And should we take the vote on whether or not article should be merge completely into Vietnamese Wikipedia article as a section? If so then i guess let start the vote at Talk:Vietnamese Wikipedia. Well i'm strongly think it at least deserve a spot in it plus that's pretty much the community majority said.Trongphu (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think your statement majority rules is not part of the policy. It is the consensus that we are looking for not the amount of votes. Let me clarify again the delete votes did not represent the majority since it's not half compare to the total votes. Anyway i stopped argue for that person has its place on an article what i'm asking now is merge all the relevant info into Wikipedia Vietnamese article.Trongphu (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of important publications in networks and security (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After the AfD, I tried hard to find references for the article. The group of nominations where procedural as List of important publications in biology had been recently deleted.

I realize that each page must be assessed on their own.

The Keep arguments are that there are references can be found for this page, but none had come up, and results may not come up as easily as other topics because of its narrow scope and the fact that the list groups 2 topics together, "network" and "security".

On a contrary note, adequate references had come up for List of important publications in mathematics because 2 sources which complied a list of important (however this is interpreted) mathematics works was found. What I'm saying here is that a source has complied a list and noted and explained why such a list was important. Another source has done this too. This makes it notable for inclusion on wikipedia.

I have discussed this with the closing admin but received no reply.Curb Chain (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Curb Chain (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the closing admin notes: "I'm unwilling to stretch the meaning of the word "consensus" far enough to reach a delete conclusion. In any event, the primary argument that "important" is inherently OR has been substantially challenged by those on the keep side." Quite right. Geometry guy 22:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we can find sources for anything that could be semantized as being important, I could see this is the closure-for-keep as applicable.Curb Chain (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the decision of that close. I am glad sources were found for mathematics. I don't see them for this topic.Curb Chain (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I admit the marriage of security and networks in the same list appears a bit odd to me, a neophyte. Perusing the list, it seems most papers are about cryptography. I was able to find this list by just googling for "cryptography landmark". As for the entries in the Wikipedia list, you'll have little trouble seeing that many of them are described as landmarks, including Shannon's, Diffie and Hellman, Dolev and Yao from a quick search in Google Books after the same phrase. [37]. I'm sure a specialist could do better, but DRV surely is not cleanup. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after looking at the article and the article you provided, must of the entries are similar. After this DRV, I'll move it to List of important publications in cryptography and use the paper you provided as a generalreference if List of important publications in networks and security is kept.Curb Chain (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And List of important publications in sociology and probably List of publications in law, but the law one may need a rename.Curb Chain (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep An editor decides since one article was deleted, he should procedurally nominate a mass of others, and then argue nonstop his point, upset that most people didn't see it his way. Also, deletion review is for reviewing deletions, not for reviewing articles that weren't deleted. Dream Focus 22:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually not true DRV is used to review possibile mistakes in deletion discussions (keeps or deletes). I am not saying that this should be overturned but simply stating the claim that DRV is not used to challenge decsions that result in keeping articles is not mistaken.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned David Kahn, but not the title. It is a good work. The rest are bibliographies which may be used as links at best. I am a serious editor and to say I am not is a personal attack.Curb Chain (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given your last comment at WP:WQA, you should not complain about others' [in]civility so readily. You are frustrating others with your shallow approach to these lists, and your persistence cannot be interpreted in any way that would cast a positive light on you. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Curb Chain: Disregarding An annotated bibliography of cryptography, a published book, and bibliographies by top researchers in cryptography as applicable for interpretation as a "set" and useful for links at best proves once again your disrespect for serious content work, and your own superficial and non-serious work (with zero efforts on your part to improve the list or verifying the existence of similar lists in reliable secondary sources, despite claiming otherwise). You call it a personal attack (I did not call you names, that would be one), I call it a fact that anyone can verify on the AfD discussions, and once more in this deletion review. Nageh (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. I have not disregarded An annotated bibliography of cryptographyDavid Kahn's The Codebreakers.Curb Chain (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I quote you: "You mentioned David Kahn, but not the title. It is a good work. The rest are bibliographies which may be used as links at best." "The rest" includes An annotated bibliography of cryptography. Now I call you a lier. You have been acting like that throughout the whole AfD process!!! Stop it!!!! Nageh (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid terminology like "lier [sic]". See WP:NPA. LadyofShalott 18:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it an objective observation. From WP:NPA, What is considered to be a personal attack?: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." I would say there is clear evidence. Nageh (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it sounds as if what Curb Chain wants is not Deletion Review, but AfD Part II. That's not what this is supposed to be. LadyofShalott 22:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should probably snow close this, because I don't think there's any possibility at all that T. Canens' close will be overturned here. I must say that Curb Chain does appear to be trying to edit seriously, and I find the hostility expressed towards him at this DRV surprising; presumably there's some kind of history there, but I invite debate participants to leave that behind when they come to DRV, which is a drama-free zone. I think Curb Chain is wrong, but I don't think that makes it okay to disrespect him.—S Marshall T/C 08:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a fully competent editor. That's also an essay. This is edging to personal attacks. Stop.Curb Chain (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Equestria Daily – There isn't really a consensus to overturn the result going on !votes alone, however, there is significant discussion on both sides that a relist would be a good idea because of the SPAs and banned nominator. Some have argued that the closing admin made a sound judgement call to give less numerical weight to the !votes prior to the relist and then was well within admin discretion with their close. Others have said this is not supported by policy and the debate should have been closed. Either way, a relist will give us a clear untainted consensus. See here. – v/r - TP 13:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Equestria Daily (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no consensus to delete it. Talked to administrator at [40]. I believe his closing rational showed mistakes made on his part. Dismissing the single purpose accounts is irrelevant, since there were three keeps and two deletes with few other edits ever. That isn't a significant number. 17 people said it was notable enough to keep, there references found in reliable sources such as Wired magazine, and 12 said it should be deleted. Those posting after a relist do not have more sway than those posting before it, that rational making absolutely no sense at all. Dream Focus 17:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only this, but the nomination of the article was done by a meatpuppet hired by none other than JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis). A banned user, regardless of being a meatpuppet or sockpuppet, should not have ANY INFLUENCE AND ANY EDIT, under any and all circumstances, with no exceptions. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 17:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per Special:Contributions/Havermayer, the nominator was indef blocked 5 days after the start of the AfD, but the page says nothing about being banned.  Also, the AfD nomination as per WP:Banning policy has not been reverted, which is further evidence that the nominator was not banned at the time of the AfD nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that he didn't even know who JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp is but made the mistake of taking part in a 4chan "raid" that may or may not have been instigated by JA. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not 100% sure that I agree with the closing admin's decision to weight the post-relisting votes more heavily, but I would still Endorse his close here. Also, I don't believe the policy is to speedy close any AfD by a sock/meatpuppet of a banned user, at least not when established users have weighed in to the discussion in support of his view. As far as the AfD discussion itself went: if SPA's are thrown out, the amount of Delete and Keep voters were fairly close in number (9-12 by my count). I think in this circumstance (roughly equal number of voters on each side) it is within administrative discretion to assign more weight to one side based on strength of argument. The delete voters did seem to analyze the strength of the available sources more closely than the keep voters, most of whom based their votes on the site's popularity and vague assertions of coverage. So I think Timotheus Canens made a reasonable decision here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be casting a super vote. The majority of people said the sources found were fine. A no consensus outcome would've been the right thing to do. Dream Focus 19:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created a redirect at this pages location before I was aware of there being a DRV, as per my comment at the AfD that we already have relevant information to this topic on another page, thus leaving it a redlink is harmful to readers. It has now been nominated for speedy deletion, despite it not meeting any of the criteria. If this closes as endorse, please restore my redirect and/or nominate it at Redirects for Discussion if you don't believe it should exist, so that consensus can be gained. --Taelus (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit torn on this one. In cases where a discussion has been tainted by sockpuppetry or bad faith, administrators rightly have wide latitude to take whatever steps are appropriate to repair the discussion and uncover what the good faith consensus might have been. In this case, the initial nomination could and arguably should have been closed, because the nominator was not entitled to edit and banned users do not get to nominate articles for deletion. Therefore, I do not entirely approve of The Bushranger's relisting of the discussion. But the fact that he did relist it—even after User:Rainbow Dash had pointed out the sockpuppetry—effectively makes The Bushranger into the nominator of a fresh AfD. In other words, the discussion after the relisting is correctly understood as untainted and may receive greater weight.

    But having said that, although I think T. Canens was right in this case, I don't think it's enough to be right. Good faith users should be able to see why he was right, and if I'd !voted in the first part of that discussion, I might feel aggrieved. I might feel that my good faith !vote had received less weight as a result of other people's bad faith. I think that part of DRV's job is to see that good faith users don't have cause to feel aggrieved: I feel that part of our job is to provide FairProcess on demand. And also, it's possible for a discussion to be so tainted by bad faith that any conclusion based on it is unsafe. Arguably, this is such a discussion.

