Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 2012 Deletion review archives May 2012 >

30 April 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1966) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Also listed

And added out of process

The deletion debate consisted primarily of two arguments. Firstly that the pages had little content, and secondly that they were wrongly named.

By the time of the closure 16 of the 29 articles had been completed,with 13 either completed, incomplete, or possibly not started. Therefore this was no longer a valid reason for deletion (if indeed it ever was).

Naming is never a reason for deletion - certainly there is a case to be made for renaming or merging these articles, I have no problem with that.

It appears that the closing admin looked at the consensus, which was formed before the articles were populated, and used that for his decision.

For that reason, I ask that the deletion be overturned. Rich Farmbrough, 23:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

  • Endorse own close and direct Rich to WP:SPIDERMAN. I thought Rich here was under some sort of editing restricrtion now that prevents him from creating these type of articles, it may be a violation of those restrictions to attempt to recreate these. I also wonder why he waited over a year to challenge this decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, according to the listing at WP:RESTRICT:

Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented. The definition of "mass creation" and the spirit of the restriction follows Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation.

Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Do you have anything to add that is actually about the deletion, rather than about me? Rich Farmbrough, 01:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
When you constantly cause the same problem you may find that discussions tend to focus on you. By my read you have violated the terms of your editing restrictions and I would advise you to either withdraw this review or ask someone else to take over for you. Other than that, no I don't have anything to add beyond my statement when making the close last year. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is a violation of the editing restrictions. Under the restrictions RF is not allowed to mass-create pages (which he hasn't done), unless the community agrees he can. This DRV is quite obviously a request to get community approval, so it's actually explicitly permitted under the terms of the editing restrictions. Reyk YO! 05:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen, with a view to keeping. The original discussion was deeply unsatisfactory, with essentially no detailed discussion of the central issue here: whether the detailed information in these articles is worth having. The appropriate close would have been to re-list for further discussion. That the only real issue discussed seems to have been whether the articles were appropriately named is frankly bizarre. The subject matter may seem esoteric, but these were the major awards made by government in the UK to encourage industry at the time, so I can see that there might well be historical enquirers who could find value in these lists, e.g. to see what was considered flagship industry at the time, and value in making them readily accessible by search engines. Looking at e.g. the page for 1966, there seems to be more information here than would be amenable to merging all the years into a single mega-page; and the systematic presentation appears to work well with the table at Queen's_Award_for_Export#Recipients -- compared to the cherry-picked list with no apparent robust selection criteria. It would also appear that in some cases the lists may have additional value as tracking pages, to help identify some historically significant companies that ought to have pages but currently lack them. So I think there may be reasonable grounds for keeping; and more fundamentally the original AfD seems to have been conducted without any serious examination for or against such grounds, and indeed so far as I can see not even a reference at all to any completed page. For all of these reasons therefore, relist for a new AfD. Jheald (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What we have here is a deletion that's really based on a judgment about the user's previous behaviour rather than the content to be deleted. I'm reluctant to disturb the outcome of the historic discussions because I can see a genuine consensus to delete therein. However, I'm equally reluctant to deny Rich Farmborough the opportunity to create content. What I'll say is that we should endorse the AfD closures but permit creation of fully-fleshed-out, well-referenced articles with those titles. Because of his editing restrictions, Rich Farmborough should work on them in his userspace until they are fully-fleshed-out and well-referenced. Additionally, if he's going to use article titles rather than list titles, then each article must contain some prose.—S Marshall T/C 07:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, the awards titles and division created by Rich Farmbrough here is completely his own fabrication, until 1975 only one award existed, from 1976 to 1992 two awards existed, and only from 1993 on there were three of them. This is explained in detail at the original AfD. Why he still wants to recreate these incorrect ones is not easily understandable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 09:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would appear to be an argument for mergers to more appropriate titles, or simply renaming, rather than outright deletion. The export page for 1966, for example, contains considerable content. Are you proposing this content should be removed outright, or merely that the page title is incorrect?
    Also, it would appear from the separate export page for 1966 Export, Technology, and dual basis pages, that these categories were distinguished in 1966, even if not as separate awards under their later titles. Jheald (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    These pages were distinguished in 1966 by Rich Farmbrough, not by any reliable source. At the time of the deletion nomination of the original AfD, all these articles were empty: Rich Farmbrough, despite knowing that he had invented the divisions and names for the awards, then proceeded to fill some of them from what is basically the only source for them, the London Gazette (raising the issue of notability of this award). After the AfD ended, he hasn't continued filling any of the reaming post-1976 articles with content, which makes me wonder why he wants to resurrect these instead of first perhaps focusing on the ones he created but then abandoned as empty shells. Anyway, if he or anyone else wants the content userfied to create correct articles for them (correct titles, groupings, ...), and only creates articles with actual content, then I have no objection to that. But recreating these in their completely incorrect form (correctly deleted at AfD) is useless and is knowingly preesnting false information. Fram (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most deleted Overturning is fine for those that actually had content, but stuff like [1] should remain deleted. Personally, I think all those Queen's Award articles should just be moved to RF's userspace. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist How to handle this material needs further discussion and this is not the place. (as for page titles and organization, since there is too much for one article, I'd merge all the awards by year. The distinctions can go in the table.) DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In retrospect I'd be inclined to create yearly articles, and not only do I have no objection to a sensitive merge to yearly articles, I will probably it myself at some point, unless someone gets there first. Rich Farmbrough, 05:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    • Relist for what reason? What was wrong with the AfD? An AfD shouldn't be overturned because you feel the outcome was not to your liking, but because the closer made a policy error or because new information has come to light. The only new information since the earlier AfD is that in the year and a few months since, Rich Farmbrough hasn't made any effort to turn the later award articles (post 1976) into actual articles, which is the reason those are up for AfD now. Why would we resurrect these if there is evidence that they'll probably lay abandoned anyway? Fram (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. No opinion about the merits, but participation was sufficient and the consensus for deletion was rather clear. I note with surprise that Rich Farmbrough has himself undeleted these article for this DRV request, a use of administrator tools that I find questionable. Because DRV evaluates deletion procedure rather than the merits of an article, undeletion is not normally necessary for DRV.  Sandstein  04:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn but allow relisting at AfD - Content value: The close stated, "The creator of these articles is the only user participating here who sees any merit to them." That is not true. Polyamorph wanted to merge the non-empty articles into one list. Sharktapus felt that one single list article is plenty. I'm not sure if they meant merge each set of three into one list or all content into one list, but either way, they saw value in the content. Defective nom: Some of the articles supposedly were empty, but agreeing to merge empty articles is a fault of the AFD nomination by intermixing articles that are not similarly situated. The AfD also was defective by the late addition of nominated articles after others have commented. Circumstance change during AfD: Content was added to the articles during the AfD and there was little, if any, discussion regarding that. Lists: These articles were lists and there was little, if any, discussion in the AfD regarding Wikipedia:List#Purposes of lists, which should have been discussed. Notability: There was little, if any, discussion on Notability, which would seem a decent deletion argument (but see List of group-0 ISBN publisher codes) Irreparable: Mostly, no one argued WP:BLOWITUP - that the pages were so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over. In fact, Rich Farmbrough noted that he created these articles because, "These pages were created precisely because the "single list article" was a mess." Deletion arguments: The deletion arguments seem closer to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions than consensus building and thus were weak. Behavior: Deleting articles at AfD because of behavior is an acceptable reason for deletion. The nomination should have provided a clear connection between these articles and any sanctions Rich Farmbrough is under or better articulated how Rich Farmbrough's previous behavior justifies deleting these set of article in the collective. (For example, there was no diff to support the late AfD assertion that, "the ANI section about your actions that these articles had incorrect names.") The deletion arguments seem to allude to deleting because of Rich Farmbrough's general behavior, but the reasoning wasn't clear. The AfD claim that, "note the nominator has been trying to persuade an editor to stop supplying content, on the grounds that the article is at afd," was not supported by a diff. Overturn only since reopening would reopen a defective AfD nom. Allow immediate relisting at AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Defective nom? Please indicate which articles were not empty at the time of the nomination. Note that Rich Farmbrough had left these articles empty for months (despite removing a prod on them), but rushed to fill some of them during the nomination, no matter that at that time (if not much earlier) he should have been aware that the awards names and division were his own invention and didn't correspond to reality. As for the rest of your arguments: are you sure you were reading the same AfD? The articles were nominated for deletion because a) they were empty (and had been for months) and b) they were put in lists named and divided by the creator's own invention, not by the actual names and divisions of these awards (a bit like someone putting the Oscar nominations for best movie into two categories, "Drama" and "Comedy"). I summarized this in the last line of the nomination: "incorrect, mostly empty articles created in violation of policy"; which of these three is not a valid reason for deletion? As for the ANI discussion, it was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/January 2011#Please just indef block him until some indication that things will really change. Fram (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read the 24 January 2011 nom as indicating that the September 2010 unauthorized bot creations were empty, but four months later, the initial AfD participants seem to indicate that not all were empty as of the 24 January 2011 nom. Some of the article were improved during the AfD, which wasn't really discussed in the AfD. They were significantly improved (maybe or maybe not for the better), but that needed to be discussed. The 3 articles for one topic is annoying, but can be fixed via other than deleting all the articles where an editor who created the articles is in good standing. On the other hand, I didn't notice until now that we at DRV are discussing an AfD that occured more than a year ago. As for the ANI discussion you noted, it merely was a discussion, not a consensus for taking the action sought at AfD (or the AfD didn't make it clear). Coincidentally, an article came out this week in the Signpost about Rich Farmbrough, Proposed decision in Rich Farmbrough, two open cases. You may want to try to get a decision in the Arbitration final decision to the effect that 'Rich Farmbrough no longer is entitled to the benefit of Assume good faith in xxx.' Then, an argument that the three articles for one topic were created in good faith need not be given weight by a closer at AfD (or elsewhere). At WP:COIN, a similar shift happens when an editor is deemed to have a conflict of interest. Once an editor is deemed to have a conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest operates to shift the weight argument away from the COI editor under certain circumstances, which makes it much easier to deal with their COI edits. A problem with the 24 January 2011 AfD was that it in part wanted to delete the articles based on Rich Farmbrough's behaviors. Without a consensus decision on which to act, Rich Farmbrough is entitled to assume good faith and his arguments are given the same weight as any editor in good standing. And, if he has consensus sanctions against him, those have to be made clear at the AfD and the connection between those sanctions and the action requested at AfD have to be made clear. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. It's true that the articles were full by the end of the AfD, and that some comments didn't take this into account. However, the content was just lists with only one source each, and the same source is used for all the lists (the London Gazzette)[2][3][4]. These lists doesn't pass WP:GNG. See WP:NOTCATALOG, we don't list every recipient of every award. IMHO, the change in the contents doesn't justify making a different closure. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I see no reason to suggest that the closer mis-judged consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse For the same reasoning as Sandstein. MBisanz talk 22:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I also iVoted above) - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough was closed 19:39, 15 May 2012. While the remedies listed include a ban on Rich making automated edits, enforcement is limited to blocking Rich, not removing the edits. Also, oddly, no remedies were listed in the Rich Farmbrough arbitration regarding creating three different named articles for a single topic, creating empty articles, leaving articles empty for months (evidencing an intention to create multiple article pages and not provide minimum content). In short, it appears that arbitration has left the edits Rich makes in good standing and the arbitration outcome cannot be used as a basis to remove Rich's edits. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has anyone suggested this? We are discussing whether a deletion discussion of over a year ago, long before this ArbCom case, was closed correctly by the closing admin. You are making arguments which have little to nothing to do with this. Fram (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 April 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tori Black Is Pretty Filthy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

closed as keep by Scottywong - dependent on how major award is (User_talk:Scottywong#AfD_closure). There's no consensus on award issue (despite WP article on the awards as clearly noting how they are business promo awards in contrast to the Oscars), and no independent sources for award and despite these concerns about industry promotion awards. For this reason, inappropriately closed as keep instead of no consensus. "Spirit of advertising" argument is also not contended. Widefox (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist. S Marshall's analysis that no consensus was reached is, I think, clearly an accurate reading of the AFD discussion. There was no case made that the article subject, the porn video itself, satisfied the GNG; that the award it won might be notable isn't terribly relevant, because winning a notable award isn't itself sufficient to establish notability. The outcome rests entirely on the argument that the AVN award for "Best Gonzo Release" satisfied the WP:NFILM standard as a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" -- a novel claim that has never before been sustained in an AFD discussion (in previous discussions, so far as I can tell, only awards for overall "best of year" categories have been sustained, and the patterns on even those haven't been very strong). The closer's talk comment that "it's not a major award without discussing why is not a convincing argument" may be theoretically correct, but it's not a sufficient reason for a close when a participating editor -- in this case, moi -- has reviewed the reliable, independent/third party coverage of the specific award category and pointed out that there really isn't any. That, I believe, is a solid (and unrefuted) argument that the award fails the "major" standard in NFILMS which the closer overlooked, which should have required that discussion continue. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is that after a no-consensus close it's OK to start another AfD after a week or two; with a keep close it will usually get very adverse comment unless you wait at least a few months. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it was a pretty clear keep IMO, though NC would also have been quite reasonable. There is no real doubt it meets the SNG. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The AVN award for "Best Gonzo Release" is not a "major" award. It is not covered by independent reliable third party sources, like actual major awards are. Golden Globes, Oscars, Palm d' Or, and the like, are not just disclosed in industry rags and their own websites, but sourcable from unquestionably reliable publications. This is beyond the discretion of an AFD closer to close as keep. Seems like a supervote. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was a clear consensus in the discussion that the subject of the article meets our guideline for films and the closer correctly read it. As said by Milowent, a no consensus close was an option, but not required. And deletion reviews should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented during the debate. Cavarrone (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Not only was there consensus for this one, prior afds have also established that an AVN Award for a film was adequate to support notability [5][6]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cavarrone and Morbidthoughts: can you reason instead of stating? That's the problem with WP:OTHERSTUFF - it didn't take me long to also find the opposite for an AVN Award not being adequate (in deletion review) [7] [8]. (The bonus being none of my poor AfDs are involved) Widefox (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The two cases where an AVN wasn't sufficient, they were BLPs, there was just a single AVN award and a lack of secondary source material. In the kepted cases, including the one being discussed here, they are films (not biographies), there are multiple AVN awards, plus other nominations. The division between these groups is very wide. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. I agree BLPs have been deleted despite having AVN awards - none of this is relevant per WP:OTHERSTUFF 2. The argument was how major the Gonzo award is (not so much AVN in general) 3. The awards are the only notable things in this article as per "my spirit of advertising" argument - that has not been refuted AND it is covered by the essay WP:WINAC - "it may make sense to only have an article on the event awards and not have an article on the person movie at all." (strikethrough my own words) 4. the Gonzo awarded to this movie is not even listed in the award article AVN award (see 2. - although again technically WP:OTHERSTUFF means that's irrelevant). Widefox (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing at prior precedents set at AfD is not what WP:OTHERSTUFF is about. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 13:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Well within admin discretion. T. Canens (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, or relist The entire range of closures was within admin discretion on a cursory read. But AfD closure should be based on the strength of argument, not numbers and that requires more depth. The comment by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz destroyed any credibility this film had towards meeting the GNG. The keep contingent rests their entire argument on a single industry award in a minor category and never brought other GNG qualifiers to the discussion. Once Hullaballoo Wolfowitz destroyed that single claim the whole argument to keep falls apart. It doesn't matter how many of them show up to keep. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Endorse - close call between non consensus and keep, so well within admin discretion to close as keep. Rlendog (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2012 (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:Burgee of nyyc.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

It is my understanding that the New York Yacht Club has firmly requested their logo be removed a number of times in the past via OTRS. At Talk:New_York_Yacht_Club#Burgee_of_nyyc.svg it says: "This burgee is copyrighted by the NYCC and no permission is given for its use here. Please do not re-add. Permission must come in writing via the OTRS system. Per OTRS Ticket#2007120410011436. - JodyB" It is their Trademark, but per WP:LOGOS#Copyright-free logos it appears the copyright has expired, since item 1 says "if the logo was first published before 1923, it can be assumed to be public domain." At the NYYC website at [9] it states "The 1845 annual meeting at Windhams Tavern produced not only the first full slate of officers and the club burgee...". It seems that would make it a Trademarked/public-domain image and under WP:Logo Copyright/Trademark#Use of copyrighted or trademarked images on Wikipedia it says "Trademarked images on Wikipedia that do not rise to the level of copyright (i.e., "public domain" trademarks), are considered "free" content for licensing purposes." Even if there is some sort of copyright still in force, for fair use rationale, how is this any different than File:New_York_Jets_logo.svg for example? It seems this logo can be used on Wikipedia, at least in some circumstances. Is the OTRS action just an overzealous attempt at Trademark enforcement that the OTRS agent simply chose not to contest? Mojoworker (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without speaking to the substance of your request, this image hasn't ever been uploaded here, or at least not at this filename. You'll have to either contest it on Commons or upload it locally yourself. (The latter might make sense if Commons policy is more restrictive than enwiki's as regards to trademarks.) 74.74.150.139 (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 April 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2012 in UFC events (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I want to appeal the quick close of this deletion request, it was closed by Scottywong who has closed lots of the UFC requests (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 154,‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 152) so is not impartial regarding the attempt my mtking to delete the UFC pages. it should have been left open for the full week to allow for all the UFC fans who do not like what wikipedia is doing to the UFC pages a chance to comment and then for a neutral person to decide what is right. ScottMMA (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It's quite clear that this page has turned into an epic failure, even the page creator TreyGeek wants to have nothing to do with it anymore. The page is now too long and cluttered. This is what happens when hasty decisions are made by a few people who know very little about the subject at hand, in addition, all individual UFC related articles should restored to the old format that worked, and the administator only editing block undone, wiki is supposed to be by the people, not the staff. Glock17gen4 (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My desire to no longer be involved with the MMA article space or this article in particular has nothing to do with the state of the article. Rather, it is it the MMA fan community who attacks me, has outed me on multiple occasions and made off-wiki threats to track me down in real life that has cause me to want to leave the article space. It is not worth my sanity or safety to continue editing or being involved in this space. So, please do not use my "retirement" from the MMA article space as a reason or excuse to delete any articles. If you want to delete an article find a policy based reason. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Bad faith listing. This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome. Nothing mentioned above or in the procedure itself warrants overturning a proper closure. Two separate AfDs on this subject have both been closed as Speedy Keep within the last 30 days. No reason to doubt the good faith of either closing admin. Just because admin chose to close those procedures at variance with desired outcome is no reason for suggesting closer wasn't neutral on this process. BusterD (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It is rarely a good idea to do a speedy close on a controversial AfD -- the only result is to reopen the discussion here. I do not think this was a bad faith Deletion Review request--to object to a rapid closing is a reasonable thing to do.
As for the actual topic, the decisions at the various AfDs connected with UFC lately have been inconsistent, with the fans of the subject sometimes succeeding in getting an individual article kept in opposition to the general standard for such articles in sports. We do have the right to make whatever exceptions we please, but inconsistency to the extent now present damages the reputation of the encyclopedia and is getting disruptive. I think we need several binding rfcs: first, on whether we should change the notability guideline for sports to accept articles on individual highest-level competitions where there are sufficient references to satisfy the GNG (which will be most such competitions, because of the intense press coverage of all popular sports). second; , in case we maintain the present rule, that only exception individual events will have such articles, whether this particular sport should be an exception. And third, if we do not change the general rule, and this sport is not accepted as an exception, how we should handle the material on the individual events. (FWIW, I have a divided mind on the first question--I have little interest in such articles, but I think they are of some permanent interest to those who do; on the second, I definitely do not think this sport should have increased coverage here over other sports, no matter how well organized its fans here may be, and, if it doesn't I support such merged articles as the one under discussion. But it is up to the general community, whether to accommodate those with a special interest. -- whether we should do so generally for special interests is a much broader question). DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The thrust of the listing is an assertion that the closer holds some bias because that closer has tended to disagree with User:ScottMMA's desired outcomes in other procedures. For that reason, I hold this is a bad faith listing. After all, two separate procedures have been closed as Speedy Keep in four weeks. It's not just this closer. I pretty much agree with the take on the broader issues. The community needs to have a discussion to resolve how best to move forward in this content area. The socking and meatpuppeting in these AfDs has made reasonable discussion difficult. BusterD (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia coverage of UFC events is well-sourced and easy to read. Besides a bias against MMA or blatant deletionism, there is no reason to change the old format. Portillo (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse speedy keep. Previous AfD was speedily closed as "no policy-based arguments for deletion" were presented. So, less than a month later, it is renominated--for no policy-based reasons (no, the essay WP:COMMONSENSE is not a policy). --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the closing admin, I don't have much to say. My closing statement speaks for itself. I have closed a bunch of the UFC AfD's lately, but only because a bunch of them were started around the same time, and I happened to be closing a lot of AfD's from that day. I was not targeting them for any reason. However, after seeing the level of meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing that is going on (as evidenced by the "delete" votes at a DRV), I have been keeping a closer eye on this group of articles to ensure things don't get out of hand, and I will continue to do so. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 13:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This new omnibus format is not user friendly. The old style was significantly easier to navigate, contained more information, and allowed you to quickly find information you were looking for without sifting through a behemoth of an article. When the ominbussing occurs you either end up with a gigantic 2012 in UFC events that is way to big to use, or if you break it down by Numbered events and FX, Fox, and Fuel TV, you lose the chronology of the events which is actually extremely important when following. I sort of understand the idea behind the omnibus, but I maintain that it is ultimately degrades the quality of wikipedia's information on the UFC and its events. It make work well in other subjects, but it just doesn't as far as the UFC is concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.241.231 (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse. This was not actually a deletion request, but a proposal to break the group article up into a series of individual articles. It was therefore not appropriate to bring to AFD; it is simply a content dispute. The proposal was made as an effort to overturn the recently-demonstrated community consensus, established via several AFDs, to eliminate the individual articles. Since it simply reargued those discussions, it was not suitable either for AFD or for DRV. The suggestion that the closer of the first round of AFDs was not impartial is hopelessly groundless, especially in the absence of even a whiff of a reason to believe his reading of the community consensus was off-base. Wikipedia has more appropriate ways to resolve content disputes, which should not begin with such a pitched and confrontational stance. As for the substance, if the article is really an unmanageable behemoth, the problem rests with the overzealous fans who want to document events in unencyclopedic details; it is as though articles like 2008 Major League Baseball season included box scores for every game and summaries of hundreds of them. Bloated articles should be scaled down. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the nomination was not an attempt to get the article deleted but rather to split the article into sub-articles. The AfD process is not the right forum for this kind of request. Hut 8.5 21:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's DRV's role to see the deletion process is correctly followed. What we have here is a nomination that wasn't using the deletion process correctly, so we can only endorse. However, Scottywong is advised not to mistake the inevitable "endorse" outcome here as approval for him to appoint himself the UFC-related article police, as threatened above. Scottywong, if you're seeing puppetry and bad faith everywhere, then that's always a sign that it's time for you to step back and draw other admins' attention to the problem instead of dealing with it personally.—S Marshall T/C 22:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it's a sensitive situation, but there really is a coordinated, off-wiki effort to push an agenda with these articles. I have no personal interest in MMA or UFC at all, and I honestly couldn't care less if we had a separate article on every punch thrown at every UFC event (ok, well maybe that's not true). As someone who is familiar with the situation and the players at this point, I'm just keeping an eye on it from a distance. If you see me crossing a line, please be sure to let me know. (No threats intended in my original comment, btw.) ‑Scottywong| express _ 14:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason Scottywong is seeing puppetry and bad-faith everywhere is because it is everywhere in this mess of an area. We've already had clear evidence of off-wiki canvassing and socking on the AfDs. Black Kite (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the fact that other admins agree about that gives me more confidence that it's genuinely happening. My point is that where one admin does a lot of work in one topic area, this can lead to the appearance of a crusade or witch hunt and the consequent drama, accusations, etc., all of which are unnecessary—if you see an emergent problem, ask another admin to help.—S Marshall T/C 15:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If this is, at the core, a merge-vs-split editing argument being pointedly pursued at AfD, which it appears on the face of it to be, it's to my mind disruptive, and eligible for WP:SK 2(d), or close enough. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, though. --joe deckertalk to me 08:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The thing is that over the years many many MMA fans have built up the articles on Wikipedia to be really awesome sources of fight and event information. We've been using the single article format for years and have really done great work so far with it. All of a sudden a couple editors emerge who admittedly don't care at all about MMA and they want to turn everything upside for no apparent reason. That is why there is all this backlash. There is no legit reason why the single article structure isn't just fine and that is what the overwhelming majority of contibutors and users want to see/use. Pull lead (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
but neither the MMA fans do not get to decide the issue, but the whole community, and either deletion review or an rfc on the matter is where you will get the broadest participation. there is almost nothing at Wikipedia that everybody is interested in, and the community as a whole has a considerable, but not unlimited. tolerance for different fields of interest. My personal feeling is that the fans of this sport have gone over the limit of what the community will accept. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So because of an empassioned campaign, you automatically side with the opposition because of a personal issue with the way they rallied support? The "coordinated effort beyond the scope of wikipedia" is largely overstated and exaggerated anyway. We are taking it personally because we've put a ton of time and effort for years into creating the history of MMA in the best possible format on Wikipedia and have been allowed to do so unimpeded for years. Then all of a sudden people that don't even care about MMA barge in acting like a bunch of Wikipedia lawyers citing all these things that frankly no one that uses the MMA articles even care about. The bottom line is that we want an easy to use, easy to navigate, perfectly chronological event history that contains information beyond just who fought and the results. We've been compiling this well within the guidelines of what Wikipedia permits and no one had an issues for the past several years. You wouldn't consider it an affront when someone who spends the majority of his time editing America's Top Model pages rolls in and starts nominating tons of articles for deletion claiming they aren't relevant. A bit of hypocrisy, no? This reaction has been a response to a few guys turning everything we've worked on and rely on, the way we best can format it, around for no valid purpose. What did you think was going to happen? Pull lead (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pull lead, I totally agree with you, and I might know why this actually happened, this came out of the result of a AfD for UFC 140 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination)), in which the closing admin, User:Beeblebrox, 'decided' to result the AfD. Despite the overwhelming majority Keep votes, He decided to merge ALL UFC events into pages as his result, and the same admin has been keeping contact with TreyGeek since before that AfD and has been on a mission to 'honour' that 'result', and because of this I suspect possible foul play (if no evidence can be found on Wikipedia of any sort of interaction that could of lead to the 2012 in UFC events well before the result of the UFC 140 AfD, then perhaps off Wikipedia?). If anyone looks into the talk pages of users like Mtking, TreyGeek, and User:Beeblebrox, you will find that there is a strong enough connection to clearly see that User:Beeblebrox was the WRONG admin to close the AfD that has resulted in the mess called 2012 in UFC events due to the closeness to the users on the one side of the argument and might possibly felt the same way, hence he would decide on any result other than what was as clear as day on the AfD. For anyone curious about what I am saying, PLEASE, look this up, check their user pages and talk pages, there is, and has been a strong connection between these users since before this 'decision' to make a 'Year in' article. There is clearly something not right about this and I want an investigation on this, largely because a AfD was given a bad decision from an admin who was not neutral of the topic, who clearly has a side and choose to stick with it than go by what the consensus was and now it has resulted in this! 86.149.145.7 (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What we have here is a war between the lumpers and the splitters. Some editors like big, combined articles like 2012 in UFC events, and other editors like small, separate articles. The fashion in Wikipedia at the moment is towards merging things into large, long articles on the basis that it's easier for users to find content that way. Historically, the fashion used to be to divide things up into lots of little topics because those are easier for editors to write. Personalising it and making it about Mtking or Beeblebrox isn't really very fair. A better question is who should win: the people who seek consistency across topic areas, or the people who actually write content in this topic area? Personally, I tend to fall on the Editors Matter side of it and I don't see why a large-scale demerger would be such a big problem, but reasonable people can disagree on things like this.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly at this point I've lost my faith in the process and I've accepted the fact that I've wasted my time over the years here. My donation money from now on will be better spend somewhere else that isn't ruled by a roving gang of witch hunters. Since you guys sought mandatory to create this omnibus, I hope you at least will keep it as updated as we did because you are going to see a lot less MMA traffic now. See ya. Pull lead (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look, the page is already ridiculously long and disjointed. It's not even May yet. Even separating this into years will result in literally hundreds of fights and the ref list is already at 101. I'm still unclear on why the decision was made (especially in the face of many, many objections for deletion from fans and editors alike), except some obscure referencing that really holds no weight in merging these pages. There is also much lost information by this merged page since it cannot visually accommodate all the information found in individual articles. I only come to Wiki for UFC info (which is how by accident I found out about all this, apart from any other Wiki edits I've done), no where else has the pages been informative and collective. Is the decision really in the hands of rogue editors with no oversight? Perhaps then, if it's a single one or two clamoring for a specific way, the discussions aren't pertinent and they should remove themselves from this discussion in the interest of fairness.Seola1 (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We must decide this now! What is also most confusing is that the users who claim that this Omnibus page is better than the separate articles that has been used for years have said that the reason the single event pages don't work is because, in their words, 'they are poorly sourced, covered only by MMA websites and there are not many independent websites covering them'. Well ain't the sort of reason why you wouldn't have the information in general on Wikipedia at all, right? Then why is it that just because all these events are on just one page, with ALL the same 'poorly sourced' information and references they said that the pages should be deleted for are somehow the same reason why a Omnibus page works and they would defend those same sources? I don't care how ignorant you are, you can't possibly expect it both way in which you won't have single pages because of the the location of the references, but yet use those same sources along with many more similar sources to decide that it then becomes notable. Because what is now being said is that it is okay to have poorly sourced information/references to back up a page as long as there are plenty of them to do so! They are still the same sources, from the same website covering the same event in the same way, what difference does it make whether it is on a page that is just about the event the article is covering or a page where it is covering only a fraction of where up to 30 EVENTS are being mentioned? So we all have to make up our minds right now, do we accepts all these types of sources of regardless of whether it is on just a page covering only the event it is covering and/or the Omnibus page we got, or do we just decide that these sources have no place on Wikipedia at all, in which we delete ALL pages relating to upcoming and past UFC events? 109.151.225.151 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'm certainly not saying that the Omnibus as it stands is perfect, but it is the best solution to the issues brought up by AfD's,I'd like to see some of these editors that have created the single articles and are so opposed to the Omnibus do some work on the omnibus and on the events that may warrant a single article. I don't think anyone would be oppossed to reformatting the Omnibus, having quarterly Omnibus's maybe, something that gives the editors a chance to get back some of what they want.I have also asserted that I will help edit any stand alone article and defend it if someone can find sources that meet WP:MMAEVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT.(Disclosure I am in favor of deleting any individual article that does not have enough notability to have a separate page and have nominated UFC events to AfD)Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the solution! I have written to Jimbo Wales on his talkpage for help as this whole thing has gotten too far, and User:Wikid77 has come up with the best solution. It is on the talkpage but for those who would point blank refuse to go on it, I will bring what he said on here -

