Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June

Talk:Mongols/Archive 01 (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Mongols/Archive 01|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was speedied referring to "CSD G8: Talk page where main page does not exist". I assume this was an error as CSD G8 explicitly doesn't apply to archived talk pages where the top-level page does exist. A request to the deleting admin went without result, as he seems to be retired for good. --Latebird (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to be a pretty clear mistake, speedy restore anyone? Davewild (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear mistake, caused because someone had mucked around with Mongols/Archive 01, which never should have existed. GRBerry 19:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commune Ango (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article and all of the following of town/villages/settlements on the French territory of Réunion below were undergoing AfDs and so far the consensus in all of them was Keep.[1] However after somebody discussed these articles in the Village Pump, administrator Gwen Gale immediately deleted all of them, this within one day of the AfDs starts. She used the following comment as justification.

The result was deleted following discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Deletion, these are all non-notable former farm and place names which by blatant error have been carried forward as village or town names by some external sources (maybe to begin with through some careless data dump having to do with the island's mail delivery). A sampling of visual inspections of these sites through Google maps clearly confirms none of these places has more than 2 or 3 families, as described in the VP thread. All of these stubs should have been deleted when the prods expired. [2][3]

Not only was this a severe violation of WP:NO ORIGINAL RSEARCH (a "sampling of visual inspections"?), but a violation of WP:PROCESS and WP:CONSENSUS. At very least, these should all be allowed to complete the AfD process where consensus will decide.

Commune Carron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Desbassyns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fiague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Franche Terre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Le Coeur Saignant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Les Vacoas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maison Henou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maison Isautier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maison James Biget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maison Leroux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maison Moullan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maison Payet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maison Rouge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maison de l'Enfance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Manapany-les Hauts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Matouta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Menciol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mon Caprice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Morange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Oakshade (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-list let consensus decide. While I'm not generally a fan of every map dot being notable, I accept that as general consensus and a quick Gsearch, which I commented at the AfD showed these places to exist. Let the community decide, if they're to be deleted let it be through discussion and not " Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commune Ango) which it certainly was not. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-list—I was the person who brought these to AfD. I did not think it proper for a Village Pump decision to trump standing consensus regarding the potential notability of these places; as it stands, a decision to delete was made on the Village Pump and the admin who closed this AfD is arguing that the Village Pump thread should be honored over the current Deletion Process .. I don't particularly like the precedent that would set. As far as I could see from the Village Pump discussion, the decision to delete on Wikipedia was based on a) original research and b) prior deletion on the French Wikipedia. (see here) The self-described admin on the French Wikipedia states "You can trust me when I say that the above articles deal with places that are not even known by the local population..." One can assume good faith and trust that this person speaks the truth, but there is no reason to act counter to established norms on English Wikipedia in the "spirit of entente", as one of the involved parties states as a driver behind the deletion here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The thread at VP (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Deletion) happened six days ago, all of the prods had expired and these are not villages or towns. As also noted, the existence of these places is not disputed, but their representation as villages or towns by the cited external sources is a blatant error. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The articles were all dePROD'd one day after the initial PROD; the PROD's had not expired. They were then all re-PROD'd, which violates Deletion Process; they should have all been brought to AfD rather than being re-introduced into the PROD process. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)Plus, if they were expired prods, as you claim, just their listing here is enough to get them undeleted. Wanna go ahead and do that? --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, the deleted histories show you are 100% mistaken when you say "The articles were all dePROD'd one day after the initial PROD." The prods had indeed expired. I see some were PRODed twice. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional articles that I did not get to before they were deleted: These should be included in a re-listing; they also were dePROD'd and rePROD'd against process - I just did not get to these before an eager hand did away with them (not bothering to look at the histories).
  • Sous les Bois Noirs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Union, Réunion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Verger Hemery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Vue Belle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, possibly re-list. Let me get this straight: Someone from French Wikipedia cam over and said these didn't exist. The pages were put through our normal deletion process (first prod, then a listing at AFD). After 2 comments and 6 hours, the pages were speedily deleted by the admin who suggested the prod in the first place, based on "visual confirmation", and certainly not a neutral party in the discussion. Yeah, there's a problem with that. Notability of these places should be discussed and determined through process and not by admin fiat. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that's not what happened and I did not place any of the prods myself (only suggested this as an option six days ago). Since consensus clearly shows unhappiness with how this has turned out (never mind these are not villages or towns) the only helpful way I can see to handle this is to re-open the AfDs and I'm glad to do it. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and possibly relist. (I also contacted the closer asking that this be reopened before I saw this DRV). My major concerns are of process. Let the AfD go 5 days rather than letting a discussion at the VP be where this is decided. Hobit (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the four articles beginning with Sous les Bois Noirs which still have prods on them. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please handle those as you like, they were never AfD'd. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As they already had the prod removed once, I have removed the prod from the four articles anyone can take them to AFD if they want to. I think this DRV can be closed now unless anyone has any objections? Davewild (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As opener of this DRV, I agree with Davewild in that this now can be closed. Thank you Gwen Gale for re-opening the AfDs.--Oakshade (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moneyfacts.co.uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I do not accept that there was a consensus to delete this. On a strict vote-counting basis there was a small majority for deletion, but most of these votes were simple "me toos" without any analysis. Also all the comments coming after I had pointed out how much coverage there was in reliable sources were in favour of keeping, including a previous delete supporter who changed his mind Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn There are several things I disagree with on the decision. Firstly there was a significant change of opinion in the AFD after new facts were added to the discussion, I doubt many of the early delete opinions saw this and indeed one who did changed his mind to a weak keep. Second the closer seems to be saying that references from non-notable websites are not acceptable for notability. If they are a reliable source it does not matter whether they are notable or not. I found these two articles giving significant coverage [4] and[5] of Moneyfacts on easier.com. Also I found this article from the Eastern Daily Press which definitely gives significant coverage to Moneyfacts. I can also point to [6] and [7]. Combined with the amount of times major news organisations use Moneyfacts as a source - shown from these I think notability is very clear and this closure should be overturned. Davewild (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, and also overturn the July 2007 speedy deletion of Moneyfacts (an article regarding the company that runs moneyfacts.co.uk), which was G11 speedied as "blatant advertising" despite being a fairly neutral statement of facts, and merge the two of them together. It's clear from the Google News search above that Moneyfacts are very frequently used as a reference by, well, every major newspaper in the UK. I think this clearly meets WP:CORP's standard of "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources .. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." --Stormie (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for the reasons Davewild mentioned. New sources in reliable sources (ignoring easier for the moment since I'm not familiar with it and don't know if it's a reliable sources) were found after the deletes and there was a definite shift in consensus after those were identified. While I wouldn't go so far as to say there was an absolute consensus to keep there was, at least, no consensus to delete. I think there is a good case for including discussion about the website in Moneyfacts, which as Stormie notes, was fairly neutral. Both would benefit from the addition (they exist, but weren't all in article) of the RS coverage and I think in the end the website article could be a re-direct to the main article. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article really should be at Moneyfacts which is what the sources mainly use. Davewild (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Overturn and move as indicated. Even the closer knew his decision was doubtful. The sources are fully sufficient for a keep, not even a non-consensus. There's a difference between COI support and support from (at the AfD, 4) established Wikipedians giving reasons--that's why AfD is not a vote. DGG (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per WP:POLLS. DA PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I was waiting to see how this one was closed and am disappointed with the delete decision. I'm struggling to understand the closers rationale, by far the stronger arguments were for keeping, by comparison some of the deletes had the appearance of drive-by opinions. RMHED (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting for closing admin at his request : "DGG, I can't access the deletion review page because I'm on a silly public computer that is blocking the page for 'adult content' (low threshold for blocking pages, I think). So I can't comment on the deletion review. Would you mind putting a note on the deletion review to the effect that I welcome the review, and that what I wrote on the AfD when I closed it should serve as my reasons for my decision? - Richard Cavell (talk) DGG (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, the closure seems to largely ignore the shift in opinion that came after new sources were identified. I would have preferred to see this relisted to get a better consensus regarding the article and discussion with the new information, and relisting may ultimately be the best thing to do with this article. Shereth 16:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• My immediate reaction from reading the AFD is that the consensus was to delete, but given the sources and new info that showed up, overturn and relist. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to AfD. The evidence added during the discussion is not wholely compelling to me but it does appear to have changed the tenor of the discussion from that point forward. Unfortunately, there is little evidence in this discussion that the editors who commented early returned to the discussion to reevaluate the new evidence. A second discussion will allow more editors the time to review the sources. Rossami (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from closing admin: I apologize for the fact that my ISP blocked me from contributing to this discussion earlier. The consensus here is that my decision should be overturned, and I accept this. I apologize for closing it the way that I did. I now recommend overturning my decision and relisting. A move to Moneyfacts seems in order too. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (keep or no consensus). Close was not a correct reading of consensus. Closer did not properly weight Phil Bridger's and DGG's contributions to the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srinivasan Kalyanaraman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was deleted due to the reason that there was no asserion of notability. However, Google search returns 134,000 hits for Dr. S. Kalyanaraman. Book reviews of his have appeared in the esteemed The Hindu newspaper of India Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article was deleted by template:prod which I believe can be overturned by any user, just ask an admin and they should undelete it for you. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 07:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Games 1997 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deletion was made without any clear justification or discussion. Hektor (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am currently working on creating series of articles about the various sports at the world games (see Sumo at the World Games for instance) and will also enrich the articles devoted to the articles themselves. I know, I am doing that slowly. But please don't cut me out by just deleting the articles without other justification than the lack of content. I think that the World Games are an IOC sanctioned event and are important subjects. Now we are in the strange situation that there are articles about all World Games editions except 1997. Thanks. Hektor (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article only said where the games were held, (which means it is probably not a good A3 speedy deletion as there was a very small amount of content), would it not be better, however, to just be a redirect to World Games where everything that was already in the article is already covered until it is going to be expanded? I would support the restoration of the history so it could be used as the basis for an article when it is to be expanded. Davewild (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The entire textual content of the article was "The fifth World Games were held in 1997 in Lahti, Finland". I recommend working on the article at User:Hektor/World Games 1997 and not moving it to main article space until it has some meaningful content, e.g. competition results. --Stormie (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, and add an "underconstruction" tag, which was designed for just this situation. Did not qualify for speedy as empty. Empty means no meaningful content, and it means it quite literally. DGG (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletor's comment: I've restored the article due to DGG's elucidation of {{A3}}. However, unless the article is to be immediately expanded to at least meet WP:STUB and reasonable community expectations, it should be redirected to World Games now. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly support the redirect. Tony, just go do it, se my talk page. DGG (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kastoria1.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Kastoria1.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hello, can you review the history log of Image:Kastoria1.jpg deleted by East718 on 04:31, 26 March 2008. I am concerned, because it was deleted for reason of Image lacking sources or licensing information for more than seven days, while this same image several months before this, on 18:08, 28 October 2007, was transferred from EN WP to Bulgarian WP under GFDL with attribution to User:Makedonas, and the transfer was made by one very respected user of my community who is well aware of licenses and such stuff. I am prone to believe that he has correctly cited the license and author and I am wondering what has happened in the meanwhile between October 2007 and March 2008, so that this data was apparently lost. Thank you in advance. →Spiritia 17:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Fix't nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• When uploaded, the uploader specified {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. This template was later replaced project wide by {{PD-release}} in January 2007. The image page never specified who took the article, so it was later tagged with {{Di-no source}} (associated user warning {{Di-no source-notice}}. The uploader appears not to have been active between when the image was tagged and when it was deleted. GRBerry 02:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, thanks. What does "Fix't nom" mean, by the way? :-) →Spiritia 11:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a clerical thing. I used the {{newdelrev}} to make all the links above show. That's it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess fix't is an archaic way of writing fixed. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie_Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