    I'll go with weak relist, but I make no suggestion that T. Canens was wrong. I think he closed the discussion as he found it as well as it could have been closed in the circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 21:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A relisting is to gain additional input, not to start over again. You don't just invalidate everyone who said something previously, that never being how its been done before, nor would it make any sense at all. The process wasn't "tainted" by a small number of possible sockpuppets that went one way or the other. Most people are regular editors, and certainly not socks at all. Whether they found their way there and commented before or after the relisting isn't relevant at all. Also there was a suspicious account[41] say delete after the relisting. Does that mean we should invalidate everything and start again once more? I'm against relisting. He made a mistake, he doesn't have the right to ignore everyone because of a relisting, and there was clearly no consensus to delete. Dream Focus 22:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus is not a headcount. In this case, some keep-!voters' argument were merely WP:VAGUEWAVEs and WP:ITSNOTABLE; discounting these !votes, the closing admin was faced with two opposing, well-argued positions (the former, that Equestria Daily is notable because it has received much coverage in reliable sources; the latter, that the website is not notable because said coverage is not substantial and does not addresses the subject directly in detail). An administrator closing a deletion discussion is expected to assess the strength of the respective arguments; and he who does so is not casting a !supervote. In this case, Timotheus Canens considered the deletes-!votes more persuasive and more grounded in policy; this was within the discretion accorded to a closing admin and it was reasonable too. Therefore, I see no reason to overturn his close. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, if there are two opposing, well-argued (and valid) viewpoints and the !vote is close, NC is the way to go. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • While that's generally true, it's not necessarily so; in this case, the delete-!voters argued that the argument put forth by the keep-!voters was flawed, in that the coverage received by the website was not significant. This confutation had to be taken into account by the closing admin; Timotheus Canens, therefore, acted properly. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure most Keep voters felt the same way about the delete voters' views. Some felt and still feel it is significant, while others do not. Administrators may not cast a supervote. Dream Focus 10:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • But can and should assess the strength of the respective arguments, which is what the closing admin did, in this case. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the closing admin had given that for a reason, deletion would still be a stretch. If WP:N isn't black-and-white in a given case, we look to the community to figure out where to draw the line. But that's not the reason that was given. It was counting some !votes more than others for reasons that had nothing to do with their strength of argument. That's problematic. Hobit (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Relist for another round. It was obvious that the AfD was tainted the second the puppet made the nomination. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 00:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • relist or overturn to NC I don't think it makes sense to weigh the later !votes more--should people have !voted a second time after the relist? As much as I respect Tim's judgement, I think he's got this one wrong. Deletion may well be reasonable here--sources seem thin. But looking at the discussion as a whole, minus the SPAs, it looks like NC. It was unclear if the sources were more than trivial mentions, but the debate looks largely like a "is/is not" debate. I've not yet looked closely at the sources, but it looks like they are above the WP:N bar. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Tim used his administrative judgement in dealing with a split headcount, errors in regards to the page's original listing, and with his interpretation of policy. It does not matter if the original nominator is a user who has been banned from the project, and the nomination was never "tainted" as Rainbow Dash suggests. Subsequent comments by several users in good standing at the AFD fulfill the policy aspect "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content."—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that quote is taken out of context, and refers to material restored as a function of reverting the banned editor.  In other words, the banned editor removed material, so the revert "reinstates" the questionable material.  What WP:Banning policy says is, "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content."  Unscintillating (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The reasoning made absolutely no sense. The majority of the participants were in favor of keeping the article. It sure takes a twisted sense of logic to distort that into a consensus to delete. But I'm not surprised, really, Wikipedia has always been driven by personal politics and has never been anywhere near objective in these types of discussions. Dr. WTF (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The majority of the participants were in favor of keeping the article. It sure takes a twisted sense of logic to distort that into a consensus to delete." First, that was a very, very slim majority. I think by only one or two votes. Next, AfD are not majority vote. I'll quote the Template:Not a ballot: "...please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus, by definition, cannot occur when the majority are rightfully in opposition. It has nothing to do with voting. Dr. WTF (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just point out that you yourself cited WP:NOTAVOTE in the AfD. The !vote you commented on was part of engaging in an act of consensus-building. One should avoid confusing pile-on, I-like-it, and I-don't-like-it !votes with the !votes that are done through research of the article and a knowledge of policy. After having reviewed the article, the !voter may have come to the same conclusion as other experienced !voters, and does not need to repeat everything they said if that conclusion is the same. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you've pointed out has absolutely nothing to do with the present discussion. If you have a problem with me personally, let's talk. Otherwise, I'd prefer we not abandon the topic at hand and lose sight of Wikipedia's core principles. Dr. WTF (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, or alternatively Relist so we can have a discussion untainted by SPAs; I am unsure how the canvassing occurred (certainly not on-wiki) but having so many accounts that had never been near an AfD before main it fairly obvious what was going on. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most people there were not SPA thought, so what difference would it make? Most who participated are regular Wikipedia editors. And you can just ignore the SPA entirely, they just stating keep or delete, and not making any discussion whatsoever, so nothing they said could've affected anyone else. Dream Focus 21:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or overturn to NC - I puzzled over this at the time as well. At most, it's no consensus - there was absolutely no consensus to delete, even if you account for SPAs. And regardless of whether or not the meat/sockpuppet was blocked/banned at the time the AfD was created or not, it was still a meat/sockpuppet, and thus bent on causing disruption. If it was indeed a meat/sock of JaraxleArtemis/Grawp, it should be thrown out on that grounds alone. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and if anyone wants to start a new AfD , let them. A bad faith nomination , which includes the circumstances here, should be thrown out as soon as possible--it has been incurable contaminated. If we didn't catch it in time, it should be completely invalidated. If the article is a true problem ,someone else we nominate it. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to DGG's argument. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 22:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Salvio's position here is well reasoned. Closing administrator properly exercised discretion in weighing policy and arguments; no point in re-litigation the matter. Large numbers of the "keep" votes were either single-purpose accounts with very low edit counts or comments that were unpersuasive (basically blanket assertions of notability). Neutralitytalk 23:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Neutralitytalk 23:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. It seems that both sides pretty heavily used SPAs (and some bad faith) and I see only a handful people really making any sort of good argument. I admit I am guilty myself of basically slapping down a vote. But the fact stands that, at 17 keeps to 10 deletes, and with about 4 substantial votes per side (by my count), this was, at the very least, closed down prematurely. ClayClayClay 00:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse All sorts of things wrong with the AfD, but the close reflected the policy-based arguments put forward. The number of actually votes is meaningless. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Why was it deleted? No consensus stating is must be deleted was reached.
since the AfD was not properly transcluded, - we can have another properly transcluded discussion.
The pre-relist section was plagued by SPAs - so what? No WP page (or AfD vote) is protected form SPA`s/unregistered contributors because this is how WP works - everyone is able to edit. Teyandee (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Invalid nomination by banned user, no consensus to delete and multiple reliable sources covering the subject.  Grue  12:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Not one of the votes to keep the article ever showed there was non-trivial coverage of the subject. Passing mentions do not cross the threshold for WP:GNG. The closing administrator used his judgment and didn't just count heads, that's the kind of critical thinking we want from our admins. Finally, even if a banned user nominates an article for deletion, we do NOT close the discussion once good faith edits have been made. There's areason that WP:Speedy keep specifically states that it is not an option, and a bad faith nomination does not over rule the good faith comments. AniMate 12:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The closing statement by the admin that "The pre-relist section was plagued by SPAs, and in any event, since the AfD was not properly transcluded, does not represent a fair cross-section of the community, and so is entitled to substantially lesser weight." is especially concering to me. SPAs should be considered appropriately, yes. But this reads to me as "yes, Twinkle failed and didn't put the AfD on the deletion log. Therefore, those who commented before that was caught, your opinion is less valid". Why? It was relisted to get a broader community consensus, but why are earlier, good-faith comments/!votes "entitled" to being second-class Wikizens? - The Bushranger One ping only 16:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that what I wrote doesn't really reflect what I meant to say. I follow a two-step approach in closing an AfD: first I consider the numerical balance between the two sides (though not to a mathematical certainty), then the quality of the arguments. I use a sliding scale: the greater the numerical difference between keeps and deletes, the greater the difference in quality of arguments must be to overcome that difference. What I meant to say is that when you are considering the numerical balance (but not the quality of arguments), I considered the post-relist (or really, proper list) discussion to be more indicative of where the keep:delete line really is instead of the pre-relist discussion, since the post-relist portion of the discussion was properly advertised, while the pre-relist discussion was likely seen by mostly readers of the article (who are more likely to !vote keep). In my view it is analogous to canvassing - whereas inappropriate canvassing influences debate by making it more easily seen by people likely to !vote one way, here the non-listing influenced the debate by making it less easily seen by people less likely to !vote that way. I can assure you that I fully considered each comment in terms of the quality of arguments in the same way; no distinction was made in that respect between pre-relist and post-relist comments. T. Canens (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The closer's decision to discount the early round of discussion is unsupported by policy or guideline, and irredeemably taints their decision since the outcome was otherwise unclear. Moreover, it has the perverse impact of discounting the views of those interested in the subject and overweighting those of editors who follow the deletion process itself, which is also unsupported by the deletion policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Regardless of who nom'd it, and regardless of the fact it didn't originally properly get listed and needed an extra week, the deletion was based on policy, and based on the arguments at AfD once it did get properly listed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Most of the keep votes did not argue for notability, just said it was. The sources only mention Equestria Daily in passing and instead focus on the show. Fansites should only get wiki pages if they are truly notable for themselves and have had an impact of somekind. So, the admin made the right decision by putting less weight into the !keep votes. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC and revisit it again in 3 months. Failing that, relist with notifications to all and a careful eye towards SPAs. It is almost always wrong to close an XfD against the numerically more prevalent side: policies are descriptive, not prescriptive, such that if the majority of the good faith community contributors (that is, excluding SPAs) finds an argument more compelling, then that argument should be acknowledged, rather than thrown out as not being policy-based. Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Overturn to No Consensus without prejudice to an immediate renomination  In looking at the redirect, I see that the sources discussed in the AfD have been hidden.  There was not a single !vote at the AfD that this material was objectionable, yet the closing admin does not mention suitable merge targets for the reliable material.  There is massively no consensus at this time for a complex of reasons, including that it appears that the nominator was improperly blocked, to which effect I have notified the blocking administrator.  I don't agree with a relist, we already know that there are a ton of problems in evaluating the current !votes.  Better would be a WP:IAR decision to restore the edit history in the current redirect along with closing the DRV as an "endorse".  And the last thing we need is a "procedural nomination" to force a bureaucratic continuation of a tainted process.  So either WP:IAR soft endorse the closure by restoring the edit history, or restore the article and turn it back to editorial control, but stop this process.  BTW, the keep !votes argued to WP:N "worthy of notice", which the delete !votes ignored.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is restoring the history a "soft endorse" of a delete close? Redirect, delete and redirect, and delete are distinct outcomes. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, but many participants at AfD overlook the idea of redirecting at all. The fact this was closed as delete, when our redirect policy points out that this is a perfect place to have a redirect, proves this. Plus I have seen at least one article in the past that gets voted to be redirected at AfD, then voted to be deleted at RfD, but because it has history it gets restored, then re-redirected... and eventually you have a policy breaking redirect sitting in place, or a deleted article sitting in place. AfD is not good at handling redirection. --Taelus (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see your point, but creating a redirect after deletion, as you did, is an ordinary editing action. A potential problem with redirecting without deleting (or protecting) is that an editor will simply revert. I think that is more likely with enthusiastic and inexperienced editors. Do you remember that past article? It might be a candidate for WP:Merge and delete. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Actually, what I said was that this was a WP:IAR outcome, and that such a WP:IAR outcome would be better than a relist.  Further, please see Talk:Equestria_Daily, it seems that a so-called "Endorse" !vote here means "endorse the status quo", which is more precisely stated as, "Overturn from delete to delete and redirect".  But if my WP:IAR concept focused on getting to closure instead raises questions, it serves no purpose, so I am strking it.  I continue to support DGG's proposal, which I state as, "Overturn to no consensus, without prejudice to an immediate renomination".  Unscintillating (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that statement of my intent was correct. The cure for a AfD nomination done as wrongly as this , is to do it over. Beyond a certain degree of disagreement, there's no point in persisting to say there was or is consensus. (I would not be surprised if the new AfD resulted in a merge or redirect close of some sort, such as has been suggested by several people, but the place to discus what is best, is there, not here.) DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kunwar Amar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

i have already provided Refrences , External Links Correctly & even the administrator Checked that all . Then , why still There is nomination for this article .