"Seems reasonable to have 30 UFC-event articles per year: The long-term tradition appears to be workable, to have separate articles for each of the UFC events, especially considering there are only about 30 major events per year. Obviously, there will be enough news sources for each sporting event, and with only 30 per year, then later reports will often re-mention the earlier events to strengthen their notability for separate articles. The added yearly article ("2012 in UFC events") would be workable if kept condensed, with links to the larger, separate UFC-event articles. This situation is similar to hurricane articles, where some people have questioned the notability of each storm, and if a hurricane stayed out at sea (and only a few islands or ships were affected), then deletionists have tried to ax the separate pages, in favor of the yearly article, such as "2005 Atlantic hurricane season" listing 28 tropical storms and 15 hurricanes for year 2005, where the major storms included Hurricane Katrina (August), Hurricane Rita (September), and Hurricane Wilma (October), but also the July storms Hurricane Emily (2005) and Hurricane Dennis were considered to be powerful storms. Try not to be upset about people being obsessed with deleting articles, but also remember that having a yearly article (such as "2012 in UFC events") does not mean the separate UFC-event articles must be deleted. Both the separate and yearly UFC articles can be kept, as with each year's hurricane articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

So as you can see, maybe the best solution isn't to have one or the other, but to have BOTH on here, the separate pages AND the Omnibus pages on Wikipedia, that way everyone is satisfied, all the right boxes for the topic is ticked, and the information is just as easily accessible for those who are looking for this information as before. I think somewhere down the lines people have forgotten that people aren't interested in Wikipedia for debating how the information is presented (if its present at all) but to find what they are looking for and read it, and thats what matters.

For this reason I am now going to change my vote to Keep both separate event pages AND Omnibus event pages, and I hope you all do the same! 109.151.225.151 (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would have no objection to having the single articles remain and the omnibus exist as well. I suppose that would give people the option to utilize whichever system they prefer. I personally think the omnibus is way too cumbersome and I don't like it so I would only use the single page articles, but I also would have no objection to an omnibus coexisting. Pull lead (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the result of the review, then the first thing we ALL need to do is call a truce between each other, in which we stop the bickering, the insults and end all AfDs on the separate and omnibus UFC pages because it has been going nowhere and we need a realistic solution that works for all. We will then need to discuss removing the merge links from the UFC events on the 2012 in UFC events such as UFC 152, and then we should have directory links on the separate pages to the 'Year in' omnibus pages and vice versa. Then all users will work to regularly update both the separate pages and omnibus pages from then on so that neither page would be without the same information.

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to do. In the end of the day, Wikipedia is about finding information you want/need to find, and Wikipedia is the best place to find what your looking for. For the MMA community, Wikipedia has been a vital source to finding out fight event results from the night before if they weren't able to watch the event. For people who edit on Wikipedia all the time, I can understand you have policies that you must follow but at the same time why does it have to be a 'our system or no system' approach to this? It's like I pointed out before the references for the 2012 in UFC events page are virtually identical to that of the separate pages, and when you think about the fact that its is only the 5th month of the year and there are over 100 references on the omnibus page, largely from MMA websites, then how is it much different to have separate pages with only a handful of the same references directly for the same event? You must remember as well it doesn't matter how it is presented, it is always going to be viewed by certain certain people, which in this case is the UFC/MMA community. This is why I want you guys as well to agree that keeping both the omnibus pages and the separate pages is the best solution and I want you to back me on that! 109.151.225.151 (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 April 2012

[edit]
  • As Blood Runs Black – Unsalted early per unanimous consensus that the deletion rationale very likely no longer applies. The deleted history can be restored on request, but it might be better to write a short sourced stub first, as the recent recreations appear to be deficient with respect to sourcing and other matters. –  Sandstein  19:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
As Blood Runs Black (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) (XfD2)

This article was originally deleted because the band was not significant enough. At the time of it's original deletion, the band was not significant. They had released only one album and had disappeared. However, on 03/15/2011 (since the last delete), the band has released their second album. They've changed line ups and they've been touring extensively, including the Summer Slaughter Tour 2011. I believe this band now meets the criteria for a Wikipedia entry. The French wikipedia left them in: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_Blood_Runs_Black The russian, german, portuguese, polish, italian and spanish wikipedias also have an article for this band. I feel like there are much smaller bands on Wikipedia and this band is getting a short stick. This article needs to be re-added. Kevinh456 (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 April 2012

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

The decision was wrong on both the facts and on the protocol. Between the start and end of the Afd process the article had been improved to cure the complaint in the Afd notice. The discussion had revealed that the problem with the article was that it had been misnamed due to the editor's poor level of english (a thousand apologies - since mine is no better). However once these problem had been pointed out the deleters had stated that the problem could be cured with better sourcing and renaming the article. Following this statement an additional good source was provided curing the WP:V. At the closing the administrator who loves to uses Wikipedia:NOTVOTE as a pretext for ignoring votes himself did a vote count instead of checking the facts. His closing message is in clear contradiction of his duty to check WP:V which he invoked as the overriding reason to delete an article. For more information see here BO; talk 19:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, this is an interesting one. On the face of it we may be dealing with a confusion caused by mistranslation. While I think it's correct that Yoga rests on a quintet of elements, a simple google search doesn't reveal any useful hits for "five base yoga". This implies that the closer was not at fault because he implemented the consensus, but the discussion itself could have been defective. A temporary undeletion might be helpful in this case.—S Marshall T/C 09:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or maybe not so interesting. The nominator entered the AfD attacking the nominator personally ("It is the nominator who has not demonstrated good faith") and in his nomination here he is overly personal in attacking the closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This DR nominator saw a double vote followed by a claim by the Afd nominator that he did not even bother to check new WP:V. He was not only worried about the loss of face to the original editor (the only one writing on yoga this month) but also of the quality of the Afd nominator patrolling activities in the future. Although he thought had used restraint in his language he too is new to Afd and now apologizes. The point was that Afd had been tainted by an unfortunate bias against a relative newcomer. This DR request indicates the bias generated had ended up poisoning the ultimate decision.
IMHO the point raised about the closer are unfortunately germane and require no sugar-coating - this is a DR and the closer's decision will take a greater part of this debate than the original facts. The closer wields disporportionate influence and has extensive experience - having closed very complex and difficult Afd cases - he was offered three opportunities to avoid this DR but elected to put the case back into a uneccessary debate. We will have to work 9 times harder just to see a new comer join our community. We could have brought Five Bases under it new name to a Good Article standing with all this expanded energy and time. BO; talk 18:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review (I think this should be automatic for any good faith request , except that BLPs need to be considered individually, for it will sometimes be inappropriate.). DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, DGG. On reading that content, my view is that to the extent that it's not already covered in Mahābhūta, it belongs in that article rather than as a separate one. Five Base Yogas is clearly a plausible search term because an editor tried to create an article in it, so it makes an appropriate redirect to preserve any contribution history.

    I'm of the view that we should do this off our own backs rather than send it back to AfD for a fresh discussion. I think the AfD can be simply set aside because it only consisted of people googling the literal article title and quibbling the sources. Insufficient attention was paid to the good faith attempt to generate encyclopaedic content from that user. Insufficient reading about the actual subject took place and insufficient creative thought went into possible outcomes. No blame attaches to Sandstein as closer, because he implemented the consensus exactly as he should have done. It was our processes that were at fault.—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was the person who originally nominated this article for deletion. I nominated the article in good faith because I could find nothing about "Five Base yogas," and the citations provided were entirely unsuitable. I was instantly accused of not using good faith because I somehow should have realized that Yoga is mostly passed down via oral tradition (I believe that falls under special pleading) and therefore we shouldn't expect too much in the way of proper citations. Then, one of the defenders of the article said that perhaps the original editor actually meant to call the article "five elements of yoga," implying that this was somehow my fault for not realizing that what the editor wrote was not at all what he meant. However, AFAK, no one have provided any evidence to support the claim that the editor did not, in fact, mean precisely what he wrote. I don't necessarily object to the article being merged into the yoga article, or even if it survives on its own. But, the issue here isn't bias -- "five base yogas" doesn't warrant a redirect, let alone its own article. If the article was intended to be on a different subject matter, than perhaps the most prudent thing to do is to create a new article based on what can be used from the previous entry, and then make a decision based upon the merits.JoelWhy (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JoelWhy (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment have tried to communicate with the article creator, to check his reaction?

BO; talk 09:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As a side note, I am now browsing through all the contributions made by the author of this article. He's not some brand new user we're driving away -- he's made more than 1,000 edits, and every page he's created that I have checked so far is a disaster. They're replete with pseudoscientific claims supported by unambiguously unreliable sources. This is going to take a lot of work, above and beyond this particular Five Base Yogas page.JoelWhy (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statement I'd like to salute DGG and S Marshall on restoring my faith in Wikipedians and their pursuit of policy. I now support an merge with Mahābhūta. I also weakly support a redirect because - I am of the opinion that it is a translation error but having it can only be of service to other users.
  • JoelWhy - Jimbo lectured at wikimania 2011 that 1000 edits is considered the bare minimum for a new comer to learn wiki syntax. It is certainly not enough to master the rules of policy. The user's home page shows great potential. I take the long view that with some coaching users correct their own mistakes given half a chance. By spreading a little wikilove one can get better results than with a 95% success rate at CSD. BO; talk 01:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it was his first edit or his 1 millionth, it doesn't impact this particular article. If he meant something which was entirely different than what he wrote, this has absolutely nothing to do with user experience. Either he meant what he wrote, or he meant what you've speculated that he meant, in which case, perhaps he lacks the language skills to be editing on the English language Wikipedia. (I don't mean this as an insult -- I speak Spanish quite well, but I know my grammar is lacking, so I don't edit on the Spanish Wiki.) In any case, whether he continues to edit or not is up to him. For this particular page, I still think a redirect is silly -- as of yet, we still don't have even a single half-decent source which uses this phrase. We currently have evidence that one human being on the face of the earth uses the phrase "five base yogas". That doesn't warrant a Wiki redirect. A separate, NPOV article on the five elements of yoga may be a good idea, but whether it comes in the form of a deletion, while salvaging the useable information, starting from scratch, or a major overhaul of the existing article doesn't seem to make much of a difference.JoelWhy (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 April 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
DJ Many (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) (DRV1|DRV2)

Person is now more notable. 74.190.118.172 (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2012 (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:Massoud and Qadir 2.PNG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This was erroneously closed as delete despite the fact that there were at least 7 and perhaps 8 votes to keep, and every single keep vote addressed the contextual significance of the educational value of the image. There were two votes plus the nominator that disagreed. In addition the closing administrator opined in the discussion, and was involved. The closing administrator discounted all the keep votes, and endorsed all the delete votes, which can only be explained because of an appearance of bias. I asked the adminstrator to reverse but they refused. See, User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Deletion review - Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin's response: About my "involvement": I did not vote in this FFD, but merely offered a procedural comment in answer to a question by one of the participants, regarding the applicability of a certain argument. I do not believe this precludes my making this closure. About the merits of the case: FFDs in NFC cases are closed on strength of policy-based arguments, not strength of numbers. Of the "keep" votes, the following had to be discounted as inherently invalid:

  • Alanscottwalker: merely asserted contextual significance, in a generic, unspecific way, copying the generic wording of the NFCC, without giving any explanation of why and how. Invalid.
  • DARIO SEVERI: an incomprehensible argument based on politics rather than NFC policy, insinuating that those favouring deletion were motivated by Taliban ideology. Obviously invalid.
  • 75.60.19.202: argued on the basis of the obvious non sequitur that the image is "notable" because "the event is notable". Self-evidently contrary to policy.
  • Hot Stop: merely cited the existence of a for-Wikipedia-only permission, which was irrelevant to the nomination. Didn't address the NFCC#8 concern.
  • PhnomPencil: made a political argument, boiling down to the statement that he likes the political symbolism one can derive from the image, but didn't explain why a mere explanation of the event in words would not have been equally informative. Thus also missed the point about the NFCC nomination.
  • JCAla: argument seems to boil down to a combination of those of PhnomPencil and the 75.50 IP; same objections.
  • Cavarrone: a mere "as per Jimbo" vote with no further argument (except for the "permission" argument, about which see above). As for Jimbo's position cited, Jimbo himself had in fact not participated in the debate, but had commented in an off-FFD venue, but his opinion was had been quoted here. It, too, is unfortunately based on politics rather than policy: Jimbo seemed to be saying that we should use a non-free item because he likes the symbolic POV message he thought it promoted. In an incomprehensible leap of logical contortion, he also went on to say that doing so would mean promoting "NPOV". (Because, apparently, "NPOV" is short for "the POV I like", in this case, "promoting peace"). Jimbo's statement was so alarmingly out of touch both with actual NPOV policy and with NFC policy that I would have been forced to discount it even if he had proposed it as an actual !vote in this process.

Against these invalid "keep" statements, the three policy-conformant "delete" statements won the day.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-Future perfect was involved and offered an opinion that the Afgahn Wiki claim that it was educationally useful did not address the issue, which of course was the issue in contention.
-Alanscottwalker endorsed the other opinions that it was educationally significant to the topic.
-Dario Severi opined that it was educationally significant to the topic of the peace process.
-75.60.19.202 argued for the notable significance of the image to the topic.
-PhonmPencil opined that it was educationally significant to the topic.
-JCAla opined that it was educationally significant to the topic.
-Cavarrone opined that it was educationally significant to the topic.
-Jimbo Wales opined that it was educationally significant to the topic.
-HotSpot: voted keep and discussed the copyright.
Stand against that the three who merely opined that it was not significant.
All of the Keep votes, address the core of NFCC#8, perhaps not in how Future Perfect wanted them to but his bias cannot be used to color it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly do you find an opinion of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise in the discussion? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Huh? I never made any comment relating to "the Afgahn Wiki claim that it was educationally useful". Actually, nobody made any such claim. What "Afghan Wiki"? What are you talking about? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JCAla said to you that the uploader proposed it for educational use on Afghan related articles, and you said that does not address educational purpose of NFCC#8, thus you opined on its educational value. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was not what that exchange was about. You are misreading it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then we disagree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you ought to work on your reading comprehension skills. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your incivility evidences your administrative competence. 22:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Alanscottwalker (talk)
  • Overturn to keep. The policy issue of contextual significance, WP:NFCC#8, is a matter of editorial opinion, not something to be decided by administrator fiat. Clearly there was a consensus that this image, in this article, was contextually significant. The closing admin must abide by that determination, even if they disagree with it, and may not impose their own opinion by supervote.  Sandstein  05:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good luck finding an admin at FFD who agrees. I lost all remaining faith in the process after the third "discussion" for the same image closed by supervote against consensus after being overturned here twice. Might as well just make NFCC speedy criteria at this point. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't a matter of "disagreeing" with this or that argument for contextual significance, it was a matter of no such arguments being offered. Yes, contextual significance is a matter of editorial opinion, but as such, it is subject to rational, policy-based argument. Votes that don't address the issue, or votes that are obviously just politically motivated "ILIKEIT" statements, do not count, and it is the closing administrator's responsibility to discount them, just like in every other !vote-based decision process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep. Future Perfect at Sunrise clearly breaking wikipedia policy disregards the obvious consensus reached on that page and he gives an non-existent reason for his closure. The nominator nominated the image citing WP:NFCC#8. Future Perfect at Sunrise, while being involved in the discussion, claims "Most keep arguments have clearly failed to address the NFC issue at the core of this nomination". That shows an utter disregard on his side for the actual arguments made by so many editors in the discussion. Most keep arguments did address the NFC issue very clearly:
  1. Jimbo Wales wrote: "it strikes me that the photo easily meets WP:NFCC#8. The factors you mention, particularly that "There exists no other image of the two leaders displaying that same gesture of peace." It is my view that NPOV promotes peace more than anything else. So while I think that Wikipedia should promote peace, what I mean by that is that we should promote NPOV thinking, i.e. calm, rational, thoughtful, fact-seeking as our primary mission. In a case like this, we should realize the educational value and learning impact of actually seeing the two leaders shaking hands - it brings home the reality of the peace process."
  2. Cavarrone explicitly agreed with above statement on NFC of Jimbo Wales and added that besides that the use of the image was allowed by the copyright holder itself.
  3. 75.60.19.202 said image was "clearly notable" [meaning that it meets NFCC#8].
  4. PhnomPencil said, "It's strikingly significant. ... The image has significantly increased my understanding of the topic." [clearly addressing NFCC#8 here]
  5. Alanscottwalker explicitly stated: "Meets NFCC#8. The picture adds substantively to the topic, and it would be detrimental, to such to delete."
  6. I wrote explicitly: "So in that sense the image does satisfy and meet WP:NFCC#8. It should therefore be kept for its value in that regard."
  7. DarioSeveri also commented on the significance of the image.
  8. HotSpot also emphasized that the use of the image was allowed by the copyright holder.

Meanwhile, one of the three editors favouring delete (one being the closing administrator) just stated (against obvious consensus) the image was not notable. Stefan (above) - also against obvious consensus - said as the image was not critically discussed it did not meet NFCC#8 which was rebutted by Jimbo Wales, Cavarrone, Alanscottwalker, Phnom Pencil and me. As Sandstein wrote above and I couldn't agree more: "The policy issue of contextual significance, WP:NFCC#8, is a matter of editorial opinion, not something to be decided by administrator fiat. Clearly there was a consensus that this image, in this article, was contextually significant. The closing admin must abide by that determination, even if they disagree with it, and may not impose their own opinion by supervote." JCAla (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment: What follows is not directly related to the procedural justification of my closure (which I continue to uphold as valid), but some further thoughts about the merits of the case that could and probably should have been brought forward in the discussion and may serve as food for thought for commenters here. This is something I only realised after I made the closure. The uploader has created the impression that the image in question is a symbolically significant depiction of an historically important "moment of peace", and several outside voters (including Jimbo) seem to have been naively swayed by this. The NFC nomination hinged on the (correct) assertion that the visual presence of the illustration wasn't necessary to make the historical significance of the situation understood, but seemed to accept it as a given that the situation as such really was as important as the uploader claimed. But was it really? This, too, should be put under scrutiny according to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. This is a photograph of two warlords engaged in civil war, shaking hands as a sign of a temporary war alliance against a common enemy. Calling this a symbol of "peace" is, to say the least, naive. The uploader is a thoroughly tendentious editor with a long block log for POV editing, whose prime goal on this project has always been to turn the biography of one of these warlords into a hagiography. He has spammed this image across as many as six articles (each with the same, generic, FUR) out of an evident POV-driven agenda of presenting the actions of this warlord as those of a national hero. In reality, none of the six articles had any reliable sourcing substantiating the view that the situation shown here had anything like the pivotal historical significance the uploader wishes us to believe. Its insertion and the way it is used to suggest such a pivotal significance is thus little more than tendentious WP:OR. Obviously, an OR agenda can never serve as a valid justification of a purpose of use under WP:NFCC#8. – As I said, this is not an additional justification for my closure (which continues to be valid on its own merits), but my reason for saying that if the closure should be overturned, I will immediately re-nominate the image on additional grounds. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise clearly illustrates his personal involvement in the political issue as it is a highly politicized - far from neutral - assessment. And as Alanscottwalker said above: "I don't think your incivility evidences your administrative competence." Besides that you don't know anything about how my log came about and you are making personal attacks against me and my editing, you just denied the capability of independent judgement to Jimbo Wales, Alanscottwalker, PhnomPencil and all the others and accused them of naivete. JCAla (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, may it be possible that you edited on the German wikipedia under the name Sommerkom? JCAla (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I guess this kind of sock paranoia is par for the course in Afghanistan-related editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say anything of socks? Did you or did you not edit under the name of Sommerkom? Speaking of sock paranoia, see below. JCAla (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sock intermezzo
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Delete was proper action. 2 afghan warlords [10] shaking paws not signifacant cause ther r 100s or 1,000s other afghan "warlords". notice artacle sates massoud "He was labeled as a 'butcher' by the Pashtuns". if we keeps one then for same reasons we forced to keep all other afghan warlords. This foto was probly used in wiki by someone with special agenda to provoke followers of other afghan warlords, and whats important about one ethnic pakhtun (pathan) and and one ethnic tajik shaking hand, ha? Did they sign a tajik-pashtun treaty that day or was it just for cup of tea? these two only represented small groups, tajiks of Panjshir province and pakhtuns from nangarhar province. In afghanistan pakhtuns and tajeeks always work together,,, isn't president (Karzai) pakhtun and the vice president (Fahim) tajik? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afzalkhan123 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Afzalkhan123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Obviously invalid vote with no basis in policy. Please don't engage in debates of this style (and, people, please also don't respond to such posts and engage such editors in debate.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i must have college degree before edit wiki or ANYONE can edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afzalkhan123 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little note on the rawa source the sock presented above: Kabul Press: "Based on the evidence, in addition to misuse of the financial aids that they receive in the name of Afghan Women, this group (rawa) functions as the left hand of Taliban ..." JCAla (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Afzalkhan123 has been blocked as an apparent sockpuppet, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep, largely per Sandstein. NFCC8 is not a licence to supervote.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I'm dubious about keeping this image, and would vote to delete it absent specific sourced commentary regarding the significance of the event depicted. The closer was certainly correct in discounting the many keep !votes which did not address the main deletion rationale. But I don't see a convincing argument advanced in the FFD discussion to rebut Jimbo's analysis, leaving a discussion which did not reach sufficient consensus. I therefore believe discussion should have been extended, with a specific call for sourcing for the claims regarding the significance of the event depicted, which as things now stand is supporting mainly be user opinion/OR. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The picture adds substantially to the understanding of at least some of the articles where it was used, though I think the use in the Afghanistan article was excessive. Relationships between people can be described in words, but can be much better understood through pictures. When the relationship is of historical significance (and I think this relationship is) and there is an available photo, it should be used, even if non-free. The relative meaningless of words is indicated by some of the defense of the picture, & the admins comment on what the picture indicates. There is some obvious disagreement. But the picture provides the best evidence itself, as a picture with the figures identified. As appropriate to Wikipedia people can then make their own judgments about the meaning. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep and blame this behaviour. Fut.Perf. is invited, in cases like this, to simply express his vote in the discussion and to leave the task of closing the discussion to a more neutral user, avoiding "supervotes", that (as Sandstein and S Marshall pointed out) are not legitimated by NFCC#8. Cavarrone (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Arguments that disregard or misunderstand the non-free content policy should be given zero weight when the NFCC are the primary issue in an FFD. Thus this was a reasonable closure of the FFD in question. CIreland (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus (not keep). After disregarding some of the "keep" !votes based on "inherited notability", "the copyright holder doesn't mind", and "WP:JIMBOSEZ", we are left with a close one that could have gone either way. (note that Jimbo didn't actually !vote in the FFD). Unlike the other points in WP:NFCC, 8 is more subjective and reasonable people can disagree on whether or not an image "significantly increases understanding" and some of the "keep" !voters made credible arguments that it did. There were also credible arguments that it didn't so IMHO "no consensus" would have been the right call. Fut.Perf, you really should have !voted in the FFD, not closed it. You had already participated in it with a neutral comment so it's obvious you were watching it. Despite the numbers, I have already demonstrated that it was closer then it looked so your !vote might have led to a more DRV resistant "delete" close. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep Mostly because, well, that was the consensus. But also an admin who commented on a deletion discussion (especially with something that could be considered an opinion) shouldn't be closing the discussion. If the admin issue were the only issue, I'd urge a relist/reclose (it was fairly minor, but it's not only important to _be_ fair, it's important to appear fair). But given this was clearly not a consensus-based outcome... Hobit (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to expand. Meeting NFCC#8 is, largely, a matter of opinion. As there was no consensus that it didn't meet NFCC#8 we can't delete (and yes, consensus on a topic like this is something of an actual vote as long as people make rational arguments--there is no good way to weigh the !votes without the closer supervoting). In fact, consensus was the other way (though not that far from NC). Hobit (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, or alternatively relist. There's enough crappy keeps that a NC is justifiable, but I'm afraid that a delete close in this case really does strike me as wrong "with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish". T. Canens (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 April 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:SpeakFree (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User:SpeakFree/WPEN (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User:SpeakFree/WPNL (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User:SpeakFree/OtherProjects (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User:SpeakFree/DYKs (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
User:SpeakFree/Barnstars (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Restore own deleted user page SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 13:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This type of request is uncontroversial and belongs at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Also, several of the pages you name do not appear to have existed. Finally, there is no reason to have 6 separate requests, so I merged them into one. Yoenit (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 April 2012

[edit]

22 April 2012

[edit]

21 April 2012

[edit]

