Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 18

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 2007 August 17
2007 August 19 >

18 August 2007

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yiffstar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

According to the original deletion history of this page, the reason the Yiffstar Wikipedia page was deleted the first time was solely due to lack of reference notes within the page. The old page was used for a framework and some of the old information was kept as it had not changed, however, pertaining references were placed accordingly in the new and updated text to correct the original reason for deletion, the old content was updated including corrected statistics, new areas of the site were added to the entery, defunct areas of the site were removed from the entery and some parts of the article (such as the forums section) were completely rewritten. With new content, and the old reason for deletion corrected, the entry should not have been deleted. Also, the entry was deleted within two hours of page creation - this is not substantial enough time for more information to be added by other users ESPECIALLY as there has been an open invitation on Yiffstar for it's users to come help create and update the Yiffstar wikipedia page. If you still refuse to allow the page to stand, can it be left up temporarily for a couple days so the updated statistics and references can used to update another wiki? -- 68.229.113.31 (talk · contribs · logs) 23:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - The article was deleted eight months ago at AfD, recreated by Lamoxlamae (talk · contribs · logs) 18 August 2007 (UTC), then WP:CSD G4 speedy deleted an hour later at 18 August 2007 by Splash. This deletion review addresses whether WP:SPEEDY justifies the 18 August 2007 speedy deletion by Splash. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted it because it was an entry about a website that (despite being quite long) was not able to assert any notability at all. The relevant guidance on this point is found in this document. I'm not quite sure I understand your request; but probably not, no, as Wikipedia isn't a holding place for other websites, if that's what you mean. Splash - tk 23:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know this is not a holding site, but if the page stays deleted I just wanted to save the research data on the statistics and reference pages so it could be used to update another site that I found after the deletion and is out of date. It took hours to collect all the updated information and to find the correct reference links and it would take hours to repeat it. I have put the request in for a temporary restoration.
      • Very well, I have put your last revision of the article at User:Lamoxlamae/Yiffstar. (Note to admins: this revision had only ever been edited by the user in question, and so I have left the history deleted to avoid great complications). Splash - tk 00:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment; don't we need an assurance that the Wiki that this material is being moved to is compatibly licensed? A surprisingly large number of Wikis aren't. Heather 16:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please note the detail of my comment previous to yours: the sole revision that Lamoxlamae has access to was written entirely and only by that user. S/he owns the copyright, and is free to (re-)distribute it under any licensing terms they choose. Splash - tk 02:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Once it's been posted here, Wikipedia owns the copyright, not the contributor. See WP:COPYRIGHT. As such, if something is being moved elsewhere, we need to know that the destination uses a compatible license. Heather 12:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:COPYRIGHT says the exact opposite of what you claim; a user submitting material they have created themselves retains the copyright, they simply cannot revoke wikepdia's right to use it under GFDL. SamBC(talk) 12:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are incorrect, sorry. You retain the copyright to your own work, and, as the name of the Gnu Free Documentation Licence implies, you license it to Wikipedia - you do not transfer the copyright. You may therefore license the same material under any terms you choose in other circumstances. If, otoh, someone else wants to use material they find on Wikipedia they must either a) use it compliantly with the GFDL or b) obtain some alternative licensing terms from the author(s). Indeed, as SamBC points out, the first sentence of Wikipedia:Copyrights says precisely this: "The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations". Splash - tk 12:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion FWIW, although it looks like the user requesting review may have already resolved the situation to the point where this could be closed. No evidence that the AfD discussion was closed inappropriately or that consensus was not reached, nor have the concerns of those editors !voting to delete been addressed. Heather 16:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment among the reasons for deletion was "While this site is notable by furry community standards, I don't think it's remarkable enough in Wikipedia's standards - the user community is sizeable but not that sizeable. " --and a deletion on that basis is totally opposed to WP policy. Other arguments were that similar pages had been deleted, equally irrelevant. But a stronger article should be written first before resubmission.DGG (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Thank you for letting me know this! I will post a copy of the current version of the Yiffstar article on the Yiffstar community forums and we will try to make a stronger rewrite. What problems did you see with it? Feel free to take discussion of the article to my talk page so that the page may evolve closer to Wikipedia guidelines so that it may be allowed to stay next time. The current version is up at User:Lamoxlamae/Yiffstar (thank you Splash) for reference. Lamoxlamae 22:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification. The editor who initiated the DRV was not, I believe, challenging the AfD, but questioning my speedy deletion - this being the last and most temporal of the deletions. Also note that I did not close the AfD when it occurred. I cannot imagine otherwise why there'd have been a ntoe on my talk page about this. Splash - tk 02:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion - Splash applied WP:CSD G4 correctly. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
WritersUA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