Do I need to provide more Refrences or External Links ????????? . — Divy1996 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was, and is continously deleted on the outcome of a deletion review 'discussion' (I put that was itself highly dubious and subjective. I am creating this review because the previous review did not allow for enough time for rebuttals, and believe me there are many, to be made to the grounds for deleting the original Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club page on any forum on wikipedia. On to the meat of this deletion review. The grounds applied for 'notability' are extraordinarily impractical for a club that operates anywhere outside test playing countries. Also the 'lack of coverage' cited by the author of the original deletion reflects more an unwillingness to scour local and regional press outside his locale than an actual absence of coverage. With these pithy words I hereby declare this deletion review open. Kimemia Maina (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is possible to find out more. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about the specific WP:CRICKET notability guidelines, but in my opinion Kongonis Cricket Club meets WP:GNG, as it is a subject of independent coverage in multiple national (Kenyan) and international reliable sources. It means that the club is a subject of interest of international cricket community and this can be reflected also by Wikipedia. The purpose of this project is to provide encyclopedic information, and in this case it is definitely possible. I don't believe that we want to go against the interests of our readers. Sources at G-Books say that "Kongonis Cricket Club ... became the controlling body of Kenya cricket in 1932 (!)" (Red strangers: the white tribe of Kenya, ISBN 9781857252064, p. 171), or that "...Cricket in the Colony is controlled by the Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club which assumes similar responsibilities for the welfare of the game as does the Marylebone Cricket Club in England..." (The travellers' guide to Kenya and Uganda: Vol. 2 (1936), p. 196). I'm sorry, but I can see no benefit for Wikipedia in deleting this kind of information. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I was not the closing admin. I speedied the article under G4 twice and then salted the article. The person who should have been notified is TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which I've done. causa sui (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, restore, but on the grounds that the original author can include the relevant sources which make it meet the WP:GNG requirements. Previously little information was there, then I believe a body of text was included which was removed by another editor for copyright violation. Include those sources and that'll be fine and dandy. Just don't let a certain Irish editor get wind! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The AFD closure appears perfectly in the right given the condition of the article at the time it was closed. But AFDs are not binding forever, especially if circumstances change such that the objections raised in the AFD are addressed. Also, the way this was handled seems a bit off. TParis was never contacted about this. Had I been contacted, I would have userfied the article on request. WP:AFC would give the user opportunity to draft an article that addressed the concerns raised at the AFD. So it's not actually necessary to overturn the AFD through a DRV like this, it seems. causa sui (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting admin comments I would take note that User:Kimemia Maina makes an absolutely terrible argument. The AFD ran the standard 7 days given any discussion, the AFD followed proper procedures, and was closed appropriately. User:Kimemia Maina makes no attempt to justify a deletion review in the nomination such as A) Describing what about the AFD did not follow policy or consensus, or B) Providing new substantial evidence that addresses the issues of the AFD. The guidelines for 'notability' for these clubs is not up for debate here or AFD. If they want to discuss that, they can do it on the appropriate guideline talk page. The nomination is a poor excuse of a nomination and if it were not for the work of User:Vejvančický then I'd be upset at this waste of my time. However, I'm not opposed to a restore per User:Vejvančický. Obviously the subject meets GNG.--v/r - TP 20:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't crucially important where the discussion is running (AFD, AFC, DRV, talk pages etc.). User:Kimemia Maina posted their objections to the main space as Kenya Kongonis prefix:Wikipedia:Deletion review. They are apparently unfamiliar with all the complicated procedures of Wikipedia, however, it doesn't mean that their argument is "absolutely terrible". Certainly nobody is obliged to know all of our procedures by heart. Kimemia Maina forgot to notify/discuss the issue with the closing admin, but I don't think it is a big catastrophe, as almost all involved parties are now notified about this DRV, and this discussion could attract an attention of other editors specializing in this area. User:Metropolitan90 moved their post here, which was a correct and logical step. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Amanda Knox – This is, perhaps the messiest DRV I've seen in my nearly 18 months as an administrator active around deletion on this project. We have so many concerns, arguments and counter arguments going on here, that to try to analyse them in a few closing paragraphs would be a futile endeavour. I'll point out a few things I've considered especially relevant, though. The AFD that is technically being "appealed" here is around 16 months old, and given the immense amount of coverage pointed at by the participants in this debate, and proceedings since then in the Italian legal system, this DRV focuses on the original AFD it is "reviewing" not at all. This is not normally the nature of DRV, but little about either this discussion or this case is normal; so this is almost, to me, a question of "unprotect, or leave fully protected as a redirect" more than a review of the original close. As it regards WP:CRIME, it is rightly pointed out that many things about this particular case are not normal, a word that the CRIME guideline uses to describe it's own applicability.

    BLP1E is another significant point of contention. BLP1E, per its wording, applies to people who, outside of that event "otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual,". Consensus here is that Knox is not a low-profile individual. A final point, and one that weighs in my mind, is whether it is proper to redirect a person's name to a crime they were found not guilty of in a court of law. Under BLP principles, it does not sit well in my mind. There is also some debate here about restructuring or renaming the MoMK article. While I have read and considered those viewpoints, I have to consider such an action as some suggested as ultra vires of the closing admin in a DRV, and such issues would be more suited to a well advertised RFC.

    Accordingly, I see a consensus here to vacate the 2010 AFD. As I said at the beginning, the discussion here was limited about the actual merits of that close at the time it was made, and I do not find anything here that supports a straight close of this DRV as overturn.

    Now, for the mechanics. I do not see here a draft of the article that I consider satisfactory. As an editorial comment, preparing a better draft before removing the redirect would be an incredibly wise move. However, in actual action, I will merely lower the protection on this redirect from full to semi. It is my opinion, that, given the BLP issues, and the history of vandalism on Murder of Meredith Kercher, that this ongoing semi is a reasonable precaution. Another AFD, or further merge discussion, is of course at editorial discretion, but it is my opinion that those discussions should give time for a quality article to develop at this title before another deletion discussion is held. – Courcelles 11:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Amanda Knox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E are both satisfied given the unusual circumstances and sustained coverage in a myriad secondary sources, not to mention the creation of a film (Amanda_Knox:_Murder_on_Trial_in_Italy) which ironically does warrant coverage. Furthermore it's not fair and may even be libelous for us to immutably redirect the woman's biography to a murder she was acquitted of -- samj inout 21:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I have cleaned up the last version and posted it at User:SamJohnston/Amanda_Knox for your convenience. -- samj inout 21:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the redirect from Murder of Meredith Kercher to Amanda Knox own article. ASAP. Notable and should have her own article.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the redirect from Murder of Meredith Kercher to Amanda Knox own article. How can there not be a Wikipedia article on someone who is so overwhelmingly notable? How can she not be notable when the media has had a spotlight on her for the past 4 years of her life? How can she not be notable when more people know who she is than 99% of the people who currently have their own Wikipedia article? How can she not be notable when a search on Google of her name returns 12,900,000 hits? How can she not be notable when her name has been searched for on the English Wikipedia 270,000 times in the past 2 days? The deletionists are doing a great disservice to Wikipedia and our readers by obstinately refusing to allow an article to be created that is more notable than a majority of the other biography articles currently on Wikipedia, and an article that so many readers are looking for to find the information they are seeking. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Amanda Knox is far more famous than Meredith Kercher. The original redirect was questionable at this point Amanda Knox is going to be a political cause quite separate from Kercher. CD-Host (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirected this has nothing to do with how famous she is. The quesiton is: "is there notable, encyclopedic material about the subject that doesn't belong on the page about the case?" I can't see that there would be. If Knox goes on to do lots of notable things in the next years then that would be a reason for an article, but we can't know that.--Scott Mac 21:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it disturbing if not outright wrong to have Amanda Knox not having her own article. Her article is currently redirected to a murder which she was acquitted of. To get this right a separate article is indeed needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Per WP:CRIME: "The crime [...] has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.". Also satisfies WP:EVENT in scope, duration, depth and diversity. Also satisfies WP:BLP1E: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.". The intention of WP:BLP1E is to avoid capturing temporaneous events and here we have seen significant, diverse, in-depth coverage of the woman over a period of four years, and likely for some time into the future. -- samj inout 22:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not such a great point - as far as I know, the books are all about the crime and the trial, which is what the redirected article is about. I am not aware of any books about Amanda Knox that are not primarily based on the crime and its aftermath. Even the name of the movie seems to tell us that a redirect is appropriate: Amanda Knox -> Murder on Trial (The "murder on trial" is the murder of Meredith Kercher, which is exactly what the redirect article is called!!) Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly haven't read through all the books or watched the movie, but I'd hazard a guess that they provide significant coverage of Miss Knox as an individual. As a compromise, splitting the current article into two article (one about the murder and one about the trial) could be a good way forward. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There is simply no rationale for redirecting her page to a murder she was acquitted of. Remove the redirect, and either give her her own page or keep the name Amanda Knox empty on Wikipedia. Countercouper (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn ASAP. I understand and support the first redirect, but now notability (and the counter-productiveness of the redirect) is obvious. Dayewalker (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - as a minimum it is undue to direct her name to a murder she is not guilty of. I support an article - we have a million less notable articles about all sorts of low notable dross/promo crap. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirected - Boy, there are a bunch of heated, ill-conceived, in-the-moment overturns here. I keep wishing for editors to stop editing for the moment and try to develop a eye for editing for history, but I find myself disappointed. Repeatedly. Anyways, there is nothing that can be said about Amanda Knox that isn't tied to the murder of Meredith Kercher, this is why WP:BLP1E exists. There is also nothing wrong with the redirection to the murder page, as the mere existence of a redirect isn't prejudicial and does not imply guilt. Note that Casey Anthony is a redirect to the Caylee Anthony murder article. Redirects are largely immune from NPOV concerns anyways, so that argument is particularly weak. Finally, even if there was a rough consensus in support of a Knox article, I feel that DRV is ill-suited to handle it in quite this manner, simply because there is nothing of substance to restore at this time other than half-baked puff pieces in several editors' personal sandboxes. What should have happened here was a new draft created first, a product of a few weeks or so work among interested parties, and then that version is brought to DRV for possible restoration. Put the brakes on this and edit cautiously for once. Tarc (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, in this "there is nothing that can be said about Amanda Knox that isn't tied to the murder of Meredith Kercher", you are 100% totally wrong. The moment she was declared innocent (and she was decalred innocent, not just "not guilty"), Amando Knox is no longer "tied to" the murder of Meredith Kercher. And there is no legal or logical reason to suppose that she is. No, Amanda's story iis that she was falsely railroaded to conviction by an inept and corrupt prosecuter who himself is under charges in another case (or didn't you know what?). Amanda's story is how an inocent young girl can very nearly have her life ruined through no fault of her own. To deny that and to trivialize what she went through, is to make her a victom too.98.118.62.140 (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're the one who's wrong. According to this source Knox wasn't declared anything - the conviction was simply overturned, leaving open the possibility that prosecutors could appeal the decision to the Italian Supreme Court. If they do that, and it appears they will, the court could either uphold the decision or reinstate the conviction, resulting in possible extradition proceedings against Knox, and the resulting legal fight to prevent that. So you see, the case is far from "over" for Knox and Sollecito. Shirtwaist 18:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Surely, at the very least you'd agree the incident should be renamed to "murder trial"? Unless you can rationally express why the name Amanda Knox should redirect to her housemate's murder? Countercouper (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, obviously Amanda Knox has lost four years of her life and has had to go through the most horrible ordeal. So has Raffaele Sollecito. And the Italian forensic service has been shown up before the world, and been left with some very serious issues to face. And also the case must give strong cause for at least the routine tape- or video-recording of suspect interviews. But Meredith Kercher died. That is the event that put all of this into motion, and the article quite properly treats all of the events which have followed from that. The title of the article reflects that. Jheald (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There is no Deletion Policy reason to disallow this article. There is extensive long term coverage demonstrating notability. Whether the page should be a redirect is a question of editorial judgment, but given the stated intention of the subject to write a book, I believe that a stand alone article is appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject is not a low profile person. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, with the one event (a killing) overwhelmed by persistent coverage is in reliable sources for court cases and years in jail. The multiple printed books overwhelmingly demonstrate notability of the subject. Today there is world-wide coverage and prediction of new books. To not have an article title on this person is to do a disservice to the readership. There is nothing we would present that cannot be easily found already; the difference is that we will probably present only the most reliable information, and fairly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – Will this be any different from the Murder of Meredith Kercher, or are we merely going to have this article merely for notability's sake (i.e. are we going to provide any additional substantive material that is not included in the murder article)? Moreover, if this overturned, I strongly suggest semi-protection due to the rather significant BLP concerns due to the ongoing media fallout. –MuZemike 02:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that roughly half of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article belongs in a Knox article. From the "Knox and Sollecito trials and appeals" onward, most of the material is about Knox. There would also be other Knox specific material that has likely been kept out of the Murder article that could be included. Finally, any post appeal (and pre next appeal) material will also be better placed in an Amanda Knox article. --regentspark (comment) 12:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close call - keep redirected for now - if Knox is no more than a victim of the Italian justice system, I think she should have the right to just try to regain anonymity and fade into the background. In that case much of the material in the current "Murder of ..." should eventually be removed, since it would be just one event for an otherwise non-notable person. On the other hand if she writes a book about her experiences, goes on a book tour, ...... , or joins the cast of "Dancing with the Stars," then (somewhere along this continuum of possibilities) it will be more than one event and she should have her own article. Please wait to she whether she tries to fade out, or in some way tries to increase her visibility. Smallbones (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether she wants to be covered by the media or not is completely irrelevant. She has been covered by the media for the past 4 years, hence she is notable, hence there should be an article on her. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. WP:BLP1E does not prevent an article as there is a strong case that Knox is no longer famous for one event, and it is indisputable that she is not a low profile individual (both these two elements must be present for WP:BLP1E to discourage an article. An article on her could give relevant and notable biographical details as printed in the many books and articles about her, talk about her life in prison (as other similar articles do) and cover notable post-trial activities (movies (one with Colin Firth), interviews, etc.). The trials should be mentioned, but this should not become a content fork for the Murder of Meredit Kercher article. Semi-protection per above comments is probably a good idea.LedRush (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirected per Tarc. The subject is only known for her involvement in the murder and the resulting legal processes. I challenge anyone arguing to overturn to list the other fields where she is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --John (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting challenge, but an unnecessary one. WP:BLP1E discourages (not prohibits) articles on individuals if (1) they are notable for one event; and (2) they are low-profile individuals. It is increasingly hard to define the murder, the media reaction, the murder trial, the defamation trial, the civil trial, the appeal, the interviews, the books, the acquittal as one event. Even if you can convince yourself that is the case (despite huge numbers of precedents for similar articles on other crime articles), there is simply no argument that Knox is a low-profile individual. Remember, the policy states "It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Furthermore, "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." As some who have commented here against the article have noted in the past, Knox and her supporters have waged a very public media campaign, activiely seeking out much media attention at great expense.LedRush (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have not quite got #2 right - better would be they are otherwise low-profile individuals - note the current wording: if, outside of the event, that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual A subtle distinction, but to pass BLP1E you need to show significance outside of the one event :) --Errant (chat!) 09:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument on this ignores normal english construction rules and defies what the practice of Wikipedia actually is. Your interpretation reduces the second clause to no meaning at all. Furthermore, the tons of similar article about people less notable who first became famous (and primarily remain famous) for one event demonstrate that your reading of the policy is not the majority reading. Finally, it seems that your argument is explicitly refuted by the policy itself. It states "It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." This clearly indicates that the second prong of the test is independent of the first (meaning, if you're not low-profile, you're covered by WP:BIO1E and not WP:BLP1E).LedRush (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where that note was added, or by whom, but I was drawing your attention to the recent clarification which strengthens the intended meaning. If it is still not clear we can try to reword it again :) --Errant (chat!) 15:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the policy is crystal clear now, as it explicitly refutes your position. If you're going to continue to drum up support to get consensus to change these policies, of course you can do that. It seems like a bad idea, though, as it doesn't comport with WP's core principles, in my view.LedRush (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The part of that note that I assume is relevant to your argument - "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." - links to an essay describing opinions on what a "low profile individual" is. Where in that essay, which is definitely not WP policy, does it say Knox's situation should fall under the "High-profile" category? Shirtwaist 21:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, WP policies are the result of consensus, and any changes to them would also be the result of consensus, whether that consensus is "drummed up" or otherwise, unless you're using a different definition of "drummed up" than I am. So I'm pretty sure WP's core principles are OK with that. Shirtwaist 19:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirected she's still not notable outside the crime and trial; if she does become so then it's reasonable to split the article, but that's not now. Also keep redirected purely to save editors having to waste their time cleaning up two articles rather than one; to be honest I unwatchlisted the article many months ago as it was clear that it was a complete time sink trying to keep it NPOV. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User:Black Kite was the admin who protected the page and presumably spent a lot of time keeping the article balanced previously. Apparently it was abused "to campaign for her release and proclaim her innocence", but that is obviously no longer necessary so I am confident the article will be more stable, and in any case it's not a valid argument. -- samj inout 07:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's only background; my first sentence is my reason for not splitting. I also think we might get the problem of material being duplicated in both articles (and yes, I know that's not a reason either). Black Kite (t) (c) 10:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no reason why Amanda Knox shouldn't have her own article. The matter's attracted so much media coverage since 2007 that there's easily enough sources to justify this. Perpetrators, and accused perpetrators if you're American enough to think she might be innocent, can be notable in their own right if they generate enough coverage (e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald).—S Marshall T/C 08:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's a question, though; if we have a BLP which basically contains only the information that this is an otherwise non-notable person who was found guilty of a crime and then acquitted - is that a good BLP to have? Don't forget that there's a lot of well-sourced negative information about Knox out there that could well end up in such a bio. Are we really doing her a favour by doing this? What would be better, perhaps, is to split the article into "Murder of..." and "Trial of Knox and Sollecito", etc. Just my 2p. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I certainly don't think we're doing Amanda Knox a favour by including her in the encyclopaedia, but then I also don't think we're here to make Amanda Knox happy. I think we're here to present a neutral summary of human knowledge. I think a naive person searching Wikipedia would expect to find that we have an article about Amanda Knox.—S Marshall T/C 19:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the "naive person searching Wikipedia [expecting] to find that we have an article about Amanda Knox" I agree with everything you've said, and ultimately we're here to serve our audience, not the subjects of our articles. -- samj inout 00:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also don't think we're here to make Amanda Knox happy -- s marshall
WP:BLP has something to say about that: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" Shirtwaist 04:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. The important point in that sentence is "Biographies of living persons must be written," because we're an encyclopaedia. I agree that in writing it, we should have due regard to her privacy and not say anything that isn't already well and truly in the public domain.—S Marshall T/C 17:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hardly think the phrase "Biographies of living persons must be written," was intended to promote the writing of biographies of living persons, do you? The implication of that sentence is that the decision to even create an article on a living person should take into account the effect it would have on the subject in addition to how such an article was written. Shirtwaist 19:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the concern about privacy is contained within the provision regarding a low-profile individual. Knox and her family court media attention and give press conferences. When you want your privacy, you don't give press conferences (generally). That is one of the many reasons why BLP1E does not apply to this situation. However, this would still be a BLP, and the article should be written conservatively, per BLP guidelines.LedRush (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which "provision regarding a low-profile individual" are you referring to? Shirtwaist 19:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shirtwaist, our BLP policy does not stop us writing biographies of living persons. It stops us from writing negative, unsourced content about living persons. Amanda Knox has what her prosecutors called a "million dollar publicity campaign" behind her, and one of the results of that is that there are lots of sources for her biography. Statements that are well-sourced and neutrally-phrased cannot contravene BLP.—S Marshall T/C 23:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say otherwise? There's nothing stopping you or anybody else from creating a new article on Knox. It might even avoid being AfDed, but I doubt it. I don't see any significant change since the last article on Knox was deleted redirected last year, but you're welcome to try. Shirtwaist 00:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I understand the disconnect here. Do you have me confused with someone whose position is "overturn"?—S Marshall T/C 12:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since this DRV is dealing with the question of keeping or overturning the redirect of an Amanda Knox article to MoMK, and your statement - "There's no reason why Amanda Knox shouldn't have her own article" - implies you favor Amanda Knox having her own article which an overturned redirect would result in, and since the only way Knox will have her own article is if the redirect is overturned...then yes, that was my assumption. Forgive me for misreading your position...whatever that position might be. Shirtwaist 19:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My position is exactly as stated in the first sentence of my first remark: There's no reason why Amanda Knox shouldn't have her own article. The article she has doesn't necessarily have to be this particular article, and I would not object if the decision was to create a fresh article rather than to restore.—S Marshall T/C 20:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...to create a fresh article rather than to restore - Others have suggested this, yet nobody has even tried to come up with anything more than a vague outline to propose, rather than an actual Knox article, one that wouldn't be redirected just like the current one was. This only strengthens my belief that such an article is unlikely to be written, let alone pass AfD, unless and until Knox does something notable outside the realm of the case. Just my opinion...I could be proven wrong though. Shirtwaist 21:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not surprising. It would be unnecessary work to prepare a draft article, in view of the strong consensus to overturn that appears below.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would imagine that an Amanda Knox article would be similar to the biographies which currently exist about her in books and tv shows/movies. I would guess the article would go something like this:
  • Lede
  • Early Life, education, etc. (this is standard for just about any biography)
  • Murder of Meredith Kercher. This would be a summarized version of the events surrounding the murder.
  • Muder trial and appeal. A brief summary of the main case (perhaps merged with the events surrounding murder).
  • Other related cases. This would allow us to take the cases which really aren't about the "Murder of Meredith Kercher" and apply only to Knox and her family, to have a home. This would make both articles better, and much better serve the readers of an encyclopedia).
  • Portrayal in Media. A survey of how the media has portrayed Knox in the Press. (this would focus on portrayals of Knox, not about the case. The MoMK article would talk about the portrayal of the case, not the individuals...again, making both articles better.
  • Public reaction to Knox. The disparate and differing opinions/camps regarding Knox.
  • Portrayal in Popular Culture. This could also include references to the biographies, books, TV shows, and films about Knox.