20 April 2012

[edit]
  • Aevol – Relisted. All uninvolved participants agree that the discussion was correctly closed. But two out of five also argue that the discussion was not thorough enough to allow editors with subject-matter experience to weigh in. To be on the safe side and prevent continued, possibly fruitless recreation discussions, the discussion is therefore relisted for another seven days. –  Sandstein  06:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Aevol (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Consensus not reached. The admin (Black Kite(talk)) who deleted the page told me to post here after I commented about the consensus not being reached and gave him a new piece of information : new Aevol-related publication in Nature Reviews Microbiology (http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v10/n5/full/nrmicro2750.html). As I told him, if an article in the NATURE publishing group does not establish reliability and notability, what will? Parsons.eu (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. The answer to the question above is that independent coverage about Aevol is what would establish notability, not papers by the originators of Aevol mentioning that it was used in their research. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As mentionned in the former discussion but never reacted upon, the same would go for Avida, the only cited coverage being from the originators and coworkers. It would however be a great error to remove the Avida page since many e.g. students can be interested in this page... Parsons.eu (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not reacted to because it is not relevant. Please see What About article X?. Yoenit (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse On the procedural side I see three !votes for deletion, against two arguments for keeping the article, one of which was shamelessly canvassed. The keep arguments do not address the concern for deletion, so I endorse the closure. Looking at it from the human side I think the problem here is with the misconception that notability is inherited. That research done with this tool was published in Nature means the research is probably notable and should be included somewhere in Wikipedia, but it does not automatically establish that the tool used is notable. For that we need independent sources to provide in depth coverage of the tool, which do not seem to exist in this case. Yoenit (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the argument for deletion (that there is no significant coverage in sources which are independent of the subject) was not addressed. The Nature link given above doesn't actually mention Aevol at all. Possibly some of the work in the paper was done with Aevol, but the fact that Aevol is not even mentioned means this does not constitute coverage of Aevol. Hut 8.5 15:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link above is to an abstract, not the full text of the paper, so Aevol probably is mentioned, although I haven't checked it personally because my library doesn't give me online access to editions of Nature Reviews Microbiology less than a year old, and I'm not prepared to make a special trip to the library or splash out $32. The point still remains that the paper is written by members of the same team that developed Aevol, so any coverage contained is not independent. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do have access to the full text, it doesn't mention Aevol. Hut 8.5 17:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused, I thought the reference was more direct... It does however point to some of the results of the model, e.g. "in silico studies showed that the indirect selection of a specific variability level can shape the genome structure at the levels of gene number, genome size and amount of non-coding DNA (ref 140)" Parsons.eu (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. While the close accurately reflected the discussion, I don't believe the discussion was adequate. A GScholar search shows a large number of hits, indicating that the software is used often enough in scientific research to be a plausible search term as well as presumptively notable, but there are also enough uses in other contexts, to make me wonder whether the term has a more generic usage, so that the software may not be the appropriate subject for the article oin the term itself. This look like it needs attention from editors with more relevant expertise than I claim. More discussion will be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "Aevol" gives indeed 174 hits on Google Scholar. However, the number of hits which are actually about this software is no more than 20-30. Most of the hits seem to be OCR errors from pre-1900 books and the others are unrelated abbreviations and parameters in a wide variety of other research fields and languages, all extremely obscure. Yoenit (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I agree with Hullaballoo that the close was the only way to read the discussion; the flaw is the discussion itself. The deletion voters claim that Ph.D. dissertations don't contribute to notability and that academic journal articles written by individuals connected to the subject are likewise irrelevant. Both are greatly at variance with our norms here. A successful dissertation is produced by an expert and reviewed by other experts in the field. Moreover, our WP:SELFPUB policy is related to sources that are generally not considered generally reliable; as long as we're talking an established academic journal, that's not the case. We have a policy against subject-connected sources counting toward notability in order to discount sources such as manufacturers' websites; in contrast, we can assume that the journal publisher is not affiliated with the subject unless we find evidence to the contrary, and we have always encouraged published scholars to contribute their expertise. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that there was a flaw in the discussion and I don't know where you're getting that being the norm here is from. I've never seen that be the case in any policy or guideline. Likewise, I have never seen a book published by a major publisher be able to show notability for the author. I also don't see where on WP:SELFPUB it says that it only counts toward unreliable sources. There is "5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." however. SL93 (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should take a look here : Self-publishing. As the first sentence in this page states, "Self-publishing is the publication of any book or other media by the author of the work, without the involvement of an established third-party publisher.", which is never true for peer-reviewed scientific publications. Cited references about Aevol are published in MIT Press, oxford journals, elsevier, ... Parsons.eu (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like I said, "I have never seen a book published by a major publisher be able to show notability for the author." This is the same thing. If Wikipedia really goes by what Nyttend is saying, then a book published by a major publisher should be able to show notability for the author. Which it doesn't. SL93 (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe one doesn't... A few in different titles from different publishing groups certainly does.Parsons.eu (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • But in AfD, it doesn't so journals should be no different. Both books from major publishers and articles in journals go through a long process with editors and fact checkers. It shouldn't show notability for one, but not the other. My point is - it was still originally from the originators of the software. Products or whatever cannot have notability shown by writings from the owner or owner. Just like major book publishers can't show notability for a person's products or the person. SL93 (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NEWS : Today, two articles about Aevol were accepted for publication in the proceedings of the 13th Artificial Life Conference:

  • Effects of public good properties on the evolution of cooperation (Dusan Misevic, Antoine Frénoy, David P. Parsons and François Taddei).
  • The Paradoxical Effects of Allelic Recombination on Fitness (David P. Parsons, Carole Knibbe and Guillaume Beslon). Parsons.eu (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 April 2012

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

Notable Article that was Speedy deleted. Unsure if the Talk page was read before deletion. More information on the notability can be found on the talk page of the article --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morning277 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 April 2012‎

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

18 April 2012

[edit]

17 April 2012

[edit]

16 April 2012

[edit]
  • 1983 America's Cup: The End of an Era – No consensus to vacate closure. There is understandable reluctance to formally endorse a closure that was so clearly out of process, but there is similar resistance to relisting when merging per the previous AfD seems to moot the discussion. Thus while declining to endorse the closure itself, I will not disturb the outcome pending further discussion on the article talk page. – Eluchil404 (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
1983 America's Cup: The End of an Era (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Premature closure of the AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, is this the right forum? I want the Afd reopened. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps the close was early, but what's wrong with the conclusion: Merge and redirect. I agree it is not intrinsically a useful redirect, but since some content was merged, the redirect would have to stand to provide the attribution unless the content was removed. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting the AfD nomination, as it makes much of my "case" for the early close:
  • "The name is a lament rather than a name for a WP article. It is not the name of a book or any other work. The tone is unbecoming of WP."
No disputing the "lament" and "tone" comments. As an aside, however, I found that the name turned up in several Google search results, most importantly as a near-match to the title of a limited-distribution documentary film.
  • "It has been slated for merging since 2011 but nothing has happened."
That's almost true. Almost nothing happened. However, the limited discussion (in May 2011) found consensus to merge. The admin who posted in the discussion said he lacked the subject-matter knowledge needed to do the merging. A conclusion was reached; it's just that it wasn't implemented. ther merger had been agreed to, it was just waiting for someone to implement it. After I saw the AfD, I merged the articles, as had been agreed back in May 2011.
  • "A redirect is not needed."
We disagree there. See below.
  • "Some content may be able to be salvaged."
True. The article had some worthwhile substantive content -- complete with sources -- that was not also in the target article 1983 America's Cup. Some of it needed to be rewritten due to its tone. I salvaged the content that looked worthwhile to me. The changes added about 4,100 bytes to the parent article -- a nontrivial addition. I also ignored a lot of content from the "End of an Era" article, some of which might have merit. After using that much content from the article, a redirect is needed to record the history -- as well as to make the leftover content available to someone else who might be able to use it. Furthermore, 11-month existence of this article and the indication on Google search that the title might mean something to somebody both indicate that there's value in keeping the redirect. --Orlady (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as material was appropriately merged, deletion is not appropriate, unless some effort is made to provide another copyright solution as discussed at WP:MAD. I note that there is reason to want to keep the redirect (" Googling the title, I find not only links to the Wikipedia article, but also a reference to a movie, artwork, a blog post, and possibly a few other items with essentially this name. --Orlady (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)"). The closer's BOLD editing, which provided a rationale for the early close against that apparent consensus is unusual, but in the end it was the right thing. If this view is disagreed with, and someone desired deletion of the redirect, or of the history behind the redirect, the facts should be discussed in a new Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Flatscan below. Orlady was overly BOLD. BOLD is good, usually, but I'd advise her to next time hold back from closing the discussion, to just do the merge and report the action to the AfD. As an active editor on the article in question (having done the merge), she should not close the discussion. Let the next admin do the close. However, I don't feel that an "overturn" is a step forward. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do not see myself as an involved editor here. As it happens, I was made aware of the article by the AfD (which scrolled across something I was watching). I had never edited it, nor (as near as I can recall) any other article about the America's Cup. I read the comments on the AfD, reviewed the article and its history, the talk page discussion of merger, and the proposed target article. Everyone who had commented in either discussion either supported a merger or indicated that a merger could be appropriate, as some article content was salvageable. Evaluating the discussions, I saw an obvious outcome -- and thus no good purpose in continuing the AfD discussion. I probably could have posted the "Speedy merge and redirect" close before doing the edits to implement the merger, but I've seen far too many cases where an AfD "merge and redirect" conclusion leads to no action (similar to the May 2011 talk-page discussion of this particular merger). Because I felt that it would be irresponsible to close this discussion (either speedily or after a week) without ensuring that the conclusion got implemented, I merged the content before closing the AfD. However, I did not redirect the title until after I had closed the AfD. --Orlady (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that too many merger discussions are never implemented after consensus to merge, but what would have prevented you from recommending merge and checking back in a week? If a snowball merge is appropriate, I prefer that the AfD is closed first, and then the merge performed. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud Orlady for boldly performing the merge and redirect on discovery of the need while browsing AfD. I’d like to see it more often. The nominators are asked (WP:BEFORE) to consider merge and redirect before nomination, but so often don’t do so seriously enough. Mergers are more difficult than AfD nominations.
However, having done the merger (or committed to doing it), Orlady was then an involved editor in the two articles. There was no imperative to close the AfD.
I disagree with Flatscan’s preference. If a capable editor is willing to do the merge, I’d rather see her do the merge and leave the close than see her do the close and leave the merge as work to be done. I think it is too much to ask Orlady to hang around for a week to what she could do right now.
It is well argued (see WP:SLAVE) that the serious work shouldn’t be left to the closer. The other side is also true – the closer shouldn’t be the one who did the serious work. I think Orlady could have easily left the debate open, left the AfD template on the redirect, and recommended that her merge be accepted by an impartial closer. I think Orlady should normally be very confident that the next admin along would closed as “Merged and redirected”.
This, whether correct or not, is the approach I used at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solo (Australian soft drink). In that case the discussion concluded that the merge should be reverted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the choice is either perform the merger and let someone else close the AfD or close the AfD and leave the merge undone indefinitely, I agree that the merger should be done. In this constrained scenario, there is clear improvement to Wikipedia, and WP:Ignore all rules applies. I don't see why it's necessary or appropriate to merge early. By the way, when you consulted WP:AfD and mergers#Merging during deletion discussions at the Solo AfD, that excerpt was over two years out of date. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. There's more history to this than I'd read. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. AfDs run for seven days unless there is a clear reason to speedily close them, which is not apparent here.  Sandstein  23:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- Its a bit WP:IAR, but a certainly a logical application. If the article had been properly merged as the previous AFD decided, this one never would have been opened. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not endorse: merging is a reasonable outcome, but I don't see an urgent need that justifies the early close. WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion, while not a policy or guideline, enjoins editors from merging content during an active AfD. Talk:1983 America's Cup#1983 America's Cup: The End of an Era was a consensus of three editors formed ten months ago. Starting a new discussion to confirm it is permitted, though another talk page discussion would have been preferred to AfD. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The nomination acknowledged that some content may be salvageable, in which case a redirect is needed to preserve attribution. Since the nomination implicitly acknowledged that merging was appropriate, and the only delete !vote acknowledged this as well, the nomination and only !vote basically just confirmed the previous consensus to merge, which was then carried out, eliminating the need for the Afd altogether. Rlendog (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrespective of whether htis was the right call or the wrong one, the purpose of Deletion Review is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed. I'm with Sandstein and Flatscan: if the process wasn't followed, then could only endorse if there was some pressing reason to ignore the rules and terminate the discussion. There wasn't and we can't. Overturn and relist for a discussion that lasts the proper time.—S Marshall T/C 08:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The conclusion was I think correct, and the nom got exactly what he asked for. But once it was challenged, it should have just been relisted. The use of AfD to bring about a previously agreed merge is sometimes necessary, but I doubt it was in this case; I see no reason why the nom could not have done it himself without bothering with AfD.So both the AfD and this review, and the subsequent AfD would all have been unnecessary. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what could relisting accomplish, given that the merge has already occurred. As it stands, this page is now a redirect, not an article, so there is no article to AfD, just a redirect. And while the redirect could of course be XfDs, the arguments listed in the AfD are no longer applicable, and if the redirect was deleted it would just cause an attribution problem. Rlendog (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The last consensus to merge and redirect must be implemented before new discussion takes place. If this article were a redirect, then relisting it at AfD would be a moot point. If no one cares enough to merge the material, then just turn it into a redirect and be done with it. If someone wants to merge later, they can grab the content from the page history. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 15:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. it appears this has already been done (i.e. it's already a redirect), so at this point I would recommend speedy closing this DRV. If you can't even live with the redirect, then take it to RfD. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 15:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Daniel Scott (soccer) – Moot since the article was recreated and history merged while the DRV discussion was ongoing. Still, the consensus is pretty clear that new information makes the G4 deletion unsustainable. Any editor is free to renominate for AfD as appropriate. – Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Daniel Scott (soccer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Now I know this page was deleted a couple of days ago after it was clear that it failed WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. I recreated it yesterday however because be played in a North American Soccer League match on Saturday which is a fully professional league. However, I got a message saying that the page was speedily deleted and I don't understand that because he now meets WP:NFOOTBALL. This page has got to be recreated. — Michael (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article as recreated by you [11] [12] show that Scott had signed for FC Tampa Bay, but these sources do not show that he has actually played for this team, which is what WP:NFOOTY requires (A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should've put added a link to his page on his debut for the club last weekend. — Michael (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline restoration. WP:NSOCCER only presumes notability for players who have played at a certain level. But to write an actual article, per WP:BLP and WP:V, we still need reliable independent sources that cover him, and none such are proposed here or apparent in the deleted article.  Sandstein  20:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the fact that the subject has now played in a professional game means the arguments advanced for deletion during the deletion discussion are no longer valid and the deletion discussion cannot be used to delete recreations of the article. Whether the article should be deleted for other reasons is a matter for another deletion discussion, not deletion review. Hut 8.5 21:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Hut 8.5. Not a speedy case at this point. Hobit (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore – now looks OK to me, as he has sprung to prominence in the last few days. Oculi (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - the original deletion rationale is no longer valid, since he now has played professionally. As such, speedy deletion on the basis of the original AfD was not applicable. If there are issues with the article regardless of the fact that the player has played professionally now, that should be subject of a new AfD. Rlendog (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - Original close was right, but due to the new information discovered, it should be given another chance. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 15:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 April 2012

[edit]

14 April 2012

[edit]

This request concerns the speedy deletion of a cross-namespace redirect by RHaworth. In the discussion below, RHaworth advocates overturning his own speedy deletion. Because admins may undo their own deletions, this resolves the matter insofar as it is within the scope of DRV, i.e., whether to maintain or undo the speedy deletion.

As to what to do with the redirect, we have no clear consensus: many contributors endorse and several oppose the deletion. DRV, dedicated as it is to reviewing the deletion process, is not the place for a discussion on the merits of the redirect. Therefore I am opening a RfD discussion in which the possible solutions (redlink, cross-namespace redirect, mainspace coverage) can be examined in more detail. –  Sandstein  07:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This redirect to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia was created as a result of a discussion on Jimmy Wales talk page, User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 99#Glucojasinogen on March 3, in premeditated contravention of the injunction against cross-namespace redirects from the main namespace, and that was also the reason given by the administrator who speedily deleted it yesterday. I pleaded the case at his talk page, User talk:RHaworth#Request for undeletion, but my request for undeletion was declined.

I claim this to be a very special case and that WP:Ignore all rules can be invoked as justification for its existence in the face of other policies. The discussion on Jimmy Wales' talk page lays out the history of an admin discovering how a vandal's adding fictitious information to the diabetic neuropathy article led to no less than two peer-reviewed journals plagiarizing the information about an invented medical condition, glucojasinogen, in to their papers. I believe this is an incident that will surely remain a notable anecdote in the history of Wikipedia, and I thusly commenced creating a redirect from the term, as if it were a real search term, to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia which has a table entry for this incident. And I made a note about this to the discussion on Jimmy Wales' talk page. __meco (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Open to ideas. Actually, I'm the one who found this, not an admin. ;) I understand the reason for a general policy against cross-namespace redirects, and it's possible that a redirect isn't the best way to handle this. If we're going to IAR maybe we can create some kind of small page that says something like
{{ambox|text=''There is no article '''glucojasinogen''', a term introduced on Wikipedia as [[Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia#glucojasinogen|this hoax]], appearing in [[diabetic neuropathy]].}}
Note that cross-namespace disambiguation does occur, and so technically this could be called a "disambiguation page" that happens only to have one target in Wikipedia namespace.
But I think it is better to have anything, including the old redirect, than a red link, in order to help extinguish what was started here. Wnt (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose putting any such assertion into mainspace without referencing. "Wikipedia" doesn't exist to assert anything". If there are sources discussing this hoax, then maybe. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the page was being visited because a redlink was added at diabetic retinopathy; alas, the opportunity wasn't taken to investigate the situation at that time. Oh, and I mentioned it at Jimbo Wales' page because there had been some conversation about inaccuracies leading up to it, and then I blundered onto that. I suppose you still could put it on the Village Pump if you want to say something about it. Wnt (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. That professionals have copied Wikipedia content, or used Wikipedia as the basis for their own works is no longer remarkable. As such, I don't buy the need for a cross-namespace redirect and don't consider this a valid case of IAR. Rather, allowing a mainspace link to target to an internal page dedicated to the glorification of vandalism risks encouraging others to follow suit. I see more risk of harm in such a link than I do benefit. Resolute 20:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's perhaps a minor point, but I originally wikilinked just "hoax" above, not "this hoax", and the link directs to a list of hoaxes, not just this one. Wnt (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if the hoax is notable (by wikipedia standards), then it should have a main space article and no need for the XNR, if it's not notable then it shouldn't be present in mainspace so the redirect isn't warranted. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that it's actually WP:Notable; in fact, I'm not even sure that it's properly verifiable that the term is made-up. (It definitely is made-up, but I'm not sure that any publication has bothered to directly say that it was made up). IMO we should provide some redirect target for this, with the goal of helping readers of those two poorly researched publications (the ones that uncritically repeat the made-up term) find out that the term was created by a Wikipedia vandal rather than being a true alternate name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if we can't verify the hoax nature it seems we have nothing, if these journal's had referenced a hoax from elsewhere would we make a WP page for that and redirect from mainspace? I somewhat doubt it. We simply don't have articles on things which don't exist. Those journals presumably didn't reference WP as the source, so there is no more reason to believe anyone would come here for clarification on this particular hoax than any other hoax. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can safely assume that some people reading those unfortunate papers will ask their favorite search engines about the unfamiliar term. Most, if not all, of those search engines are going to send the person to Wikipedia. It would be nice, when that happens, if they found a correction here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. The two scholarly articles referring to "glucojasinogen" are in Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences and International Journal of Health Research. The fact that this hoax made it into those articles is both a damning indictment of the quality of those peer-reviewed journals (and the authors of the articles), and an insight into the remarkable influence of Wikipedia. However the hoax is not notable enough to justify its own article here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It doesn't exist, and is not notable enough for an article in its own right on account of the hoax. JFW | T@lk 19:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Restore. I am not sure that the case is convincing, but the arguments that we should IAR in this case are sufficient to suggest that RfD is the better venue to review this. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (delete). Not a notable hoax. If it were a notable hoax, then a mainspace entry (article or article section) should be created. We do not want to have mainspace-project space redirects. It is not the role of Wikipedia to debunk. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall below alludes to WP:Verifiable sources. I am not personally yet persuaded that reliable sources for this subject exist. He cites two references that making reference to “Glucojasinogen”, without definition, apparently assuming familiarity with the term, or assuming that it is well defined previously. What’s needed is a primary source for the definition or introduction of the term (and then we can go on to talk of neologisms). The place to discuss their inclusion is at Talk:Diabetic_neuropathy#Funny_situation, where the question is whether that article should make any mention. If it is decided to make mention within that article, then a redirect should be introduced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a hoax, I do not see it as a wikipedia-notable hoax, or even a hoax worth mentioning even briefly in any article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. It may break some rule but, so what? It does no harm whatever, none, and sets one or two readers straight per day. We perpetrated this hoax; we should do something that dispels any resulting confusion, and this seems like the most efficient and responsible measure. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that the journals perpetrated the hoax not us. We have millions of hoax edits hidden away in history, which someone somewhere may have read and taken seriously, do we need to preserve those also? As above can you show me where it's been reported in reliable sources that the source of this is wikipedia? If you can there is a chance this would be a notable hoax and we need an article/section about it anyway, if not then why would someone come here looking for it? (Beyond having seen the term elsewhere and wanting to know what it is, in which case a non-existant page tells them that, much the same as any other term read elsewhere would) --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish Wikipedia were so perfect as to have an article on every obscure medical topic but that is not the case. Of course not finding an article on the topic does not tell the reader it is a hoax. What nonsense. And I don't give a damn whether including this conforms to this or that policy or guideline. We perpetrated this hoax. We have a responsibility which we should shoulder. And the slippery slope argument you begin your comment with is a fallacy, there will be no negative consequences from including this information - we're not changing policy, we're recognising an important exception. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOHARM. I am also curious to know how glorifying vandalism equates to shouldering some imaginary responsibility. Resolute 01:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You have misunderstood WP:NOHARM. Throwing it in here is bizarre. "It does no harm" ON ITS OWN is an argument to avoid. My argument is (1) the redirect does no harm (2) it informs the one or two readers a day who encounter the term that it is a fraud and (3) we did the poop so we should clean it up, and this seems like the most efficient way of doing that. That is, it does no harm, it educates, it is the responsible thing to do.
    I'm sorry you can't see that hosting a correction is the responsible thing to do. I'd have thought that was self-evident. Your point, above in your !vote, that the redirect does more harm than good by pointing to a page that "glorifies vandalism" is wrong. People searching for the term (one or two a day) are trying to understand a medical topic. Clarifying their confusion does more good than the imaginary benefit from hiding the fact that we've hosted hoaxes.
    Perhaps there's a better solution than this cross-namespace redirect (but ignoring the hoax isn't it). Until a better, responsible solution is proposed, I support the restoration of this redirect. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is a legitimate term, then someone should create a legitimate article. If it is nonsense, then the redlink informs the readers everything they should know: that no such thing exists. And the "poop" we cleaned up was to remove the vandalism. So yes, the only aspect of your argument with weight, imo, is "noharm". And obviously I disagree with that point as well. Resolute 03:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not finding an article on the topic does not tell the reader it is a hoax. What nonsense. Does periventricular gray, neuromata, paraspinal muscle, metastatic seedling, and funicular pain mean these things do not exist? Sheesh.
    We have perpetrated a hoax and, now that it has come to light, you want to act like it's not our responsibility to clarify the situation to the 400 readers a year that are looking for clarification, because doing so doesn't fit our guidelines. This blind attachment to a guideline, despite it working diametrically against our mission to inform in this instance, is just dumb. Dumb. Does no good. Does harm. Dumb. Stupid. Irrational. It's a great example of the way rote practice trumps moral and responsible behaviour here every time. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "does not tell the reader it is a hoax. What nonsense." - I agree it is nonsense, which is why I never made any such suggestion nor resolute who you post the same response to. A terrible strawman, what nonsense - sheesh. The points I made which you completely failed to address were (1) We have dozens of falsehoods, made up crap, hoaxes etc appear on our pages, our process is to remove them, under your standard of it having appeared here, we should preserve redirects somewhere for them just in case someone wants to know we had a hoax there are some point in time - I don't believe anyone (including you) would actually suggest this as sensible which leads to (2) The reason why we seem to think this is different is because some journals reproduced it, so (a) it's them who have perpetrated the hoax not us, because that's the only reason we are discussing this per (1) and (b) since they don't reference wikipedia as the source, there is no reason to believe people will come here to find it's a hoax. For stuff which doesn't exist, we don't have articles. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't mistake my lack of response for agreement with what you've just said. I am having trouble making sense of it. We perpetrated the hoax, we set the ball rolling, we should set the record straight. I don't care how that's done, but when 400 people a year search for "glucojasinogen", I'd like them to find the truth, not International Journal of Health Research and Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences. You are putting Wikipedia standard practice above the project's mission to inform. I shouldn't be, I should have come to expect this by now, but I'm amazed this even needs to be discussed, I'm amazed people can argue against putting this right, and the only argument they've got is, it breaches a guideline. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll repeat then, to see if you can manage to grasp the quite simple context. The pages of wikipedia over the last 10 years have been littered with hoaxes, misinformation etc. we put those right be removing them when found, we don't catalogue each an every one to inform anyone who may have read them that the hoax appeared here once. If these hadn't appear in these journal we wouldn't be having these discussions. i.e that's what is "different" about this case, that some journals reproduced them i.e. it is them who perpetrated the hoax, and apparently continue to do so. That's your stated problem here, you don't want people to find those people who are perpetrating the hoax, you'd rather have us dispell it, but that's not our purpose we don't list every single hoax ever revealed in order to try and put it right. The fact as they don't cite wikipedia as the source, there is no reason to believe that anyone will come here to be put right, or informed of the problem. In fact we don't even know that wikipedia was the source of this, it may have been a third party which was copied to both wikipedia and the journals. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee. Sorry. Mmmm. You know, I'd really appreciate it if you could explain to me, you know, what would actually be wrong with redirecting readers to an explanation. By the way, who are you? It's just that, well, you seem pretty comfortable with the routine here. Do we know each other? Do you have a user name? What is it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop: We're reaching a confusing and contradictory conclusion here. More thought is needed. From Jimbo's talk page, there are two Google scholar sources for the term "Glucojasinogen", and our relevant policy still says "Verifiability and not truth". Now, anyone who's acquainted with the long, long history at WT:V will know that I'm very far from a fan of that particular phrase, and I think that Wikipedia should not perpetuate misapprehensions, lies or falsehoods. But the fact is that there are sources and there is an extent to which we are responsible for those sources' existence. Arguably, in the circumstances, it's quite irresponsible of us to have a redlink in that space. This line of thought suggests that we need an article on "Glucojasinogen" for the same reason we have an article on "Bigfoot"—and besides, if we don't have an article debunking a hoax that we inadvertently helped to perpetrate, then isn't there an extent to which we're responsible for it? Shouldn't Wikipedia acknowledge its own mistakes and its own unreliability? And as a last argument in support of this reasoning, although Wikipedia is not Snopes, we do call ourselves an encyclopaedia which means we have a basic duty to inform and educate our readers. This includes telling them about things that have been published but aren't true.