WritersUA (formerly knowns as WinWriters) is part of the technical writing community and provides a unique and valuable service that transcends the for-profit elements of the business. The WritersUA web site is highly regarded within the software user assistance community. References from numerous notable people within the profession can be provided. In addition to a wealth of original content, WritersUA offers industry surveys on skills and salaries and provides a resource directory that is much valued by the UA community. All of that is free to the public and provided without vendor advertising. The single for-profit event is a conference that has been held for fifteen years. In that time it has attracted over 8,000 people from around the world and is one of the very few gatherings of people specifically interested in improving software documentation. Resource Directory, 2007 Salary Survey, 2007 Skills Survey - Contact: Joe Welinske, (email address removed) Joe Welinske 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question, The process does document does not provide us with any guidelines as to where/what/when you needed to have references. In the challenge I said I could provide numerous references. Do you want them now? How many? What types? Where should I deliver them to the reviewers? We can provide references from academics, corporations, professional societies, notable experts, etc. Google has 20,000 references to our organization from sources all around the world. Most of the hits are referencing original articles that have contributed to the knowledge-base of the user assistance community. Over 800 hits reference survey results alone. Most of the hits referencing the annual conference are not advertising - rather they are describing industry news and insights that came out of the technical sessions. Approximately 40-50 industry experts speak at the event each year. With respect to the authority of referencing entities, I would assume the size of the pond should not be as important as an organization's relative size in that pond. User assistance is a relatively small part of the overall IT industry. It does not regularly receive notices on large, mainstream web sites. But it is vital and vibrant. The numerous organizations and individuals that reference WritersUA may not be well known in the mainstream but they are certainly well=respected within our community. Joe Welinske 21:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The material for the article should be from reliable sources that are independent of WritersUA. Newspaper articles are good, write ups in magazine such as Time (magazine) and Newsweek are good too. A published book or two on the history of WritersUA would be great, but is not a requirement. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, valid AFD and article was definitely promotional in tone. Sources provided by nominator are not independent. --Coredesat 20:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No independent sources during the AFD or now, consensus was clearly to delete. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the review request does not indicate why the AfD was supposedly closed in error. It was a unanimous delete. Sandstein 17:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Closer interpreted the AfD discussion correctly. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Igor Vishev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was copied from [forum] with the permission (to place it on Wikipedia under the GFDL licence) of the person who posted it there (Bruce Klein, a director of ImmInst). The statement about the source and the permission was added to the talk page immediately after adding the article itself. User:WWGB marked the page with speedy deletion tag. I further elaborated on the article's talk page that it is copied here with permission. In case of any questions I requested this to be discussed on the talk page. Some time later User:Maxim speedy deleted the page.

All this was done in violation of Wikipedia's critera for speedy deletion, because the parameter 4 of the 12th criteria did not apply. That is, there was already an asserted permission for use of the text.

User:Maxim has ignored my message on his talk page. I am asking any admin to immediately restore the last version of the page, according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It says "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately." Paranoid 17:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ignored it. I haven't had time to read it yet, Paranoid. Also, Paranoid posted a rather uncivil message, starting with "Are you serious?", and ending with "I require that you...". I realise that Paranoid has asked me to take a second look, and I believe this DRV is premature, as I've only seen Paranoid's first and second notice, and I certainly didn't delete the article in question out of process, as Paranoid has implied. I would prefer to have a day or two to look over this, as well. By this, I also ask Paranoid to be a bit more patient, and understand that I'm human, I make mistakes, and most importantly in this context, that admins delete page not by personal likes/dislikes, but by policy, making them more like janitors. Thank you. Maxim 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, Maxim. Sadly, I have become really annoyed by the overall bureacracy at Wikipedia and has simply stopped contributing to it. When people falsely accuse me of copyvios, arguing I copied a photo to Wikipedia from another website, when I made the photo myself and the website in question is a freaking wikipedia mirror, I get really pissed off. That's my attitude to Wikipedia now.
In this particular case the page was deleted without review, it clearly didn't fit the criteria for speedy deletion, I was not notified by User:WWGB on my talk page about the SD tag (as he is required to do by policy), so I assume "out of process" can be applied to it. If "out of process" is clarified somewhere on WP, please give a link to it.
The civility of my message is not relevant in this context. You clearly didn't check the CSD g12, so I was really surprised by the deletion. Hence my "Are you serious?" comment. Please note that I didn't ask whether you were nuts, on drugs, etc. Furthermore, since you clearly made an error when speedy deleting the page, I required you to undelete it immediately. I should not have to "request" or "kindly ask" Wikipedia users who made an obvious error to fix them, should I? Paranoid 17:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I didn't check CSD G12, I know it by heart, as I do countless deletions per day. Civility is relevant, as any individual is less likely to act if someone asks them to do it rather uncivilly/rudely. I still believe it's a CSD G12 vio. I realise you are attempting to help, but I don't think it complies with our policies. I think it would be better now for myself, Paranoid, and WWGB to abstain for a bit from this DRV, and let the community seek a solution to this. Maxim 19:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps you should check CSD g12. As I said above, parameter number 4 requires that there be no assertion of permission. In this case there clearly was such assertion. Please answer to this direct complaint before asking the community to "seek a solution". Paranoid 20:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author (Bruce Klein, director of ImmInst) agrees to license it under GFDL. Paranoid 13:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)" Though I have much less experience than you,why not simply restore it with the appropriate tag pending the rest of the formalities, instead of debating here?'DGG (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore as permission was clearly asserted and seems like it would be easily verified (or not). G12 does not apply when permission and/or free licensing are asserted. I think we can assume good faith here but backing off of a clear error seems to be the correct course of action here, as the G12 policy advises. --Dhartung | Talk 03:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Spells in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2)
Note This deletion review addresses the Snowball keep, non admin closure of AfD #1, which was open for ten hours. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been put to AfD twice this month (the second debate was closed as it was judged that not enough time had passed since the first debate). The first AfD resulted in a snowball decidion, during the second there was an ongoing debate before closure. The admin closing the second debate suggested that it could be taken to Deletion review. Basicly my feeling is that the article goes against several policies and guidelines and essays that are important to Wikipedia in the following ways:

  • WP:NN - No secondary sources discussing the subject.
  • WP:FICT - No real world material
  • WP:V - Can't verify the content as there are no secondary sources
  • WP:RS - As there are no secondary sources obviously none are reliable
  • WP:OR - If something has no sources it is almost by definition origonal research, the etymologies are really just a case of

editors matching up the names of spells with words in a Latin dictionary

  • WP:NOT#INFO - Collection of non-notable information
  • WP:NOT#GUIDE - This page and pages like these effectively are a guide to the HArry Potter Universe - not encyclopaedia articles and may be better suited to a Harry Potter wiki or a fansite.
  • WP:NOTINHERITED - Harry Potter is notable - this hould not by definition mean that the spells in the Harry Potter books are :notable - they should meet the relavent notability criteria.
  • WP:FAN - Could definately be considered as fancruft (in my opinion)

It might also be noted that the AfD for a page on non-canonical spells - with much the same content but refering to the games and movies rather than the books - was deleted using much the same reasoning.