notability 78.105.219.85 (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followed a link to Jamie Allen's entry and was suprized to find it deleted. Seems an erroneous deletion, and lack of online references was sited as the reason? I know of these: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]

• Endorse closure of AfD. There was no other way it could've been interpreted. If you'd like to create an account and create an article about Jamie, feel free, but it seems that only three of the above links are suitable to show notability ([23], [24], and [25]). The rest are either trivial mentions or unreliable (note that we don't cite other Wikipedia articles as references, and other articles cannot ever help establish notability). However, given these it looks like a decent article should be able to be written about him. If you do create an account, drop me a line on my talk page so I can point you at the relevant policies and guidelines (and explain them if you don't want to read through the entire pages, they are quite long). Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my closure, but am very willing to userfy the article for you, so that you could try and make the article meet the notability guideline (or you could just start a new article but taking care to make sure it does address the concerns raised here and using WP:Reliable sources). You would need to create an account in order for this to be done however. Also endorse Lifebaka's comments. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Smith (illustrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2)

I don't believe there were any valid reasons given to keep this article only valid reason for deletion. One look at the article shows a non-notable person with no coverage in reliable sources. neon white talk 20:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Fix't nom. Should link to page, not AfD. Also added AfD2 link above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the closing admin, I'd like to explain how I came up with a close of no consensus. While the arguments for keeping the article were weak (no real references provided; the best argument was that the subject has won several awards), the arguments for deletion were equally weak. The nominator's argument was that sources showing notability had not yet been added; another editor gave a reason of "per nom" (and also per someone who had argued to keep). This left neon white's argument of "Doesn't appear to have the reliable second party coverage required."... "There are literally thousands of illustrators in the world who work on magazines etc. everyday. None of them are notable." This was the best of the delete arguments (well, the first part was; the second part can quickly be proven false by finding a single notable illustrator, such as Norman Rockwell.)

No where did I see an argument saying someone had looked for notability and didn't find it; the arguments centered on notability not being shown in the article as it currently is. While the burden of showing notablity certainly is on the article's creator, in an AfD it's also important to make a good faith effort to find evidence of notability, and none of the delete arguments mentioned having made that effort.

With weak arguments on both sides, I couldn't justify closing as delete, nor could I justify closing as keep. My choices came down to no consensus or relist; as the debate had already been relisted once, no consensus seemed appropriate.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes no mention of any notable awards won only that he won an art contest on a minor website that itself struggles for notability and a small art grant. Neither of these are criteria for notability. The only valid points made in the afd was that there is absolutely no coverage of this person to be found in reliable sources, this was made by several people and no reliable sources were found to refute that. Web searches were performed and only find his personal website, no news articles or books appear to mention him. I am astounded that this wasn't an obvious delete. The fact that the article has had no improvements made since the last afd which also in my opinion was a clear delete, shows this article is going nowhere and connot be sourced. --neon white talk 00:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might note that I said above the awards argument for keep was weak. Minor awards can bolster other evidence of notability, but aren't enough on their own. It sounds like we are in agreement on this.

The fact that the article has had no improvements since the last AfD is an editing issue, not a deletion issue, and does nothing to show that notability cannot be shown (emphasis mine). It would have helped immensely if you had mentioned in the AfD that you had done a thorough web search -- the way both you and the nom phrased your argument for lack of notability, it appeared you were going strictly off the article as it stands.

Since you initially expressed your concerns here, I have reread the discussion several times, and still feel that, based on the information I had at the time, I would have closed it the same way again. If you had made the argument about having done a thorough gsearch, it is certainly possible that I might have closed it differently. However, just now I have done my own gsearch, and I do come up with several mentions of Matt Smith, but it is difficult to tell him apart from Matt Smith (comics). It's a murky issue, and if the article comes up again for deletion, I hope there will be more research and discussion than happened at the last AfD.