    Alternatively, if you're one of those who believes that it's better for Wikipedia not to publish falsehoods, then I respectfully invite you to address the arguments I've just presented, and I also respectfully solicit your support in removing "Verifiability not truth" from WP:V in the forthcoming RFC on that subject.—S Marshall T/C 11:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:V is not the relevant policy here. WP:N is the point of contention. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N's met by the two sources linked from Jimbo's talk page here and here. WP:V is the relevant policy.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Verifiability is achieved. Notability is not. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But a lack of notability doesn't necessarily lead to deletion, does it? "Non-notable" means "does not have a separate article", it doesn't necessarily mean "turn into a redlink". In fact we do have a long history of deleting hoaxes of this kind outright (my favourite example being this one) but that practice does make a complete mockery of "verifiability, not truth". I should probably reiterate that I'm not necessarily arguing to restore the redirect, so much as arguing that our policies are a mess in this area and we need a more coherent and intelligible set of guidelines to work with.—S Marshall T/C 20:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd dispute that it meets the standard of verifiability. For one, the subject matter can't be verified by a couple of passing mentions. WP:V also requires it to verifiable in a reliable source, and since the contention here that it's an unchecked reproduction of a hoax, the standard of being a reliable source for this particular subject, cannot be met. If however we want to use these as reference for the term as a hoax, then this as a hoax would need to be covered by reliable sources, referring to the journals and our belief that this is a hoax would fail WP:OR --62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Internet search engines will lead the researcher to the correct conclusion; that this is a made up word. The fact that non-English speaking authors in a couple of obscure journals plagiarized the vandalism is not interesting nor important enough to memorialize on Wikipedia beyond the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia page. Speciate (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first few Google results contain the hoax information, and that's often as far as people go in their research. Equazcion (talk) 14:48, 19 Apr 2012 (UTC)
  • Restore redirect, per Anthonyhcole's comments.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. 4,500 Google results. Not because that denotes notability, but we should take responsibility for this hoax and make people know that it is one. Definitely an IAR situation: It helps spread arguably verifiable information even though it doesn't follow the letter of policy. Notability doesn't need to be shown anyway; it's just a redirect. Let's not spite ourselves by standing on some stupid technicality.Equazcion (talk) 14:46, 19 Apr 2012 (UTC)
  • restore, ideally target would be rewritten and moved to mainspace I spent some time debating with myself what was appropriate here. -Anthonyhcole's comments did a nice job of identifying the relevant bits. I agree that A) we were in error B) a redirect is cheap and C) we should try to clarify the issue we created. My own issue is if the redirect (out of article space) will cause more confusion than not. That said, I think the idea thing would be to take the redirect target and turn it into a real list article. While such a list article would have significant problems with being original research, WP:IAR would seem enough to overcome that objection. Hobit (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore, mainly per Anthonyhcole -- nicely argued. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - If Glucojasinogen was genuinely discussed by reputable journals in a manner that qualifies as a reliable source, then it should be restored, of course. But my understanding is that this was not the case. That 2 obscure journals merely copied bogus information from Wikipedia, in which case they really aren't reliable sources for demonstrating notability, or verifiability, or anything else of this term. Even if the mentions in those journals mean that the term in some manner "exists" we need more than mere existence to warrant an article. Rlendog (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 April 2012

[edit]

12 April 2012

[edit]
  • Bridgette B – Deletion endorsed. Although there are opinions presented that the subject meets the WP:PORNBIO guideline, under WP:GUIDES "occasional exceptions may apply" to guidelines and there is clearly a consensus that even if the subject met the guideline this AfD was a situation where an "occasional exception" clause was applicable, and that the original closure to delete was appropriate on that basis. – Rlendog (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bridgette B (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am really confused as to why this article was deleted. The pornographic actress in question won an AVN Award, which is the very first criterion of notability under WP:PORNBIO. There were a few users that !voted "delete", but this was because they all thought WP:PORNBIO is a defective guideline. I believe my best response to that will be repeated here:

I tried discussing this with the deleting admin, but s/he stands by his/her delete decision, so I brought it here. Erpert

Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse DRV has held for a long time that PORNBIO will not be enforced in the absence of reliable secondary sources as required by the GNG and BLP. In a case where guidelines compete the closing admin has discretion to look at the arguments posed in the AFD as well as the wider community consensus and it is very clear from their comments at UT:Erpert [13] that this is exactly what they did. That the nominator does not accept the fact that the community doesn't trust PORNBIO doesn't distract from the fact that the only keep argument was based on PORNBIO and that the delete arguments correctly cited the requirement from BLP that articles of living people must be based on independent reliable secondary sources. Something that this article was wholly lacking. Good close and a poor DRV based on IDHT and IDONTLIKEIT. Spartaz Humbug! 10:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (as a "delete" !voter in the AfD). WP:PORNBIO #1 is clearly a poor indicator. No award necessarily confers notability; notability is not inherited from a notable award to the awardees. Many awards are very good indicators of notability, but clearly the lesser AVN awards are not. There are many AVN awards, more awards than articles covering them, and they appear to exist as a promotional excercise. The definitive test for Wikipedia-notability is whether others have written about the subject. As PORNBIO #1 so spectactualy fails, it needs to be struck. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Eluchil404's thoughtful close, and even more detailed explanation on Erpert's talk page, are entirely consistent with BLP policy, with community practice as established by multiple AFD and DRV discussions, and with the outcome of the recent RFC and followup discussions on the SNG involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also its a good idea to look at Monica Star as here deletion and the AFD are a good reflection of where the arguments changed from accepting AVN nominations/wins and discounting them without additional sources. Oh the AFD was closed by me against the numbers. Spartaz Humbug! 18:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - No error on the closer's part. Once upon a time I held the misguided belief that secondary/sub-notability guidelines were simply Door #2 by which a subject could be deemed article-worthy, if unworthy for Door #1. Since then, I have evolved. There has to be something outside of the insular little world of porn...or Transformers or Pokemon or a billion other specialty fields...that has taken notice of the subject in order to justify its inclusion in this project. Otherwise we're just a host to the trivial and the banal as long as some narrowly-focused media or trade publications take note of the subject. Tarc (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is what I don't understand. I have seen a lot of articles on pornographic actors deleted through AfD because of not passing WP:PORNBIO. This actress actually does pass it, but then the argument is, "Oh, but you know what? PORNBIO is defective." I'm sorry; you can't have it both ways. If you think the guideline is defective as you say, it should be deemed defective in all situations, not just select ones. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a very fair point and deserves a proper explanation. I think its important to understand that 4/5 years ago we were much less concerned about sourcing and most of our SNGs date from that time when people were not really focused on the BLP aspects of wikipedia articles because BLP didn't exist. Gradually the community's expectations over sourcing for articles generally and BLPs in particular has tightened considerablly and there has always been tension between SNGs and the GNG. What has happened is that the community now has a meta consensus on notability for BLPs that the SNG does not reflect but despite reams of discussion, a clear consensus of what to replace PORNBIO with remains elusive. What we do know is that most editors who commented on the last RFC rejected the current state of play but it was not depreceated for lack of consensus around what to replace it with and also because NACTOR might then come into play and that's even looser (and possibly something else that now needs looking at). Essentially this leaves us a lot of articles that should be deleted but no-one is really interested in doing the due diligence to nominate them at AFD knowing that when they get deleted they always come straight to DRV. S o sleeping dogs are allowed to lay. But when articles come on the radar they get looked at under the new consensus and are most often being deleted given the usual outliers where a local consensis is allowed to trump the meta-comminity consensus because either the discussion was pants or the close was lazy. Overall that does leave a confusing mess and I do sympathise with your difficulty understanding where we are with this. Spartaz Humbug! 18:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is what you keep getting wrong, Spartaz: WP:PORNBIO is not deprecated, and there is not a new consensus (not yet, anyway); PORNBIO is under discussion. Don't you think the idea of deleting the article would make more sense after that discussion was actually closed?...And if PORNBIO was indeed changed? You're jumping the gun here. BTW, I find it hard to believe that you sympathize with me when you do things like this (which seems like bragging) and this. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It obviously is depreciated when a basic component for keeping isn't enforced in favour of wider community norms for article content. Spartaz Humbug! 09:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which is why it was brought to deletion review. With all due respect, what part of "under discussion" do you not understand? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Too be fair, PORNBIO has been enforced in the majority of porn star AfDs in the past few months, eg. [14], [15], and half the participants in this AfD didn't feel PORNBIO should be ignored. Epbr123 (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I took a look at AfD's citing PORNBIO over the first quarter of 2012 and was actually surprised to see it cited approvingly as often as it was. However (with only one exception that I noticed) it was cited in the form "fails WP:PORNBIO - delete". That articles on performers who fail PORNBIO are deleted is a poor argument that those who pass it should be kept. I.e. it is a necessary but perhaps not sufficient condition. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Looking back over the past six months, three porn star articles have been kept for passing PORNBIO [16][17][18], whereas this is the only one to be deleted despite passing PORNBIO. There's not enough evidence to suggest PORNBIO is rejected by the AfD community (although that doesn't necessarily mean they think it's totally fine as it is). Epbr123 (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse (and I'm one of the people who didn't vote in the original AfD). As Spartaz says, the current guideline in practice is more strict than what used to be the case. The relationship between the general and special notability guidelines is different in each case, and how they are interpreted depends on the community. In more detail: When I came here 5 years ago, we used the fiction that meeting a special guideline was evidence that it would meet the general if enough work were done, but in more recent years they stand (or don't) on on the basis of how the community looks at the specific relationship. Community means the wider community, not the project. In some cases, e.g. PROF, MUSIC, and Geography, the special guidelines used by people in that field (whether or not a formal guideline) are thoroughly accepted. sometimes the situation is to some degree uncertain: in Athletics it is not really clear to what extent they are accepted--sometimes they are judged too restrictive; for Airplane accidents the consensus is usually now much broader than the project would like, but the general consensus rules. In many cases there is a consensus but individuals disagree. For example, for Books the special guideline is accepted — I think it is too lax, but as the consensus does not agree with me, they stand & I must accept that; for Pornbio the consensus now holds they are too lax, and those individuals who disagree must equally accept the overall consensus. As for the GNG, I'm very skeptical about the GNG, because what happens in an individual case depends on the judgment of the extent to which the sources are sufficiently independent to confer notability , and the answer to that depends on whether one wants to keep or delete the article. Similarly with awards: whether a given award confers notability depends on the award., and for some awards the answer depends on the desired result. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't add another "endorse" because I'm yet another person who participated in the AfD and I don't think the closer of this DRV needs any more input from debate participants. What I will say is that the AfD involved a very large number of DRV regulars, and it was closed by Eluchil404 who is also a DRV regular. While no individual person has done anything wrong, what's actually happening here is that we're endorsing at DRV a decision that we made at AfD. This is, procedurally speaking, a bit of a problem. It's simple FairProcess that those who scrutinise a decision ought to be different people from those who made it in the first place.

    Therefore, although my opinion is that the AfD decision should be endorsed, I'm also going to say that we shouldn't be the ones to endorse it. Could we please pop a notice on the administrator's noticeboard asking for previously-neutral people to analyse the decision?—S Marshall T/C 08:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fair enough. Are you thinking of a note to WP:AN when closing time comes around, or something else. If the purpose is to attract fresh eyes to opine and not just close, I'm not sure what venue might be best. There's no particular need to limit it to admins in that case (though that doesn't mean AN might not be the best place to get wide exposure). There is some related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#PORNBIO: yes or no? (maybe) but I see that no one left an actual link. I'll add one there.
    Also in agreement with User:S Marshall, I won't be making a bolded comment. As the closer whose decision is being reviewed both my position and bias should be obvious. I think the close (especially with the discussion on Erpert's talk page) speaks for itself, but am happy to answer any questions someone might have. Oh, and I take masculine pronouns if anyone cares. It's not, perhaps, as obvious as it could be, because I don't want to give the impression that it matters, but, on the other hand, it's not meant to be a secret either. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Errr, good point: not necessarily the administrator's noticeboard, but somewhere that will attract attention from experienced editors who haven't previously opined. But, now that you mention it, I also think it would be best if this particular DRV were closed by someone who isn't a DRV regular. I'm sure that all our usual closers are perfectly capable of screening out any bias or influence, but DRV is a place for scrupulous transparency and procedural rigour.—S Marshall T/C 17:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the AfD nom and a DRV regular, I'll not be making a bolded statement. That said, I do pretty strongly disagree with some of the delete !votes. I think PORNBIO's use of awards is too permissive (by a fair bit) and subject to gaming. However, I think subject guidelines should, in general, be followed (which quite a few !votes disagreed with). In addition, the sourcing by the time of deletion was such that I'd not have nominated it as there is a strong argument the article met GNG (though the sources were far from perfect). That said, it was pretty borderline article (in terms of the GNG and meeting an overly permissive SNG) so deletion wasn't an unreasonable outcome. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, although I challenged only one of the added sources (to provide an example) during the AFD, the others fall short of meeting BLP requirements: The two remaining AVN citations were actually press releases (and the article references are oddly linked to the XBIZ copies of the PR rather than the AVN copies): the "El Diario" article does not come from any of the notable newspapers of that name, but to a wire service report on a news aggregation site, mentioning the performer briefly, and does not actually support the claimed biographical detail, but gives the wrong date for the performer's porn debut. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DF, of course we as a community can ignore any notability guideline we have made--in either direction. Guidelines have exceptions, and who is to judge of the exceptions but the interested members of the communities. The guidelines are not binding legislation. The notability guidelines least of all, for we are constantly making exception here--were we not, there would be no need of AfD in the first place. Perhaps this is not the best way to do things: perhaps we ought to have absolutely binding rules to be determined mechanically, and a agreed resolution to keep to them as written, not and adjust as common sense may indicate. But we don't. We make our own rules, and we can apply them as we please. (This has the advantage of reducing the amount of legalistic quibbling, and increasing the role of common sense and individual judgment; it has the disadvantages of inconsistency, and liability to lobbying and prejudice.) Possibly this is the wrong choice, but that's the choice we're working under. I am so accustomed to working within this pattern that I find it natural, but change will be up to the decisions of the people here, both now and in the future. I think I accurately perceive what we actually do, but I wonder if others agree with my way of stating it. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say you had it broadly right although the devil, as always, is in the details and the application of this. Its a given that many of wikipedia's policies are self contradictory against each other and are quite vague. That has developed organically over the years but does leave closing admins with a difficult balancing act when they close discussions and quite a lot of discretion. We have talked about this several times and I think that several themes have emerged. The first is that admins should close by a rough consensus not a vote count. Another theme is that consensus needs to reflect the wider community consensus and not just a narrow range of opinion around a particular subject. That's why, when something like the community hardening their approach to BLP we find ourselves with quite liberal SNGs on one hand and fairly restrictive things like BLP/N on the other. So what does the admin do? Generally, when there is a choice between positions the admin needs to weigh the local consensus with the local rules against wider community expectations and the fact that notability rules are guidelines which means they can be set aside by a decent consensus as long as the wider overarching policies V, BLP etc are met. This gray area is what we call the admin's closing discretion and there is actually a fault line between those that say the admins should go no consensus or keep and those that say the admin is free to chose between competing views if there is a wider overarching consensus/rulebase to apply. This is why the introduction of BLPPROD has had such a profound affect on deletion because now closing admins are faced with a growing acceptance across the entire community that BLPs on barely notable individuals where genuinely decent sourcing is absent aren't acceptable when SNGs say that they are. On the other hand we have FOOTY and POLITICIAN that restrict articles where N/GNG is met and I think DRV would find it hard, if asked, to set aside a growing consensus around using sources to denote notability for inclusion rather than an SNG for exclusion. Well, at least that's how I generally vote. There are probably some very interesting papers to be written around group dynamics and community based decision making around this intersection of wikipedia rules and regulations but what we can say with certainty is that it's not going to get easier for the uninitiated to understand what the hell is going on here. Spartaz Humbug! 17:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • When there is an AFD where most people say Keep, an administrator can say those keeps don't matter and delete the article anyway for not meeting any notability guidelines, consensus thus ignored. But even when something does meet the guidelines, it can still be deleted if the closing administrator feels like doing so. Not a vote, doesn't matter how many people show up and say something you disagree with, you will close AFDs in the way you want, ignoring consensus and even guidelines. Why not just skip the AFD process entirely and have administrators just decide based on what they personally like or don't like, or just flip a coin? Dream Focus 04:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is, essentially, the system we already have. I think most users know that most deletions are speedies or prods nowadays, and it's a given that some admins are more deletion-prone than others. If you like, you can call our whole system "administrator's whim". It's only different with contested deletions, where a user wishing to retain material can generally force an AfD. Once that happens, the odds are quite stacked: AfD is hedged about with strongly inclusionist rules (which is as it should be), and supervised by DRV, which is also a rather inclusionist venue because it typically insists that the inclusionist AfD rules are strictly followed (and this is also as it should be). But, Dream Focus, I'm afraid you need to accept that in any deletion system that's actually functional, some articles will still be deleted. This is particularly true when they concern unremarkable living people.—S Marshall T/C 07:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close While I voted keep at the AFD, and while I might feel that some of the arguments for deletion were weak, angry, or smacked of IDONTLIKIT, what the close reflected is the growing trend on Wikiedia to remove pornography topics unless their surpassing of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO is absolutely incontrovertible. The closer, in not using the AFD to re-write the slowly-being-deprecated PORNBIO, perhaps paid closer heed to the caveats of other guidelines seen as more pertinant in governing notability away from the weak one dealing with porn topics. And THAT reflects the consensus and application of guideline of the community as a whole. Porn stars are for the most part sourced solely in porn media, so the close reflects the growing distaste of Jimbo and Wikipedia for the topic as a whole. And had keep arguments been more per WP:ACTOR and WP:ANYBIO and less of WP:PORNBIO, we'd still have the concern that the sourcing available comes from the industry itself. When Roger Ebert or Time or The New York Times starts giving space to porn, we can welcome a return of more properly sourced articles. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait...who said Jimbo Wales, much less Wikipedia as a whole, has distaste for porn? Even if that were the case, that alone isn't enough for deletion. And another thing, it isn't fair to expect someone like Roger Ebert to start reviewing porn. Pornographic films generally aren't shown in mainstream theaters, so mainstream film critics probably aren't going to pick up on it. And where does it say anywhere on Wikipedia that porn topics are flat-out going to be removed? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 00:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      There have always been people that didn't want porn on Wikipedia, or even sex articles and nudity, while others wanted to keep that, and many others never stated an opinion at all. That hasn't changed at all. And Wikipedia:Notability clearly states A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. And you can click the one for people, and it list the porn bio guideline there. You can't just decide that some people don't like something, so they can ignore the guidelines, and just delete it anyway. Some have always wanted to get rid of the subject-specific guidelines entirely. Can they ignore all of them now? Unless we have a banner at the top of the Wikipedia for everyone to see, telling them to participate in a poll on the subject, we can't be certain what the will of the Wikipedia is. Dream Focus 00:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ User:Erpert If you recall, at the AFD HW trotted out a months-old quote from Jimmy's page... and when Jimmy speaks, so generally and eventually follows Wikipedia. As for "Wikipedia as a whole", that is intended to reflect that PORNBIO does not the depth of community support that it once did. And as is seen by the many porn topics which have been deleted of late at AFD, we have a re-alignment of community standards against the topic and toward a greater emphasis on BLP issues (not that anything in the article was particularly "harmful" to a porn actress). I supported your defense of the article at AFD, and had the arguments at the AFD been more strongly grounded in WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, a deletion would have less likely an outcome. But, and even though WP:JIMMYLIKESIT or WP:JIMMYHATESIT is not a criteria, when the founder speaks, people listen. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Articles of all types get kept or deleted based on whatever small number of people shows up to participate in the AFDs, there is no precedence on Wikipedia. The opinions of some people participating in some of the porn related AFDs you noticed recently, and/or that of the closing administrators, favored eliminating these articles? Is that what you are saying? I remember someone went and automated nominated a very large number of them at a time months ago, and while some went and found references to save a few of them, there were just too many to bother with, and most ended up being deleted. The porn bio has been up for deletion multiple times including recently, and the majority of people wanted to keep it every time. Consensus is that it is a legitimate guideline, and should be accepted as such. Dream Focus 01:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Legitimate" or not, it is among the least respected of the various notability SNGs. As we cannot force others to respect it or accept it, it becomes one that is often disregarded per consensus established one-by-one at AFDs. And "IF" the article would have been unassailable under the more widely respected WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO we would not be having this DRV. IF you feel you or Erpert could make it so, I would be willing to userfy it to either of you for such additional work. But note... it would have to be unassailable in order to even contemplate a return in the light of the consensus being formed by this DRV. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • "It is among the least respected of the various notability SNGs"? Says who? And I did read what Jimmy had to say, but as I asked in the original AfD, when did he say that he point blank doesn't like WP:PORNBIO and that it should be removed? Also as I said before, if he did think it should be removed, he could remove it himself. Anyway, the article was supposedly deemed "unassailable" (I actually had to look that word up, lol) because the closing admin ignored the guideline (I never could quite wrap my head around WP:IAR, btw). Just because the original delete !votes had longer comments behind them doesn't necessarily mean that they held more weight than the keep !votes.
Side note: I normally don't take things to DRV, but the fact that an article can be deleted just because enough people don't like the guideline it passes just boggles my mind. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, another thing, Schmidt; when you mentioned "the many porn topics which have been deleted of late at AFD", I think what you're really referring to are the porn topics that failed WP:PORNBIO, not the ones that pass it. You can't just group all those up with this article and then use it as your basis for the apparent distate of porn on Wikipedia. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Dream Focus, why not find proof to support your claims that the notability guidelines should be followed, despite having many obvious flaws? --Calton | Talk 14:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to provide proof that notability claims should be followed? First time I ever heard that one. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 14:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What, you've confused "guideline" with "law" again? For shame. But don't blame me for this argument, blame your compatriot Dream Focus, since it's his. And like a stopped clock, yes, he's right here, though Dream Focus's opinions on guidelines seems to depend directly upon whether they support the result he wants: if the guideline supports the result he wants, it's an iron-clad, must-follow rule; if not, it must be ignored for the Greater Good. My own opinion: WP:PORNBIO is worthless and should not replace WP:GNG -- and no SNG should. --Calton | Talk 07:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Pornbio is not an actual notability guideline, rather it is depreciated, but cannot be removed due to intransigence by some. Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a guideline, and has been for years now. I see it was there back in September of 2007. [19] Years go by, and after failing to get it deleted after yet another try, one administrator who doesn't like it decides to tag it with "dispute" over that section, and now people say they can ignore it because it doesn't count. Dream Focus 17:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And now we've gone from it being a faulty guideline to it not being a guideline at all? You endorsers really need to make up your minds.
And I know all about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I still have to ask...why is it that there are plenty of articles on porn actors who pass WP:PORNBIO by simply being nominated in multiple years, yet an article on an actor that actually won gets deleted? Can anyone explain to me the sense in that? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid AfD has always been a lottery that depends on whether inclusionists or deletionists turn up to vote. Epbr123 (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The actual decisions at AfD,if consistent, and consistently endorsed here, are our true guidelines. Put simply, consensus can make any rule or exception it pleases. The way to challenge consensus is to bring a test case, as this one has apparently become. What can consensus not do, besides violate the fundamental rules (&notability is not one of them) to the extent the foundation steps in?
And even without making exceptions, there are enough contradictions, ambiguities and terms used in s special meaning in the written guidelines to argue most AfDs, including this one, in any direction. This is not a matter of inclusionism or exclusionism in general--if anyone hasn't noticed, there are some very generally inclusionist people !voting delete on this particular article. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because they're choosing to ignore WP:PORNBIO. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's been judged worthless, essentially. Which is, you know, a fault. Hence "faulty". The only "inconsistency" here -- your handwaving notwithstanding -- is HOW faulty a guideline. I say faulty to the point of being dead as a doornail. --Calton | Talk 07:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 April 2012

[edit]

10 April 2012

[edit]

9 April 2012

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

This entry was lumped together in a mass deletion of several related articles however the discussion's votes and arguments were all counted against all of them when the votes did not all reflect upon each item under discussion. Baba rosa is in fact a non controvertial Spanish term (used in Spanish wikipedia) for the subject of pink slime and per G3 "redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are sometimes redirects in other languages." So I find it odd that g3 has been cited in deletion and redeletion.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC) LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • User:BradTraylor/Battle_of_Imizu – Speedy closed because the nomination consists largely of personal attacks, for which this page may not be abused. The request is at any rate meritless because because no argument is made why the closer assessed consensus to delete incorrectly. Whether the deletion itself was correct or not was the subject of the MfD discussion and may not be reargued here. –  Sandstein  08:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:BradTraylor/Battle_of_Imizu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No adequate reason was given by user Oda Mari as to why this page should be deleted. It is not part of the main encyclopedia of Wikipedia, and it was moved here specifically so that it could be cleaned up, fixed, and adequately cited. Until such time when it is adequately cited and ready for the Wikipedia main page, it should be left available to be fixed up, because obviously any questions of sources or content can't be addressed without further research. Questions and comments on the content and validity have been discussed endlessly in at least three other locations on wikipedia and as such will not be rehashed here, and shouldn't even be a consideration in deciding whether or not to delete this article due to the reason it was placed here in the first place - to be cleaned up and further researched. Furthermore, this deletion was just a continuation of Oda Mari's personal campaign against me; When I clearly illustrated numerous times her lack of the necessary knowledge of Japanese primary sources and the skills necessary to evaluate them (most notably on the talk page associated with this page), she became angry, and nominated numerous of my articles a second time for deletion (she was shot down the first time), and then went after this page (presumably out of embarrassment). She further escalated her bullying by then prompting a failed sockpuppet allegation against me. This page should be allowed to stand in order for it to be fixed up later, as mentioned before, that is why it was moved here in the first place. BradTraylor (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 April 2012

[edit]

7 April 2012

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

I find it ridiculous that an actress' page be redirected towards the character. I can maybe see deletion, but she is not her character. If Deanna does not qualify as notable, she should be a redlink (or thus no link), not a redirect. She has had other recurring roles, though perhaps none to get her article itself actually restored. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't see any new roles listed in IMDb since the previous redirection in 2010. I grant that she had other recurring roles, and this seems an odd way to handle an article, but I would have been all over un-redirection if there had been any new coverage. Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close  No deletion to review.  Although I would say that "speedy keep" would have been the correct close for the 2010 AfD, this is not a current remedy for discussion that needs to take place on an article talk page, the closing admin's talk page, or at RfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fairness, there's a deletion discussion to review. At first glance that one appears to be defective: you're right to say that "keep" or even "speedy keep" would have been the correct close. I also dislike the idea of redirecting a person's real life name to that of a fictional character. But what I don't see are decent sources for a BLP.—S Marshall T/C 12:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that there was a consensus to "keep", IMO there was consensus that the remedy sought was an editorial process that did not require AfD.  Now that we are marking speedy-keep closes as "speedy keep" and not "keep", things have changed slightly since this AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. All Degrassi actors either have a redirect or an article. The character article should be deleted as not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse non-keep outcome. No one bothered to argue against redirection. A speedy keep would have been valid, but I think that it was better to leave the AfD open, since the article was a lightly-sourced BLP. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2012 (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.
UFC 149 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

There is simply no way that discussion had a consensus to redirect the article. It may not be a vote, but the will of the community was either clearly for keeping the article, or at worst no consensus. There certainly was no consensus to redirect. The event concerns one covered not just in specialized MMA press, but in the mainstream press due to a championship being determined. It is not some run of the mill "fight night", but a card put on by the leading MMA promotion in the world that is televised globally, covered in USA Today type of mainstream press and similar publications in other countries (Brazil, Japan), etc. due to a title bout being on the card. 172.130.242.182 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Request is from a block-evading IP of an indefinitely blocked user, which has now been rangeblocked. --MuZemike 18:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current close(s) There have been two separate AFDs for this article in the last month. The new article should have been deleted as recreation of previously deleted material, but I digress. In both AFDs the closing admins independently felt the article should be merged, properly. Viewing the AFDs makes it clear that this was the consensus. There are a number of IPs and now blocked and banned editors, meatpuppets and sockpuppets who have sworn to disrupt the process of merging many of these undersourced articles. This IP is simply one of them. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close without result, socks don't get to nominate at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 20:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 April 2012

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

This article was posted under the name of an article that was previously deleted. Despite the fact that this article is entirely different, and much more substantial in both content and sourcing from the previous one, it was speedily deleted. The fact is, this is a nerdcore hip-hop artist with as much, if not more, press exposure in the genre as other nerdcore artists with long-standing wikipedia pages. On top of that, he is a billboard-charting record producer/composer. He is verified on BMI, (short for Broadcast Music, Inc. a de-facto source of imformation as to who has ownership rights in a particular musical work) as a composer/songwriter on the record. BMI's official repertoire not only verifies (by his birth-name Marcus Brown II) as a composer on the work titled Homegurl (He Gotta), it also verifies Bone as the performing artist. ( http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&page=1&keyid=10104396&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID ) Also, Bone is on record by a reliable news source, San Antonio Express-News, himself stating Branson's involvement as a composer on the song ( http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Hip-hop-producer-beating-a-path-to-success-789593.php ).