Looking at the first AfD most of the arguements used boiled down to WP:USEFUL or WP:INTERESTING or other rationale such as:

  • "it's well written" and
  • "it's a good guide" and
  • "Oh no you didnt! This page is great!" and
  • "I know it's useful, because I just used it to check the spelling of a hex that I just shouted at my friend"

were also given as arguements for keep, I do not these opinions did much to address the issues at hand. I think that there is definately a case to be made for deletion. The first nomination ended in WP:SNOW but I do not think that should preducjice against opening up a new AfD considering that there was considerable discussion in prehaps a more policy minded way. Guest9999 15:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion per the laundry list of policy violations cited by Guest9999 above; the matching up of names of spells with Latin words clearly runs afoul of WP:OR, and I can't imagine an article appropriate for our project existing under this title. Both AfD closures were appropriate and within acceptable admin discretion. Heather 16:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure (that means either let the AFD run its course or delete it) Will (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure AFD should have ran it's course, many of the keep votes are like Keep/Merge. Although I am an avid editor of the page, it isn't encyclopedic. The information is very informative and useful, and should be kept in my opinion. At the very least, it should be merged with Magic (Harry Potter) even though Spells in Harry Potter is larger than that page. which is easily discounted in any AFD. Jaranda wat's sup 17:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure Original snowball keep seems to have been dubious, let the AfD run its course, and if I were a gambler I'd bet on it getting deleted. It's not a speedy candidate, though, AFAICT. SamBC(talk) 18:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • EndorseA reasonable close, even for a non-admin. Besides the nominator, there was only one voice for delete, an active WPedian who changed his vote to keep during the discussion, giving reasons, and convincing even the nominator that there was no reason to delete. When the nom. withdraws, and there is no other delete. Considering that the prev. discussion had also had a SNOW keep, that the nom withdraw, and that there was no other dissent, the conditions for a non admin SNOW keep were certainly fulfilled. admin would have closed. I am not happy with the request for review: the Appellant claims there was debate, but neglects to mention that the debate ended in convincing the lone voice for delete and the nom as well.

But the debate ran for only 1 night in the US = 1 morning in Europe, and obviously not everyone was heard from. Personally, considering recent AfDs in general, I would have expected that there was more to come, and would have continued the debate. But I do not say relist, because nothing said now is likely to settle the matter: even if it is relisted and ends in a keep, there will be another series of attempts to delete possibly continuing once monthly until by chance it gets deleted, and if it ends in delete at any time there will be another request for review, etc. We have no mechanism for a final determination, which is a disgrace to any pretense at well-considered process.
As for the underlying merits, the spells are collectively a very major plot element, they run through the books, there is already substantial criticism to be added, and it was cited in the debate.--and there is a certainty of more to come. Ilikeit, though a factor, is balanced by idontlike thistypeofcontent. There is no ruling anyway that this sort of material counts as trivia, and not likely to be any consensus on that. There were abundant policy arguments raised for keeping. the possibility of merge remain, as a editing decision--one doesn't need AfD for merge. And, as I said in the discussion of another Potter-related article, this series is important enough to people generally and to wikipedians that any flexibility in interpretation should amount to a keep. deletion review is not AfD round 3. DGG (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn closure. While I am absolutely in favour of keeping the page, and will continue arguing that, I believe it was wrong and unnecessary to close the debate while active discussion was underway. There is nothing wrong with letting a nomination run its course, even though it was probably not really smart to start a new AfD just days after the previous one ended. Melsaran 18:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure Endorse closure The first AfD was withdrawn by the nominator, not closed, so that's not anyone's fault. I too am in favor of keeping the page, and will also continue to argue its case. The AfD should be allowed to run its course. The second AfD was rather hasty, there should have been a longer waiting period. GlassCobra 18:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure - This is not a speedy, but Guest has it right. This one partitially or fully violates those policies, and I suggest this to be partially merged with the Harry Potter article, or continue with the Afd. --Hirohisat Talk 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure. While I understand the closing admins rationale for closing the second AfD, if your going to do close an AfD under such circumstances, close it when the AfD is still new, as in less than a day old. This AfD had been open for about 2.5 days, i.e, half the time period for an AfD. Kind of silly at that point to close it. And as far as I know, there is no minimum time period for a person to renominate an article, assuming good faith. And on top of that, there was about 18 days since the closure of the first AfD, and the opening of the second AfD. Also, considering the first AfD didn't even run it's full course, I see no reason to not let this one do so. Pepsidrinka 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure—the first AfD was Snowballed, but the second AfD introduced much more discussion on both sides; an early closure prevented the newly found discussion from continuing. — Deckiller 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - the decision to renominate the article for deletion in the first place was out of process, and considering DRV is a place to discuss process (not whether or not the article deserves deletion), the AFD should never have been created in the first place. Specifically - an AFD was closed on 3 August 2007, with the verdict being "snowball keep". Anyone who disagreed with that decision should have put it on DRV, or waited a significant amount of time (I believe the guideline is 1 month but then again I don't visit AFD on a daily basis so maybe that has changed too!) before renominating. But instead, the article was renominated within 2 weeks. I see nothing wrong with the original decision to close as a "snowball keep", and therefore there is nothing wrong with the 2nd decision to close early. Incidentally, I would vote strong keep for this article, so please don't speedy delete it because then I will have to re-nominate it for DRV and it becomes quite a mess ;-) ugen64 19:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Enough of the rules lawyering already. What you seem to be saying is that we should close this DRV as endorse, to allow a new DRV to overturn the snowball close, and only then re-open the AfD. Needless waste of time. David Mestel(Talk) 22:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - AfDs of the same article shouldn't occur within weeks of each other, especially when an article doesn't have WP:NPOV, WP:BLP or WP:CP issues. Consensus needs to count for something. Wait at least a month. ichor}mosquito{ 19:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the page for the the "snow ball clause" it says that:

"If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably wasn't a good candidate for the snowball clause."