If any neutral party here at DRV has some constructive comments on the close, I'd certainly welcome them.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, if two afds have failed to provide any sources then that should be taken into account. The arguments for keep at both afds make claims (by the creator of the article i should add) that are not verified in the article and all attempts to verify them have failed. I still cannot see any decent argument to keep that is based on policy. An art contest on a minor amateur website can hardly be considered an 'award'. It should at least be given by a reconised body to be considered an award however minor. It is true that there are problems with searches due to a number of people with the same name but this simply further hightlights the lack of notability here. All search hits of this person seem to be largely from his personal website, there is no evidence that he appears in journals, art magazines or news articles. I must point out that this is all irrelevant as the burden of proof is on the article to assert the notability of the subject not the opposite. I feel the decision was made because of a failure to disprove notability during the afd rather than contributors proving notability. --neon white talk 23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete or relist. Sources apparently weren't found... sufficient sources certainly aren't in the article now. The burden is on people wanting to keep content to find sources... someone who doesn't think the sources exist can't truly prove they don't exist, you can't actually prove something like that any more than I could "prove" no polka-dotted aliens exist, but you can say no one has found any evidence yet, that's why the burden is on those who want to make claims to find sufficient evidence. --Rividian (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Fabrictramp didn't make a bad call here. However, given the relatively low participation, I'd be happier with an overturn and relist than anything else. I'm of the opinion that short "no consensus" XfDs should nearly always be relisted in an attempt to see if consensus can be gathered one way or the other with a longer discussion period. Besides, this seems like the least contentious way to go. If the nom is correct that it should be deleted, the consensus should swing that way after it's reopened and relisted. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sustain the no-consensus close, and renominate in 1 or 2 months in the hope of consensus then--I really dont see the point of overturning a non-consensus close when it can just be nominated again after a while, but if people want to relist now, maybe it will get enough further attention. DGG (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the no consensus close, there is no need to rush to deletion in this case. The article can be relisted at any time, though I'd suggest leaving it for a month or two as DGG said. Chances are that the next AfD will see a consensus emerge. RMHED (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, there is certainly nothing wrong with a no-consensus closure here as there was certainly no consensus. Sure, it could have been relisted but it had been once and still failed to attract much attention in the way of discussion - sometimes that just happens. Re-listing ad nauseum is not any better than just closing as no-consensus and letting the issue rest for a while before renominating in hopes of more participation down the line. Shereth 16:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that is true, so i think a relist may been appropriated but you have to consider that half of all afds end with no consensus due to poor arguements. --neon white talk 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close with no prejudice to a relist. I should specifically like to thank Fabrictramp, the closing admin, for fully explaining the reasons for the close. We only overturn closures at DRV when the close was clearly wrong and that is plainly not the case here. Smile a While (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It should not be relisted, that is trying to take a second bite at the apple right after the first. This was closed properly. No consensus at closure means keep. I propose we give it more time, you can then bring it back if significant improvements have not been made. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube poop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unknown youtube poop is a definite internet phenomenon. Why has the entry been repeatedly deleted? Luminifer (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable sources? I haven't heard of it, so I'd like to find out about it. It doesn't seem like it would be appropriate for an article, but if it meets the standard of verifiability, then give us some links here. Abeg92contribs 18:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I'm sorry, but unknown = no reliable sources to verify information = no notability. Looking at some of the deleted content in the logs, this is pretty much a textbook A7. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion, for the same reason as Lifebaka. BecauseWhy? (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion forced meme does not equate to notability. To Abeg92, a "Youtube Poop" is an intentionally badly made video made from looping together unrelated videos, most often using the CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series and Hotel Mario. JuJube (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per above DA PIE EATER REVIEW ME 23:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about urban dictionary? There are just so many sources if you just google 'youtube poop' that I wouldn't know where to begin. Never mind that there's youtubepoop.com, and that if you look for youtube poop on youtube, there are countless examples of the style of animation. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=YouTube+Poop Luminifer (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That won't work. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy-deletion (multiple times). No version of the article contained any sources demonstrating that this topic had even the slightest potential to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, nor have any sources been provided here. (Urbandictionary does not meet Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source.) Rossami (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you suppose it keeps coming up? I was going to do the research to create the article but discovered that I couldn't (or shouldn't?).... but clearly, there is some interest in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luminifer (talk • contribs) 03:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, this could never be encyclopedic even by the widest of definitions. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel_Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article has been deleted in the past and merged into the aplus.net article. However, the article has now been entirely re-written to include over 40 sources and I believe this article is clearly notable per the notable standards. Per Wikipeidia:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

"Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

This article has over 40 referenced articles, of which there are around 17 different sources. All but about 10 of the referenced articles discuss the subject directly in detail (as the name of the article include the subject's name or referr to him by his title within the company). All of these sources are reliable as they are from reputable business publications, undersities, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. None of the sources are affilated with the subject other than the APlus.Net Management Team reference, which could be construed as self-published material.

I think this article meets the notability threashold and should be included on Wikipedia. Previous versions of the article did not have many references and supporting content so it was merged with the aplus.net article.

I believe this article should be included in Wikipedia and the decision to delete should be Overturned.

The article can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LakeBoater/Gabriel_Murphy LakeBoater (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but not right now. Try working on it some more, and get some more non-trivial mentions in as references. You haven't worked on it since soliciting suggestions from me and C.Fred, even though we left comments for cleanup here. As I said there, the sourcing is excessive, and there are some other issues that I'd like to see fix't before it's moved back into mainspace. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an objection because there's too much sourcing? Am I a not understanding something here? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's not the reason I oppose putting it back into mainspace. Mostly it's issues C.Fred raised. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello C.Fred and lifebaka, let me first appologize for restarting a deletion review on this when you had pending comments on for cleanup. As I am new to Wikipedia, I did not receive any new messages (I assumed you would leave your comments on my talk page) after 4-5 days from when I requested assistance. I assumed you were not interested in helping- I was obviously wrong as I have not seen the cleanup comments until lifebaka posted the link to the discussion page for the article. Let's pasue this discussion and let me address those comments. I will post something back here once I have cleaned-up the article per the comments. THanks LakeBoater (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello C.Fred and lifebaka, I have made the edits to the article per the cleanup comments on the discussion page. Please review and let me know your thoughts. lifebaka, I have addressed both of your issues. Thanks much for the feedback. LakeBoater (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. That looks much better. I'd like to get some more eyes on it, but I'm good now. Official switch to move into mainspace. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks much lifebaka- hopefully we can get others to review the article and vote to move into mainspace LakeBoater (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to mainspace As requested by LakeBoater I've had a look at the userspace version of this article and think it is ok for it to be put into the mainspace. I compared this version of the article with the one that was deleted at AFD and find the coverage of Gabriel Murphy in reliable sources to be significantly better. In particular sources 1 and 3 in the references section appear to provide significant coverage of him and neither appear to have been in the deleted version. So I think there is enough to establish notability here and thus should be restored. (I do however feel that once it is back in mainspace it could do with a bit of trimming in the Business Career section which seems to have too many sections and a bit too much information.) Davewild (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lifebaka or Davewild, are we good to go ahead and move into mainspace and close this discussion? If so, can one of you please do so when you have a chance? Thanks LakeBoater (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would prefer to leave this the normal five days to see if others will comment and let an uninvolved admin close this discussion and implement the consensus. Davewild (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow move to mainspace. Appears to readily meet the criteria of having independent secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Not enough national, non-trivial news coverage. Most of the non-trivial sources are a local (KC) business paper. [BusinessWire]] simply reprints press releases, which are not good sources for establishing notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello All- can an uninvolved administrator please close this discussion and implement the consensus to move to mainspace (by a vote of three in favor, none against) the userfied article "Gabriel Murphy" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LakeBoater/Gabriel_Murphy? It has now been six days since this discussion was opened. Thank you! LakeBoater (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bearforce 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON I posted this just over an hour ago, it was nominated for speedy deletion, I put the tag in to say that it should be discussed, I found 3 references to show that the band was notable, including a Viacom LOGO countdown link, mentioned the aired on LOGO, linked the allmusic guide catalog #, and then suddenly the page got deleted. What happened???Luminifer (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It could be argued that "#20 on LOGO TV's most recent Ultimate Queer Videos Countdown" is an assertion of notability and that the article should not have been A7 speedy deleted. But from my searching it seems that they don't meet the notability criteria of WP:MUSIC, and the article would be unlikely to be kept if it was discussed on AfD. --Stormie (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds to me like it should not have been speedily deleted.. At least, it should have been up long enough for the real fans (NOT me) to come along and put some real meat in there. I just thought they deserved an entry, because I wanted to know more about them myself! Luminifer (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyone here speak Dutch? [26][27] --NE2 09:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• :It seems clear to me from An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. (A7) that this should not have been speedily deleted. This has happened to me several times in the past week - an article that pretty clearly asserted importance but did not prove notability was VERY speedily deleted. What do we have to do to (a) get this article undeleted, and (b) stop this from happening, as it's a waste of time and clearly a rampant misapplication of wiki policies.Luminifer (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and list at AfD I rather doubt that "#20 on LOGO TV's most recent Ultimate Queer Videos Countdown" will qualify for a keep, but let it be discussed--it just counts as a good faith indication of some at least minimal notability. DGG (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FotD 007x.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:FotD 007x.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|IfD)