  • Life in prison. Similar to the Mendoza brothers. There have been tons of article about this, though I'd imagine this section would be very brief
  • Life after acquittal; (TBD)
There is enough here for a very meaty article, and certainly an article more substantive than many, many other ones on Wikipedia (yes, yes, other stuff exists). Most importantly, the early life and portrayal in popular culture sections are wholly inappropriate for the current MOMK article, and the public reaction and media sections cannot be fleshed out as in the MoMK as they could be in a Knox article for various reasons (not only because of WP: Undue, but because they would bog down the article and make it read worse). Seeing as there is a lot of content not available on wikipedia because it cannot (and should not) be shoe-horned into this article, and seeing as the information clearly does not trigger WP:BLP1E concerns, there is no reason not to have this article. That a Knox article would make the MoMK article a ton better is just added gravy.LedRush (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirected; nothing good could come from the fork - except the obvious hagiography. This can be dealt with within the event article at this stage & an article on Knox is distinctly infair to her. Seeing as she currently stands not guilty of the murder we should be reducing content related to her :) not increasing it. Anything prior to the murder is private content we will not be featuring. Anything subsequent may become relevant if she decides to pursue a public life - until then let's wait. An Amanda Knox article is pointless and duplicative. --Errant (chat!) 08:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW I also think that if we are going to fork this (which long term is the sensible solution) it is better to go with a "Trial of..." article to avoid BLP issues. --Errant (chat!) 08:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirected per Errant. Creating an "Amanda Knox" article would seem to me to be more of a BLP issue than a simple redirect, as the only notable events that would appear there would all have to do with...her being accused and acquitted of murdering Meredith Kercher! What else is there to say there right now? That she was a student? If Knox voluntarily enters the public arena in the future and does something notable, then we can discuss overturning the redirect. Shirtwaist 09:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak allow recreation, as a short stub-like article. Not because of notability consideration – because in fact she still is notable only insofar as she is connected to the Kercher case – but because of the BLP consideration that a direct redirect to the murder article might still suggest her being implicated in the murder itself (rather than just in the case). This article should contain little more than "... is an American woman who became known as a suspect in the murder case of Meredith Kercher. In a trial that attracted worldwide media attention, she was acquitted of the charge of murder on appeal, after having served four years in prison." Leave all the rest to be treated in the murder article. If she does anything notable in her future life, the article can of course be expanded. Fut.Perf. 12:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirected based on the arguments of Black Kite, Errant, John, Salvio, Shirtwaist, Tarc... At this point, one can quite confidently bet that the moment the full protection on the redirect is removed and the article expanded, within hours it will once again be under protection (whether that be semi- or something stronger). Added to this, the potential for duplication and content-forking remains. If a sub-article is warranted, I agree with Errant that the formulation "Trial(s) of (Amanda) Knox and (Raffaele) Sollecito" is preferable. SuperMarioMan 14:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What book's that??? A cookery book or something? --FormerIP (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one. Apparently some Italian bigwig became smitten, and created a book of interviews. It also includes some of her writing, so she's a published author now. It's not self published, in case anyone is wondering. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that was the second book about Amanda as a person. The first was an Italian book recently translated into English "Walking with Amanda". The whole point of BLP is not to allow wikipedia to slander people, connecting her whole life to Kercher is precisely doing that. 173.61.131.78 (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good source to put meat on the bones of my skeleton article above. Plus it adds to the inevetal conclusion that this falls outside of "one event" and that she is not a low-profile individual.LedRush (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about the murder, true, but it is about a series of interviews while she was in prison for ... the murder. Show me what she has done apart from the murder case and related activities, and I will happily change my mind. --John (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People wanted something not about the murder. It is found. The goal posts are moved. Whatev. "Apart from the murder case and related activities" can mean whatever one wants. This may not be you, but most people who are voting against an article would prefer that coverage doesn't exist. It's not that they've looked at the coverage and and made an impartial judgement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Show me what Neil Armstrong has done apart from flying to the moon..." ;-). Seriously, with several books published about her, I don't think WP:BLP1E applies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice question; of course Armstrong was a naval aviator in the Korean War, then flew F-104s and rocket planes as a test pilot, then took part in the Gemini program, all before he went to the Moon on Apollo 11. Afterwards he took part in the investigation of the Challenger disaster. Any one of these things would make him sufficiently notable for our purposes, even if he had never gone to the Moon. Amanda Knox, on the other hand, is known for her jail time for the murder, her publicity campaign against the sentence, and her acquittal. I don't see that in quite the same vein. What has she done outside of her involvement in the case which makes her notable? --John (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing she's 'her conviction and it's subsequent overturning' has started a debate about the court system in Italy [47], [48]. It's not the willful acts of a person that make them notable for inclusion in wikipedia, rather it is reliable sources that define notability. If reliable sources focus on an individual, then so do we. For better or for worse, the Knox story has gone far beyond the murder itself and we should follow suit - even before the inevitable book(s) and made for tv movie(s). --regentspark (comment) 14:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No she hasn't "started a debate about the court system in Italy". She hasn't said a word about it. The murder case appears to have done that. That's a good illustration of why a fork isn't needed. The encyclopaedic content belongs in the parent article, rather than being split off so as to make Knox inappropriately (from her POV as well as anyone else's) the centre of the story. Enclopaedic content about Knox but not connected to the murder and the subsequent trials would belong in a separate bio, except there isn't any such content.--FormerIP (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FormerIP. The debate is evidence that the murder case itself might be notable. Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right and I modified my statement above. However, the point remains. Her trial, conviction, appeals, and release are independent of the original murder because of the issues that they have spawned. The debate I refer to above, for example, is because of the way her appeal went, not because of the murder. The various reports about media portrayal (in the NYT (e.g., [49]) as well as in the Guardian) are about the Knox trials, not about the murder. Other than the fact that all this is a child of the murder, arguing that the entire Knox hoopla should be included in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article is bizarre. Call it The trials of Amanda Knox of The Knox Case or whatever, but this is where the meat of the story is. --regentspark (comment) 16:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're correct, to the extent that we normally treat a crime and a trial connected to the crime as one event, unless you can think of and example where it is otherwise. As for articles titled something other than Amanda Knox, as I commented below there is no need for a deletion review discussion in order to achieve that if it's merited due to article size. --FormerIP (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's never going to be a perfect example because every case is different. For example, we have an article on Mumia Abu-Jamal but not the Murder of Daniel Faulkner because Abu-Jamal is known as a death row inmate. He hasn't really done anything (re John above) but his story has grown beyond the initial crime and he has become a symbol of the anti-death penalty movement in the US. Like I said, it's an imperfect example but, to a similar extent, Amanda Knox's story has gone beyond the initial crime as well. Arguing that none of this would have happened without the crime is a weak, very very weak argument because nothing in this world occurs independently of something else. (Facetiously speaking, the entire encyclopedia would have to be under The Big Bang if we take that argument to its extreme (joke)!) --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Mumia Abu-Jamal example actually fits with policy. "...if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material". If there was no MoMK article, then there might be no problem with an AK article. The difficulty arises because there would seem to be nothing in the existing article that merits taking out and putting elsewhere on the grounds that it not related to the title. Similarly, there's nothing in the existing article that couldn't properly belong in an AK article. This is because the MoMK story and the AK story cover precisely the same ground, although each might suggest a very slightly different emphasis from the other. What we don't need is two articles covering exactly the same thing but from different points-of-view. --FormerIP (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of at least one section that wouldn't fit with the MOMK article. A section on "Knox and the media". There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss how the symbiotic/parasitic relationship between Knox and the media. The sad reality is that Knox is now more well known (just as in the Mumia Abu-Jamal case) than any of the other people involved in the murder case. But, since the murder article can't be just about her, we need to have a separate article. I've said this before and I'll say it again that the article is going to be a mess with all sorts of POV and BLP issues, but that doesn't mean we run away from it. --regentspark (comment) 14:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course "Knox and the media" fits in the existing article. Are you suggesting that, up to now, it should not have been there? It's an obviously significant aspect to the story. The practical problem is not so much about POV and BLP issues - there is no way of avoiding that whatever is done - but the idea that it is appropriate to have two rival versions of the same indivisible story in the encyplopaedia. Wikipedia UK edition and Wikipedia US edition, if you like. The differing perspectives should be held together in the same article. Because, regardless of which name a user types in, they are looking for exactly the same information. --FormerIP (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it shouldn't be in that article because it is separate from the murder because it is about Knox and not about the murder. However, perhaps we're just emphasizing the same thing differently (you say banana and I say banana sort of thing). At some point, every incident has the inherent capability to fork into two meaningfully distinct articles and, I guess, different editors will see that as occurring at different points of time. --regentspark (comment) 15:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An Amanda Knox article would not have the same information as the MoMK article. Please see the proposed outline above.LedRush (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But how would that be enforced? The natural (and correct) aspiration for editors working on both articles would be to include all encyclopaedic info relating to the topic - i.e. to produce two versions of the same article. --FormerIP (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, the section of the Knox article dealing with the trial would merely be a summary, with a clear link at the top bringing people to the full article. It would work the same as in every other biography where someone has been involved in events which merit their own articles.LedRush (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirected. At present there is not enough encylopaedic material to justify a separate article. Those who want one should add tedious biographical detail to her section in the parent article until it bursts and a spinoff is required, or else just wait for her to become a judge on America's Got Talent. Also WP:CRIME continues to apply, because her acquittal is not yet definitive and there seems to be a chance that is a bit more than theoretical that she could be re-convicted. --FormerIP (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, because Knox's case is actually still in process, until the prosecution announce that they are dropping it. WP:CRIME applies not because of anything that might happen in the future, but because of the subject's legal status. It's not the main reason to keep the redirect, though. --FormerIP (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Amanda Knox. MoMK is a useless POV battleground and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Pertinent facts are deliberately excluded and few of those voting have done anything to make it better. Put it out of its misery I beg you. (this is not sarcasm or irony Strauss) Brmull (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the specific suggestion of an article that wouldn't be a content fork. Which could be helped by the book on Knox that does not deal with the murder of meredith kercher at all....LedRush (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need an Amanda Knox article - This entire exlusionary debate is silly. Meredith is dead and that story will not grow anymore - it's done. But Amanda's story is very much alive. How was it that she was railroaded? Is this kind of travesty common in Italy? Etc. Etc. The simple fact is that there is a LOT of Amanda Knox related information on the internet now, and the logical place to write about the notable aspects of her experience, is in an Amanda Knox article. Suffice it to say, I am posting as an IP because I do not want the partisan deletionists to take note of my ID. The frothing rage opposed to an Amada Knox article is like nothing I've seen on this wiki in ovr 7 years - and I've seen some crazy stuff happen... 98.118.62.140 (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that. –MuZemike 05:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's ridiculousIssymo (talk)
You're wrong. It does have a Wikipedia article and "Amanda Knox" redirects there. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redirected. Until Amanda Knox has done something other than:

a) Been accused of Meredith Kercher’s murder.
b) Been Arrested for Meredith Kercher’s murder.
c) Been (falsely) Convicted of Meredith Kercher’s murder.
d) Been Acquitted of Meredith Kercher’s murder.