The fact that someone later brought up a reasonable objection (in the second AfD) suggests that the use of WP:SNOW was not neccessarily an appropriate way to end the origonal debate. [[Guest9999 19:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

  • Overturn closure- the use of WP:SNOW in the second AfD was uncalled for and unnecessary. The admin should have waited at least more than a day to allow discussion. However, the nomination of the article twice in such a short period of time wasn't so good, either. --Boricuaeddie 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure and relist, I hate WP:SNOW sometimes. It cannot seriously be invoked if someone does present a valid reason to delete the article, which is what happened here. It should be noted that the first AFD was also snowballed. This one shouldn't have been, plain and simple. --Coredesat 20:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but the two objections were withdrawn, weren't they? DGG (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn closure: the second AfD was entirely justified. Why should the previous one being withdrawn by the nom, who changed his mind, mean that a real AfD is not allowed to take place for an arbitrary period? In his opening comment here, User:Guest9999 has this article's failings spot on, not that many people are interested in a little thing like that in the AfD anyway. Miremare 20:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: the suggestion that a withdrawn AfD precludes another one is absurd. David Mestel(Talk) 22:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure of both 1st and 2nd AfD. The first AfD was snowballed, along with nom withdrawal is very much a valid speedy keep via WP:SK#Applicability #1. The 2nd AfD was again rightfully speedy closed as not a reasonable amount of time has passed, which is the last bullet point of Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion. Having noted that I think both closure was correctly applied, I am happy for the article to be relisted if there's a consensus here. KTC 22:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is incorrect. A withdrawn AfD does not count as a completed or consensus finding AfD. Note, that if even a single person had supported delete in the first AfD, then it could not be withdrawn, but it had been before anyone had the opportunity to do so. I would hate to see people start to do this intently, to game the system and keep articles by nominating them, then quickly withdrawing to avoid another AfD. A withdrawn nomination is totally different from an AfD that ran it's full course, and is not the kind of situation that WP:DP is talking about, at all. -- Ned Scott 20:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist The first AFD was far too short and most of the keep comments were WP:ILIKEITs and the second AFD should have ran its course. --Farix (Talk) 23:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure The second AFD was finshing up very rapidly with copious amounts of Keeps anyway. Therequiembellishere 00:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist. I swear, overeager admins stir up more needless drama than the actual trolls combined. Just follow process already. 160.39.202.22 02:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be rude, but this appears to be your first contribution. Do you have a username? Because right now, you seem like a complete newcomer adding a comment for a process you don't know about. Again, if you just failed to login, I apologise. Therequiembellishere 02:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize; I have my login set to "remember me," but evidently, it did not. Evouga 07:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure and relist. The first discussion seemed to be lacking in much policy discussion, but the second seems to be generating useful discussion (rather than fan-based keeps that cite no policy). I'd like to see this relisted as it was, so that the good arguments don't go to waste.
  • Overturn and reopen/relist. Needless parliamentary red tape. We should not have to have a debate about whether we're allowed to debate the deletion of an article! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the first AfD closure, overturn the second The first AfD was closed quite properly, with the nomination withdrawn and overwhelming consensus to keep, it was perfectly fine to snowball and keep the article. As for the second AfD, since new arguments in favour of deletion have come up, the AfD should not have been closed early. Thus, reopen and let it go the whole five days so as to get a sturdier result. PeaceNT 03:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure and relist second AfD The reasons for the first AfD closure was because of a withdrawn nomination, and different issues were raised for the second AfD. -- Ned Scott 03:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist in AfD. I personally think this article should not be deleted, the nominator thinks it should be. Let and AfD finish and we'll (hopefully) have a better consensus. Useight 04:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse per overwhelming consensus. Let's go through all of Guest9999's points:
  • WP:NN - WP:N really isn't meant to apply to lists in the same way it applies to, say, terms of art. I can find an article on tall bridges, and I can find a list of the tallest bridges, but I'm not going to find an article that discusses the subject of lists of bridges. That's just the reality of the written world. And yet, we have a list of bridges article, and it would be rather absurd to even consider deleting it. The same applies here. There are articles about spells in Harry Potter (**hint**Google**end-hint**), and there are lists of spells from Harry Potter (external links), but there are (probably) no articles which discuss lists of spells in Harry Potter. In this case, following WP:N, we do not treat lists of spells in Harry Potter as the topic, but rather Spells in Harry Potter, or more generally Magic in Harry Potter. It may make sense to hold these lists to a higher notability standard than their non-list topics, but per common Wikipedia practice we don't require that lists present reliable sources on the topic of "Lists of X." If we did, there would be precious few lists!
  • WP:FICT - This guideline just says that an article's notability and the merits of bits of information inside the article are to be judged from a real-world perspective, not a fictional one. The merits of this article are derived from its weight in culture, so it passes.
  • WP:V - Eh? What about all the links in the article? Sites like this one which are clearly linked to? It is a secondary source insofar as it's not affiliated with the producers of the story.
  • WP:RS - What exactly is wrong with the sources provided? If you don't have any objection to the sources specifically in this article, then please don't throw the policy violations around as generics.
  • WP:OR - The material corresponds to the links in the article. (See WP:V.)
  • WP:NOT#INFO - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information, but that does not mean that Wikipedia cannot contain information. This isn't really a reason for deletion; it's a response to "X should be kept because it is true information." You are citing a refutation to an argument which, as far as I know, was never made in the AfD, and is almost never made anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter.
  • WP:NOT#GUIDE - The article does not tell the reader how to do anything, so it is not a guide. If your interpretation of "guide" was universalized, then we would have to delete World of Warcraft as a guide to WoW, John Locke as a guide to John Locke, and so on.
  • WP:NOTINHERITED - This article receives spillover notability in the same way that J. K. Rowling receives spillover notability, only to a lesser degree.
  • WP:FAN - Again, this is a response to an argument ("keep b/c I'm a fan of Harry Potter") which the article is not contingent on. The Harry Potter article could also be considered "fancruft."