Consensus in IfD of 2:1 was to keep the image. Despite this, the deleting admin unilaterally removed the image and when asked about it, claimed that he thought the image violated NFC#8 and was thus deleted. What is the point of even having IfD discussions if an admin, working to close IfD discussions just decides on his/her own to override "rough consensus" and enforce their point of view instead? At best, the admin was free to make their own argument for deletion, so it could be discussed, rather than rendering it via sole decision to end all discussion.
Maybe as well as reinstating the image, we should examine the closing process a wee bit better, and decide if the admin in IfD discussions gets to decide on their own what represents the actual rough consensus. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)The image[reply]

• Endorse (from closing admin) There was nothing in the article that made the image necessary. The text relating to the image was "River, unwilling to let the Doctor die, which would rewrite history and erase their time together, knocks him out and takes his place, rescuing those trapped in the computer at the cost of her life instead of his," which is understandable without an image. Precedents set at WP:IFD and upheld in deletion review have supported that using a non-free image to show a scene from a TV show, movie, etc. without cited commentary as to why the image itself is notable fails WP:NFCC#8 and as a violation of policy cannot be overridden by a majority of keep votes from the IFD discussion. -Nv8200p talk 17:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dissent - actually, if that is your personal interpretation, you have the option of weighing in during the IfD discussion. When two different folk note that NFC#8 is not compromised by the image, it means that you don't get to essentially say 'I don't care what you think, I'm deleting it anyway'. That is why we have IfD discussions. No gross violations of NFC#8 have occurred, and the admin made a poor judgment call. The image should be reinstated. If Nv8200p interprets the image to be non-fair use, he can nominate the image for deletion again - which is what the rest of us do when we don't like an image. A discussion closer doesn't get to impose his/her interepretation over consensus otherwise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per precedents set at WP:DRV, the closing admin has to be a non-participant in the discussion. -Nv8200p talk 18:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to be the closing admin. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - No opinion on the closure of the IfD itself, but Fut.Perf.'s comment makes me wonder a bit. Would it be possible to have a different image for the same purpose of showing the plot but which makes more sense visually? Note that I have not seen the image in question and I am not familiar with the subject matter, so this is just a blind question. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standing consensus in these deletion debates is that just to show a plot element is not enough. It must show it in a way that really gives the reader a better understanding of something that is significant about the work, and in doing so, it must be supportive of analytical commentary occuring in the text (or caption). I like to point to some positive examples where I believe this is done successfully. Image:Buffy101-1.jpg in Welcome_to_the_Hellmouth#Plot works great because of its beautiful (and well-sourced) analytical caption. The caption makes a point about the work that goes significantly beyond "this or that happens", and the image really illustrates this in a way that enriches the reader's understanding of that analytical finding considerably. (Ironically, this image, among all the bad ones, was removed since last time I looked. I just restored it.) Another positive example is Image:Homer'sEnemy.png in Homer's Enemy. Here, the caption is not very good, but the image does further the understanding of the whole because it indirectly supports the very good analytical commentary in the "production" section (about the significance of the character constellation, its literary models and so on.) That's the kind of quality we need. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (by previous "deletion" voter) - apart from the fact that I (obviously) find the outcome to be the right one, Arcayne's objection is based on a misreading of the numerical outcome. It was in fact 2 deletes : 2 keeps (counting the nominator), and of the two keeps, one completely failed to provide argumentation, and was calling merely for a "speedy keep" (way out of process, with no conceivable justification in policy) on the vague claim that the nomination was "disruptive". Thus, the closing admin was perfectly justified in seeing even a numerical majority of 2:1 argued votes in favour of deletion. (And I refrain from using "votes" with the silly disclamation mark, knowing full well in what sense it's a vote and in what sense it isn't.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to rephrase the question: if a wandering admin can come by and close the discussion - whether tied or consensus to keep (begging the question of where does it say we delete in cases of ties) - thus voicing a vote without having that vote readily available for discussion, the conversation takes on a tone of 'I disagree, and I win' - which I am fairly sure that Nv wasn't aiming for. In the best of worlds, these IfDs are not closed by someone voting-via-closure, but instead by someone with a somewhat more neutral opinion. As Nv has stated his opinion that the image doesn't fit the criteria and clearly seems unwilling to either relist the IfD or reinstate the image, I think the question of neutrality is somewhat moot. The discussion as to the nfc-credibility of the image is one that Nv had every opportunity in the world to participate in. Discussing it here is inappropriate, and it is best suited to an IfD discussion, and admins - just like everyone else - do not get to vote via closure. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again. The closing admin does not participate in the discussion. -Nv8200p talk 22:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And he doesn't get to 'vote' by framing his within a deletion. You did participate in the discussion by applying your point of view to a tied discussion. Period. Rough consensus was tied, which means the image stays until someone has a more compelling argument to nominate the image for deletion.

Apparently, my first question fell to the wayside, so I will ask it again. In the case of a tie in an IfD (or any deletion debate), does the image stay or go? I think that if someone cannot create acompelling enough number of votes to delete to outnumber those opting for inclusion, it stays. Can someone point out where the admin gets to break ties in IfD debates? I mean, all the folk discussing the weight of the NFC#8 argument here should have piped up in the actual IfD debate while it was occurring.

As it was, Nv made a personal call regarding the image and used his interpretation - which belongs in the actual debate, not as a motivation for closing - to stifle any further discussion on the matter. In point of fact, Nv voted in the IfD debate by closing and deleting.

Let me be clear - this is not really about the image. I am fully aware that admins have a lot of work to do, and Nv does a lot of it. Unfortunately, he sometimes - like in this instance - allows his personal opinion to color how he chooses to close an IfD discussion, despite consensus to the contrary. Clearly, there was no consensus stating that the image should be deleted. In the instance of a tie, the image stays. If an admin (or anyone for that matter, but specifically admins because they have the power to stifle further debate via voting-by-deletion) overrides consensus, then why the heck are we pretending with voting in IfD anyway? Why not just leave the ability of keeping or deleting in the hands of the admins, as Nv has clearly demonstrated the willingness to do here? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at the strength of the arguments, precedents and underlying policy. -Nv8200p talk 00:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again: can you please point to the specific guideline that states that in the case of a tie, you can decide to delete the image without further discussion? I looked at the guidelines that governs your behavior in deletions; there is nothing there to suggest your actions were appropriate in this matter.

Your opinion does not get to break ties, Nv. Period. You do not have that authority. Frankly, I am not sure which is worse, that you still fail to see the enormous potential for abuse of the authority you think you have to act thusly, or worse, that you feel your opinion outweighs anyone else's in IfD. The strength of the arguments argued for Keep. You are construing NFC#8 too narrowly, and imposed that view by closing a tied discussion.

Perhaps you might try to see that your personal take on the arguments, precedents, and policy is subject to scrutiny in the debate. Respectfully, you are acting as if they are not. You do not get to contribute opinion in the form of a delete, which is precisely what you did. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment. Everything I do on Wikipedia is subject to scutiny and that is what we are doing here with the deletion review.. -Nv8200p talk 20:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion - in the off chance I wasn't clear. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, as per Reasons for deletion: Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic. Corvus cornix_talk 02:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

err, excuse me, but what on earth are you talking about? The image is only unused at this time because it was deleted. It is not obsolete. It does not violate Fair-use. It is encyclopedic.