The BMI source is satisfactory to me, and Bone's confirmation on record with a notable newspaper gives me no reason to doubt Branson's role as a composer in that song. Looking at the previous AfD discussion (which I agree was full of sockpuppet responses), editors cast doubt on the fact that the song charted because no page was cited directly from Billboard showing the song ever charted. The author provided a paywall restricted page from billboard.biz, which only further created doubt. In this incarnation, I provided a direct source from Billboard's official site shows the song charted. It clearly shows Homegurl (He Gotta) holding position 22 on the chart. ( http://www.billboard.com/charts/r-b-hip-hop-songs?chartDate=2010-03-06&order=gainer#/charts/rap-songs?chartDate=2010-02-27&order=gainer ) One of the editors claimed Billboard.com as the de-facto source of information as to whether a song charted or not. I agree with him, and thus I presented evidence from the de-facto source and not a paywall site.

Based on that, I'd argue that Branson meets criteria number 1 in WP:COMPOSER, because there is a de-facto source showing he as a composer on a song that another de-facto source verifies as having charted on a national level. Since the composition charted, I believe it to be notable. I feel even stronger about the subject's meeting criteria number 3 in WP:COMPOSER. Bone's page on the official Island Def Jam website verifies the composition was used as a basis for future recordings by three highly recognized grammy-award winning artists: Bun-B, The-Dream, and Rick Ross. I provided a source for that as well: http://www.islanddefjam.com/artist/discography_single.aspx?artistID=7410&productID=12297 That fact also wasn't present in the previous AfD discussion. It defies WP:COMMONSENSE to have any reason to doubt that 1) Branson was involved in the composition of the song "Homegurl (He Gotta)" and 2) The song charted on billboard. Two De-Facto sources and a reliable news source attest to that being fact.

I also believe the things he's accomplished in the nerdcore genre (none of which had occured prior to the previous article) further suggest notability, if not as a composer than certainly as a nerdcore hip-hop artist. His own music performed as an artist, completely unrelated to the billboard-charting song he produced, has been featured on a variety of notable anime and gaming-related web publications and shows, including Crunchyroll, Joystiq, TheForce.Net, The Jace Hall Show, Rich Johnston's BleedingCool, ComicsAlliance, Kotaku, io9, Anime Vice and more. I have included all those as sources in this article as well. None of those accomplishments had even happened when the previous article was created. Comparing my sources to those presented in long-standing wikipedia articles of other nerdcore artists, I'd confidently argue that Branson is no less notable than most other artists in the genre. This article should not have been a candidate for speedy delete as it was not at all similar to the identically-named one previously deleted beforehand. ZachBrenner (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC) — ZachBrenner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment - Here goes:
Televised Story on [Fox Network] affiliate KABB duscussing Branson's nerdcore endeavors: http://www.foxsanantonio.com/newsroom/features/streetscorner/videos/vid_213.shtml
Aside from the previous article discussing Branson's success as a producer, another San Antonio Express-News was written, also verifying Branson produced for Def Jam and discussing Branson's nerdcore endeavors:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/article/Artist-trades-hip-hop-for-nerdcore-3455835.php
Crunchyroll review of Branson's recent nerdcore work. Crunchyroll is a notable source of anime news and a major supplier of streaming anime:
http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-feature/2012/03/17/feature-richie-bransons-the-wing-zero-ep-review
A piece by notable anime news site Anime Vice (parent company: Whiskey Media discussing Branson's latest nerdcore work and describing him as the most successful artist in the nerdcore genre:
http://www.animevice.com/news/listen-to-the-entire-gundam-rap-album-for-free/5928/
I've also confirmed repeated coverage of him on notable newsmagazine site Gawker and notable video game news show The Jace Hall Show as well. I can provide links to those if this isn't sufficient to determine that he is, in fact a notable nerdcore artist. I might also mention when you google "nerdcore", his site appears on the first page. In fact, as a nerdcore artist, his official site appears second only to MC Frontalot, the founder of the genre. My motion is to approve his article under the guideline that it he is specifically mentioned as a nerdcore hip-hop artist, given that he shares the same amount of notoriety, if not more, than the 'notable' nerdcore artists listed on the wikipedia page for the genre. In fact, the very wikipedia article for nerdcore seems to set the standard for a nerdcore artists's "notability" in the following sentence: "notability is somewhat hard to define in a nerdcore context". ZachBrenner (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore new article I remember the previous AfD discussion on this. In hindsight, the previous article probably should have been deleted. But, with the additional nerdcore success that occured since the last article, I'd say the author's updated article suffices. If anything, "Richie Branson" fits the notability guidelines inherent in the nerdcore article. I did a google news search[1] on the term "nerdcore" and Richie Branson showed up more than any other artist. That, plus a lot of recent media coverage, seems to indicate that Richie is indeed a notable character in the context of the type of music he's making. Admittedly, nerdcore music appears to be an obscure sub-genre of music, but it is notable and it's difficult to see how this guy isn't one of the faces of that movement. That would allow him to qualify under #7 of WP:BAND. Because of that, I'd say restore under the author's pretense that he is notable in the context of nerdcore. In addition, the non-trivial press coverage he's received of his nerdcore work would qualify him under #1 in WP:BAND, also see note#1 there, it lists the BMI repertoire as an acceptable method of determining composition/ownership of a song. UncommonlySmooth (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)— UncommonlySmooth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment In addition, I've found the following englinsh and non-english non-trivial Richie Branson coverage from online secondary sources via Google News. BigShinyRobot's review of Branson's nerdcore work in their 'Spring Music Picks' article[2]. Geeks of Doom's coverage of Branson's "Wing Zero EP"[3]. io9's coverage of Branson's "Wing Memories" song[4]. Additional coverage of a nerdcore music video by Branson on San Antonio Express-News [5]. Non-english coverage of Branson's "Cold Republic" on Polygamia.pl[6]. Non-english coverage of Branson's music on onlinewelten.com[7]. Playstation news site PSXextreme's coverage of Branson's "Letter to Squaresoft[8]. Playstation Universe's coverage of Branson's music[9]. Gawker media's Kotaku news coverage of richie's work[10]. non-english coverage from notable magazine in france "Brain Magazine" (they have a fr.wikipedia.org article) featuring Richie Branson[11]. This further supports his eligibility under WP:BAND UncommonlySmooth (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - this one was a mess last year, and it still appears to be so. You have too many conflicting sources and stories - is his name Branson or Brown? This is offered as proof of notability, yet it doesn't mention Branson at all. Did he write the Bone song or not? Or which version? According to Billboard, the song never charted, and doesn't list any of these names as a writer. And of course, there were numerous sockpuppet accounts that plagued the original AfD (which ZachBrenner must have been involved in under another username, given his comments), something that appears to be happening again - it's certainly interesting to me that UncommonlySmooth hasn't edited at all since the AfD last July, but magically appeared on this page less than an hour after ZachBrenner finished filing it? I'm still not seeing significant coverage - mostly minor or passing mentions, or coverage from questionable sources, and as such, I cannot support the recreation of this article. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, accodring to Billboard, the song Homegurl (He Gotta) did indeed chart. It shows the song was in it's second week on the chart as of February 27, 2010. Your link shows that the "explicit" version of the song didn't chart. You do realize that explicit versions of songs don't play on the radio due to FCC regulations, and therefore would not chart? On top of that, if you're at all familiar with the recording industry, you'd realize that billboard only lists the performing artist's name. Producer and writer information is found by looking at the repertoire of the PRO (Performer's Right's Organization) where the writer or producer is registered. In fact if you read the guidelines in WP:BAND, the "resources" section says just as much (even going as far as to specificially mention BMI's repertoire). According to BMI, the PRO that Branson is registered under (As Marcus Brown), he is indeed a writer/composer on the record. Also this source from the same newspaper you cited as not mentioning Brown as "Branson" shows that Branson IS Brown. Is there really reason to believe that "Richie Branson" isn't Brown's stage name? ZachBrenner (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2012 (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.
Abdur Raheem Green (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is absolutely preposterous. I may not be a hugely experienced Wikipedian, or great at finding secondary sources or other jargon/tasks you can throw at me, but this man meets the notability criteria. He is a hugely influential figure in the Muslim community, famous around the world for his speeches, he is a famous presenter on Islam Channel and Peace TV, he founded an important Islamic Academy, he is a frequent guest speaker on shows such as The Deen show, he is a key lecturer in the education academy he founded, and he is simply a renowned public speaker, one only needs to do a quick search on YouTube for his hundreds of talks and speeches which are given in front of audiences of thousands and are also televised. Googling his name in speech marks (so you get pages that list his exact full name) and you get 1m hits. Another editor informed me "One of the pages had 183 edits over 3 years." and "It had a long edit history with a range of editors". Type his name into the google box and the first two predictive suggestions you get are "Abdur Raheem Green wiki" and "Abdur Raheem Green wikipedia" (that says it all, really). And you dare tell me he cannot have a Wikipedia article? I can't help but think that it's damn well obvious that this man would have an article if he was a Christian, Jew, or atheist speaker. http://www.peacetv.in/sp-abdurraheem_green.php http://www.islamessentials.org/instructors/abdurraheem-green/ http://islamevents.com/speakers/speaker_detail.php?spid=10 http://www.iera.org.uk/speakers_arg.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239543/The-fanatic-invited-jihad-cleric-address-British-students.html?ITO=1490 http://www.islamsgreen.org/ http://www.halaltube.com/speaker/abdur-raheem-green Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy and improve I performed a search of the Google news archives and got 890 hits for Abdur Raheem Green (some are foreign language which doesn't really matter since we all have Google translate now). Based on what I'm seeing, the subject appears sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article and the article should be undeleted and userfied so it can be brought up to proper standards. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, LGF needs to stop with their constant accusations of anti-Muslim bias aimed at Wikipedia-at large, which have been expressed both here and at ANI. Secondly, the state the article was in deserved a deletion, but I'm in agreement that we should userfy it, allow it to be impoved, and then moved back into mainspace when it's in a more suitable state. GiantSnowman 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. LGW is apparently unwilling or unable to provide any reliable secondary sources indicating that this individual meets the requirements of WP:BIO. Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm allowed to reply and comment here.. Let's give an example. Imagine a hypothetical article about X, made by a contributor Y. Just because Y may not have the skills/experience/patience to find lots of "reliable secondary sources" doesn't affect whether article X is or isn't notable, surely. So I can only apologise that I do not have the knowledge/experience/acumen to find you what it is you are looking for, but I don't believe that in any way reflects on Green's notability Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you're allowed to reply, you should participate in the discussion, after all this is an article you want created. I've found a lot of reliable secondary sources covering Green and added them below, this should be plenty to get started with. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not but let's forget about that for a second, stop commenting on contributors and look at the article's subject. I found a number of Google News Archive articles on him, so if we're purely objective then I think we have an article here. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that we don't actually have any such sources yet; we would need to actually see them to make a decision about whether the subject meets WP:BIO. Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, here's a link to a full bio in Republika [21], Here's an Australian ABC transcript of a TV broadcast with a phone interview of Green [22], an Australian.com article about Green [23], New Zealand Herald article about him [24], a Malay language article about him [25], and a short Jamican news article about him [26]. Note these are just articles that directly cover Green and don't include all the other ones that are about him or discuss him in connection with other subjects. The foreign language articles are easily translated into somewhat understandable format with Google translate. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:27, 6 April 2012 (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:Support (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I discovered this in the "perennial requests" page so you could say I found it in a manner that suggested that I should not be attempting a DRV for this template. However, after finding that this and its variants are often used in the Japanese Wikipedia and probably many other language Wikipedias, I found them very useful in understanding what they are saying, and was wondering why there did not exist a version on the English Wikipedia, so the perennial requests page notified me that it did exist some time in the past, which is why I am filing this DRV right now.

In any case, the major reason why I find that there is a usefulness to comment icons that outweights the disadvantages, as well as the Template:Oppose as well as the theoretical Template:Comm (short for "comment," a much better name than Template:Object) is that to those who are not so good at English, it enables people to follow the discussion much more easily than if they were not there. Although this is the English Wikipedia, we cannot expect everyone to be native speakers in English, just like how the Japanese Wikipedia cannot expect all of its users to speak perfect Japanese (I can understand about 50% of Japanese writing, and did not know the word for "support" in Japanese, but the image definitely helped). For example, on page here in the Japanese Wikipedia, even if you do not understand what they are saying at all, you can at least know where they are making a comment supporting or opposing a certain suggestion. As can be seen on that page, the icons especially help in understanding the gist of what is said―they are not used for voting, but merely elucidate the conversation.

In terms of encouraging voting and such, I would say these icons encourage voting no more than simply writing "support" or "oppose" (or any of the other phrases like "keep," "delete," etc.) in bold, which we do already, and which newcomers quick come to copy in discussions. If we truly want to get rid of voting, we should all stop engaging in that practice - as long as we continue, this is only to make it more clear, especially to those who are not native in English. Thus, they do not perform any function other than something similar to the icons commonly used in the sockpuppet investigations pages, which I find useful in summarizing what is said. Furthermore, even if they do not need to be used in AfD discussions, they clearly (as in the example I have given previously) have a positive usages in article talk pages, where the argument that "they are useless unless everyone uses them" is invalid since they are not used in an vote-like sense on the talk pages in the first place.

The more major reason given in the previous discussion was the load time. Given that the images themselves are small, I do not think that this is an issue - the bigger issue is the pages themselves getting long. That is what tends to slow down my browser, not small images like this. I have experienced no problem with loading times in my experience of pages that have used these icons.

(For references, the Japanese Wikipedia does currently use two sets of templates, one for comments on talk pages listed in the documentation here, and one for AfD discussions listed here.)

New questions? 18:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With regards to AfD discussions, I found them extremely useful since I did not know a significant number of the Japanese words used there, like "speedy delete," "keep," or "delete a particular revision" until I saw the words used next to the icons, as in the page here.--New questions? 18:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just the Japanese Wikipedia, actually; of the languages I speak, fr.wiki uses these templates but de.wiki doesn't. Personally I don't see a good reason to object to these templates being created, but I don't care strongly either way.—S Marshall T/C 16:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your only new argument - that bolding keep and delete already encourages vote-like behavior, so it's ok that these templates that encourage it even more are ok - isn't particularly persuasive. Yes, vote bolding is tolerated. So is exceeding the speed limit by five or ten miles an hour. That doesn't mean it's ok to drive 120 in a 35. (Bolding comment, as you do above, is particularly counterproductive - by doing so, you're drawing more attention to the simple fact that you made a comment than you do to what you actually said!) 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator presents more arguments than just that one, actually.—S Marshall T/C 20:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But no other new ones. Both the language and load-time arguments were addressed in the very first tfd. (And he misses the point of the load-time argument anyway. What slows things down isn't an image being displayed a thousand times on an afd log page, it's another template being transcluded an extra thousand times.) 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And, looking closer at the tfd, I see that the bolding was addressed there as well. Speedy endorse; nominator provides no new arguments, just asserts that the previous consensuses were wrong, exactly as Perennial requests says not to do. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I gave you an example showing that it is not encouraging vote-like behavior - on that Japanese discussion page that I linked to, it is used to highlight discussion points, not to "vote" for anything, and it certainly did not slow down my loading time.--New questions? 21:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll see your ja:WP:VFD and raise you commons:C:FPC. This particular argument, that they encourage the perception that discussions are a vote, is the single most discussed issue about these templates; a single counterexample is patently inadequate to overturn on this basis. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Commons is different from Wikipedia, since commons can be about voting, without adding a rationale. Perhaps the previous discussions were based on the perception of how they were used in commons, without looking at how it would be applied to Wikipedia itself. When it was used on Wikipedia itself, as on the Japanese Wikipedia, and as well as the French Wikipedia that I looked into, it was not used for drive-by voting. Rather, they all had reasons attached to them. These are not just "a single counterexample," but rather the more applicable examples than commons, since commons has different practices about voting.--New questions? 02:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, I did not find the language issue addressed adequately in the previous TfD - just brought up a tiny bit, and ignored.--New questions? 21:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think we'll be speedy-endorsing based on a TFD that dates back to 2005 and was last reviewed in 2008. Particularly where the logic used to justify the deletion was rather shaky: these templates can be used to reduce discussions to votes, but we shouldn't delete things just because they can be misused. I don't particularly mind which result we get to but I think we should get there based on clearer thinking than has so far been evident.—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, after looking through one of these discussions, I found the comment, "the bigger underlying reason for these kinds of templates being deleted over and over again is because the English Wikipedia is not multilingual and therefore not useful." I somewhat laughed at that comment - English Wikipedia, not multilingual? I know that there are more than just a few here who are not so good with English, and my experience at the Japanese Wikipedia would have been much more confusing without those kinds of templates.--New questions? 01:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a strawman, you've picked on one comment made (I can't see it in the two discussions listed in the previous post) and basing and argument around that. The reason for deletion has as far as I know nothing about being multi-lingual, so knocking down that strawman isn't helpful. I'd actually argue your point about making it easier to understand if not native in the language is just a reinforcement of it being about voting. If you can't even understand enough of the language to see a general sentiment being expressed, then the chances of you understanding the detail of the argument, any nuance etc. is pretty much non-existant, you are wanting to boil their argument down to a tick or a cross. If you take it one step further look at a typical DRV here, there are huge numbers of different sentiments bolded, certainly more complex that can be shown with a simple graphic. However for the sake of argument let's assume if can be a tick or a cross, then without actually understanding the language and the argument what would a tick mean? Would it mean I support the argument of the nominator or would it mean I support the result of the deletion debate? Who's not to say they are used ambiguously - indeed within DRV I've see people say to support undeletion, or to support outcome of the debate, without actually understanding the expression of the words the ticks and indeed bolded sentiments are meaningless. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To repeat, as I said from the beginning, my Japanese is 50% good enough so I can understand enough most of what people are saying in their comments, but I did not know certain vocabulary words like "support," "speedy delete," etc. so it helped in that way. It allowed for me to more quickly understand the more general idea of the rest of the comment without danger of misconceiving what they were saying.
  • That makes no sense to me, either you can "understand enough most of what people are saying" or not. If you don't understand their general sentiment, or key vocabulary terms for such debates (like "support") without a little graphic then I'd suspect it's the latter. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure how many times I need to explain myself to make myself clear, but as I said previously, yes I can understand most of what they are saying, but the graphic helped me understand it more quickly and prevented misconceptions since I did not know vocabulary words like "keep" or "support" etc.--New questions? 16:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still not clear, I cannot understand how you can understand most of what is being said, without being able to work out if the view is one of support, keep, whatever... If you don't, I don't see how your misconceptions are being helped, as above people can say "support" and put various marks to indicate that meaning something different to a person in the same discussion. "Support" -original deletion was fine, or "Support" - should never have been deleted. This is the very objection, it's not voting, you can't boil the opinion down to a little tick, cross etc. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, even in English, it can be hard to tell if a view is in support or opposition to a view even if you understand what the comment is saying due to ambiguities with written language and the lack of conveying things like tone and sentiment in written language. It is not about boiling it down to just "support" or "oppose" but rather, making one's position unambiguous, since if a comment begins with "support," readers know to read the following comment as a comment in support of an idea rather than a simple comment. This is especially true in a language you are not native in. For the case of DRV discussions, it is obvious as can be seen on the Japanese DRV page that "support" (with the plus mark) means "support page restoration" and "oppose" (with the minus mark) means "oppose page restoration, endorse deletion." If more DRV specific text is desired, then by all means, more specific text like "overturn" and "endorse" can be used, but the symbols are pretty unambiguous in DRV discussions.--New questions? 16:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even unrelated to the language issue, I think there is another reason why saying "support" and "oppose" in bold is a good idea and it has nothing to do with voting. It is because written language is ambiguous in tone and sentiment, and this practice prevents comments from being interpreted more positively or negatively than they should be. For example, saying "comment" rather than "oppose" lets the reader know not to interpret the comment more negatively than necessary. If someone can at least understand the general idea of what is said in the comments, but does not know certain vocabulary words like "support" or "speedy delete," (as was my case on the Japanese Wikipedia), the graphic can help prevent misconceptions in that regards.
  • If you would like to say that "multi-lingual was not the major argument," I would like to say that it seems like the more major argument in them so far has been "I don't like it."--New questions? 15:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again another strawman, no one is saying not to bold sentiments, in fact it's pretty standard practice. Maybe the argument is ultimately an "I don't like it" coupled of course with the reason why people don't like it, which is a perfectly valid argument in such debates about the mechanics of the way wikipedia works, the preferences of the community is significant. Your argument seems to be "I like it" and "I want to use wikipedia to help me believe my understandanding of foreign languages is better than it is". --62.254.139.60 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are saying that I am arguing against a strawman that was not the main point, then please at least point out what was the main point, since I believe I addressed all of the points raised in previous discussions, not just one. I was simply saying that even bolding "support" and "oppose" is not really voting as much as it is simply making one's position unambiguous and clarifying how negatively/positively the comment should be interpreted in terms of tone and sentiment, so these icons would simply perform the same function, but more clearly. Also, I am not sure what you are trying to interpret my argument as, but if I was unclear, then to make it more clear: my argument is that these icons can help people who can generally understand English but do not know of certain vocabulary words like "keep" or "speedy delete."--New questions? 16:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " I believe I addressed all of the points raised in previous discussions" that's the problem, you are simply rehashing old arguments and saying the overwhelming consensus is that past is wrong and you know better. That's the whole point in having a list of perennial requests to avoid people simply rehashing old ground, you need to come up with something new and substantive. As above the support, oppose etc. do not make things unambiguous "Oppose" deletion is completely different from "Oppose" recreation. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I do not believe I am simply rehashing old arguments―please at least back that up if you want to insist on that claim. With regards to deletion discussions, that is why to be unambiguous there, we use "delete" and "keep" and correspondingly the symbols are a cross and check mark (as can be seen in the Japanese AFD template I linked to from the beginning of the request) rather than a plus and minus.--New questions? 16:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's you who I quoted "I believe I addressed all of the points raised in previous discussions" - that is rearguing the original debate, it is not adding new arguments. The nature of the graphics is unimportant, and you are missing the point, a check or cross is ambiguous without the context of the comment. I'll give up here since we are quite clearly largely at odds that you can understand most of the important parts of a comment in a discussion without being able to summarise the overall sentiment - that is not my definition of understanding. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am getting a feeling that I am getting trolled here, but in any case, addressing all points in previous discussions does not mean that I am "not adding new arguments." Also, a check or cross is pretty unambiguous in deletion discussions―check means keep, cross means delete. Also, it is one thing to logically understand what is being stated, and another to understand the intent of the argument, and "support" or "oppose" is there to make it unambiguous. Moreover, even if it could be worked out from the comment that it is in support or in opposition to something, having "support" or "oppose" makes it easier to understand the rest of the comment more quickly since you understand the intent of the comment beforehand.--New questions? 00:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - I see no reason to revive a long-dead practice such as vote icons. I'll quote DGG (that's certainly not something I say every day) from the 2008 DRV; "The argument was that they impeded rational discussion, and that holds for any substitute also." The simple matter is that not everyone will make use of these things if they were available, which will make it even more difficult for closing admins to scan a discussion, picking out the text amidst the tacky icon forest. Leave the decadent, outmoded concepts to the Commons, it suits them. Not us. Tarc (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • When it comes to evaluating whether they impede rational discussions or not, I think it would be better to base it off of whether they actually did or not when they were used (i. e. let us be empirical about this). In the Japanese and French Wikipedias, they have not. I also stated previously that even if they are not used in deletion discussions or requests for adminship or things like that, they can still be useful for ordinary purposes in article talk pages, where they don't have to be used by everyone to be useful.--New questions? 17:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be an even worse idea to use in article talk pages. Editors barely register sensical opinions on such matters as it is, I'd rather not reintroduce a shortcut. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not sure what you mean by that, if you mean to say that "sensible opinions" is something most editors already do not have much of and therefore editors shouldn't try emphasize their opinions that much, or if you think a shortcut would make it easier to express nonsensical opinions that are otherwise unexpressed. Using this template is no more or less difficult than simply bolding "support" or "oppose." Also, even if nonsensical opinions can be expressed, that does not mean that sensible opinions are not also able to be expressed.
        • Also, again, it is better to be empirical about judging its merits on its usage on talk pages. On the talk page at ja:ノート:東方Projectの登場人物, for example, I do not see the templates being used to "register nonsensical opinions," but to clarify their positions―sensible opinions at that. To the contrary, I would say that using such templates encourages people to give good rationales for their support or oppose when it is used on talk pages since they are highlighting that they support or oppose something, which would of course create the expectation that there should be a good reason for it.--New questions? 19:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, I would like to note that as an empirical and practical example, on this page, not everybody uses the icons, and it has not made it more difficult for closing admins to scan a discussion at all. (Also, this is probably the reason why Tarc found out aobut this DRV request).--New questions? 18:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment As for an additional reason why these icons are useful, it is because they are useful for visual organization. These icons have different colors, which makes them easier to tell apart than simply text like "support" or "oppose" even if they are bolded. It is not so much about voting as it is a way to let the reader know, in a color-coordinated way, "this is where a support comment is" and "this is where an opposition comment is" etc., as can be seen in the Japanese talk page that I linked to. When talk pages get long, colors are a good way of identifying which comments are which, and lets the reader more easily re-find a comment that they read earlier since it is a distinctive visual cue.
  • Moreover, based on the examples of its practical usage on the Japanese Wikipedia, I think that those examples demonstrate that it can be of practical usage even if not everyone uses it. Therefore, I think the usage of these should be left to individual choice―I do not think there is a need to impose on everyone, the command "thou shalt not use commentary icons."--New questions? 19:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted as it encourages vague and confusing votes. For example, in a deletion discussion, does "support" mean they support the article or support deletion. Support and oppose are inherently confusing in most discussions, and the votes should take the form of what the user wants to do (thus the "keep" and "delete" used at AfD, or the "move" and "don't move" used in move discussions. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Using Tarc and I, two people who frequently engage at AfD, as an example: it is good to continue the process we have of dealing with disagreements there (and elsewhere) by discussing the issues. As he indicates, that the two of us frequently disagree, doesn't mean discussions are useless; rather, by presenting different views, as many people as are interested can be encouraged to give their own, and the decision can be closed as it usually is, on a rational basis. If all he and I did was place symbols or bolded deletes/keeps, we could make life easier by simply getting a bot to place the pair of them on every discussion and cancel each other out, thus turning afds into a sort of popularity contest, or more exactly, an increased and probably irresistible temptation to canvass for votes. It was mentioned above that the symbols are no more useless than bolded keeps or deletes, but such keeps and deletes without giving a reason at least encourage someone to go on and make a sentence out of it by saying why. And, by themselves, they are close to useless--it's been proposed from time to time to require a reason. Now, that would be progress. Restoring the symbols would be the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep Deleted. On the one hand, the length of time since the last full TfD discussion means that the current consensus is not well tested and the nominator makes a cogent argument. In such cases relisting for a new debate is generally best. On the other hand, no one but the nominator has argued in favor of the templates and I, personally, remain strongly opposed to their use on en.wiki. Unless there is some sign that a new TfD has a chance of showing a new consensus the prior one can be endorsed, but given the amount of time the bar to a new listing should be low. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2012 (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.
Dub FX (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Dub FX is a notable artist who sells out gigs in many countries (I'll just add one example - Athens, Greece, Oct '11 ). He has 440,000 followers on Facebook - DubFX (compare Wax Tailor, who 'only' has 170,000 followers (here) yet has a Wikipedia page), and has released several albums - albums list. All this, yet the page was deleted due to "lack of notability" (here). I'm sorry, I could not find the deletion discussion, but I would be interested to see who participated, how long it lasted, and the reasons. In any case, I feel the figures I provide speak for themselves, so please re-create the page! Thank you :-) BigSteve (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The deletion discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dub FX. The closing admin, Martijn Hoekstra, has indicated that he will restore the article per WP:SOFTDELETE on request, maybe you should ask him first? Procedurally, I endorse the AfD closure (nobody opposed deletion), but could support a relist or restore if somebody in this DRV finds reliable sources that could make this person pass WP:BAND. The Google News archive search indicates that there may be non-English sources about him. The above links however are unhelpful, as commercial success and Facebook followers are not relevant in terms of our inclusion requirements.  Sandstein  10:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow sourced recreation If it is re-written using sources, there won't be any discussion of notability. Entirely OR here: taking a look at industry sources, the cat is marginal by WP standards. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Endorse deletion. Perhaps userfy I was the original nominator for deletion. This group fails WP:BAND, and even my scan of foreign sources could not establish any notability as per Wikipediai standards. Facebook followers is NOT a sign of notability, it's maybe a sign of local popularity. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closer: I closed as no quorum, which means a full AfD hasn't ran, and I treated this like I would treat an expired WP:PROD. You only need to ask and I'll undelete it. If it is undeleted, I think it's a good idea to relist as a new AfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 April 2012