At the moment Why else is she notable? What else has she done? Jalipa (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You fundamentally misunderstand notability. Notabiltiy does not hinge solely on what one has personally accomplished in life. Notabiltiy hinges on whether or not the media is taking note of you, your actions or your story. A person with an interesting personal story, becomes notable in the media and that's what's happnened here. Undeserved media attention is still media attention. The media seems to agree. Read this from CBS 10/05/11 "Amanda Knox left Seattle as an anonymous junior attending Washington's flagship public university, and on Tuesday she returned as someone whose release from an Italian jail made her internationally recognizable." People want to know more about Amanda Knox's story and we need an article to help them do that. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that just prove the BLP1E case? "her release from jail made her famous". Her notability is, at present, solely linked to this case and the article covers it adequately. Nothing else about Knox is notable and, given a few months, the whole thing could be gone and forgotten - unless Knox does something else to establish her notability. It is, quite simply, too soon to determine whether this is just a passing interest or whether Knox will establish notability. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know I said "Keep redirected", but actually, is this even the right forum for this? The previous AfD redirected the previous version of the article not only on BLP1E grounds but mainly because it was, to speak bluntly, complete bollocks. The version being proposed now is clearly not bollocks, even if it may have other issues. Should not the request have been to unprotect the target (which I am required to do if asked in these circumstances), rather than overturn the AfD which was about a completely different article? Just a thought. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I was wondering about that too. The original AfD was more than a year ago and a lot has happened since then. Perhaps the right course of action is to put up a new article and let that go to AfD if anyone wants to do that. I've commented above so I'm not going to unprotect it but any 'brave soul' admin can go ahead and do so. --regentspark (comment) 13:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Since the original discussion, a film and several books focusing on Amanda Knox have been released, and after fours years she remains in the media spotlight as one of the world's most famous people. There are simply no valid policy-based reasons to oppose the existence of this article at this point (except for I don't like Amanda of course). There are tons of articles on people involved in criminal cases who are way less famous. Mocctur (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite - The point of this DRV is to discuss whether the decision to redirect this article to "MOMK" should be endorsed or overturned. If it's overturned, that is the article that people searching for "Amanda Knox" will be directed to, not any proposed article. I'm not sure why Samj informed you instead of MuzeMike, the admin who closed the original AfD before listing it here. According to WP:DRV, Samj also should've discussed it with the AfD's closing admin before listing here, which was not done. It's probably a good idea to note that comments in this DRV should follow these guidelines. Shirtwaist 02:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirected. I believe the very premise of the deletion review is incorrect. WP:CRIME doesn't actually apply, because she is neither the victim or, given the acquittal, the person who committed the crime. However, if we use some liberty and extend WP:CRIME to include other platers in the criminal event and its aftermath, including those accused of the crime, but later acquitted, then we could read WP:CRIME as "A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes or a person accused of a crime and later acquitted should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person." If we can assume that WP:CRIME does apply to this situation, then it seems completely clear that Knox would not warrant an article in her own right, given that she has done absolutely nothing notable except be involved in this event - and the event, and Knox's involvement therein, is well-covered by the article to which "Amanda Knox" redirects. WP:TOOSOON may certainly apply - she may well use her publicity to achieve notability in her own right, but this has not yet happened. WP:BLP1E is less clear, in my opinion. Clearly, Knox has received an very significant amount of coverage as a result of her involvement in the one event for which she may be considered notable. Again, I would argue that WP:TOOSOON may apply. I can foresee that, while she is very much the focus of attention today, that the next sensational news story that captures the public's imagination may very well see her fade into oblivion unless, of course, she does something to maintain her public profile - in which case she may have something outside this one event for which she will be notable and WP:BLP1E no longer applies. In summary, I see no urgency to create a seperate article - the "encyclopedicly relevant" aspects of Knox are well-covere in the redirect article and I think, on balance, we can simply wait and see what happens next. Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for proving my point, which is: The deletionist sentiment which is opposed to an Amanda Knox article has no valid justification. The very rule you cite says this: "if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person". The "available encyclopaedic material" relating to Ms. Knox is enormous in quantity and is increasing everyday. There is no rational reason to oppose an article for Ms. Knox. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess one person's "encyclopedic content" is another's "trivial junk". Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IP - I think you're misreading that sentence. It's clearly saying that if there is already an article that includes encyclopaedic material about Amanda Knox (i.e. MOMK), someone notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes (or in this case a person convicted of a crime which was later overturned - Knox) should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article. Shirtwaist 20:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OVERTURN New article titled Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. I would like to see the Murder of Meredith Kercher article remain. It is a notable murder. However, there should be a simple line that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were originally convicted but it was overturned and a link to the new article. The two do not deserve to be associated with this murder any more than needed because they have been acquitted. Issymo (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Amanda Knox is notable in her own right as the victim of a poorly executed investigation. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that miscarriages of justice can be noteworthy, apart from the crimes that are used to wrongly jail the innocent? The precedent for an accused person having a stand-alone article was established here long ago. Note that there is a Damien Echols Wiki entry. How is this different?Christaltips (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seem to be quite a few editors voting "overturn" because they would like to see the creation of some article other than Amanda Knox. Those seem to me to be mistaken votes. You don't need to overturn the decision on that article in order to create a new article with a different title - just go ahead and do it. Someone will launch an AfD if they object. --FormerIP (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This is simply not what BLP1E was intended to do, or how an encyclopedia would best serve its users. The language of BLP1E is really cautionary rather than prescriptive, and none of the values it is intended to protect are served by the absence of a discrete article on the person on whom this discussion centers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

‎*Overturn - GoodGravy, She is notable ! Turn on your TV!--Truth Mom 19:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. Wow.. Cant tell you how good it feels to reach this day. Welcome home, Amanda! I see this "debate" is breaking along the usual lines. I'll save a lot of typing and simply concur with all that's been written above by other 'overturn' supporters (LedRush, et al). I see the usual suspects are going to drag their feet over this past the point of all reason.. I suggest that we've reached the point where Jimbo Wales needs to be imposed upon once again to step in an appoint a nuetral admin to forcibly push this article into line with the standards and policies evident in the rest of Wiki.. Sour grapes is very unbecoming, guys.. Amanda was found not just 'not guilty'.. but 'innocent of the crime' by the Italian court. Accept it and lets move on. Meredith's memorial page can finally be maintained in a proper, respectful manner, and Amanda's page can finally tell her story honestly. Ciao! Tjholme (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Tjholme (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Don't you mean an admin who will agree with you? –MuZemike 03:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Significant coverage: Yes.
  2. Reliable: Yes.
  3. Sources: Yes.
  4. Independent of the subject: Yes.
  5. Presumed: Yes
The notability of this individual is no longer entirely encapsulated within the confines of the actual murder. Her notability relates primarily to the trial and the large amount of media coverage surrounding said trial (which is why we have O. J. Simpson murder case not Murder of Nicole Brown Simpson). The trial and the murder are now two separate events, after Knox's conviction was overturned, and redirecting her to the murder alone is inherently misleading, and as it stands, redirecting Knox to Murder of Meredith Kercher violates WP:RNEUTRAL and WP:CRITERIA. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRVs should not be used to point out other pages that have not been deleted where the page in question has — each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits. Shirtwaist 03:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hold off until they make a telemovie about her. No, wait - they've done that already. StAnselm (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is asinine. An administrator needs to just pull the trigger already and create the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn I thought about closing it now, rather than giving an opinion, but opinion seems still to be divided beyond what I would have expected. My own opinion is that WP:CRIME is inapplicable because of one key word in the first sentence of that guide "normally". There is now much more than "normal" coverage of someone accused of a crime. BLP is irrelevant: how any one can think anything written on Wikipedia can give her prominence more than is already the case seems remarkably absurd. But I will say the the people wanting to have this article to do justice to her are just as absurd now as before the appeal. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. The people opposing the separate article are in my opinion just as absurd--they're using narrow interpretations of flexible rules to try to defeat common sense. BTW, we do need a decision here to have a separate article, since the redirect is protected, Nobody can "just go ahead and make an article". Del Rev is an appropriate place to deal with special cases like this. The applicable principle is NOT OSTRICH, a different meaning from the current WP:OSTRICH, which I think would be better called THINK FIRST. I mean here, not hiding ourselves from what the world thinks is obvious. the absurdity is indicated by the fact that a film with the tile beginning Amanda Know... is clearly notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment about the film title, above. It almost supports the redirect - Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial - "The murder on trial" is exactly the article where "Amanda Knox" redirects. The movie's very title seems to suggest that Knox is notable only for her involvement in the events discussed in the redirect article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DGG - According to WP:DRV, there are only four possible decisions here: Endorse the original closing (or redirect) decision, Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion), List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted, and Overturn the original decision (remove the redirect) and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. So I believe your opinion that "there needs to be a separate article" would fall under "Overturn", correct?