Why the hell is everyone afraid of actually having an IfD discussion about this? Instead of actually dissing the image where folk aren't likely to even know about the discussion, why not put your money where your mouthes are and use an actual IfD discussion? Or are we actually at the point where admins actually decide what images they want to use, despite what the editors choose? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, lets try this again. Someone please answer the following questions as clearly as you are able without wandering off-topic:

1. Is there guideline that says an admin can close an IfD debate, deciding one way or another in the cases of tie or consensus to go a different way?

We'll start with that basic little nugget. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion was that the image violates Wikipedia fair use policy. -Nv8200p talk 05:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not violate fair use policy. It is your belief that it does so. At least two other editors (and quite likely, more than that) significantly disagree with you. Your opinion - bluntly - doesn't matter when closing IfD discussions. Closing is a housekeeping measure, not one where your viewpoint comes into play. If you felt it did not belong, you had the responsibility to weigh in during discussion, not offer yours in the form of deletion and closure.

I was hoping it would not become an issue, but your exertion of your evaluative opinions in closing IfD discussions is becoming problematic. In at least four different IfD's, you have closed the discussions either prematurely or incorrectly, supplying as your sole defense that you didn't think they fulfilled Fair Use criteria. Your opinions as to fair use do not come into play when deciding to close IfD's, especially when the editors contributing to those discussions are long-standing members of the community. Were they vandals supporting nekkid pictures of Vanessa Hudgens and whatnot, that would be another issue, but this bears no such resemblance to that, and I believe you know it. You are not allowed to discount the opinions of others in IfD debates. as your mandate as admin doesn't grant you that authority or province. Of course, if you feel I am incorrect in this assessment, please feel free to cite where you are allowed these special authorities.

And it is noted that you keep failing to answer the - rather simple, I think - question posed to you. The answer to 'where there is a guideline that says an admin can close an IfD debate, deciding one way or another in the cases of tie or consensus to go a different way' is that there isn't one. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand Sceptre's reasoning on the IfD discussion, but his comments don't reflect the idea that you are passing on that there was no fair use violation. That leaves only you making that claim. And if someone's opinion on an XfD discussion disagrees with policy, then it is an admin's responsibility to ignore them. Corvus cornix_talk 07:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, questioning Sceptre's reasoning is something that you or anyone else should have raised at IfD. DRV is not another bite at the apple, discussing the image's relative value. That is clear.

Also clear is that the deletion was done improperly by an admin who admittedly used his tools to delete an image that he personally didn't think met inclusion criteria, despite a tie in the discussion. In the case of a tie, the nominated material stays. That is precedent.

I am not opposed to actually reinstating and re-listing the image in IfD, or at least extending discussion, so everyone can chime in with their views on the image and NFC and whatnot. Admins don't get to edit using their admin tools to push their pov. Period. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - its NFC#8 passing was under debate, so it is inappropriate to force an admin's closing opinion on a debate: even ignoring my speedy keep, it would have been no consensus. Personally, I think the image was fine. The nominator has a long history of being disruptive when it comes to fair use images, especially regarding Doctor Who, and most of the debates he has been proven to be wrong. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse - WP:CONSENSUS is clear, the consensus of the project is bound up in policy, not in weight of numbers at WP:IFD, wikipedia is not a democracy Fasach Nua (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no consensus in the IFD at all, and should've been closed accordingly. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - it appears the closing admin deleted the image because of his personal interpretation of NFCC#8, and not the result of the debate, which was clearly no consensus (therefore default to keep). Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My point exactly. Whether the image meets the criteria is not up for the closing admin to apply their personal interpretation of a guideline currently in flux. As per DGFA. and specifically the part of rough consensus, when in doubt do not delete. As established editors opposing deletion weren't vandals or noobs or folk acting in bad faith, their opposition is not one of simple numbers but of opposition to the interpretation being applied by the nom. If anything, the nom was made in bad faith by an editor who's been overturned for a razor-thin interpretation of NFC#8 that isn't currently in use by the community.

That Nv8200p did not participate in the actual discussion was his choice, as it is general practice to not do so. However, using the admin tools to close a debate in the case of a tie (we aren't do that, btw) simply because he differs in opinion of the policy on point is inappropriate. The image should be reinstated. As per DRV, this isn't to be used as another bite at the apple - this page is not for debating the merits or failings of the image, but instead of the inappropriate closing of the debate and deleting of the image. In cases of tie, the image. BLP, article, etc stays. The admin closing the discussion readily admits that they voted by closing and deleting the discussion, favoring the too narrow interpretation of the nominator, which has shown to have serious flaws. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free content criteria are restrictive and narrow by design. Numerous previous IFDs and Deletion Reviews have supported the very narrow interpretion of NFCC#8 and some of the discussions have served to narrow it even further. -Nv8200p talk 17:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Arcayne (talk · contribs) disputes the closure of this IfD on the basis that it went against consensus, however he or she appears to have been the only dissenting opinion on the point of deletion. Sceptre (talk · contribs) opined that the image should be kept because the nomination was invalid? disruptive in some fashion, without proffering any evidential reasoning for its retention. Therefore, with only one argument to keep and two to delete, I don't see the argument for an against-consensus closure.

  Being in violation of WP:NFCC#8 is a valid reason for deletion as brought up by Corvus cornix (talk · contribs) and it was this administrator's discretionary evaluation that it was. That's why we nominate and vote for administrators, to make such decisions. Nv8200p (talk · contribs) has closed and deleted upwards of 122k images without accusations of favoritism or impropriety, and I'm inclined to trust this administrator's interpretation of policy as he has been doing so.

  Lastly, as the closing administrator's integrity has generally been unquestioned for so very many deletions thus far, I wonder why this one has attracted such interest. Could those !voting for an overturned decision be preferring that the original nominator, Fasach Nua (talk · contribs), not be allowed to set a precedent? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive439#User:Fasach Nua. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Nv8200p could be having tea with Jesus H. Christ and his interpretation of policy carries no more weight than yours or mine. That's the way Wikipedia works. Even great editors with lots of edits can go off the rails every once in a while, and that is what I am addressing here. Helping to pull him back from the edge of opinionated editing in those places where neutrality is required is to be considered a good thing, as he is clearly not aware that he is doing so. He is allowed to express an opinion. He is not allowed to use his admin tools to enforce that opinion, which he has admitted to doing. It isn't complex, or rife with conspiracy theories. We request that admins closing discussions in XfD to remain neutral, and to opt to keep when in doubt. Nv has admitted that he is not neutral in this matter; why he did not choose to abstain from closure is beyond me. As NFC#8 is in discussion as to its specific interpretations, significant doubt exists, and acting against an informed resistance to removal (and the presence of a tie) provides sufficient doubt to stay one's hand.