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

A non-notable article with no sources that never met the guidelines for inclusion. No arguments were presented in favor of keeping it over three weeks. The administrator closed the discussion as "no consensus" because nobody brought up his favorite guideline, but I'm not aware of any Wikipedia rule that a discussion must mention this or that specific guideline. At the very least it should be relisted. Shii (tock) 14:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or relist a consensus of two may be a weak consensus, but it's still unanimous and calling it "no consensus" is a borderline insult two the two that did participate. Bad close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse-There's no consensus here. Salimfadhley's argument is essentially "not notable" and the nominator's argument is based entierly on Alexa ranking, which is a weak argument at best. No compelling reason for deletion was offered. In addition, the fact that the AfD has already been relisted twice suggests that doing so probably will not be fruitful.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My intention was never to insult anybody. I know that there are many who believe that a "nom 1 delete" is a consensus but I usually leave "1 !voters" to other admins unless there are BLP issues. I closed this one the way I did for 2 reasons. 1. The article had survived a previous AFD with a "clean keep" back in 2008. (though I have to admit that through it was unanimous, the arguments weren't that strong) IMHO it takes more then one !vote to determine that consensus has changed. 2. The nomination was based solely on its alexa ranking and the one delete !vote was an ATA argument. I just did not see any policy based reasons put forth as to why the article should be deleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or relist- I agree entirely with Starblind. Consensus doesn't need to be overwhelmingly strong to count. Reyk YO! 01:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist more opinions areneeded,and they are better at an AfD2 than here. But, since we are talking about it here, I notice that the first argument was based primarily about comparing Alexa rank, and the second, around a mistaken concept that notability need be lasting. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Admin made correct close. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist plainly. NC was a reasonable close given the weak arguments, but now that it has been raised to DrV better arguments can be presented. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, put this article out of its misery. Relisting isn't necessary. Unanimous delete from the participants. It was on AfD for several weeks already and nobody piped up to say why it should be kept. That silence says much. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Endorse - While the nominator notes that there were no keep !voters, there was only one !voter willing to endorse deletion, and with a weak rationale noting that it "may once have been popular" but that it "did not achieve any lasting notability." (emphasis added). Since notability is not temporary, even the delete !voter's rationale was ambiguous as to whether the subject genuinely did not meet notability guidelines. As such, with no other !votes over 3 weeks, a "no consensus" result was correct. That said, a no consensus result does not preclude renominating. And that would be the case even if the nominator provided a valid policy-based rationale for deleting, which was not the case, which left the closer with no unambiguously valid delete supportors - as it turns out, exactly the same number as the unambiguously valid keep supporters. Rlendog (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. That's pretty clear: the AfD generated two opinion statements, including the nominator's, neither of which were supported by any analysis of sources and neither of which were grounded in policy. We don't delete articles based on the Alexa rank, and if something was ever notable, then it's notable forever. This leaves exactly zero arguments for deletion remaining. Naturally, the article can be renominated at AfD in due course. I don't see why it should be DRV's role to enforce a relist in this case.—S Marshall T/C 16:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, within admin discretion. Ron Ritzman's reasoning, explained at the AfD and above, is sound. Rather than mandate a relist here, anyone may renominate – but please provide better rationales. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A nom and a very weak non-policy-based vote don't create a consensus for much of anything. Just relist it in a few weeks and see if you get more discussion. No need for bringing it to DRV. -Scottywong| communicate _ 15:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse  Ron Ritzman makes good points, including the mention of the previous AfD.  And declining to list this as WP:NPASR is reasonable, although there has been no discussion of the WP:NOQUORUM alternatives.  The best time to have closed this AfD was within 24 hours after it was made, as WP:SK#1 WP:NPASR, at which point the nominator would either have had the motivation to prepare a deletion argument, or move on.  In either case, the community, including the nominator, would now be better off than we are now.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that SK 1 would apply because a deletion rationale based on Alexa ranking is a rationale, just not one based on current guidelines but since our guidelines and policies are "descriptive", if enough people wanted to use Alexa rankings as an inclusion guideline for websites I would have no problem with that. However, it will take more then a 1 !vote AFD to make that happen. Shii was perfectly within his rights to use that rationale but I was also within my rights to give it no weight. On the NPASR thing, in my view any AFD closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation can be speedy renominated whether or not the closing admin says so and if Shii renominated the article after leaving my talk page I would have been cool with that. However, since we are here, there's no harm in getting some other opinions on this issue. We are always telling "keep" !voters who give weak rationales that "AFD is not a !vote" and deriding them for making WP:ATA arguments so I only think it's fair that those who advocate deletion should be held to the same standard. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 April 2012

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

I request the page for Isaac Jin Solstein to be undeleted. The page was deleted on 11 January 2010, BEFORE the The Last Airbender summer movie he starred in as "Earthbending Boy" was released in 1 July 2010, and grossed $319,713,881 worldwide. He is currently the only member under the "Cast" section without a page. The reasons cited for deletion (fails WP:V and WP:ENT, just WP:UPANDCOMING) no longer holds. Please reconsider in light of new information. Thank you. — Hasdi Bravo • 14:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 15:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Generally an un-named role such as this would not change things significantly, certainly not enough to override consensus. Besides, we have to be extra careful with BLPs when the subject is a minor child. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or restore. His Airbender work is now confirmed and more sources may be available. That's enough to overcome a G4 based on what looks like a fairly close AfD discussion. On the other hand, unless there are more sources than were included in the past version of the article a new deletion is probably inevitable. A userspace draft would probably be helpful here since the basic issue is not that "The Last Airbender" has been released but whether its release (and subsequent events) have led there to be more sources discussing the article's subject. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are there actually any reliable sources that discuss this individual in a non-trivial way? If so, what are they? Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than the articles already cited in the page, I found two three more articles. Apparently, he is more known in field of theaters and plays, than in hollywood movies. Less notable than Ashley C. Williams? :-/ — Hasdi Bravo • 23:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paul David Young (2011-11-10). "Performa Playbill: Simon Fujiwara". Art in America.
    • Marcus Kalipolites (2004-07-01). "'Miss Saigon' takes off at Forestburgh". Times Herald-Record.
    • Emily Nathan (2011-11-16). "Performa '11 poor players to the stage". artnet. — Hasdi Bravo • 12:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not restore. This DRV request has not provided new sources that establish the subject's notability. The three linked to above are mere passing mentions. We need sources that cover the person himself in some detail before we can have an article about him, see WP:V#Notability.  Sandstein  16:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I missed another review of him from Times-Herald Record, but to me, he is more notable as an American Korean cast as "Earthbending Boy", a character based on Haru from the cartoon series. But suppose that the decision will be to delete his page, can we at least direct readers of The Last Airbender page to his imdb Isaac Jin Solstein entry? It would save them the trouble of thumbing his name on an iPhone just to google him. I mean, we have Victoria's Secret models less notable than he is. :-/ — Hasdi Bravo • 18:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Here's an article that "cover the person himself in detail", from Sullivan County Democrat newspaper. Is this sufficient? Please advise. — Hasdi Bravo • 04:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Mimi Macpherson – Overturn G4 deletion and list at AfD. This DRV is rather a closer call than the raw numbers might indicate for a couple of reasons. First, even though consensus is reasonably clear that G4 didn't apply to the recreated article, we don't automatically restore for an incorrect rationale if another applies. There is some support below for a broad reading of G4 or an appeal to WP:IAR to justify deletion in the face of unilateral unprotection and recreation. However, a successful invocation of IAR requires a consensus that the change was for the improvement of the encyclopedia and no such consensus is present below. Second, as DGG has noted an new AfD discussion rehashing this debate yet again is hardly the result that the subject is likely to embrace. Nevertheless, I feel that listing is the only way forward. A clear majority of comments in the discussion call for it and it is congruent with policy. To set aside both "votes" and policy for either a clear delete or keep outcome would be the purest supervote. Therefore to AfD we go. – Eluchil404 (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mimi Macpherson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Page was inappropriately speedied. After discussion with the deleting admin, the page was restored, but subsequent comments by another editor left that admin feeling so "overwhelmed" that he redeleted it. The criterion used for deletion was G4, which is meant to apply only to articles that are "substantially identical" to that deleted via deletion discussion. This one was not: it added a new section, was significantly reorganized, had sources that were not included in the original, was updated, and excluded a section that was contentious at the original AfD. If it's decided that this article should go to AfD again, that's fine, but speedy deletion was not the appropriate venue, given that it's meant to be applied only to clear and unambiguous cases. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If my maths is correct, Jim Hawkins x 2 = obvious keep. Formerip (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FormerIP, you've just had me looking for the WikiLove tab for the first time in half a year. But I must have disabled it or something, so please accept a virtual virtual kitty. Wnt (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment does not address the purpose of this DRV, which is to address the procedural error made in deleting this article under a speedy criterion that does not apply. If it is restored and you wish to take it to AfD, the issue you raise can be debated there. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted - The discussion should have begun prior to this User:Nikkimaria reducing the protection on the article diff - and I am not seeing any discussion at all from the admin (at least non admins would have had to discuss recreation with someone) prior to the recreation and the users reduction of the protection level in the users edit history - the recreation without discussion was the primary problem. It is clearly a contentious recreation of a AFD deleted article with previous otrs/discussions and complaints from the subject. - Taking that into consideration, the admins lack of discussion and the use of his tools is disappointing to say the least and imo disruptive and his use of the tools in a self desire to recreate the article was imo in violation of WP:INVOLVED - Youreallycan 16:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted - I was against the original deletion as seen in the AfD, but I too am concerned about the unilateral restoration/recreation of a contentiously deleted article without any prompting/request/discussion. Especially one that was restored with censorship requested by the subject. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and possibly send to Afd; dissimilarities preclude G4. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD The original deletion was wrongly closed--the subject, having engaged herself in extensive publicity, was not a private figure so her request was out of order, and anyway it wasn't a non-consensus decision under which her opinion might be relevant--the consensus seemed to clearly be for keeping. Similarly at the deletion review, even the closer who endorsed it admitted there was consensus to restore the article. That make two successive supervotes. (Myself, I !voted for delete originally and I will probably do so again--I do not think what was present showed any genuine notability. Perhaps this time people will agree with me, but that's for the AfD.) I find it really regretable we have to debate the merits of listening to a subject's request this way--it would be better to simply ignore it, there would be less overall harm to the subject whether or not the article was actually deleted. For cases of true DOHARM, it would be much fairer to considerit privately at OTRS. The way we handle these shows us at our worst. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation / List at AfD. Per DGG, this person has made multiple public engagements. http://mimimacpherson.com.au/ clearly demonstrates that this is not a private individual. The recent article appears reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation/List at AfD - Thid didn't warrant a G4 as there is arguable evidence of notability as well as content being different than previous deleted version. --Oakshade (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4, allow recreation, fishwack Having been involved in the last AfD, I was pretty annoyed by the use of protection where it likely wasn't warranted. I'm also annoyed by the unilateral removal of protection (using the tools) to allow the recreation of what was effectively a salted article. Any non-admin would have had to request the protection be removed and an admin isn't a super-editor who can override things at their whim. That said, the article appears to overcome the relatively low hurdle that allows for a G4. Certainly no objection to listing at AfD. Hobit (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fishwhack accepted :-) Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Obvious notability. According to her website, Cosmopolitan magazine listed her as one of Australia's top 30 businesswomen. G4 does not apply because the page is not substantially identical to the version deleted and the reason for deletion no longer applies, if it ever did (i.e. the subject is comfortably notable). Formerip (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4, List at AfD G4 didn't apply here, but it's reasonable to re-debate keeping/deleting the article, as policy has changed in the intervening time and the individual has been the subject of further independent coverage in reliable sources since then. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. "Salting" should be reserved for articles that are repeatedly recreated as an abuse. It must not be a tactic used to make "Delete" outcomes irrevocable and make them apply to any possible article anyone could ever write. I don't mind if people want to Userfy the article, nor would I object to Overturning the G4 in the meanwhile; just let us have a proper AfD and allow us to read the expanded article while doing commenting. Wnt (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted without prejudice against a future recreation. It's worth noting here that this re-creation was a POINTy action in response to a discussion on my user talk page, rather than a wholly innocent recreation of a previously deleted article. Such behavior undermines thoughtful discussion and should be discouraged. There is no urgency here, as there is nothing new in the life of the subject since the original deletion that would warrant us being in a hurry to create a new article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not only does your comment not address the whole purpose of DRV, but your failure to assume good faith is appalling. In order for an action to be considered a WP:POINT violation, it must be intended to disrupt for the purpose of making a point (per WP:NOTPOINTY), which I can assure you was not the case. I ask that you strike your accusation immediately. Aside from that, there was no urgency to inappropriately delete the article - it did not meet G4, and it adhered to WP:BLP. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Its clearly correct that you used your admin power inappropriately to undelete the article without any consensus (you have accepted this and been fished/trouted/complained about) and its clearly correct that you did this , inspired by the article being discussed on a talkpage and not because of any uninvolved notability focused desire to create an article - Good faith is not a blind person. Youreallycan 17:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. I have accepted that I might have discussed this with another admin before proceeding. That does not mean that my action was POINTy (it wasn't), or that I don't think this person merits an article (she does), or that the deletion was correct (it wasn't). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. - You clearly were spurred to use your admin powers, in violation of WP:INVOLVED by a discussion on Jimmy's talkpage that clearly asserted controversial article/content - Youreallycan 18:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing particularly pointy about being spurred to do something by reading a discussion about it, is there? Formerip (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the "doing something" resulted in "something" done wrong...as Nikkimaria's action clearly was...then yea, quite pointy. Tarc (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I think it's possible to draw a distinction between "wrong" and "pointy". Not that I think it was wrong in any case. Formerip (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleting on her own may be going slightly too far, but unsalting the article should be within her rights. After all, the deletion discussion didn't say to salt, there was no pattern of abuse - as I said when I asked "why was this article salted" above, there was no reason for it. So she undid that error. The next step, as an admin, is that she can Userfy the page to any user, herself included. In the interests of going forward I suggest that this is what should be done. Give it to Nikkimania on her userpage, let her edit it up a bit more if she wasn't finished, let her move it to mainspace when she feels ready, or if we want to be extra super cautious we can go to the inevitable AfD discussion directly from her userspace draft version. I think that allegations of WP:POINT should be dropped, because she may simply have seen from the conversation that the page was deleted for a bad reason, and wanted to recover it, not to make a point about some other page but simply as a response to an error she saw. That's not prohibited! Wnt (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn WP:IAR might have been a justifiable reason (with similar levels of drama ensuing) for speedy deletion, but G4 was not. Out of process deletion. Take back to AfD if so desired. Resolute 19:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn  The AfD closing was effectively overturned with the creation of the redirect by NuclearWarfare, and consensus remains to have this redirect.  Whatever argument there is to remove the new material, deleting the redirect with a G4 is unambiguously out-of-process.  The out-of-process deletion has caused several editors here to state "keep deleted" without discussion of the redirect that they are arguing to delete.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Jimbo. --JN466 02:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 April 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Kelly Clarkson singles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

For background, this template was deleted per a TfD discussion in 2009, then re-created several times and speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G4 as a re-creation of a page deleted due to a deletion discussion. The last time, I speedily deleted the template myself, redirected it to Template:Kelly Clarkson, and protected the redirect.

Recently User:Woofygoodbird asked me to prepare a DRV for this template. Woofygoodbird's reason for requesting the template to be restored is as follows:

Now that there are already 26 songs spanning from five albums are cluttering the main Kelly Clarkson template, making it less user-friendly, I think having a separate template for her singles would be deemed more appropriate to make it cleaner and easier for someone to navigate all the singles articles. I also don't think that it's redundant now, given that she has released enough singles to create a separate template. It's quite redundant before, but now I don't think it is.

I personally am neutral on this question, so please consider Woofygoodbird to be the requester here. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Give the deletion nom was originally "Clarkson does not have enough singles for a singles template to be necessary" and many responses were per nom, this sounds like a quite reasonable consensus can change argument and it would appear that G4 is probably now invalid relative to that as it's changed in a substantive way since the original discussion, so looks like a restore and let it be re-TFD'd if someone wants to. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    62.254's argument seems sensible to me as well. --joe deckertalk to me 23:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Original deletion rationale no longer valid. Rlendog (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect. It is clear that the original rational for deletion no longer applies with as much force and so G4 is no longer valid. That covers unprotection, but it is not clear to me whether the old history would be a useful starting place or not, since to be useful the template would need to have an up-to-date listing of her singles not whatever was deleted in the past. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 April 2012

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

This actress did not pass WP:PORNBIO at the time of deletion, but she does now here's why. I asked the closing admin to unsalt the article but s/he didn't respond. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 01:49, 3 April 2012 (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 people from Republic County, Kansas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It seems that the person who closed the discussion did not interpret arguments correctly and failed to thoroughly read the discussion. I personally expected it to be relisted or closed with no consensus. Additional discussion after the closure can be found at the talk page of the editor who closed the discussion. Paul McDonald (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ahh, my first DRV. As the closer of the AfD, most of my thoughts can be found on my talk page, as Paul McDonald mentioned. Essentially, nearly every editor except Paul McDonald (the author of the article) mentioned merging as an acceptable outcome. Additionally, no one adequately refuted the arguments that:
In addition, Paul McDonald seems to believe that the AfD should be invalidated because he added several entries to the article right before it closed. I disagree with that assertion, as the problem with the article was never that it was too short. The problem is that the main article is not too long to require a spin-off. There is a subtle difference. —SW— speak 22:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks completely acceptable to me. The only thing I would change is to get rid of the "List of people from Republic County, Kansas" subheading and all the individual occupational subheadings, and I would probably try to trim down the prose (since those details are likely already available in the individual bio articles) and format the whole section into a list format rather than a prose/list combination. —SW— squeal 15:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't trim the prose too much; one of the main benefits/purposes of listing is to annotate the entry's relationship to the list, drawing forth the connections from the individual biographies to describe their shared locale in one place. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prose the "prose" was added because the nominator wanted it added and held out Blackford County, Indiana as an example.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, relist, or just ignore it and split the list off again later. As I said in the AFD, this AFD should never have been started because deletion of what is at minimum a valid subsection of Republic County, Kansas is not an option, and whether this was small enough to be comfortably maintained in that article is not a deletion matter but one for normal editing and discussion. So either way I hold little stock in this AFD as binding upon future decisions to keep or not keep the list merged if editors so decide.

    SnottyWong has misinterpreted (or failed to read the entirety of) WP:CFORK, because even if a splitoff ("often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage") is not "necessary", that does not then mean it's necessarily a "content fork," a comparably pejorative term for duplicative articles (particularly those that exist to evade consensus on the true article or push a POV).

    WP:LISTN is also completely irrelevant to this kind of navigation list (regardless of whether its text observes that at present, but we're not lawyers here anyway to build cases on nothing but policy/guideline language in the abstract, as the AFD nominator clearly did). This is clear from AFD after AFD, not to mention WP:CLN explaining that such lists exist to complement categories and nav templates, for reader and editor utility, and they are subdivided and split off on that basis (see, again, WP:CFORK re: splitoffs, justified purely "as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage"; Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people also discusses notability only in terms of the lists' entries and not as "a group").

    List of people from Kansas is very long and is organized by field of accomplishment. It is simply not reasonable to claim, for example, that if we had 500 articles on notable "artists from Kansas" we still must show they are notable as a group to split off from that list. Nor is it any more reasonable to claim that an alternate organization of lists of people by locality within Kansas can only exist if, as a topic, that particular subset satisfies GNG as a subset apart from the notability of each entry. Regardless, in neither case is there a consensus expressed in that AFD claiming this was an inappropriate content fork or "violated" LISTN, wrongly or rightly; every person apart from the nominator who !voted for merger did so purely on the basis of the current length of the article, which expanded further after those comments were made, which is why I told the closer that a relist might be a good idea.

    So I'm afraid SnottyWong has done a poor job here of interpreting and applying the discussion rather than super!voting, and of interpreting and applying policy/guidelines/things-that-actually-improve-the-encyclopedia, but I think it ultimately is harmless either way because it is futile. If the content is preserved in the county article, no damage done for now, and no one needs anyone's permission to later decide again "this is just too big to go here, let's split it off" after it has expanded further. postdlf (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I could find 500 notable artists with blonde hair, does that entitle me to create List of artists with blonde hair? That is exactly why WP:LISTN does apply to this list, and why lists must not be non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. If the list fits better into to List of people from Kansas than it does in Republic County, Kansas, then it should simply be merged there, as I pointed out in the closing statement. —SW— confer 05:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no one but the nom even claimed LISTN was a problem here; just about everyone else at least implied that if only the list were longer, it could appropriately stand alone. So you're not even talking about the consensus in this AFD discussion any more, and the fact that you can only imagine protecting us from a trivial list parade of horribles by invoking WP:LISTN really isn't interesting here, in part because you were not an AFD participant (we apparently don't tolerate a list of blond people in blond either, so a separate sublist by occupation scheme is rather moot).

When you look at the lists that are created, maintained, and repeatedly kept at AFD, do you actually believe even most would satisfy LISTN or are meaningfully analyzed by LISTN? Do you honestly believe there is a consensus to delete or merge those if they cannot satisfy LISTN? "Sorry, we can't list notable alumni of that particular notable college, because you can't find sources that discuss them all together as a group." That's what you're claiming. I don't see how you can argue that LISTN is the one gateway that all lists must pass through in light of WP:CLN in particular, as well as WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:SAL. If we have the articles, then we are going to index them by important shared facts, both by lists and by categories. Your approach isn't even coherent, let alone representative of practice. If you can't claim that "people from X" is notable as a group, is a list of notable people verifiably from X then condemned to forever remain within the place article, never to be split off regardless of length? How does that make the encyclopedia better? postdlf (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, we're not talking about blonde-haired artists here. We're talking about people from a particular county. One topic being invalid (assuming that it is) does not necessarily mean that another largely unrelated topic would also be invalid. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The blonde example was just to illustrate that it is trivial to find a list of notable people with a common trait (i.e. having blonde hair, or being from Republic County, KS). There must be some test we can apply to the common trait to ensure that it is an "important shared fact". That test is WP:LISTN. The nominator (who also counts as a voter) is the only one who links to WP:LISTN, however his point is never refuted adequately by anyone, and the topic of the notability of the list is discussed by other editors throughout the discussion. I'm not just pulling this out of thin air, nor am I supervoting.
If you believe that LISTN is too high of a bar for lists on Wikipedia to attain, then change the guideline. Until then, lists must satisfy LISTN, regardless of how much you rant and rave about how much you dislike it. CLN doesn't trump LISTN, in fact they are scarcely related. CLN describes how categories, lists, and navigation templates coexist and work with one another, and gives no advice on how to determine if a list itself is appropriate. Additionally, CLN is not used as a rebuttal to LISTN by anyone in the discussion, nor is it even discussed by any anyone except in response to the last vote which suggests that the list should be converted to a category. WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:SAL are also not discussed in the AfD, and are equally irrelevant. LISTPEOPLE discusses the inclusion criteria for individual entries in a list of people, and SAL discusses how to format standalone lists.
Anyway, I think I've discussed this enough, my thoughts on the subject should be well known by now. I'm going to stop contributing to this thread and see what other editors have to say. —SW— gossip 14:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(paraphrasing) "Guideline language is binding law, and must be imposed in all instances regardless of its relationship to other guidelines, relationship to actual practice, and abstracted from any concrete considerations of whether such application actually improves the encyclopedia. Any invocation of guideline language by a deletion nomination that is completely ignored by the commenters and therefore unsupported by the discussion is nevertheless 'unrefuted' and therefore binding in its application, regardless of whether the express reliance of the commenters upon other guidelines and considerations may imply disagreement. Certain content may be deleted or merged regardless of its particular merit as a prophylactic measure against other unrelated content being created regardless of whether anyone is trying to create that other content." So that's how Wikipedia works. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also feeling a little sheepish at having not brought this up before: even if we are going to treat guideline language as holy writ, WP:LISTN itself makes my point that it is incomplete and doesn't apply to all lists: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as 'Lists of X of Y') or whether there are other means of forming stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not." There are certainly lists to which the notability of the group as a group is the appropriate question; lists of people by locality are not among them. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll bite when you say "The nominator (who also counts as a voter) is the only one who links to WP:LISTN, however his point is never refuted adequately by anyone..." 1 under what logic do you eliminate [27] [28] [29]? You may think they don't hold up, but no one ever said "those sources are not adequate enough" or anything close to that. Those sources were ignored by not only those supporting the deletion of the article, but by you as the closing admin as well! 2 since when does not having placed the tag [[WP:LISTN]] in an argument invalidate the argument? If someone has already linked to the notability argument, me not linking back to that same notability argument in response does not negate my argument. 3 when you say "Until then, lists must satisfy LISTN, regardless of how much you rant and rave about how much you dislike it" exactly who are you talking to? No one that I can see has made an argument against WP:LISTN. This is just another clear example of how the closing editor is not reading the arguments made. And that is why this AFD should at least be re-listed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to NC This close doesn't, to quote Tim, "strike me as wrong with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated, dead fish," but neither is it a proper reading of consensus. Policy doesn't require a merge here (if the list would fit well into the parent article is a better issue for the talk page than for AfD) and in any case the expansion of the list article would seem to have negated some of the arguments for merging. So without a real guideline/policy-based reason for merging, the merge !votes cannot be said to be stronger than the keep !votes Also, the delete nomination and !vote are clearly contrary to our guidelines and can be safely discounted. So we end up with a decision between keep and merge that is best settled somewhere other than AfD. Hobit (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I think a merge is a reasonable conclusion of the AfD discussion - it was a solution suggested by all except the author. As the original nominator, I should note that I agree with Scottywong's analysis above - the crucial point for me driving the nomination for deletion of this list is the question of its notability as a standalone list. "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". We have not yet found any sources that discuss the Republic County's residents as a notable group, much less any list containing the contemporary notables on this list, with the exception of a single book from 100 years ago (and which is a history of Republic County written by a resident, and thus not independent). Try Googling "famous people from Kansas" and you get thousands of hits from a diversity of sources; try the same thing with almost any US county, and you'll likely get very little - it seems the outside world doesn't usually group notability by County. To respond directly to Paul's question above, I did try to dispute earlier those sources per WP:LISTN, and would do so again. We have 3 sources: 1) A book about Republic county, written by a local, containing some short bios of locals, the majority of whom would not be notable per WP:GNG. 2) A bibliography about Republic County; the same bibliographies exist for every Kansas county, so nothing distinguishes Republic County here or suggests that a list of its notable residents is encyclopedic, as opposed to List of people from Kansas. 3) A general history of Kansas, which happens to be organized by County. Again, there is nothing specific in this book about Republic County that distinguishes it from any of the other 100 counties of Kansas, and nothing to suggest that the grouping of notables by county was anything more than a convenience based on the organization of the chapters. Finally, I might suggest that people take a reasonable perspective on this - the information is not being lost, and no one's work is going to waste.--Karl.brown (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comment and quote from WP:LISTN above re: its inapplicability to this kind of "list of X of Y." You've also failed to explain why this county needs to be distinguished from any other Kansas county to have a list of people from there; it could be the only such list, or every county could have such a list if there are enough notable people from each of them. Regardless, no one else in the discussion supported your opinions on these issues. postdlf (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "no one else in the discussion supported your opinions on these issues" I suppose that people disagreeing with you has never held you up, so I guess I won't let it hold me up! :) I'm afraid I don't agree with your analysis of WP:LISTN. I don't think List of People from X falls under the "List of X of Y" - the example from WP:NOTDIR given is much more specific: ""People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" - in this case, we only have a single categorization, not a cross-categorization (Baseball players from County X would be such a cross-categorization). And WP:LISTN is clear in any case: "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." To answer your other question, the reason I suggested we need to distinguish it from other counties is because the evidence presented is Kansas-generic, and is just sorted by county: 1) a bibliography of the county, which mirrors bibliographies from other counties and 2) a history of Kansas, which is grouped by county. Neither of these, IMHO, establishes the notability of the list of people from this particular county as something which is spoken of by independent, reliable sources. As to your point that 'every county' could have such a list, this is where we happen to disagree. I believe that with enough research, one could indeed find enough notable people to justify a list for every county in the US, all 3,000 of them - after all, almost everyone in the US was born in a county, and possibly went to high school in a different county, then worked in a 3rd, so every notable person could thus show up on half a dozen different lists! We could also create such lists, for high schools, and elementary schools, and neighborhoods, so on and so forth. But to do so would be extremely un-encyclopedic - our job is not to simply collect and collate information just because it happens to be true - our job is to reflect how the outside world sees and values information. There is plenty of evidence that 'notable people from Kansas' is spoken of in the wider world, but we have zero evidence that this list of 'notable people from county X' is sourced by any independent, reliable sources.--Karl.brown (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So it's fine and encyclopedic to list what notable people are from Kansas, but if you actually sort or subdivide it by where specifically in Kansas they are from, such as by the first-order political subdivision of counties, it is suddenly unencyclopedic? That makes sense to you? So Category:People by county in the United States is an unencyclopedic category structure and should be deleted? postdlf (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • What makes it unencyclopedic is not whether it is useful or true or convenient for us, but whether other people outside of our wiki-bubble have ever made such a list. They have made Kansas lists, but they haven't made 'county X' lists. Any in any case, category creation adheres to a different standard. There are many categories created that would never be accepted as articles. Please let's not get into WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION, otherwise we'll be here all day! :)--Karl.brown (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Except that other people outside of our "Wiki-bubble" have made such lists. This is really starting to feel like "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" arguing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Guys, I feel like some contributors to this discussion are hurling around accusations about other editors, discussing editors rather than articles, and generally not assuming good faith. Can we try to keep this civil, leave the emotion out of it, and just discuss the situation like calm, rational adults? Thanks. —SW— yak 18:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Karl, we don't tolerate unencyclopedic categories any more than we do unencyclopedic lists, and we are actually more stringent in practice regarding categories than lists. If it is encyclopedic as a category or as a section within a larger article, it cannot be simultaneously unencyclopedic as a standalone list. What is encyclopedic or not is the topic and organizing principle, not the method of organizing. There may be other reasons not to have something as a list as well as a category (whether as standalone or as part of a larger article) or vice versa (list ok, category not) but that's a different conversation. postdlf (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- Interpreting that discussion as rough consensus to merge is completely reasonable. Reyk YO! 21:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This close is not clearly erroneous. That's the end of the matter, as far as I am concerned. T. Canens (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a perfectly valid close. It's not, as Tim says above me, clearly erroneous, and demanding people present a shrubbery and chop down the tallest tree in the wood with a herring to prove their point of view also isn't reasonable. Once is enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question is it then perfectly acceptable for closing editors to completely ignore answers to questions? For example, if one editor states that "No reliable sources discuss the topic" and then another editor provides those sources, is the closing editor free to ignore the sources brought in--and if so, under what terms and reasoning? I'm asking this because that's what happened.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but 1. the closer can use his discretion to say "Even with those sources, I don't see enough to change my mind" and 2. while it's certainly fine to make requests, repeated accusatory walls of text aren't helpful. Brevity is the soul of wit and all that... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You;re kidding, right?--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How so? These sorts of closes require admin discretion; it's of course reasonable to question the decision that was made, but admins have to make certain judgement calls to determine consensus. Arguing that admins can't use their own heads in determining these matters doesn't make any sense; that's part of the reason we elect admins in the first place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've already written too much here, but I think the biggest problem is the rationale he gave for the merge: he found a consensus that the list of people by county should not exist even in principle, which simply isn't reflected in the discussion (note that at first he wrote that lists of people by county shouldn't exist at all, until I complained and he struck that wording) and is in my view more his personal opinion than any fair reading of consensus. At most there is a consensus that it should be merged at this time (thus leaving it open to splitting off again after it expands further). If he would add those three words to his close, I think I would have much less of an objection. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what this is all about? You're looking at the miswording in my closing statement (which I immediately struck and corrected when you brought it to my attention) and using it as a rationale for claiming that the rest of the close was "my personal opinion" rather than a fair reading of consensus? And why would I need to add "at this time" to my closing statement? There is no such thing as a permanent consensus at AfD, every time an AfD is closed it is assumed that it is a reading of consensus "at this time", not forever and ever. Surely you've read WP:Consensus can change. I can't believe I have to explain these things to someone who has been around as long as you have. —SW— squeal 16:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it some thought and yes, that's what it ultimately comes down to for me. But you've misunderstood the qualifier I'm going for. It's not a question of the consensus "at this time", but rather the state of the list article "at this time". The difference is your current rationale makes it seem like the consensus was against the topic (especially in your closing statement's first version), which would suggest we'd need a new consensus demonstrating that a list of people from that county is now OK to prevent "enforcement" of the AFD regardless of the size of the list. The consensus was instead at most just against keeping it separate given the list's current size relative to the county article, which would mean editors could split it off again once the list expanded enough regardless of the AFD. So yes, the qualifier of "at this time" would make me find your close acceptable. You should consider that a compromise from me wanting it to be relisted or closed as "no consensus". postdlf (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I disagree that it's necessary, I don't see a need for compromise at this time (since the close is being endorsed), and I honestly see it more as backpedaling than compromising. —SW— communicate 17:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse. While I prefer merge to no consensus if a consensus exists, what I see here is weaker than I would like. Only Karl.brown interacted with Paulmcdonald, so it's difficult to see whether the expansion swayed anyone (Metropolitan90 supported merging here). Postdlf is correct that talk page discussion should have been tried before AfD, but his arguments were procedural and rightfully ignored once the AfD was underway. Flatscan (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closer seems to have adequately closed this discussion and I can find no fault in his rational. -DJSasso (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