Since you think a separate article is necessary, I'll ask you a question someone asked earlier: "Is there notable, encyclopedic material about the subject that doesn't belong on the page about the case?" For clarity, this was the last version of the "Amanda Knox" article before it was protected and redirected, and this is a proposed version of a new article. Do you see anything in either of those versions that warrants a separate article, and wouldn't fit easily into the MOMK article (anything that isn't already there, I mean)? Shirtwaist 08:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, technically it's "overturn"--and that's what i said in bold face at the beginning of the comment. But Del Rev has always considered itself able to reach whatever conclusions suits the merits of the case, and you will find a very high proportion of closes which are variants of the ones you list. This is usually considered an administrative process and as a final review process receiving broad attention in the community, it's in an excellent position to apply NOT BURO and IAR when needed--much more so than an individual admin would ever be. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm sure you have much more experience with DRV than I, all I have to go on is reading the policy itself. But I'm interested to hear your answer to my questions above regarding a separate article. Shirtwaist 18:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the material at Murder of Meredith Kercher, about Knox & Sollecito and their trials, imprisonment, appeals, does not belong there. If these people didn't do it, then the content does not relate directly to the murder or to Kercher. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that is taking a very narrow view of "related" Information about a person formally accused of a crime with respect to their background as well as their claimed connection to the crime is information related to the crime. All the more so when there's been a conviction followed by a reversal on appeal. Other than a work discussing purely the technical legal aspects, writing about the rime or the trial necessarily involves information about the participants. We do not make a judgement about who committed the crime. We report the verdict(s) and the commentary on the trial and the verdicts. The basic information therefore about all the participants belongs in the article. In the case of this particular individual, the amount of information and commentary is so great as to provide justification for a separate article also. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW the proposed version is just the last version sans the AfD template and quickly scanned for BLP violations (e.g. updated to say she had been acquitted). As an uninvolved editor who was just looking for information about this notable young woman untainted by the murder I'd be equally happy with a stub. -- samj inout 13:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirected for now anyway. DGGs view covering the word "normally" has a certain persuasion about it, however from my view point much of the coverage and interest to date is part of the media/publicity campaign still centred around the crime. If over the coming months Knox stands back from the public aspect of this and chooses to disappear into obscurity then realistically she will on long term notability be just be an "actor" in the criminal case, the BLP argument will have teeth. On the other hand if the publicity is maintained and Knox actively participates in that, then a standalone article is completely reasonable. i.e. up to this point the person in question has had limited influence in their public profile --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- currently a disgrace to Wikipedia. From WP:BLP1E: "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Amanda Knox's trial, appeal, and life have been persistently covered in the media since the murder four years ago. The fact that there is no "Amanda Knox" article makes me lose faith in Wikipedia. Westeros1994 (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to get one shortly, so knock it off. –MuZemike 13:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am worried by the new inefficiency of the usual meatpuppets on this issue - a whole two days to turn up en masse? You've usually been quicker than that. I'm disappointed in you, fellas. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think she ticks any of the usual meat sock activist boxes any more - shes free, announced not guilty so all those supporters are already satisfied, they care if she is free, not if she has a website biography. Shes not from new york and shes not LGBT or Jewish, so all you have left is run of the mill users that think she is notable enough for her own article or as a minimum - the removal of the redirect and a stub as suggested for BLP considerations considering the not guilty of the murder she is currently directed to . Off2riorob (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would we want to delete 130 articles on female murderers because there's a dispute whether someone who apparently isn't a murderer is notable or not? I have no idea what you mean with your snarky remark about "the spirit of Wikipedia", which I'll just ignore - but I'll give you an example of why such people may not be automatically notable. Search for Myra Hindley - probably the most famous British murderess ever, and see where it takes you. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the first time I have ever seen the {{R protected}} template, so before you hint at any bad faith over a technicality; also, I tend to look at the database reports on stuff like that, such as Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely fully protected articles (in which the redirect is listed) as that is automatically-generated and much less prone to human error. –MuZemike 13:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirected. I seem to be in the minority on this one, but I'm with Errant above - 'nothing good could come from the fork'. While I don't believe policy forbids a separate article on Knox, it would raise potentially serious BLP issues, and I believe we'd be better off keeping the coverage of her as a subsection of the main article. In general, having separate articles on living people accused or convicted of serious crimes strikes me as a bad idea, especially when they were wrongly convicted. (Although the case was markedly different, I'd like to note that we don't have a separate article on Casey Anthony, and nor should we - and that trial was almost as well publicised as this one.) I just don't think a separate article in this case is likely to serve Wikipedia: what additional material should it contain that isn't in the main article already? Robofish (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my article outline above for information on what info would be in a Knox article that isn't in the MoMK one, and for my reasons that this would make both article better, and better serve the readers here.LedRush (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having an actual example of a proposed article, such as was done here, would serve your argument better than showing us a mere outline. So far, Samj's is the only proposed article presented so far, and even that is identical to the target itself with the exception of the latest event in the case. Shirtwaist 18:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the proposed article faces continued attacks from people who think the topic is undeserving, I doubt it makes sense to spend 20 hours making an article against which some people are entrenched regardless of content. Surely we should be able to discuss the concepts, agree in principle, and then implement the agreement.LedRush (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments exist as part of Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher#Split apart sections of the article into Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, hereUnscintillating (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing to create an article on permanent full protect? Or else what's the point of creating it as a stub? --FormerIP (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry guys, I'm not seeing this. All the coverage we have is still about Knox in the context of the murder trial, which to me is still only one event despite having gone through several different phases. That said, the trial seems to be notable independently of the murder, so keep redirected but create an article on Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (not Trial of Amanda Knox, which would only be half the story). Alzarian16 (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that if this article is to not be remade that a article should be made for the trail which is notable enough for a stand alone article at this time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I'm not convinced that any split to the existing article is needed at all, this proposal makes a million percent more sense. The problem with Kercher/Knox is that it seems like two rival titles for exactly the same article. Spinning off the trials from the wider story would give a much clearer sense of two distinct articles where certain information clearly belongs here and other information clearly belongs there. --FormerIP (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe I stated that a long way up the page. That is clearly the way to go until the appeals are settled. The hagiographies can wait. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe this course would doesn't accomplish much. (1) It still doesn't provide a reader with access to the notable biographical information that one would expect on Knox (please see my suggested outline above); (2) The separation between a Knox and MoMK trial is much, much cleaner and clearer than the separation of MoMK and a Trials article. Point #2 probably resonates more with Black Kite and FormerIP, so I'll focus on that. The trials are inextricably linked to the murder, and I don't think you can tell the story of one without telling how the stories formed in the trials. The same is not true for Knox. You can provide very brief summaries of the trials in the knox story (with links to MoMK) while still give the other biographical information about her. You could even (and I believe it would be preferable to) break out the Knox specific trials and deal with them primarily in the Knox article, with only brief mentions in the MoMK trial (seeing as they aren't as directly related to the underlying event. I feel like much of the resistance to a Knox article is based on inertia. This is an opportunity to make the MoMK much better, in addition to providing an article that many readers simply expect to find on an encyclopedia.LedRush (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not correct, though. If you have an MoMK article with a paragraph summary of the trials and then spinoff articles, you know where you are. If you have one article for MoMK and one for AK, you have great difficulty in deciding what information goes where, because its only common sense that all information should go in both. --FormerIP (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. I said that the MoMK article would have the main story of the murder trials, but that the other, smaller trials which aren't covered deeply and which don't directly relate to the murder would go to Knox's biographical article (as it directly related to Knox, and not the murder). There is a very clear line of where info would go, and it should be quite easy to separate. The opposite is true if you try and separate one of the main murder trials from MoMK while leaving another in there. You simply cannot tell the story of the murder and subsequent trials that way.LedRush (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. There's practically nothing notable about Knox that isn't to do with the murder and trial. Which means that all the information belongs there, and it would be duplicated. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is my point. My proposed Knox article would be almost entirely information that is not directly related to the murder, which should be the main focus of the MoMK article. As explained, there is nothing that would be duplicated, and the process of splitting what would go where is as simple as can be. The opposite is true if you present a Knox Trial article, which would directly conflict with the MoMK one, be incredibly messy, and not include the other biographical information about Knox covered heavily in Reliable Sources and typically used in every other biography of this sort.LedRush (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is suggesting splitting a "Knox Trial" article from the MoMk article. That would make no sense at all. Ask yourself this: Would anyone even consider creating an article on Knox if she was not involved in the murder case? As has been pointed out numerous times here, Knox has done absolutely nothing to date worthy of note no matter how many sources talk about her (irrelevant) background. Therefore, the appropriate place for any sourced info about her is in the MoMK, which as some here have suggested, should probably be renamed "Trials of Knox and Sollecito" or some such. Shirtwaist 21:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are many people suggesting just that, both here and on the MoMK article page. I agree it doesn't make sense. No matter how many times you state that Knox hasn't done anything notable outside of the murder, you're can't change the fact that the media is paying attention to it, independent of the murder. The interest in her for the rest of her life will always come back to the murder, but the reason she remains notable is a compiliation of many events. Just as we would never follow the details of Elizabeth Smart if she wasn't a kidnapping victim, or Chelsea Clinton if she wasn't part of the first family. But they are, and we do. The same is true of Knox. She was involved in the murder, and now even the unrelated activities she engages in are notable. So, now we have all this notable information that simply doesn't belong in a MoMK article (as her side trials don't belong, either). It makes no sense to deny the readers of Wikipedia the encyclopedic content they would expect. Furthermore, there is no policy justification for such denial.LedRush (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2011(UTC)
You're overlooking two very important facts re: Smart and Clinton - after their respective events, they both have actively sought media attention, and they have both done notable things independent of the original events. It is much too soon after the fact for Knox to have done either of those. As for your last point, the fact that we are discussing this at DRV as a result of an AfD decided primarily, according to the closing admin, on WP:BLP1E, WP:POVFORK, and WP:ITSNOTABLE seems to refute your argument. Shirtwaist 00:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is simply not true about Smart (and doesn't seem likely to be true about Clinton, either). Smart's activities simply would not be notable if not for her kidnapping. Furthermore, Knox holds press conferences, gives interviews, and has actively sought the media attention for almost four years, and after release it has not slowed.
  • Comment It occurred to me that the real focus of all the attention generated by this case really has very little to do with Amanda Knox. The real center of attention is the ineptness and apparent malfeasance of the prosecution in the original trial, and it's effect on an apparently innocent girl and her boyfriend. This could've happened to anyone, but the fact that it happened to a sweet and innocent American girl instead of a local one was the twist. Kercher's death was tragic, but frankly, nobody cares that Guede was justly convicted and sent to prison for it. The important aspects of this story are the murder, accusation, trial, conviction, and overturning of same. Amanda Knox's only notability stems from the fact that she got caught up in this unholy mess, not that she herself or the attention piled onto her by the eager press is necessarily "notable". Every bit of coverage Knox got stemmed directly from the murder and it's consequences, so why would such a person who is absolutely non-notable - except for her involvement in the case - need a separate article? The answer, to me, is clearly "she doesn't". The fact that a book is being used to demonstrate her notability, written by someone who resembles a stalker who describes dreams he's had of him and Amanda Knox, is laughable. Therefore, I would agree with those proposing that MoMK be called Trial of Amanda Knox or something similar, as the murder, while important, seems to be far overshadowed by that circus of a trial and it's subsequent appeal. When Knox does something herself worth noting (i.e. not getting caught up in something else), she'll deserve a separate article. Until then, everything currently notable about her can easily fit into the current article. Shirtwaist 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are the 10s of thousands of articles that discuss her and the trial. I could probably find you 10s or 100s that discuss her separately from the trial (but lack of coverage isn't really what people don't like about a separate article, so it's not worth the trouble). But, the book is shorthand for extreme notability. Having an entire book about a subject is about as good as it gets. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But "extreme notability" is not a concept that WP has, just notability, then BLP1E and CRIME. This is comparable to Casey Anthony or Myra Hindley, which have not been split off on the grounds of extreme notability. --FormerIP (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Casey Anthony redirect is (in my opinion) a IAR situation where people hate tabloid journalism so much, that even when picked up by 1000s of non tabloid articles, they are willing to go against policies and guidelines. Never heard of the other. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not IAR. It's what you do when you take an objective look at policy rather than getting overexcited because something dominated the news for a couple of days. --FormerIP (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think multiple years is a couple of days, then you should just invoke IAR. No reason for so much intellectual contortion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Remove Redirect I am AGAINST any redirect for the name Amanda Knox to be lead to the murder that she was acquitted of. Typing Amanda Knox should bring up an article about HER or her wrongful conviction. I favor an article Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. If someone does a search for Meredith Kercher it should go to the MOMK page. There could be links on each seperate article to eachother. In the Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito article there could be a link - to learn more about the Murder of Meredith Kercher click here. On the MOMK article a link - to learn more about the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito click here. One example I could give for a similar article is ERIC VOLZ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Volz. Eric Volz was wrongfully convicted in Nicaragua and wrote a book about his experience. He has become an author and speaker against wrongful convictions. Eric's article is simply his NAME, instead of Wrongful Conviction of Eric Volz. It is a biography article and he is less famous. Amanda Knox from reports will also be writing a book about her experience. In reality I think we need two new ariticles Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. I think the priority should be on the article about the trial. If it is later deemed that she deserves a biography article also that could be created. The redirect for her name to the MOMK article should be removed though. She is acquitted and her name should not be directed to MOMK.Issymo (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a redirect of "Amanda Knox" to a new article Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito would lead to an encyclopedic viewpoint.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On that note I have added the proposed split to Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher#Split apart sections of the article into Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and write a good article under a title that doesn't confuse our readers. I don't see the need to rehash the arguments above. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A 'good' article is the sticking point for me here. I don't see any benefit in undeleting this article as it was, with its photos of flower-picking maidens etc, it actually held little of any value which is not in the Murder of ... article.  pablo 08:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • and that is why I never make policy decisions about what might ... whatever you said. I don't think so anyway!