That the Fasach Nua's nomination of other images that were appropriate to delete is of no importance - even a busted clock is right twice a day, and FN's track record for correct nomination is far less than even that. That FN's nominations are immediately suspect due to his leanings is clear. However, this is not the point of the DRV. Speaking of precedent, however - if we make allowances for the foibles and inappropriate deletions of one admin, it does in fact set a dangerous precedent for allowing other admins to do the same thing. Imagine Fasach Nua as an admin, closing debates and deleting images simply because he didn't think the arguments are up to snuff. This is the gilded path we are setting upon. The same rules apply to all of us equally. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please quote the text where I admitted I am not neutral in this matter? Thanks. -Nv8200p talk 20:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but are you actually trying to convince that you have have not admitted such? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for the text that I admitted I am not neutral. Otherwise that claim is just your opinion. Please provide evidence to support your accusation. -Nv8200p talk 16:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist Personally, I think the picture adds enough context to make it acceptable. But the real point is that a person with a fixed opinion on an issue should never close an XfD. At my RfAdmin people asked if I would, thinking I might close too many as keep on the basis of my own opinion being the correct one, and I said I never would do so. I wouldn't have deserved to pass had I said anything else--and I have kept my promise: I join the discussions instead. DGG (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you basing the claim on that I have a fixed opinion? If you join the discussion on either side at IFD then you have shown an opinion and bias and no longer eligible to act as a closing admin on that discussion. -Nv8200p talk 16:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, if the issue becomes a tie situation, then you should abstain from closing an IfD you have become involved in. Abstaining from discussion and them\n deleting because you feel the image in question is a failure of NfC#8 isn't your call to make. Doing so is back-door voting. Moreover, it is a vote not subject to question or discussion, as the use of the admin tools to close and delete preempts that sort of discussion questioning the very reasons that you wish to use to defend your closure. Neutral doesn't mean you have no opinion, it means you recognize your own preferred interpretation and look at if the tie that is present offers actual arguments for retention or deletion. If your own preference gets in the way of that, you shouldn't close it. Both sides presented valid arguments, and in the event of a tie, the image stays until someone offers to relist it and argue the merits where it belongs - in IfD, where folk can weigh in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn/Relist To clarify: this is the picture of River Song, is it not? I, personally, am not sure if that picture was worth staying or not. But, as so often happens, some people here are failing to realise is that the image itself is not the point. The point is that the deleting admin misused his admin power (for want of a better phrase) to enforce his own view on the subject. The image should be reinstated, and discussion should then continue until a clear consensus is reached. U-Mos (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus doesn't trump policy. It's an admin's responsibility to uphold policy, regardless of whether or not an xFD "vote" is 100-1. Corvus cornix_talk 20:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the millionth time (or so it seems), NFCC point 8 is open to interpretation, therefore the "policy over consensus" argument just doesn't wash. U-Mos (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The admin is supposed to uphold his policy, not his/her interpretation of such. Consensus doesn't trump policy anywhere, but when someone is offering an opinion as how they are interpreting a policy currently in flux, the best move for a closing admin is to not proactively close the debate the way they feel it should go, but to look at whether valid arguments and the existence of a tie suggests that the matter is still in flux even amongst the Community, and take their own personal feelings on the subject out of it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Selection of this image from a group of images uploaded by Arcayne was decided in a discussion on the article talk page. The other images uploaded were culled for their lack of ability to meet NFCC. This image was added to the article by Arcayne over the recommendation of three other editors (some hypocrisy here about following consensus), when this image has no more clear, supporting, sourced text as to why it was significant to the article then any other image that might be taken from the episode. Given that failure, it became a policy decision to delete as no arguments were presented in the IFD discussion to support any other choice. -Nv8200p talk 23:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, and you might have been able to better interpret that image upload had you bothered to actually ask me (or maybe looked tat the discussion page of the article where the upload was discussed). I uploaded a number of images from which the editors in the article discussion could choose an image that they felt best represented the discussion (1). The upload was made with the full knowledge that the remaining images would be allowed to lapse as orphans and be deleted (2). On a side note, I don't upload images anymore and use Photobucket with links to images, so as to avoid cluttering up IfD with a lot of non-chosen images. As for the three other editors, one was the same nom was has been blocked for disruptive deletion noms (and yes, this was one of those noms), and the other two thought the image was being offered as a replacement for the infobox image currently in use.

And rather than trying to make the discussion about me (comments about my supposed hypocrisy are diversionary and off-topic), perhaps you could be bothered to actually read what I and others are actually saying here. You added your point of view to a closing of a discussion wherein all arguments were equally valid and a tie existed. You needed to recognize that in such instances, the image stays - your own personal viewpoint doesn't come into play, especially when the viewpoint you are citing is in definition flux. You may have had the best intentions, but your action opens the door to others with less than altruistic concerns. You made a mistake, and no one is considering burning you at the stake. It isn't really a comment on you but instead the process which allowed you to think that your personal viewpoint on policy overrides that of a group of well-intentioned editors who dissent with that view. And clearly, your viewpoint is pretty obvious - you are quite resistant to even the notion of considering that you might have made any mistake, and equally resistant to relisting.

Relisting - as was politely requested in the alternative to reversing the deletion, allows others to see what you feel is obvious. Allow the community to work without attempting to short-circuit that process. I tend to believe in it and think it works, when allowed to take its natural course. You may argue that that means that some crappy material slides through, but everyone here can attest that it doesn't take too long before its eventually deleted of fixed. Lightsaber combat was one of those where it had its sixth nom for deletion, and it forced folk to fix the article or face deletion. The process does work, if you but let it. I think this image is pretty okay, but by relisting, you allow viewpoints (other than your own) to actually be expressed and determine the fate of the material in the venue they are supposed to be for these situations - IfD. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Closing admin was involved, therefore IfD closure was incorrect. Also WP:NFCC #8 is widely disputed on a regular basis, so specious arguments that consensus cannot overrule a guideline disputed part of policy is patently incorrect. Not to worry, the pro-fairuse forces are gathering and intend to give the anti-fairuse WP:OWNers of that policy page the boot. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin was not involved in any aspect of the IFD other then closing it. NFCC is not a guideline. NFCC is a policy. There is a difference. -Nv8200p talk 03:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn As my brother said whilst reading over my shoulder, "someone needs their adminship revoked". WP:DPR#IFD, the guidelines to administrators over closing a discussion, state that:

If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the image is kept by default, but the decision should generally include a reference to the lack of consensus, in order to minimize ambiguity and future confusion.

The closing admin was not involved in any aspect of the IFD other then closing it. NFCC is not a guideline. NFCC is a policy. There is a difference. -Nv8200p talk 03:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The closing admin (and why you are referring to yourself in the third person escapes me) involved himself by closing a tied discussion using his interpretation of NFCC, not the actual policy, which is in flux. The admin in question is experienced enough to know that if a discussion is being reasonably made by two sides offering equal arguments and ends in a tie, the admin is involving himself by choosing to side with deletion. This is doubly disturbing when the admin fails to see the rather bad precedent this creates for less responsible admins, and even more so when that same admin utterly refuses to consider that they did in fact chose a side based upon their personal interpretation of a policy which everyone knows to open to significant interpretation.

This admin - you - chose to disregard precedent and apply your own interpretation to an IfD discussion wherein your closure acted as tie-breaker. Had you not, the image would have not have been deleted. In the case of ties in deletion discussions (excepting clownish meatpuppet and IP hit and run voting nonsense or the gross violation of our policies), the nominated material is retained. As the image met none of the parenthesized material, you were in error in closing it. An understandable error, as no one thinks their interpretation of NFC is wrong, but your role - as you yourself have admitted - is not to participate in these discussions. By voting via deletion, you inappropriately participated in the discussion, without having to defend your point of view.

Again, it bears repeating that we are not discussing the validity of any NFC argument you might wish to present. The DRV is to reassess the appropriateness of that closure. As you inserted yourself into the voting process of a tied discussion by deleting the image, it is by definition an inappropriate closure. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as you say - I only closed the discussion. And as you say - whether procedures and policy were applied correctly in the closure is what DRV determines. -Nv8200p talk 14:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also as I say, you didn't follow them correctly. In the cases of a tie, the media stays. Both sides of the tie presented solid reasons for their postions (and it bears reiterating that the nom was subsequently blocked for a too narrow interpretation of NFC#8). Your opinion in deciding that the arguments for deletions were inexplicable and inappropriate. You made a mistake. I do believe I said that, too. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have said that multiple times so therefore it must be true. -Nv8200p talk 23:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What all the overturners here overlook is that IfD (even more than other XfDs) is not a vote. It is the job of the closing admin to weigh arguments. In doing so, it is his job to take into account not just the local spectrum of opinions expressed on the page, but also long-standing practices and standards. As per multiple precedent, there is a overreaching consensus on IfD that episode pictures of this kind, those that simply serve to show some plot element without a concrete claim to analytical significance over and above that, are deletable under #8. That is not Nv's personal opinion, it is his correct observation of project-wide normative practice. During the initial debate, no substantial arguments were brought forward on the "keep" side showing that this image had in any way a more important function than all the dozens or hundreds that have been and will be deleted in similar cases according to that standard. One keep voter brought no argument at all, the other, despite volumes of lawyering and process-related argument, essentially said nothing more than that the image showed something in the plot. Nv acted totally within the scope of his discretion in determining that these arguments failed to meet the mark. IfDs are routinely closed in this way, this was totally legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion, which is your right, but it is subjective and by no means the truth. The closing admin does not get to decide to ignore a no-consensus keep without good reason. A reason such as serious WP:BLP or copyvio are correct reasons, disagreement over fairuse restrictions is an incorrect reason. There was no ambiguity at all in this debate and the arguments on the keep side were just a good as the delete side. Oh and by the way, your statement here is quite a piece of wikilawyering, too. Pot meets kettle and all that. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can try to keep things a bit more polite. Accusations of wikilawyering don't really help anyone and only serve to cloud the essential issue. FutPerf, the problem with your statement is that you yourself have expressed the belief that images in episodic articles are unnecessary. This doesn't tend to put you in the best frame of mind to neutrally evaluate arguments that advocate the inclusion of those images. This is why, I suspect, you don't do a lot of closure work in IfD - you know you aren't really able to be neutral in the matter. That is a credit to you.