— xDanielx T/C 07:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply J.K. Rowling has had many, many secondary sources write about her - her article is not based on Harry Potter "spillover". The Bridges in list of tallest Bridges show evidence of being notable - they have their own articles - the spells do not. I'm pretty sure that fansites like Mugglenet - which you linked to and the Harry Potter Lexicon do not count as reliable secondary sources. WP:FICT does not say real world perspective - it says "contain substantial real-world content". I felt WP:NOT#GUIDE was relevant as if real world places do not merit having every aspect of them explained I do not think that the Harry Potter Universe deserves this treatment. WP:NOT#INFO - applies to putting in information which is not notable for the sake of it - if the arguements above are to be considered then by default it would seem it is a relavent policy. [[Guest9999 20:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
True, the list of bridges links to other articles, but notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. So listed items being individually notable and having topics might be a reason for keeping a list (assuming that the items are meaningfully connected), but the opposite is not a reason for deleting a list, since WP:N does not apply to bits of information within articles and thus does not apply to individual list items.
I agree that Mugglenet is probably not the ideal source, but just as exceptional claims require exceptional sources, mediocre sources can suffice for claims which are trivially true, such as "the summoning charm is a spell in the Harry Potter story." There are also multiple sources listed which can be cross-referenced with one another (see the two external links), so the sourcing is more than sufficient in my opinion.
I think WP:FICT should not be applied here for a couple reasons. First, the article in question is essentially a supplement to Harry Potter and other related articles. If we were to merge all the Harry Potter-based articles together, the result would be too massive, hence the split. We could just repeat the cultural details in Harry Potter to make the article in question a "proper" article by conventional standards, but that would be redundant since readers who are seeking such details of the story don't need such a general overview. Regardless, though, exceptions can and should be made for books which sell 325+ million copies.
Your comment on WP:NOT#GUIDE, as I understand it, is that the article goes into too much detail on the subject of Harry Potter. Reading the text, I don't think this is how WP:NOT#GUIDE is meant to be applied. More importantly though, more notable subjects justify more detail, and Harry Potter is something of a king of notability. So I don't think WP:NOT#GUIDE applies here, but if it did, it should be unhesitantly ignored.
— xDanielx T/C 00:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems odd to say WP:FICT doesn't apply to an article on fiction. [[Guest9999 00:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Especially since WP:FICT is geared toward fiction subarticles instead of their main works. We must establish balanced, academic articles on fiction—not lengthy subarticles that retell every aspect of a fictional universe (that is not the role of an encyclopedia, obviously). — Deckiller 00:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a notability guideline, not a rule. Fictional stories which sell 325+ million books may merit an exception. And I don't understand why you assert that WP:FICT is geared toward sub-articles; it seems completely general there as far as I can see. — xDanielx T/C 05:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guest9999, I said that WP:FICT should not be applied, not that we shouldn't consider it in relation to the article in question. — xDanielx T/C 05:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I misinterpretted you. I would like to restate my point in a more appropriate way. It seems odd to say WP:FICT shouldn't be applied to an article on fiction. [[Guest9999 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
I think this is only a pseudo-disagreement resulting from a minor ambiguity in my earlier assertion. When I said WP:FICT "should not be applied," I meant that it shouldn't be used to delete the article in question. I take it that you interpret "applied" to mean something along the lines of considered as a reason for deletion (otherwise you would be arguing that WP:FICT mandates deleting all fiction articles). I agree that the article in question falls inside the general scope of WP:FICT, that is, fiction articles, and based on this I agree that we should consider the conditions for inclusion/deletion which WP:FICT explains. Where we disagree is on the question of whether this article meets those more specific conditions (adequate context, etc.) and whether, if it fails that condition, the condition should be strictly followed or ignored as a loose and non-binding guideline. I argue that those conditions should not be applied as reasons to delete the article in question because of the questioned article's supplemental nature, and because the article is closely connected to an extremely notable subject such that it warrants an exception. Hope that clears things up. — xDanielx T/C 22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FICT deals with "topics within a fictional universe"; in other words, the subarticles for the work they appear in. WP:FICT also encourages merging and transwiki over deletion; I'd prefer to see this merged and/or transwikied before deletion (I started a merge discussion, which met stiff resistance, and transwiki to the Harry Potter Wiki is certainly an option if enough people agreed to it). — Deckiller 22:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per above comments. The article does not go against any of the policies that Guest9999 mentions. Also, with the constant nominations and the number of keep votes, the result of the debate would be the same. --musicpvm 08:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the one who closed the nomination, based on the fact that the nominator had withdrawn the nomination (Guest9999), the one call to delete was withdrawn following discussion by an editor whose opinion I have come to respect in AFD discussions (TenPoundHammer), and the closure of the AFD was suggested by the nominater, the withdrawn delete, and aonther editor (FrozenPurpleCube) whose contributions to AFD I also respect. I was probably wrong in snowballing it, so do what has to be done to make sure all is proper. -- saberwyn 10:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure Nominating the same article over and over is a waste of everyone's time. nut-meg 14:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not when the second AfD is unrelated to the first, and brings up issues not discussed before. If you think it's a waste of time then don't participate. -- Ned Scott 20:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The second is related to the first, and uses the same arguments for deletion. There are no real new issues. Nominating the same article every two weeks is a waste of time. I participate because I don't want to see useful articles deleted. I suggest to you that if you wanted it deleted, you should go back and read the first AfD and figure out why it wasn't. There could be better citations, but plenty of reasonable sources are attached to the article. Aside from that, the arguments for deletion boil down to "I don't ilke it", and that rationale just doesn't cut it. nut-meg 00:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse retention There are certainly secondary sources available. I bought my nephew a non-fiction book largely devoted to this subject. Carina22 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse retention All that the page needs are more references, and sources to the outside world. It's just a wikification that's needed. •Malinaccier• T/C 16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Although a case could be made, in the abstract, for closing the second AfD as being too soon, I think this was not the appropriate thing to do here. Unlike the first AfD, this one had substantial arguments in favour of either outcome, and letting it run this time may well prevent AfD no. 3 one month hence. Sandstein 17:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I'm rarely a fan of process for it's own sake, but it seems like lately there's been more and more dubious use of the WP:SNOW clause. When it is contested, a relisting is more than appropriate. Speedy closing a new AfD because the last had been snowed is counterproductive. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 01:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I said in the deletion discussion, there isn't much point to an AFD. There's little chance of a consensus to delete, thus I suggest any concerns about the nature of the article be taken to talk pages in order to attempt to resolve the actual issues with the page. I'm not sure I think that the early closure was the best idea, but let's really ask ourselves, is another round through AFD the best idea? FrozenPurpleCube 02:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WP:SNOW. From the debate in this DRV, it is obvious that a new AFD will not result in a consensus to delete. >Radiant< 08:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what page it was, but there was some guideline that said that you shouldn't speedy close AfDs when there is substantial discussion going on. Discussion is healthy. Melsaran (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Depends. Pointless or redundant discussion is not healthy, and virulent or aggressive discussion is definitely unhealthy. If the outcome is clear (as it is here) and debate is creating more heat than light (as it does here), speedy closing is the way to minimize drama. And no, the guideline you mention does not exist, although there are a few essays that argue that way. >Radiant< 12:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • These discussions tend to shape our guidelines and policies. Discussion is healthy and should not be avoided just to avoid an argument. A conflict, a debate, is exactly why we have the AfD debate in the first place. -- Ned Scott 19:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and retain No consensus to delete. Arguments for deletion incorrect, as the subject is notable and can be sourced to independent publications. Mowsbury 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no consensus to keep, as both AfD discussions were stopped before a consensus could be formed. As pointed out by another editor supporting keep, the AfD would help to strengthen keeping the article. It is simply incorrect to say that you have consensus to keep the article when both AfDs were stopped before people could make their statements. -- Ned Scott 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Closure - everyone keeps saying it was snow'd and that it still is notable, but the second AfD made clear the issues and falacies associated with it. This DRV, like the second AfD, is now being swamped by 'keep' votes again... David Fuchs (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the article is kept, which is looking likely, something has to be done to fix everything that's wrong with it. Its shortcomings have been picked apart both here and in AfD 2, but I wonder if anyone is going to (or can) fix it? Or is is going to repeat the "AfD - Keep, AfD - Keep, AfD - Keep" cycle forever? Other such articles (RuneScape gods anyone?) have succumbed to exactly this, still resulting in absolutely no improvement to the article. This seems like a "we like it so it's staying - indefinitely" from the many keepers, none of whom appear to be able to provide any valid reasons as to why it should stay. Miremare 15:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll do everything I can to keep it, you can count on that. Therequiembellishere 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same here. The article needs to be improved, not deleted, but certain people seem loathe to take up this burden and would rather delete it. As for valid reasons, did you not read XDanielx's list just above this? GlassCobra 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an answer to your first point, many people are not au fait enough with the intricacies of Harry Potter to contribute to this article, and that almost certainly counts just as much for the keepers as the deleters. I would gladly take up the burden of editing the article into shape, but I think many people would not appreciate the results! Also, yes, I did read XDanielx's list, but I don't agree with most of the points he made, and still side with Guest9999's original list. Miremare 18:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse closure. I can't argue, even if I would, with xDanielx's point about a series that sells several hundred million (and is the literary event of several decades) being a good candidate for an exception. Our rules are explicitly tools, not ends, and were fundamentally constructed for that purpose. This has unfortunately-if-inevitably received less attention as the place ages, but here we have what's almost a textbook example with a highly important (quite integral, much unlike, say, items in Metroid), high-priority article - one with no plot summary or risk of growing past its present confines, which are pet peeves in this sort of thing.
      Besides the above argument (not the least because it tends to drive a few editors to screaming blue murder), I naturally agree with the need to avoid the cycle - AfDs seldom fix things. Luckily, we've picked up some sworn editors and secondary sources. This is more and more a matter of wikification now, not the Unblinking Eye of Deletion. I'll add the article to my to-do list as well. To my vast and horrible to-do list. As for etymologies in particular, note that the bulk appears to be in intelligible Latin, and editor-made translations together with the original is acceptable form for references. --Kizor 23:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly marked comment left after DRV closure. Hi. Much as I dislike doing this, I can even less stomach having the massively erroneus comment above, made as I slept, being the only word on the matter for guaranteed future viewers. I still have no intention whatsoever of starting a debate here, so to be brief: No, I'm not, and I specifically said that these are not small details, and that I was talking about real Latin instead of fictional languages, and that the translations are in line with policy (WP:OR included). That isn't what I said at all. --Kizor 05:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - Even notwithstanding the technicality argument that the second AfD was too soon after the first, I think it's still persuasive that the second AfD was once again on its way to snowballing to keep. Overturning the closure and reopening the AfD or relisting it for a third time would seem to be monumental wastes of time -- it doesn't look as though there'd be any real chance of a consensus to delete, so why spin our wheels going through those motions yet again when that effort could instead be applied to simply improving the article? The proper course here would be for the objectors to the article to work with the proponents thereof and just improve it, in my opinion, rather than wasting everyone's time with a perpetual cycle of AfD nominations. Ashdog137 18:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have seen many discussions and debates where, in the first day, things are looking to go one way, and then go somewhere else. I've seen RfAs that start out with 100% support from 40 people on their first days, only to fail at the end. That first day, when you see a page without a single oppose, and 40 people supporting the person, it would be easy to come to the conclusion of a snowball keep. But important points were brought to discussion, and the outcome changed in the end. One day's worth of discussion is in no way, whatsoever, a reasonable measure of consensus. -- Ned Scott 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of chefs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closing: This deletion was made based on 3 arguments, one that would successfully apply to all lists of this type, and two others that could be fixed just by editing the page. As such, I'm going to leave the page deleted, but allow for re-creation if whoever recreates the article fixes the two problems. If the resulting list after the fix still should not be there, then a new AFD can be opened. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: the two issues that can be fixed are: 1) the list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable - In addition to listing chefs, the list also accepts entries for noted gastronomes. There is no distinction for living, dead, nationality, gender, or even "real"; fictional chefs like the Swedish Chef are also on the list. and 2) The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category.