As a first approximation, I classify the opinions voiced here as follows:

  • endorse keep closure: 32
  • reclose as no consensus: 1
  • reclose as no consensus and delete per WP:BIODELETE: 12
  • delete because the subject is non-notable or for other reasons: 5

I discount the five opinions that I have listed last because the instructions above tell us:

"This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate."

Consequently, we disregard opinions that simply reiterate arguments made in the deletion discussion; the issue here is only to determine whether the outcome of the discussion was correctly assessed. What follows concerns only the discussion about that issue.

It is evident from the numbers given above that there is no consensus to overturn the closure and to find that there was no consensus, that the subject is borderline notable, and that the closer's judgment (as WP:BIODELETE allows) should be exercised in such a way as to favor deletion. In situations such as this one, where policy asks for a judgment call, I have no basis in policy to determine which side's arguments are stronger, and must therefore refrain from weighing the arguments.

Because we therefore lack a consensus to overturn the closure (instead, we are much closer to a rough consensus to the contrary, i.e., that the closure was correct), and because nobody argues for a relist, the outcome of this deletion review is that the "keep" closure stands. –  Sandstein  20:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is a body of opinion that the AfD discussion did not reach a clear consensus, that the subject of this BLP is not a public figure (he is a local radio broadcaster with an audience reach of less than 50,000), and that as he has requested deletion then WP:BIODELETE applies. There has been discussion with the closer, who has indicated acceptance of a DRV. It is worth noting that a significant number of the keep comments were not based on notability or policy, but on the principle that it is up to Wikipedia to decide who has a Wikipedia article rather than the subject of the article. There is an uncomfortable sense of WP:Point about such comments that should have been taken into consideration. The subject's notability appears to run on a scale from non-notable to borderline, so assertions of "clear notability" need to balanced against arguments that notability is not supported by evidence (there is only one cite for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that is a local paper). A steady reading of the discussion and the circumstances should lead to either a close for Delete or No Consensus leading to deletion by BIODELETE. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is nothing much wrong with the current version of article, but Pigsonthewing should now have a formal topic ban after adding where Jim Hawkins lives to the article, despite being personally asked by Jimbo to steer clear. I really can't fathom why this is such an issue for Pigs, who is risking damaging the whole BLP system by doing this. While I agree that Jim Hawkins has marginal notability, my decision is Keep and a topic ban for Pigs. Enough has been said about this already.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You made me look at what Andy has added to the article expecting an identifyable address to be given. For a local radio presenter coming from elsewhere to state that he lives in the county that he broadcasts for is while not exactly needed (although of interest to the locals ie "he is one of us now") but also not not damaging or even stalking. Given the size on Shopshire I'd venture a guess that no-one would start a house to house search through the county on the basis of the article. There is more chance of running into him accidentially (waving to Gina Jones) Agathoclea (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is no great surprise to learn the name of the county where Jim Hawkins lives. The real problem is that Pigsonthewing has now set off a fresh round of thrown handbags and toys at Talk:Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) which is only going to annoy Jim Hawkins even more when he reads it. Let's be honest, Pigs has been the main source of trouble for this article, and he has violated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT once too often.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ...so, this whole thing is about sticking it to Andy? ...because Jimbo asked him to stop, or something? I'm not accusing, I'm just asking for clarification, bacause I'm actually trying to understand what the heck is going on here.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This presenter was clearly notable as they were a national radio host previously. The continued statement that they are a local radio host of a small listening area is a case of ignoring that notability is not temporary. This was a valid close. -DJSasso (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This close does not "strike me as wrong with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated, dead fish". T. Canens (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It was a good close. It doesn't matter if you think some of the keep votes were wrong-headed. The closer correctly identified the nub of the issue. For BIODELETE to kick in, the subject has to be a "non-public figure" and, although some claimed this to be the case, it was reasonable of the closer to say that there was no consensus to that effect. Deleting for failing GNG is a separate question and it should be obvious to anyone that there was no consensus in that case. There is no flaw in the reasoning. FormerIP (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closer personally would not have wanted the article to stay but could see a policy based consensu not to delete on blpbio grounds. Certainly the discussion went that way and was clearly based on policy. Reasons to delete where usually accompanied with comments like - "it should be policy" or "he is notable, but". Good call. A LOUD minority makes no consensus. Agathoclea (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn
Collapsed list of names to avoid the appearance of 11 calls to overturn, Tarc (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Crossmr
  • Parrot of doom
  • Doc9871
  • Pigsonthewing
  • Oculi
  • Edinburgh Wanderer
  • Silver Seren
  • Nomoskedasticity
  • Fylbecatulous
  • Stormie
  • Orange Mike
  • I count the 11 above as taking more of an interest in preserving the Wikipedia's right to keep a biography of anyone, anywhere, and anytime than in taking an honest measure of Jim Hawkins' notability. Discard these and 2 WP:SPA votes and IMO we're at a consensus to delete per WP:BLPDELETE. Tarc (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I too have been misrepresented and incorporated into a view I did not take; therefore I've brought my own statement: It's too doggone difficult to retrieve it, so here's my quoted remark: "Keep on principle. He is deserving of an article by being a BBC broadcaster. If he doesn't want to be noteworthy he shouldn't be on public radio. His remarks on his facebook page thread are coming across as rather menacing and portray anger. If we delete BLP's because of threats and anger, we might as well just throw in the towel on having articles on anything other than inanimate objects. Please just article or topic ban any and all offenders. Fylbecatulous talk 14:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)" I took a measure of the subject's notability and agreed that it was so, due to his status as a BBC broadcaster on public radio. My argument was regarding the extreme measures the subject was going to to get a perfectly valid article deleted because of his whims; and that articles should not be deleted over temper tantrums. I asked for an article / topic ban for offenders and this is still my suggestion as the solution. As well, I request that my name be stricken from the closed and collapsed list above. Respectfully, Fylbecatulous talk 23:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good Close The AfD proposal was never one of a lack of notability though acknowledging that the notability was limited was done by both camps. The Closer summed this up and despite suggesting a close of delete would be the better choice, acknowledged that the policy based arguments for a keep were stronger and had to follow the consensus for that. As the closer suggested - an RfC on the pertinent policy would have better chance of success than further AfDs/DRs. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clearly meets notability criteria; closing admin clearly made the right decision, based on the discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse -- these discussions usually turn on whether the close was a reasonable decision in light of deletion policy, a reasonable exercise of the admin's discretion. This is plainly what we have here. Even if one thinks that WP:BIODEL applies here, that passage only says that no-consensus AfDs of non-public figures may be closed as delete, not must be closed as delete. Usually when an admin closes an AfD with a remark that says "it's not how I would have voted myself, but...", this is taken as a sign of integrity -- and so it should be here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You people are weird. I've just sent this email to whoever 'Wifione' is -

Who are these so-called 'editors'? Why should the people who've been stalking, bullying and harassing me - and have been doing so again today! - have any say in what happens to the article?

Hooray for policies. Does common human decency come into this anywhere? Or am I going to get the same response I've had for five years, the borderline-fundamentalist 'that's not how Wikipedia works'?

My capacity to work has been affected by the psychological strain this is putting on me. You people are making me ill, and compromising my ability to work. Tell me how you feel about that.

And: would you have reached the same conclusion about the article had you had to put your real name to it? What possible 'sensitive issues' can Wikipedia have?

j — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.136.82 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't get an answer in the AfD, so i'm still wondering. What exactly is wrong with having your birth date? Why is your birth date being known causing you "psychological strain"? SilverserenC 20:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilverSeren, by policy he and every other biography subject like him has the right not to have his birth date in the article, and not to be harassed over that choice by editors like you. --JN466 20:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true and we have removed it because of that. But when he claims that the inclusion of such a thing is causing psychological strain, then we need an explanation to back up that claim or we're not going to give it any weight, especially considering the information in question is a matter of public record. SilverserenC 20:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
j, what I have difficulty understanding is why you find people writing about you on the Internet such a difficult thing to deal with. It's not as if your article contains derogatory comments or unfair allegations about you. Perhaps if you explained that a little more, people might come to appreciate your point-of-view. At present, if someone were to ask me "why does he want his article deleted?", all I could answer is "I don't really know". Why would I support deletion if no-one has given me a reason?
As far as "stalking, bullying and harassing" goes, I don't think many WP editors would condone behaviour of that type, but I also haven't seen evidence of it. You should certainly make a detailed complaint if you feel it has been the case (probably by emailing this guy). But I think it's a separate issue from whether your article should be deleted.
I do agree that your date of birth should be a dead issue by now and I wish Silver seren had not just brought it up again.
Thanks. FormerIP (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FormerIP, instead of wishing to have everything served on a platter to you, why don't you take a few hours and go through the entire history of the article, and its talk page. Bear in mind that both histories may have gaps, because I believe there have been oversights. --JN466 21:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you think that would be enlightening, Jayen. From the history, I can work out that the subject wants his article deleting, but I can't work out why. FormerIP (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it has frequently contained garbage, and there is no mechanism in place to prevent it from containing garbage again? JN466 22:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a Wikipedia article, after all. But I'm not seeing any garbage (it certainly can't have been a frequent problem) and AFAICT the only oversighted content is the date of birth.FormerIP (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only brought it up because he keeps repeating psychological stress without explaining why. SilverserenC 20:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly does this have to do with what DRV is about? SilverserenC 20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An absence of national, let alone international, coverage means that BIODELETE applies. The AfD was No consensus, which should default to delete, given the subject's wishes. --JN466 20:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's line two of the sacred text BIODELETE: "Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." This article is neither (a) poorly sourced, nor (b) of an unknown, non-public figure, nor (c) the subject of a discussion in which no editor opposes the deletion. BIODELETE applies in this case not at all. This is actually an appeal for WP:IAR on the basis of the article subject squawking really loudly. At least call it what it is. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've posted this here three times and the answer is the same each time: WP:BIODELETE contains *two* situations where articles may be deleted. You quoted one of them. The one we are concerned with is the other one, which is obviously not the same thing; for one thing, it only requires no consensus, not "no editor opposing the deletion". Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Since DRV is meant to be a review on whether the AfD was closed properly and is not meant to be AfD part 2, I don't see any way in which the closer closed improperly. The close was well reasoned and explained the consensus decision. There's nothing to overturn here. SilverserenC 20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - carefully reasoned and balanced decision; and by the way, anonymous IP purporting to be "Hawkins", I am known to most people by the same name I use here; and my legal name is right there on my userpage for anybody to see. I reject and spurn any accusation that I'm "hiding behind" the name most people know me by. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or the alternative, Lord Inali of Tanasi *chortle!* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.136.82 (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn the decision to keep, and delete the article. The AfD result was no consensus. See User:SlimVirgin/JH for the numbers (45 keep, 34 delete), and although numbers alone don't determine an outcome, they're also not irrelevant.

    For any other article, this would have resulted in a keep. But for a borderline BLP, where the subject has requested deletion, a no-consensus outcome triggers WP:BIODELETE, which is policy. It says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." I asked Wifione why he had not followed that, and he replied that he regarded the AfD result to be a keep, but it's very hard to see how he reached that conclusion, either by looking at numbers or arguments.

    Since the close of the AfD, there has been some poor behaviour at the article. Pigsonthewing, someone the subject feels (rightly or wrongly) is cyberstalking him, has started editing it again, despite requests from many editors that he stop. And someone else has started another provocative discussion on the talk page about the subject's date of birth, something the subject has complained about in the past.