The reason we haven't truly addressed the image's criteria here is that this isn't an IfD discussion, and viewing this DRV as another bite at the apple (ie, arguing the image's content) is inappropriate. It is a conversation best suited to IfD. We are here to address the problem presented by an admin with a preference as to images closing out a tied discussion wherein solid, legitimate and sourced argument was offered by both sides. There has been no process-wikilawyering here - DRV specifically addresses process of closure, which is why process-related arguments are presented. You presented your argument in the IfD, and it was counted, along with the blocked nominator, so of course, you are happy with the resulting delete despite the tie. It is not within the discretion of an admin to put their personal interpretation of NFC to work while deciding which arguments get discounted in an equally matched discussion. If it is, then the guidelines for such are in dire need of revision. Either way, this isn't the forum for that, either.

Point: the admin doesn't like images in episodes. Point: the admin routinely displays a very narrow interpretation of NFC#8, which all will admit is vague and is currently in flux as to meaning. Point: He closed a discussion wherein both sides offered equally compelling arguments, citing his narrow interpretation of NfC#8 as reasoning. Point: In the cases of tie, the nominated media remains, though subject to re-nomination at a future date. Point: DRV is not for discussion of a media's value, but to discuss improper/inappropriate closures or other malformations of the IfD process; IfD is the appropriate venue to discuss the value of the image.

Arcayne has chosen to present another fallacy as fact about me to try and make his case. I ask for evidence to support his statement "the admin doesn't like images in episodes." I love screenshots in TV episodes and movie articles. I have uploaded non-free screenshots myself and watched them deleted just like this one because they did not meet NFCC#8 anymore then this image does (I may still have a couple out there that have slipped under the radar :-). I miss the time when we could steal any image off the web and place it in an article with no questions asked. Then I think it was that Jimbo Wales guy that came along and quashed it all. Sigh. Maybe if some more pro-fairuse forces respond to Arcayne's invitation, the bar can be lowered for NFCC#8. -Nv8200p talk 01:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a question that has begun to bother me is this: why everyone is so very terrified about simply relisting the image at IfD? Is it an ego thing? If so, check that - no egos allowed here. Is it a image value issue? All the better to relist it at IfD; everyone (including the previous discussion's closer) can weigh in with their opinion there. I personally don't care if the image is deleted in a fair discussion; this wasn't one. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, my question is: instead of lawyering here, why don't you spend your time and your considerable talents in improving the article instead? I keep saying: write better articles and you get better fair use cases. Show us that there's something in that Dr Who episode that's worth discussing and analysing. Once you have something worthwhile in the text that an image can usefully be hooked on to, I'd have no problem reconsidering this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfuly, that is the second time you've called my filing of the DRV wikilawyering, and I would ask you to stop. The negative connotations of the what the term respresents overrides the fact that my action meets none of the four criteria used to determine such. I am pointing out that an admin made a mistake in how he interprets NFC#8, and used that interpretation to close a balanced discussion and delete an image. That is the focus of the DRV. Not the image's value or lack thereof. Not the article it came from. We have to expect that our admins apply the consensus view of a policy when dealing with these matters and, despite Nv's out of order comments above, he applied a personal interpretation that the image did not meet NFC#8 was not met. His argument was not that either side made a poor argument, but that he thought the image failed the criteria^a. He didn't evaluate the flawed arguments of the nomination (the nominator who was subsequently blocked for disruptive nominations), or those voting to keep the image. He made a personal choice, a vote, as to the outcome of the image. That is a failure of process. In closing, an admin is supposed to weigh the arguments being presented and render a decision based on them (specifically because the image wasn't a gross violation of any policy).