There has been arguments given that note that there are categories by nationality of chefs, so its unreasonable to create a chef category and put the chefs of the various nationalities in that category as well, so given that a list can be made with additional information, and the list's scope is limited, recreation is ok. If someone wishes to do this task, you may contact me to undelete and move the full article history to your userspace. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments given for deletion included specific, legitimate problems with the list; in particular lack of annotation making it redundant with the category system and the existence of unreferenced red links. I put a considerable amount of time into addressing these problems, and if I think its not going to be a wasted time I will put in a great deal more. Most of the delete !votes were however general arguments which apply to any list of people by occupation, or indeed by nationality. There isn't actually consensus to delete all articles of this type, or if there is, it certainly isn't reflected in existing guidelines Kappa 12:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could you please provide some substantiation to your argument? Thanks, bwowen talk•contribs 02:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I rarely would suggest such a thing: Jaranda read the debate right, it's just... the arguments for deleting are so weak. A number of people felt they would prefer to have a category rather than a list, but that is not and has never been a good reason to delete a list if the list plays to the advantages of lists. For instance, lists can contain redlinks, entries on chefs that should have articles but don't, while a category can't. DGG pointed this out in the debate; the redlinks were mostly removed, but I imagine some were appropriate. Also, the list was annotated (categories cannot be annotated). People complained about the list having vague membership criteria (not really) or being unmaintainable (again, not really - I can see it seeming daunting when a category is so much easier, but that doesn't mean it can't be done). I'd feel entirely different if Kappa hadn't put his money where his mouth is and worked so hard on the list, but that's important - it goes to show that the will exists to improve this, and that should be good enough to counter arguments that, fundamentally, were doing no more than preferring the easy option. Mangojuicetalk 04:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, clear consensus to delete. Should be noted that the nominator has been spam-PRODding various lists for no reason other than that some unrelated lists have been deleted or at least nominated at AFD in the past (WP:ALLORNOTHING). Nominator is trying to state that no lists can be deleted. --Coredesat 09:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus here; a majority in a five-day debate does not necessarily mean consensus, especially when the page itself had been edited by more than a hundred and fifty editors. Dismissing a keep argument as WP:USEFUL just because it contained the word "useful" is also disingenuous, the essay itself says "...there are some times when 'usefulness' can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest...or a matter of opinion... An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers." Attempts had been made to make this list more useful by adding annotation, how does deletion encourage finishing that job? See also WP:RUBBISH. And if the only difference between this article and others of its type are that "consensus" decided to delete this one and not the others, then there is no hope of ever getting an objective idea of what types of lists belong and what types don't, because it is all going to be up to the random gathering of editors who happen to show up for each five-day debate. DHowell 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - 2 of the 3 deletion arguments that the nominator proposed could have been easily remedied by editing the page to fix those problems. The 1st argument (namely "the list was created just for the sake of having such a list") is incorrect - if this list can be considered listcruft, then so can every other list in Category:Lists of people by occupation. While you might say this is an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, I am simply arguing that we have hundreds of articles of this general format, so to delete one of those articles with the rationale that "this type of article should not exist" (which is essentially the nominator's argument) does not seem correct. And as for making the list into a category, I think Kappa made some good points against that argument (and accuse him of incivility all you want, but I know that at one point or another, every regular editor is going to find some issue that displeases them and a lot of us do indeed get a bit uncivil about those issues!). In short, despite this overwhelming majority of delete votes, I feel there were no solid arguments for deletion in this debate. ugen64 21:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion After thinking about the arguments above, I must agree with Mangojuice. I cannot fault the AfD closer in the least, but it appears the arguments for the list's real advantages were not fully appreciated in the debate. While "it's useful" is a dubious argument in general, the fact is that an encyclopedia is organized partially for the sake of convenience of information. Kappa's right -- this list can do valuable things that a category can't. Of course, DRV isn't for re-arguing the AfD; but, DRV does address cases where an AfD discussion missed the full importance of some particular argument made. I feel Kappa's argument represents such a case, and thus call for the restoration of this list. Xoloz 10:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion this is much better suited to be a catagory than a list. Sasha Callahan 17:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
CMS_Made_Simple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Expired prod, concern was: Fails WP:SOFTWARE, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SPAM Dannewestis 10:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to know why this page was deleted. CMS Made Simple is a very active community developing an open-source CMS system with the General Public License. As such there is no commercial interest in this. The community in the forums and on IRC is also very active and thus the CMS is definitely notable, as it is used by thousands of web designers all over the world.