    I still cannot see, however, that there is a viable non-stub, independent of the murder for which Knox was arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced, jailed, successfully appealed and was ultimately released. Even with the side-trips of the defamation trial etc. Young people don't tend to have done a lot of stuff that's interesting. However, good luck with it.  pablo 15:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rough count: Over 70% in favour of overturning. There is obviously no consensus to delete/exclude this article at all, she is extremely notable and everyone knows it. No relevant policy has been cited which supports the exclusion of this article. It has been thoroughly demonstrated that she is notable and covered by reliable sources such as dozens of biographies/books and even a film, and sustained media coverage for four years now. I suggest we just go ahead and create it, and if someone disagrees, they can take it to AfD. Mocctur (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle's Big Blog with a porn industry comment about AK is hardly encyclopedic material, and there are other blogs here.  The issue is WP:RECENTISM and historical perspective.  There is no deadlineUnscintillating (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am amazed at the sophistry of those arguing "keep the MOMK article as-is". Please allow me to explain: Thousands of people are murdered year in and year out. And regarding the unfortunate Meredith, there was nothig particularly notable about her murder, per se. She was a pretty British student, brutalized and killed in a horrible manner, while studying overseas. Do these facts alone make her notable? No. What brought this issue to notability were the extreme and salacious allegations heaped primarily on Amanda Knox. The notablility of the trial itself only arose because a buffoon of a prosecutor chose to advance an absurdly unsubstantiated theory of the case. A theory so bizzare that when it was tagged on Amanda (a pretty American student) with allegations of perverted sex crime thrown in, well there's your notability. The issue is not that Meredith was murdered, but that the focus was so wrongly placed in a wild and false manner on innocent people. This case is notable because it was essentially a witch hunt. Amanda and her boyfriend were scapegoated by buffoons who had preposterous thinking instead of valid evidence. There was no valid or effective police work actually done here. None of the evidence pinned on Rafael or Amanda was valid at all - and the appeals court said so. The major story here is what happened to the innocent people, not what happened to the deceased. Those who've been against an Amanda article in favor of the MOMK article are adulating poor Meredith's death. She doesn't deserve to be known for her murder only. Meredith perhaps should have a page, an actual page. But Amanda, upon whom most of the attention and notability has been focused, should definately have one too. The sad conclusion of the intersection of their lives has made them both notable. Limiting their stories solely to a killing - because one was murdered and the other falsely accused of it, is absurd. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - It has become apparent by now that people have been focusing on Knox's personal life beyond her involvement in the Kercher case. At this point, the information on Knox has clearly outgrown WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME such that the time has come to fork some of the material on the main Kercher page into a separate page about Knox herself, since content about Knox herself is now occupying a very significant portion of the page. I understand that Knox herself may or may not be happy about us writing about her personal life, but even if she were to intervene herself, I seriously doubt we could delete an article on her - just like we can't delete articles of world leaders, celebrities, etc. upon the subjects' requests. When I go to Google to look up information about her, I am far more likely to type in her name rather than Kercher's name - in fact, Knox's name generates more than six times the Google hits of Kercher's name, which should definitely say something. TML (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus in the discussion. The BLP1E policy was not decisive because it clearly allows for separate coverage when the individual is prominent, as in this case. This point was made during the discussion and the closer failed to acknowledge it. Warden (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Not really overturn: I don't give a crap what the consensus was over a year ago, which I assume was correctly assessed by the closing admin; it shouldn't bind us now. BLP1E says "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented a separate biography may be appropriate." She has well and truly passed this point. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the appeal to BLP1E in this case is a prime example of how that policy is fallacious. Amanda Knox is now notable on her own right above and beyond that of the simple murder. The subsequent coverage, acquital, and release make her notable. Her role and history have been covered in such detail that limiting the article to an article on the murder of somebody she was acquitted of killing is a complete and utter joke. This is one of those cases where we need an article on the subject.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see that a user has created Timeline of the Amanda Knox case, which may or may not have an effect on any future split of the main article and/or a BLP on Knox. I can't help feeling this might benefit from more (or indeed any) discussion, or at least someone really familiar with the sources to go through it. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with the title TMKMC because the word "Case" can refer to multiple things from a single trial to the entire universe of things that are even tangentially related to the murder. Suggest rename. What was wrong with Trials of AK and RS? Brmull (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The close reflected the quality of the policy-based arguments put forward in the AfD. Nothing more can be asked of a closing admin. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is hardly the point. The last AfD took place more than a year ago; this discussion is not focused on whether the AfD then was correct or not. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That actually makes this a very simple process... recreate the article. Include the stuff that has occurred over the past year (namely the overturn of the conviction, release, and subsequent coverage of Amanda Knox, along with any political fallout stemming from this case) and you now have a new article that is not covered by the original AFD. In order for the AfD from a year ago to apply today, the article has to be essentially the same, covering the same material/subject.... but a lot has happened since then to give Amanda independent Notability. If somebody were to speedy delete an article recreated with the new information, then they would be in violation of policy!---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since the overturn of the conviction and release belong in this article, and subsequent coverage of Knox which amounts to video of her leaving prison and giving a brief press conference upon her arrival home, which is little more than a footnote to MoMK, what would be the point of creating a content fork which would inevitably lead to a merge? An AK article needs to wait for her to do something worth noting. Shirtwaist 20:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, having two lookalike boyfriends, going on a brief shopping trip, being sexually harassed. I hadn't seen it until now, but clearly these things do constitute independent notability. After all, we give an article to everyone else who goes shopping, so why not Amanda Knox? --FormerIP (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not for us to decide what is "worthy of notice" — the fact is that multiple independent reliable sources have given her significant coverage independent of MoMK. -- samj inout 21:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weakly support redirect for now While some people have outlined other information about Knox here, it is almost completely in the context of the trial or due to related issues. If that coverage continues then it might make sense to have an article on her. The ideal thing for now might be to have a redirect a separate article Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. This would likely be ideal since there's clearly enough information about the trial and appeals itself to merit its own article. If further sources do come out later about her in a context that is minimally connected then it may at that time make more sense to have a separate biography. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, if nothing else per WP:COMMONSENSE. StAnselm (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I supported a separate article for Knox from the beginning. But now consider, apart from the murder:
  • Criminal libel case against Amanda Knox - up to 6 years in prison - for alleging police brutality and not being able to name the cop from among the officers they decided to show her.
  • Criminal libel case against Amanda Knox's parents for their interview in the Sunday Times - something which on its own should be of great relevance for Wikipedians in light of the it.wikipedia boycott (see Village Pump).
  • "Trick" where prison authorities told Knox she had HIV in order to get her to name her sexual partners, which were then leaked to the tabloids to help paint her as a sex freak.
  • Various commercial deals, movie, and lawsuits.
Every celebrity gets famous for one thing, but they don't remain BLP1Es for ever. Any one of these things should be enough to count as a second event. Wnt (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Facepalm (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Completely out of process deletion, almost the personal whim of the admin concerned, no prior discussion, nothing. Should be overturned immediately. Is this the 2nd or 3rd time? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion and allow for a TfD. Repeated IAR deletions of a goofy template? That's not on. Yes, it may seem like this template fails on the civility front, but the concept of facepalming is well known to be a funny reaction to something stupid (we can't deny stupid things do go on, right?) and so long as the use of the facepalm template are done within the context of a pre-established consensual relationship between friends, I don't see what the problem is. Imagine: an admin I know in real life (from our monthly London pub meetups) does something stupid, and so I go to his talk page and leave a facepalm. Just like we do with {{Trout}}. If people use it to bite the newbies then discipline them for doing that, but don't take fun away from established users because it might be abused. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Funny and harmless. I've used it and I've had it used on me. No big deal. Frequently used toward oneself. Basically a visual "D'oh!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots13:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion - speedily - I think the pretty much inactive user User:Stephen Bain has no good reason to have the tools anymore also, this without discussion admin action (soon to be speedily overturned) was apart from one deletion of his own creation , his only admin action for over two years. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template ought to die (TfD or otherwise). According to our article Facepalm, this is "an expression of embarrassment, frustration, disbelief, disgust, shame or general woe. It often expresses mockery or disbelief of perceived idiocy." This does nothing to foster civil discourse among Wikipedians. I've just looked through how it is being used, and whilst I do see the occasional use in self-deprecation, generally it is used as a shorthand put-down (=incivility) implicitly calling your correspondent an idiot, and his latest contribution self-evidently moronic. Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient and constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless delete {{jackass}} or {{moron}}. If people are going to mock others, we shouldn't be giving them shortcuts to do so. The existence of the template serves to legitimise such dismissive discourse. The fact that people see no harm in this shows how much we've grown to tolerate ingrained incivility. There is simply no excuse for this.--Scott Mac 14:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I can't see how the consensus was to delete. The closing admin has called it a redirect (though that wasn't mentioned in the discussion) and has explained here that he thought the consensus was to delete. But I think it should be undeleted (or unredirected) since there was no consensus to delete. StAnselm (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was one of the Delete people in the original discussion, and I think the closing admin made a sensible decision here. There were three users who argued for deletion and three for keeping the article, but none of the keepers provided any sources. One of the Keeps suggested that a Merge may be appropriate, while the other two argued that as a Denomination this group is automatically notable. I don't think the denomination rule is officially part of a guideline, and in my opinion it is a bit a of a stretch to call a group of four churches a "denomination" anyway. So, I think the closing admin gave the proper weight to the opinions offered in the discussion. (Maybe it should have been deleted first and then redirected though.) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin: It really doesn't matter if it has four churches or four hundred. What it needs is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and instead of coming up with specific sources the "keep" !voters just waved their hands and said they exist. -- King of 18:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirect A redirect was the most reasonable close. I tend to be very accepting of articles of churches and political parties, because of the great value in preserving the information. But there were no actual third party sources, & the redirect preserves the information for use if there should be any found. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirect per User:DGG's argument above. -- samj inout 21:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Sterrettc's !vote was blind to applicable inclusion standards. St Anselm called for inherent notability, which is fine, but calls for inherent notability need consensus support, and this didn't have it. Peterkingiron called for improvements to be made in sourcing but doesn't give a scintilla of evidence to suggest that such improvements were possible. The three delete !votes on the other hand pointed to the applicable inclusion standard (WP:GNG) and gave evidence why it wasn't met. It was more than open for the debate to be closed in the way it was. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.