    In short, it looks as though Wikipedia can't be trusted to take a mature approach in this case, and for that reason, as well as the procedural ones, the AfD decision ought to be overturned. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm sorry, but is it really so much to ask for an explanation on why such information is causing him psychologcial stress? A statement which he keeps repeating everywhere without explaining himself. SilverserenC 21:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Silver seren, I've been going back and forth about how much I want to (or should) get-into-it, as I have a great deal of sympathy and I believe empathy for this person. Now, regarding your request for an explanation, I could try to do it from my perspective, but sadly, I have a feeling it just won't work. That is, this is the sort of situation where if someone doesn't understand, it's very difficult to explain it to them (i.e. the old dismissal "If you have to ask, you'll never know", though that's a harsher tone than I want to take here). What I suspect will happen is that starting from the stance that he shouldn't feel stress, any explanation of why he does, will simply be met with some variant of stating that he's wrong and Wikipedia shouldn't listen to his wrongness. You need only take a look at some of the statements around here to see how likely that is. Thus, why should he do that? And why should I do that? If this sort of madhouse doesn't at least give you an inkling of why there's stress, well, recursively, that's the problem. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk)
    • You precede reference to my edits with a mention of "poor behaviour at the article", despite them being no such thing. Even if they were, that's irrelevant to DRv, as noted by Silver seren, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. The closing admin gave more than adequate explanation as to why they were closing as they did. he nub of the issue was this subject is notable. Separate issues (such as the frankly stupid editors who keep adding his date of birth or whatever) can be dealt with via blocking and page protection. I don't know why it's become a bugbear for some people that we absolutely must have to have his birthdate in there, but that aside, the closure of the AfD was correct, followed procedure, and was was explained sufficiently. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • the nub of the issue was this subject is notable That is precisely the error. Someone who only attracts local and primary-source coverage is nowhere near being so notable that an encyclopedia would be deficient in not having an article on him. And given the long and sorry article history, this article should go. A major celebrity can be expected to put up with rubbish like this – they have staff for dealing with this – but not someone in Jim's position. --JN466 21:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I have followed this quite closely and I sympathise with the stress the subject feels about having people write about him on the Internet. Nevertheless, the community has spoken and the result was keep. I'd encourage SV and anyone else who is concerned about particular users' behaviours to challenge that in the proper way. DRV is not the appropriate venue for this. --John (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Delete: check the stats for that page. If they are right, and I expect they are, the article is almost never visited. In other words, nobody is keeping an eye on it, he is not notable enough. Meanwhile he is living with the knowledge that people can play games there at his expense any time and he'll have to keep an eye on it himself i.e. he is a captive audience. That's bullying. McOoee (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's recent and can change to 0 once this storm is over. Check the history page stats. Those tell the real story. He is non-notable clearly. McOoee (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously using page stats to determine notability? SilverserenC 22:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should rely instead on opinions expressed here? Stats offer an objective criterion of public interest. Public interest is a fair measure of notability. Or do you think the public has got it wrong and this subject should be notable? McOoee (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider them any more useful than google hits. There are plenty of highly notable topics (such as in history or science) that are unlikely to be read often on Wikipedia, but that doesn't affect their notability. SilverserenC 22:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously comparing a radio "personality" to a scientific phenomenon about which people ought to be informed? Are you seriously comparing Google hits to history page stats as a criterion for decisions affecting WP? Unfortunately this debate is one of those issues that has built up a negative momentum and the bulk of opinion here is a measure of nonsense. Delete. McOoee (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The good thing is that your opinion isn't addressing what DRV is about, so will be subsequently dismissed by the closer. SilverserenC 22:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better still is the fact that WP is not a democracy. Therefore a few voices can prevail in the end. Looking at the numbers here, it's still about even, so that gives me even more hope that reason will prevail. McOoee (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case there is any confusion, I'm talking about the page view statistics. Work your way through those month by month. There are some sudden spikes in the number of hits, generated by WP's internal dynamics (a bit like a news service making an event newsworthy by reporting it). Otherwise it's a desert. I usually edit arcane articles on classical literature, but none of those ever scores less than 5 hits a day. If they did, I'd give up in despair. Number of hits is even more telling when we are talking about someone whose only claim to notability is his public profile as a radio personality. McOoee (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not going to express any opinion here as a protest. I don't like what Tarc has been allowed to do above, which appears to be tampering with an open consensus process by "naming and shaming". There is too much interest by those working with banned users off-wiki for anyone to feel comfortable that they will not be harassed or ridiculed for their opinion. This DRV is an example of an increasing climate of fear I keep seeing in such debates, where attention has been focused from Wikipedia Review or Greg Kohs' latest website. If we let ourselves be driven by those who use malicious tactics to bully people off Wikimedia projects, then I guess we should just hand them the keys and find something more interesting and fun to spend our time on. Sorry --Fæ (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an rebuttal to Fæ's statement above, I recommend people go read the article on the new wikipediocracy.com site: "Why Jim Hawkins' Treatment Matters". This seems to me an excellent presentation of the issue, and shows the importance of sites which critique Wikipedia (though I certainly grant there's much ranting in some areas, but welcome to the internet). Excerpt: "His principal complaint is that largely anonymous people are using one of the most highly-trafficked websites on the internet to aggregate as much information as they can about him, both the true and the dubiously so ... Hawkins' discomfort stems from the fact that patrolling his own biography for falsehoods or defamation would be practically a full time job. ... The fact that a bunch of folks going by internet handles ... get to determine the contents of the most prominent review of his life and work, with him having very little say in the matter, creeps him out." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that Hawkins' principal complaint has actually been articulated. It's nice to know that someone has had a go at imagining what it might be, though. FormerIP (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have we got this right? - you're not sure what the complaint is but you have an opinion on the issue nevertheless, which ought to be counted. Super! In actual fact the issue was outlined at the start of all of this a couple of weeks or so ago, the blog post is a fair representation of the views expressed then. John lilburne (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Royal "we"?
The blog post probably is a fair representation of views expressed by editors, I'll grant. But, unless you can put me straight, we do not have an explanation from Hawkins as to why he doesn't want a WP article or what he thinks is wrong with the one he has. I think that makes it unsurprising that he is having a hard time getting what he wants. FormerIP (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To rebut Fae's weaksauce well-poisoning attempt, the Wikipedia Review is for all intents and purposes dead and Kohs.com there is a gladhappy bunch of milquetoast yes-men that I have little interest in interacting with, other than occasional barb or ridicule. I called out 11 piss-poor votes that rest more on spiting a living person rather than engage in the actual merits of notability. All on my own initiative, no off-wiki coaching or coordination. Tarc (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is disgraceful when someone attacks wikipedians they don't like and attempts to put others off expressing an opinion. What's more disgraceful is when someone who does exactly this is so lacking in self-awareness that they, less than one hour later, complain about others doing so. Unless... unless you're trying for some "Gigantic Hypocrite of the Year" award or something. I mean, I could totally get behind you on that one and ride your candidacy to the finishing post.101.118.46.102 (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting IP address you are writing from, if I lived there I'd probably be out and about rather than looking at my screen. I have already been awarded with DICK of the year, so you are behind the curve with that suggestion. Unless you are a banned user, you should try logging in to your account if you want your opinion to make a difference. --Fæ (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fae, what you attempted to do is write off my argument by linking it to the Kohsocracy where they are discussing it as well. But as I have just demonstrated, I am not a part of that clique. Yes, DRV is to have opinions on the AfD closure, and to get this overturned one thing that IMO helps to to point out the near-dozen awful arguments. If those named feel singled out, then that's kinda too bad. Tarc (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not for a borderline BLP subject who has requested deletion; see WP:BIODELETE, which is policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are only reading the first line of BIODELETE, it would seem, omitting this: " Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." So, please do elucidate in what way this article is (a) poorly sourced; (b) of an unknown, non-public figure; or (c) has no editor opposing the deletion... Carrite (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. SlimVirgin is correct, those two sentences are clearly designed to stand alone and one does not affect the other.. Youreallycan 18:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closing admin clearly weighed the arguments and came, imo, to the correct conclusion. Resolute 22:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The close is well reasoned and policy based. AIRcorn (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete. as opined by others - there is no clear policy driven consensus to keep in the AFD discussion, that leaves us with a no consensus closure which has historically been a default to delete outcome in articles about people with limited notability when there has been a request from the subject for deletion. Youreallycan 23:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete - in Wikipedia formal terms, per User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayen466 and User:Youreallycan. While the closer acted in good faith as he interpreted policy, I believe he was simply mistaken in his estimate due to errors in weighing each side's arguments. Moreover, the behavior at the article immediately post-close is a reasonable basis for reconsideration of various factors, as proof of a problem that was not adequately taken into account in the AfD. Informally - this is another round of madness, that causes people to want nothing to do with being in Wikipedia. Anyone wondering why Jim Hawkins feels as he does, just try reading this page with the perspective of someone who is even merely dubious about Wikipedia. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seth is quite right that WP would be more popular among potential subjects if we let them force us to have a choice between an article they accept, or no article at all. It would, however, be useless as an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of a straw man. Here we are talking about a specific article, from a small subset of biographies, those that are marginally notable, no clear consensus to keep, and where the subject desires deletion. Claiming that the encyclopedia would become useless is fallacious. Kevin (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete and Salt...No offense to Mr. Hawkins, but his notablity is extremely marginal...I can't see how NOT having the article will lessen the comprehensiveness of this website.--MONGO 03:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Any policy which takes into account the subject's wishes on anything should be eliminated with extreme prejudice as violating the encyclopedia's neutrality. To repeat what I've said elsewhere, there is no assurance that any editor claiming to be any individual is, in fact, that individual. Even if there was such assurance, the "rules" on notability neither need nor benefit from input from the subject. If we stick to high-quality secondary sources, then the subject will only be featured in Wikipedia to the extent that he or she is already featured elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That may well be your opinion, but it does not reflect current policy, and carries no weight here. Also, there's really no doubt that the individual who contacted OTRS is the article subject. To answer your last bit, that is a huge if. The fact is that we don't use (exclusively) high quality sources. And again, this hypothetical assertion bears no weight on this debate. Kevin (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's based on the pillars, moreso than all of the arguments that the subject's wishes should be taken into account, and thus should be weighed appropriately by the closing administrator. Remember BLP is not a pillar, it's a limited set of quite important exceptions to the normal Wikipedia processes in an attempt to avoid harm to real people. Since there has been no credible assertion of harm raised, the arguments along the BLP lines are erroneous at best. When there is no harm being done, attempting to apply BLP to the topic is inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, we should never believe the subject's statement that this is causing him harm because, well, he's not a Wikipedian is he? Assuming good faith only goes so far for you I guess. Kevin (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I work in OTRS. I've heard from all sorts of people about all sorts of issues with their BLPs. This doesn't tip the scale compared to complaints I've handled there. There's two parts to a claim of harm: 1) the subject says it's causing distress, and 2) that statement is objectively reasonable. In many cases, we evaluate BLP statements on 2) alone, without needing a request, which is fine by me. In this case, there is no objective reasonableness for the claim of harm, since the subject is a participant in the public sphere, and there's nothing bad written about him. Look at what Jimbo has to say below, for a more detailed analysis of the "harm" bit. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Given your opinions on what we should do with the subject's wishes, perhaps OTRS is not a good fit for you? Anyway, this discussion is now well diverged from the DRV going on here. Kevin (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jclemens, you say, "If we stick to high-quality secondary sources". For goodness' sake, have you looked at the sources in this article? There are only eleven, after seven years, and over half of them are primary sources; the others are regional. We could write another 3 million biographies with sourcing like that. --JN466 10:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And if none of them contain contested or defamatory statements, what is the problem with 3 million more biographies? I am that notable, but have no particular desire for an article, and generally conduct myself as a low profile individual, something Mr. Hawkins does not. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is a maintenance problem. Under the present system, Wikipedia doesn't have enough BLP watchers (or OTRS volunteers, for that matter) to effectively maintain the present number of biographies. And according to GNG, Hawkins is barely notable. --JN466 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I personally think it was a close call between NC and keep. Either was a reasonable reading, though I think keep was a better read of the discussion. Hobit (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, and delete and salt (for now). The closer mentions lack of clear consensus on the question of notability, in the context of WP:GNG, and on the question of "unknown, non-public figure", for the purposes of WP:BIODELETE. But consensus is not a vote. Strength of argument counts. The argument in support of notability was extremely weak. One significant mention in a national paper and a smattering of mentions by his employer does not make this subject (yet) noteworthy, by any reading of our policies or guidelines. The closer erred in ignoring the extreme poverty of the arguments for notability and the strength of arguments against, and instead seems to have relied on a head count for "lack of consensus." The lack of consensus on the question of "unknown, non-public figure" is more obvious, but very little of the lengthy discussion was devoted to that question. Demonstrated absence of notability mandates deletion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Even if this was a "no consensus" closure, that means there is no consensus to delete the article, and the default there is keep. Notability comes from this person's past position of being a presenter of a national radio show and the winning of a major award. His current position as a presenter of a local radio show has nothing to do with his notability. Mjroots (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you mean the Sony Radio Academy Award. Last time I looked, it only lists 2010 winners and two of those names are red. Maybe we should all spend time editing that article and catching up with all the red names a full list would produce. Better still, list his name there and delete the article. Work through his page view statistics month by month and see how non-notable he is. There are months without any hits at all. There are a few sudden spikes in number of hits but we all know those are generated by WP antics, not by public awareness of interest. McOoee (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
McOoee, I could say WP:SOFIXIT to that comment. Number of page view hits is not an indication of notability. I've written quite a few GAs, and many of them only get a few hits a day. That doesn't mean that the article is covering a non-notable topic though. As for redlinks, they don't count for anything either. Look at all the redlinks in the various lists of shipwrecks, particularly those covering WWII. Almost all of those ships are capable of sustaining full articles and will meet GNG. Notability in this case was acquired by presenting a BBC Radio 4 show, added to by the winning of the Sony Award. DRV is not AFD round 2. It is an examination of whether the closing editor got it right or made a fundamental error of judgement. Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is NOT a venue for AfD part II, which is what most of the "Overturn and delete" comments tend toward. The close was well reasoned, and while I saw the whole AfD as closer to no consensus than anything, I would not overturn a decision based on semantics (keep and no consensus, same outcome), nor can I see any "overturn" votes above that do more than state their AfD positions over again rather than cite any reason why the closure was wrong. ClayClayClay 05:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Clay, the key point here is that "keep" and "no consensus" are not the same when it comes to borderline BLPs. WP:BIODELETE gives the admin the option of deleting after a no-consensus AfD, if the subject has requested deletion. The closing admin did not avail himself of that option, because he interpreted the discussion as "keep," and not as "no consensus." That is where the procedural error lay, in my view, because it's hard to interpret the AfD conclusion as anything other than "no consensus." SlimVirgin (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The closer made reference to the question of being a public figure which is actually at the heart of biodelete - not marginal notablility. A public figure can be non-notable (ie some Major of some town without RS coverage) alternatively we can have a non-public figure being notable. The closer argued public figure - no biodelete. As a result a non-consensus discussion cannot lead to an automatic delete. Agathoclea (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Delete As stated above, this person is simply not notable enough. In any jurisdiction, a local radio personality with a limited audience would not be considered for inclusion. We cannot prove that this person has a right to an article. I cannot see him satisfying our policy on personalities, presenters or celebrities and therefore his article must be deleted. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse For the most part those arguing keep made much better points than those arguing against. There weren't simply 11 more in number arguing that position.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It doesn't matter how loudly you scream BLP, you also have to actually back it up with some reasoning. Nice try at doing an end-run around an AfD, though, points for creativity there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no screaming BLP and there is no attempted;run around of the AFD, there is some good faith interptetation that there was no clear consensus in the AFD discussion and that the correct close according to policy should have been, no consensus - those are the stated reasons for this deletion review, your comments don't addreess them and as such areunlikely to be considered by the closer.Youreallycan 08:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. As is well known, I take a pretty hard line on BLPs. First, some principles. Unlike some in this discussion, I think it is clear that taking into account the wishes of a marginal BLP subject is valid - not as an absolute trump card, of course, but as one of many factors to consider. I also think that a history of vandalism or trouble is a valid thing to take into account - if we have proven that we can't properly maintain a biography, that's a valid reason to delete. Having said all that, my overall judgment about this case is that the current article is good. I've gone through it myself, line by line, and checked all the references. While I strongly agree that unless and until there is a reliable source for his date of birth, it should be excluded. I also think it a bit extreme for us to view this as 'stalkerish' since the subject has spoken openly about his birthday on the radio and twitter. Similarly, the dustup about his county of residence - he is quoted as saying it publicly in a reliable source. The problem with both of those things is not the content itself, but that the subject is extremely annoyed with Pigsonthewing, and I already asked with kindness for Pigsonthewing to steer clear of the article. The mind boggles at the poor judgment of him getting involved anyway. Similarly, Malleus wrote rude comments in the deletion debate to the point that I felt it was necessary to courtesy blank it. Both of them should at a minimum be topic banned for being annoying to the subject. There is no benefit to the encyclopedia from such behavior. Currently the article is in good shape, semi-protected (actually, full protected at the moment due to the edit war), and the subject is sufficiently notable for a biography. With a handful of topic bans, we'll be in good shape.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Topic bans for PotW (and now Malleus) are being discussed here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Per WP:DOB policy, Hawkins' date of birth should be excluded even if there is a reliable source for it. --JN466 10:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I'd be interested to know the policy basis for topic baning someone because the subject of an article says they are "annoyed"; I'd imagine that would apply to a considerable number of editors. I find your stance here extremely annoying; will you be banned from making posts relating to me? I'd also note that Hawkins (or thsoe purpiorting to be him from anonymous IPs; assume to be him for the purpose of this comment) is annoyed by almost anyone who has edited the article; and, elsewhere, by you. Will you all be topic banned? Your claims that my edits on this subject have "no benefit" is bogus. If you feel that your requested favours have the weight of an instruction, please be clearer when making them. Please feel free to point out any of my recent edits which are against policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andy, I'm not certain (because of the indenting and bullet points) whether the "you" in your comment above is me or Jimbo. If it's me, I'm not going to reply here as I don't think it's a matter for DRV. If you'd like a response on your talk page, let me know (though I suspect our positions are sufficiently far apart that any reply won't satisfy you!) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was replying to Jimbo. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a matter of principle, personal feelings should always trump marginal notability in BLPs. The dynamics of reporting news are such that they create news and impact on people's lives heavily, careers too. It is not up to us to decide whether or not the impact is bad enough. Supposing somebody asks for your seat on the bus on the grounds that he is feeling ill; if you ask for proof and he vomits on you, you are getting what you asked for. This is not supposed to be a news service and we are not supposed to be playing God with people's lives. McOoee (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closing admin has interpreted the policy based arguments as presented. The overturn voters here are not introducing anything new not in the earlier delete debate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closing admin summarized policy and arguments well, paying close attention to the privacy concerns of the living individual, and setting a way forward (that may or may not include blocks/topic bans for individuals who continue to contravene). One of the best closes ever on Wikipedia. Supposed off-wiki contact has nothing to do with the article as it stands, and is a red-herring when raised here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for the many reasons stated, above, and it appears that the the positions to overturn are based in IDHT, especially with regard to the reliable sources that show the subject to be a "public figure." Such arguments, thus, contravene the policy. The closing admin did an excellent job, despite personal wishes. He should be commended. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The closing admin appeared to be |reading BIODEL very narrowly, claiming that he wanted to delete but could not because our policy only allows the deletion of biographies of non-public figures but not the deletion of biographies of marginally notable people. I was under the impression that the policy is about deleting biographies of marginally notable people. In fact, the definition of "non-public figures" links to WP:NPF, which refers to people who are relatively unknown but notable enough for an entry. This means the same thing, to me, as "marginally notable people". I would overturn the decision, thus deleting the article, on the grounds that the closing admin misread the policy as not allowing deletion when it does. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can have highly notable people (in the Wikipedia sense: highly exceeding WP:N's sourcing requirements--a recluse writer would count) who aren't public. And you can even have public figures that aren't notable in the Wikipedia sense (if there is no coverage in reliable sources) though that is probably less common. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you need to have a concept of "public in the Wikipedia sense" as well, and someone can be public without being public in the Wikipedia sense.
I think it's fairly obvious that given the reference to NPF, the intent of the policy is that "non-public figure" includes people who are notable in the Wikipedia sense. If the policy allows the deletion of biographies of non-public figures, and it defines "non-public figure" to include the marginally notable, then it allows the deletion of biographies that are marginally notable. The closing admin made a mistake when he believed that the policy only allows the deletion of one and not the other. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The subject apparently isa public figure, and further developments have shown he intends to be as much of a public figure as he can: nobody chooses his profession who hopes to be altogether private. As So the purpose of bring the appeal appears to be to change our policy on NPOV and BIODEL. Biodel does not state as alleged above repeatedly, that if a BLP AfD is evenly balanced, we close delete. It says, in fact "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete" It only applies to people who are both relatively unknown and are non-public figures, and it remains optional. The AfD closer can choose in that narrow range of instances to close as delete. But the instance here was not one of them. Letting bio subjects delete their articles if they do not like them destroys NPOV: it makes all our articles on mildly notable people subject to their endorsement. We permit it none the less for private figures, in order to avoid undue notice and give whatever protection to desires for privacy is still possible in the current era. But only private people have that need--a public figure who wants his privacy respected is not being logical; there are many possible reasons, none of them adequate. I'm not sure which one applies--so I'll pick the least unacceptable, the understandable annoyance at having to fight for the removal of the d.o.b. to which he was rightfully entitled. So I don't blame him exactly, but I do blame his supporters here, for trying to destroy one of the foundations of Wikipedia--at his expense, for nothing could be worse for privacy than this multi-venue continuing discussion. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The article subject is featured in multiple, independent, published instances of coverage in so-called reliable sources. What we have here is Chapter 7,349 in a 50,000 part saga in which a conservative minority favoring extreme restriction upon BLPs (in the form of effective veto rights by BLP subjects) rails against longstanding guidelines and consensus. This is cut-and-dried in terms of notability; what is at issue is whether a subject has final say over content. The minority feels they do; the consensus-backed majority feels they do not. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite, it has been established policy (see WP:BIODELETE) and best practice since 2008 that a no-consensus AfD can be closed delete if a borderline-notable BLP subject requests it. This has nothing to do with a "conservative minority," but with a majority effort over many years to improve the situation on Wikipedia for BLP subjects. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
can be but not must be. The close was not incorrect or unreasonable per deletion policy. You prefer a different close, but that preference does not make the close incorrect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about "can be," but the point is that the closing admin interpreted the outcome as "keep," rather than as "no consensus," though it seems clear to anyone who has watched AfD over the years that there wasn't a consensus one way or the other. Then he said that, because he had interpreted it that way, he was not allowed to avail himself of the BIODELETE option, though wished he could. That's what the procedural issue is, and DRV is supposed to be about procedure, not a rerun of the AfD. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But he said he considered the strength of the arguments, not just the numbers. A close entirely within admin discretion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those of us who are not administrators HAVE to replay this from the top since in the never-ending, multiple years-and-running campaign to bend over backwards to accommodate this subject the deletion debate has been scrubbed. This is at root a philosophical question: Do biography subjects have the right to control content at Wikipedia? This is a yes-or-no proposition and the majority is clear on the matter. All else flows from that, with the primary driving force in the controversy the minority's unwillingness to accept consensus on the issue. Carrite (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the inapplicability of BIODELETE here, which seems obvious, I will again quote line two: " Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." This article is clearly outside of that description on all three grounds mentioned. Carrite (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've posted this here three times and the answer is the same each time: WP:BIODELETE contains *two* situations where articles may be deleted. You quoted one of them. The one we are concerned with is the other one, which is obviously not the same thing; for one thing, it only requires no consensus, not "no editor opposing the deletion". Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Jim Hawkins is the sort of person I would travel around the world to have a cup of tea with. I've done it once or twice. He gave me a BBC Radio Shropshire teddy bear who has been my travelling companion since 2006. I created his article here as an act of love, scraping together what sparse facts I found via Google. In all the years since then, there's not a lot that has been added beyond what is obvious or easily found, though I must say I do like the coconut-shy reference. He is a good man, well-regarded by his listeners. He relates to his community well and I had no idea that anybody would think to make his life miserable by harassing him through a Wikipedia article. While the article itself is now unobjectionable, I am seriously concerned about comments Jim has made recently about the effect this saga has had on his health, his job and his well-being. To put it bluntly, I'm worried for him. I accept that editors have various points of view over what we should and should not include and that if information such as his birthday or address is available somewhere on line then it has a place in a biographical article. But the net effect is that it is putting a lot of stress on Jim, not least because he doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. I'm not sure anybody does really, but it works. Would it kill us if we didn't have an article about Jim Hawkins? Because I'm worried about what happens if we keep it and keep making sometimes petty and ignorant comments about Jim. --Pete (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pete that's all lovely, especially the cup of tea, but are you really suggesting that we overturn and delete based upon a sentimental journey down memory lane and all this evocative stuff about his health? If he's sick, he should see a doctor. This is Wikipedia, not a support group. All the best to both of you... Fylbecatulous talk 11:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen a clearer demonstration of the reason for not paying attention to the opinion of the subject than you have just given. How Wikipedia works is not mysterious: the collection of those interested in discussing the matter at issue decides. An individual may or may agree, but short of a total dictatorship, what could be simpler? You present here a novel example of the absurd lengths to which one can conceivably carry DONOHARM: "Delete the article on me, because if not I shall kill myself." We have been struggling for weeks to find some plausible reason for wanting the deletion and have not found any; in view of the overall discussion, had there been any, it would have been deleted. Nor do you present one, except that the subject has taken it into his head that, although there is nothing he objects to there, he nonetheless objects to it. that's the way to make a vanity site, not an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Human decency and the application of Wikipedia policy are thus shown to have little in common. I suggest you return to the annual baby seal harvest. *struck as unbecoming in discourse with a librarian* →StaniStani  04:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, have you seen the comments by Skyring (Pete) and ErrantX at WP:AN on the history of this BLP? There may not be a problem in the article now, but from the subject's perspective such problems as there have been could reappear any day, because our system for writing BLPs has not changed. I would suggest you investigate the article's history, including any revdeleted or oversighted talk pages and article content. If, after reviewing that, you tell me that there was never anything in this article that a reasonable person would be upset about, I shall believe you. However, I very much doubt that this will be the outcome of such an investigation. --JN466 13:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jayen, I don't have oversight. If there were real matter, surely someone who does, would have said "there is such material in the history that even if oversighted, it makes an article unfair." BLP problems can appear in any article any day. Jimmy, who does have oversight, seems to say clearly that this is not the case; he is also of the opinion that in a case where we cannot keep the article free of this, that's justification for deleting the article. I don't have to say if I disagree with him there, because we always have such a method, full protection. Perhaps you'll rely on him, instead of me; it would be safer to do so, as he has stricter views than I on BLP--and perhaps I would too in his position. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I'd considered closing the discussion not long before it was closed here, and while I might have closed it somewhat differently, I don't see anything out of line here. In my view, the AfD wasn't treated as a pure vote, analysis was done of the appropriate policy/guideline arguments, and I don't see any sign that the closer misunderstood the arguments or evidence provided. Nor do I see that closer's readings of policy out of line with the range of mainstream readings of those policies. As this is not AfD-part-2, my argument ends there, I must endorse. To the extent that additional effort is necessary to protect the article subject from unwarranted harm, I suggest we move ahead and examine the other tools in our toolbox. --joe deckertalk to me 22:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot Will be decided at a different level than this one in any case. As for making charges about off-Wiki venues - that is pretty much useless as an argument of any sort here - the only arguemnts here are propriety of the close, and too much of what is written above is posturing unrelated to that sole issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Quite aside from all the cogent comments above, I feel quite strongly that someone who voluntarily chooses to place himself in the public eye has not a leg to stand on when it comes to public notice, and if the subject is "ill" that people are writing about him, nothing prevents him from entering a more private life where that will not take place. That being said, I plan on using this DRV as evidence the next time someone gets huffy with me over my assertion that XfD closers who rule for policy over headcount do so at their peril. Ravenswing 03:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment on notability: Hawkins writes a monthly column in, and was recently featured on the cover of, a nationally-available magazine; details came to light after the recent AfD, and are currently awaiting an admin edit to the protected article; see its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I !voted Keep at the AfD and see no reason to change my view. I agree this is not a rerun of AfD so won't rehearse those arguments. My "Endorse" here is because I agree with the closer that although he is a relatively minor figure, he is not sufficiently borderline for WP:BIODELETE to apply. He is within his rights to ask for the article to be deleted, and we're within ours to decline. I have offered, publicly and privately, to work with him to remove any errors if appropriate (as has Jimbo), but he has declined to say what these are. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Query: I see a lot of people referring to WP:BIODELETE, and arguing about whether or not Hawkins falls under the requirements there. But why is no one noting that the policy itself very explicitly says "may be closed as delete"? That is, some people seem to be saying or implying that while a normal article "no consensus" defaults to "keep", a minorly-notable BLP who has requested deletion defaults to "delete". That's not what the policy says. In effect, it gives the admin discretion about whether or not to account for the BLP subjects wishes--it does not compel them to do so simply because there is no consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the closer could have closed as no consensus and then opened a discussion - it appears to me that the closer should not have closed at all as they held and vocalized such strong opinions about the article in the closing comments - if the closer held such strong opinions they should have vote commented in the discussion delete as they vocalized -I fail to understand why they felt not to vote comment and close and comment in opposition to their own close in the close - strange indeed. - the closer, asked in the close, "Is there consensus here to delete this BLP? , yet within policy consensus was not needed to delete it, only no consensus in the discussion was required. Youreallycan 14:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, the closing admin wanted to delete it, but felt that the policy did not allow him to (and I pointed out that he misread the policy). If it just gives the admin discretion, then presumably he'd delete it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But he perceived that there was consensus to keep it. He respected the community's view. As I've said, this was honorable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The closer is just doing their job, which is to interpret consensus in accord with policy, coming in from an uninvolved position. That they indicated their own personal sentiments is neither here nor there; certainly the histrionics of the minority in search of some sort of IAR outcome here are no justification for a unilateral reversal. Carrite (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Though he notes the outcome as keep, this is really a no consensus close where the closer did not believe it appropriate to delete under BIODELETE or otherwise, as he had the discretion to do. If he'd wanted to delete it, he would have, we've all seen it before. After the silliness i witnessed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_13#Template:Rescue where about 60% to delete was considered a "consensus" to delete, I'm pleasantly surprised to see folks now arguing that roughly the same numbers in favor of keeping is not actually a "keep" but at best no consensus (albeit to allow application of BIODELETE). No consensus is no consensus. The fact that Hawkins' biography was vandalized and not monitored better is the actual problem.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close – the closer seems to have interpreted the arguments admirably. Oculi (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - I did not participate in the AfD and I do not know whether the subject is a "relatively unknown, non-public figure." But there certainly was not a consensus that he is a "relatively unknown, non-public figure", and therefore WP:BIODEL does not apply. That looks like a bad policy to me anyway, as I do not think any notable person should have veto power over their own article, and this person is at least notable enough for an article. For now, that is the policy, but not one that applies here. At the same time, those few editors who seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the subject should be banned from editing the article. Neutron (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: When somebody of marginal notability asks for a BLP to be deleted, it should be deleted automatically (not many LPs fit that description). A nasty kind of cultural ethic seems to be developing at WP, according to which the 'encyclopaedia' is an agent for social change, which includes the the view "no pain no gain" (so long as others feel the pain). And there are too many others who take their encyclopaedic responsibilities far too seriously, arguing that the LP is not suffering enough for us to waive those responsibilities. We should all have a look at the state of the majority of WP articles before asking someone else to suffer for our responsibilities. Start fixing all those other articles before forcing this rudimentary biography on an unwilling LP. Then maybe WP will deserve to be taken seriously. McOoee (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn close as keep and re-close as no consensus. Whether that results in keeping or deleting the article is still not entirely clear. But what is clear is that this is an issue that is dividing the community and a proper, centralised, discussion of the general principles around BIODELETE needs to be had. There are valid arguments on both sides, but a calm discussion, away from the drama, is needed (for example, several people have pointed to similar cases to this one that were closed with minimal drama and with the articles being deleted). What is needed is a way to handle cases like this without the attendant drama, if that is possible. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can think of not way of deciding these things worse than our current system. Whether we keep or delete this article, more effort will have gone into it than the article is worth, and more trouble will have been made for him and more harm will have been done than if he had left it alone. What I'm going to suggest is that the option to take the subject's preference into account be removed entirely forall cases, and we simply decide on the basis of notability and DO NO HARM. Do no harm, that is , to the interests of fairness, to the reasonable interests of a person,to the providing of encyclopedic information,and to keeping trivial tabloid-cruft and promotionalism both out of the encyclopedia. The present system favors the bold promotionalist, who can exploit it to force an article to his liking. It harms the modest unfortunate, who has to resort to extremely public and unnecessary discussions of whether his private life should be publicized here. It harms the people it should be helping, and helps those who a NPOV reference source has no business in assisting. Where there are true privacy issues, they cannot be discussed in public--and they will not, because the sensible people at otrs and elsewhere will find some quiet way of doing what is proper. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; this deciding whose feelings we should respect and whose we should ignore is tortuous. I prefer Tarc's solution (on Jimbo's talk page), though. He suggests deleting any BLP when the verified subject requests it. That way we do no harm at all. The project would lose a few biographies, but they can be restored once the subject has died. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Common decency on a borderline-notable BLP.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as within the closer's discretion, although I would have closed it no consensus. I will state that as a practical matter, it would be difficult to sustain a BIODELETE nc deletion where the discussion leans towards keeping; I think it would be more profitable to have the larger discussion others have mentioned about whether our ad hoc process serves us well in these cases. None of which, of course, is really proper for DRV, hence my !vote here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:18, 9 April 2012 (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.
Johnny Sandelson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was deleted by HJ Mitchell. I've left a message, without response, to see if we can resolve the deletion. The referenced content should be reviewed to see if the article can be reinstated, or assess whether the content can be used elsewhere. Vjdigital (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another Bell Pottinger employee seeking to get promotional content restored. There is no bar on recreation by someone without a COI so why don't we leave it at that. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 14:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Restore Invalid G11 speedy. The criterion for G11 is "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. " . This is promotional in intent, but the content is not entirely promotional, and it would not have to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic . We have no rule that says Paid articles may be speedily deleted. The admin acted as if we did, and the matter really should go to arb com, because he surely must know that, and a deletion like this is attempting to pre-empt the current discussions of paid editing. If anyone thinks the result is too promotional, they are free to rewrite it, even to the extent of removing all the content and starting over. The editor was blocked as a sock puppet on 6 December 2011, as was right, but the article was written before the block. The puppetmaster was blocked on 8 Dec 2011. Perhaps we should have a rule that anyone detected in sockpuppetry will have all their previous contributions deleted, but we do not have one nor do I think there would be consensus for it, as there would be too much collateral damage (from initially good editors who later turned to socking). We do not wield Balefire, which erases all earlier traces of the target from our universe. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The G11 deletion was made in good faith as the page is exclusively promotional. The article is peppered with weasel words, puffery and superlatives, with an apparent attempt to maximize SEO keyword density. Claims regarding investment returns are misleading and the article would indeed have to be entirely rewritten. No one is preventing the recreation of a neutral version of this article. Gobōnobo c 19:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little puzzled. In the edit right before the speedy, you yourself did a pretty good first pass at routine editing to remove superlatives and over-links. You yourself have shown it to be fixable--fixable in the way it should be, by non-involved editors. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That I attempted to address some of the bias in the article in no way demonstrates that the article is fixable. All of the content on this article was added by three Bell Pottinger sockpuppets and it took a huge amount of time and energy trying to undo the damage these accounts unleashed on the Wiki, as evidenced at Wikipedia:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations. Now another Bell Pottinger employee has come forward to "resolve the deletion." This from a company that managed to bury undesirable information deeper than the first 10 pages of a Google search. So, aside from the peacock terms and self-promotion, we have to check the references used to ensure that they're not BP-created puff pieces. And we're supposed to restore that mess and create more work for ourselves? Color me a little puzzled too. Gobōnobo c 23:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And how could it have been a proper deletion if it were done after the deletion had already been declined by someone else? That's one of the basic rules for operating at CSD, along with not removing tags from one's own article. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing that. Can you show me where the deletion was declined? Gobōnobo c 23:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse more or less per Gobonobo. The article is fundamentally a PR construct, and while it might be possible to write a valid article using some of the info and sources in the original, that original is unsalvageable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore No valid deletion criterion applied; the post hoc justifications above are simply not compelling. Send to AfD and give the community a voice, rather than administrators deciding to invent new rules to eliminate content unilaterally because the contributors have a conflict of interest. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and list at AfD as desired. Overly promotional, but not entirely so. There are reasonable sources as well as a basic (if biased) starting point for the text. Hopefully going through the AfD process will help with that. Hobit (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and run through AfD. This is not speedy deletion material; whether it is or is not worthy of inclusion is a matter for debate. Carrite (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Per Gobonobo, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz it's fundamentally a PR article and the current article is pretty much unsalvageable for creating an encyclopaedic article. No objection to a new encyclopaedic article being written separately but I suspect it would be likely to end up at AfD fairly sharpish even if it was. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 April 2012

[edit]
  1. ^ http://www.google.com/search?q=nerdcore&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=-Xl_T5GGN4io8gTvvK3bBw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=5&ved=0CBkQ_AUoBA&biw=1327&bih=878
  2. ^ http://www.bigshinyrobot.com/reviews/archives/38466
  3. ^ http://www.geeksofdoom.com/2012/03/20/album-review-richie-bransons-the-wing-zero-ep/
  4. ^ http://io9.com/5899100/def-jam-records-producer-moves-to-the-nerdcore-side-creates-star-wars-and-gundam-wing-rap-albums
  5. ^ http://blog.mysanantonio.com/geekspeak/2012/03/video-richie-branson-delivers-nerdcore-rap-of-star-wars-the-old-republic/
  6. ^ http://polygamia.pl/Polygamia/1,107165,10865347,Kawalek__ktory_umili_czekanie_w_kolejce_do_Star_Wars_.html
  7. ^ http://www.onlinewelten.com/games/star-wars-the-old-republic/news/fan-rap-uebel-gruppensuche-dd-109902/
  8. ^ http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/10770.html
  9. ^ http://www.psu.com/Square-Enix-gets-dissed-in-rap-song-Letter-To-SquareSoft--a014553-p1.php
  10. ^ http://kotaku.com/5889863/the-glory-days-of-squaresoft-not-square-enix-recaptured-in-rap
  11. ^ http://www.brain-magazine.com/article/leche-vitrines/8980-Letter-To-SquareSoft
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_April&oldid=487423032"