  • Overturn and list Since the prod deletion is being disputed, I believe this is the next step. However, proof of notability will help. But so far, a quick Google search doesn't turn up anything with regards to reliable sources beyond a few security alerts. --Farix (Talk) 13:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Julia_Earl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|

I hope I'm asking this question correctly. I'm a new editor. What is the reason for the deletion? The reason cited was "hit job" and "messy," but it was neither -- it was neutral in point of view, and well-sourced. I tried to find out more by going to the deleter's page, but he seems to offer just a rant about how he knows the rules and doesn't have time to follow them, or listen to anyone who objects. What to do? Notfromhereeither 04:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the help desk, Julia Earl was a superintendent of public schools of a small (population-wise) county in New Hampshire. The article made no claim for notability. With the exception of the last paragraph, the article went into great detail about accusations against Julia Earl. All citations were from the local newspaper (again, lacking worldwide or even national notability). The first step in reinstating the article is to show notability. Wikipedia does not contain articles about mere school superintendents (present or past). Wikipedia does not contain articles about people who merely made the local news. Notability is the key. -- Kainaw(what?) 05:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Norvan_Vogt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notability notability with respect to the "Norvan Vogt" Article as per 3rd post deletion "00:00, 18 August 2007 " , last substantial review, in the Wikipedia guidelines is described as;

A person is generally notable if they meet *any* of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included

1.The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

Norvan was the Subject of an article in the Youth Volunteers Report of the international Symposium on Volunteering (Geneva, Switzerland - November, 2001). He has also been the subject of an article in the Australian Journal on Volunteering, Volunteering Australia ISSN: 1325-8362, Volume 7 Issue 1 (April 2002)


2.If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.

The 15 that have been supplied with in the article should be sufficient


3.The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography.

An independent bio was published on the Youth Action Net website as well as the Department of Education (Australia), witch are independent and widely noted sources.


4.The person has received significant recognized awards or honours.

Both awards noted in the article are not trivial, they are both royal warrants. However I do note that it is not a popular invented award like CLIEO's Batchlor of the year or TIMES person of the year.


5.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Norvan's Contribution to the re-establishment of Scouting in Vanuatu is widely recognized as a significant contribution to youth development their, as noted in several articles in the 'trading post'(Vanuatu's main daily news paper)

  • I feal that there is a double standard being applied to the Norvan Vogt Article as the notability issues are not equally applied across the board.

For example; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Muehlenberg - is about a nice guy that has been involved in a few NGOs and has a Blog that is not even noted as one of Australia's top 100 read blogs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iktimal_Hage-Ali - is just about a sweet girl that has been on a few advisory committees and landed her self in a media frenzy late last year.

I am not saying that these articles should be taken down but if they are allowed to stay I cant see why this one can't. Or is there a rule that the bigger the article the more notable you need to be. If so how many words does Norvan get? Or is a disk space issue?

  • Also, anyone that does work and live in developing countries, as Norvan does, has a natural disadvantage to the notability criteria. There are the Wikipedia is dominated by North American content because the wider media

there can produce more content than any other country.

Now before anyone decides to delete this article I would like to have a decent rational discussion against all 5 of the points I made above. Also I found the paragraph on the " Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" "Much like just a policy or guideline, simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. Therefore, try to explain to other editors why the subject of an article may not be notable. Instead of saying, "Non-notable," consider using "No reliable sources found to establish notability," or "Not enough reliable sources to establish that the subject passes our standards on notability. Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that establish or confirm the subject's notability."

NB. Lastly I should state that I have known Norvan in the past and that there may be a COI issue.

I look forward to your responses.

Delvian

P.s - I would like to politely point out, with respect to Carlossuarez46, that the deletion of the article was not deleted in accordance with the CSD G4 Q:“not provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version” the new article was substantially different and was also pointed out in the article discussion page.

  • Overturn and list at AfD first of all, a clear assertion of importance was made. I have some doubts whether it is adequately supported, but that's a question for AfD. Second, G4 applies only if the previous deletion has been by XfD, not if it has been a speedy (or a prod)DGG (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC) I think the present version is worth a discussion at AfD, tho I would advise the author to trim it first. DGG (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was deleted as the result of an AfD, page log and the AfD. The two deleted version appear substantially to me, so the deletion that needs to be appealed is therefore the AfD one. That had only one dissenter, the nominator of this DRV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to note that I was also dissenter in the third edit of the article but due to seedy delete that was not noticed. It would seem to me that most of the peole reviewing the article did not see the 2nd or 3rd edits of the article.Johnanderson75
  • Comment Ok so what is correct way of re posting this article?, do you guys restore it and then i cut it down a little or do i just start the article again? Delvian 11:18 August 20 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion the proper way to have dealt with this was to bring it here after the afd was concluded rather than re-create it in defiance of the community consensus. Recreation of material within hours after an afd is closed as delete is the clear reason for having G4, otherwise nothing will ever be accomplished by afd. User:Delvian has few edits outside of this topic and managed with his second edit to find himself at an afd discussion which I find somewhat unlikely. Carlossuarez46 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion per Carlossuarez46. Material recreated after AfD speedy deletable per WP:CSD#G4. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both deletions I'm not sure which one is being appealed, but the speedied version was substantially identical to the one deleted at AFD. The points raised in the AFD didn't persuade people, so not seeing any problems, I endorse it as well. As to other articles, see WP:INN. Wikipedia can be inconsistent. If you really want consistency, you can nominate those other articles for deletion. Kudos to the nominator for his consistent politeness and civility. It is appreciated.--Chaser - T 05:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_18&oldid=1147966907"