I am not suggesting that Nv be tarred and feathered. I don't think he meant to apply his own personal opinion and vote by closure; nevertheless, he did. It is a failure of the deletion process. The image deletion should be reversed and, if folk have tremendous issue with the image, they can nominate it again. With luck a clear consensus will emerge from the voting, so as to make the IfD discussion closing that much clearer. At the very, very least, it should be relisted. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - the nominator's and Fut.Perf.'s arguments were based on policy - specifically that "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" - and the keep voters were unable to effectively counter this. Accordingly, the closing admin correctly closed the debate based on arguments, not votes. PhilKnight (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, the nominator was blocked for too narrowly construing the NFCC, and while you are allowed to feel that the arguments to keep were ineffective, they were provided in a thoughtful, cited way. Those arguments are to be provided within the context of an IfD. Period. This isn't the place for it. The closer utilized his own personal opinion/preference to close. They do not get to do that. As both sides presented arguments, in the case of a tie, the media is retained, It might be nominated later, but the closer doesn't get to vote their preference via closure. It bears pointing out that there is no real problem with relisting, except we are counting bruised egos as part of the criteria for not doing so. The consensus of the DRV, almost a week after it was opened is for keep, with two specifically suggesting re-listing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is lucky for the closing admin of the DRV that they do not have to waste time thinking about this one as you have already decided for them that the consensus is to keep. Talk about an ego. -Nv8200p talk 22:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey hey. Be nice. I understand how you are miffed, but that's no reason to be uncivil. I was pointing out where we are currently, not demanding anything. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get your exercise by jumping to conclusions? I am not miffed. -Nv8200p talk 10:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Appears to be a clear misinterpretation of our policy on use of non-free images. The use of the image is not decorative. Moreover the fact that the article is understandable without the image is not currently a valid deletion criterion (I would further argue that it's not a desirable one, even for non-free images, but that's another matter). --Jenny 08:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse — Decorative image that did not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Matthew (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Matthew, maybe you misunderstood; we aren't voting as to the value of the image here (as mentioned at least 2x before, that's for IfD); we are discussing the inappropriate closing. Allow me to trim things down. You have a voting discussion. Both sides offer equally valid arguments. Admin comes along, already in agreement with one side of the argument and decides to vote with them by ending discussion and deleting the image. The admin has stated here that he doesn't care about the images either way, but in actuality feels that all "Fair use images in infoboxes are merely decorative." That means he considers any image in an infobox to be decorative. That sounds lie a pre-existing opinion to me, and I can assure you that it isn't what our current policy on NFC#8 is. It isn't about the value of the image at all; its about the evaluation of a discussion by someone who was supposed to either be neutral or stay away, as per the guidelines for admins in deletion discussions. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image that I deleted was not in an infobox. The image was in the body of the article, so the faulty premise you are using that I have a pre-existing on all infobox images is even more faulty as this was not an infobox image. -Nv8200p talk 14:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. Your comment displayed a disturbingly non-neutral opinion that had implications for this image's IfD. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We" are not voting at all. "I want it! I'll hold my breath if you don't give it to me!" does not trump policy. Matthew (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right, Matthew, though not for the reason that I am guessing your snarky remark was intending. The policy and guidelines weren't followed here. And maybe lighten up on the aforementioned snarky. I am sure you are capable of getting your point across without it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may quote my previous comment: 'NFCC point 8 is open to interpretation, therefore the "policy over consensus" argument just doesn't wash.' U-Mos (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, at least, not in this argument and the simultaneous one occurring over another Doctor Who episode image nominated by Fasach Nua. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're Gonna Go Far, Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I demand an administrator to restore this article as soon as possible. It has been deleted 2 times this week so (at Accounting4Taste's request) I thought to review my thoughts on the You're Gonna Go Far, Kid article. Some freakin' idiot (named Mdsummermsw) refused to understand that this Offspring song was supposed to a new single from them, because KROQ's been playing it; I listen to that station online. When he requested that article to be deleted about a week ago, he claimed that "You're Gonna Go Far, Kid" was a "non-notable song that might or might not be released as a single". I just know for a fact that it might be the second single off their new album Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace. Users on the bulletin board of the Offspring's website also agree that it will be a single as well. At of this moment, I'm getting tired of having an argument with the users who claim that the article should be deleted and that the song is not notable or going to be a real single. Alex (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and suggest that you review WP:CIVIL before the next time you post. The closing admin correctly interpreted the discussion and DRV is not AFD round two. By the way, "I just know for a fact that it might be the second single" makes absolutely no sense. Otto4711 (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and allow recreation when it is the next single and further gains notability. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and respectfully suggest nominator read WP:CIVIL. Townlake (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've redirected the article to Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace, as WP:MUSIC suggests. Probably would've been a better way to handle it than takin' it to AfD, but there's no need to restore the history under it as far as I can see. Just a heads up. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse for now, consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You're Gonna Go Far, Kid was quite clear and nothing has been raised here that wasn't raised and considered there. This is not AfD round 2. However, when and if the song is released as a single, I would be willing to restore the article. --Stormie (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. If nothing else, I'm inclined to say this simply because of the nom's attitude. But consensus was clear too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse "it might be the second single" is not a reason for keeping until it actually happens. DGG (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). As others have already said, the consensus in this discussion was very clear. I find no process problems in either the discussion or the closure. Rossami (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twitterrific (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Since it's deletion the program has won several apple design awards[28][29]. This should satisfy the notability issues brought up in the AfD. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why didn't you just ask me on my talkpage to restore/userfy this? Why DRV first? The instructions on this page say to talk to the deleting admin first. I would've happily restored/userfied this for you CyberSkull. My closing statement on the AFD itself even says, ask me if you want this userfied. This really doesn't need to be here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Since the DRV itself admits these awards were given only after the deletion, I endorse the original deletion, with no prejudice to recreation if it now meets notability guidelines. DRV was unnecessary in this case. –xenocidic (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Close This can be handled outside DRV. Townlake (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm... Though you don't need DRV here (as above) for recreation, I'd say that award doesn't look that great to me. I'm not sure it's enough for WP:WEB. I'd personally be happier with a restore and merge to The Iconfactory, though I fully endorse the closure of the AfD. If you find some more awards or things ping me and I'll rethink it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Like Keeper76 said, let's get this userfied and improved and take a look at it. I have restored it to User:CyberSkull/Twitterrific. Here is an article about Twitterrific on the iPhone which might also be useful for improving the article, and establishing notability per "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --Stormie (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Kratovil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Despite the educated-sounding nature of the opinions at the AFD for this article (which was closed merge), they do not address the simple problem that this is a notable candidate. The man is a the Democratic candidate in a US house race, and, yes, the race is quite possibly competitive ([30]), especially in a year when nominal Democrat candidates are having shocking wins. Additionally, he is the state attorney general for Maryland (the people calling for delete happened not to notice this), and has a plethora of non-trivial mentions on google news: [31], many of which are not local. And the claims that this is a local only issue are troubling; I have read about this race in major newspapers. It is results like this which deeply trouble me about the AFD process. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse redirect. Are you sure he's the Attorney General of Maryland? He's certainly not listed as such on that article, it would have us believe that Doug Gansler is AG. As does the website of the AG's office: [32]. Kratovil is State's Attorney for Queen Anne's County, Maryland, a county of 40,000 people.[33] I don't believe that satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria, nor does candidacy in a congressional election. --Stormie (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, that was attorney. So you don't believe being a major candidate in a US house race with significant national coverage is enough to pass WP:BIO. So Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria #1 is not sufficient if it's "only local coverage", despite the fact that a) it's not only local, and b) Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians says otherwise? The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I think WP:BIO makes it quite clear that being a candidate in a US house race does not meet the Politician-specific notability criteria. As for the general criteria of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", I'm not seeing that in the references on the pre-redirect revision of the Frank Kratovil article - the only newspaper article referenced which I can access is [34], which is entirely about the campaign, and seems to me to be far more suitable for use as a reference for United States House of Representatives elections in Maryland, 2008 than for establishing notability for a biography of Frank Kratovil. --Stormie (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Read what I wrote below. There are dozens which I wrote of on google news: [35], including several major newspapers. What the hell? Anybody would have called for a keep on this person if in an AFD if he weren't a politician. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As I closed this AfD, I am inclined to believe that I interpreted consensus correctly. :) However, I note that although the AfD closed as merge, the article seems to have been simply redirected. Redirecting is not what consensus called for here. Ordinarily, when I close AfDs as merge, I attempt to merge them myself, but I lack sufficient familiarity with Maryland's political processes to follow up on User:John J. Bulten's suggestion in that AfD, which seems to have received considerable support, to merge several paragraphs from this article and include a few on the candidate's opponent. Nobody argued for straightforward redirection here, and I'm surprised that the merge discussion tag was removed within hours of its placement, with no discussion having taken place. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I do believe that policy trumps consensus, correct? Argued above. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, in the sense that policy trumps consensus, it is true policies, such as WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, not "mere" guidelines, such as WP:BIO. We have had a general consensus in the past, not well reflected in WP:BIO, that the best practice for candidates who lack notability prior to their candidacy is to merge their article to an article on the campaign or office, and then only create a biographical article if they win or develop such independent notability. GRBerry 00:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  And, if we are going to ignore WP:BIO, how exactly are we going to establish what notability is? We have articles with this guy in the International Herald Tribune [36], Forbes Magazine [37], Baltimore Sun, Washington Post, and, for that matter, Houston Chronicle in Spanish [38]. He did, of course, receive dozens of mentions in the Washington Post back in the 90's when he was a judge: [39]. If I can provide all these sources, then notability is shown. Unless you are arguing no politician is notable until he becomes elected, in which case Barack Obama would have been ignored until November 2004. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Barack Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, a "first-level sub-national political office" which satisfies WP:BIO's "politicians" criteria. --Stormie (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any arguments for merge in that AfD that are contrary to policy. The guideline at WP:POLITICIAN doesn't guarantee that all politicians are notable enough for inclusion. One contributor argued that more potential sources were forthcoming. This is clearly contradicted by WP:N, which says "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." There were three other keeps--one of which was subsequently persuaded that merge & redirect was more appropriate, one of which indicated that "merge" was also acceptable; and a final that offered no rationale except that he or she obviously found it notable. You've got two clear arguments for keep there, one of which is not supported by guideline and another of which offers no support at all. Those arguing for deletion or merge found the source insufficient to indicate notability outside of the election and suggested coverage of the candidate there. If there are sufficient widespread sources to substantiate notability, then there is nothing to prevent an article that does assert stand-alone notability being written. WP:CSD#G4, for instance, only applies to recreations where the issues raised at AfD are not addressed. In my closure, I noted the consensus that "Article does not substantiate stand-alone notability." If stand-alone notability is substantiated, there's no issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close Nominator is not requesting the result be overturned and become delete, so this is not deletion review's business. As the article tag says, if the merge doesn't occur the article can be sent back to AFD again, not speedily deleted. GRBerry 00:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You know better than that. I'm asking the result of merge by overturned. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I know you want merge changed to keep. That question is not deletion review business. From the deletion review perspective, merge is already keep, because both involve nobody using the delete tool on the article. Thus you aren't asking for anything deletion review cares about. The proper venue(s) for your query is the article talk page(s), or should it occur AFD#2. GRBerry 00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I think closing admin got it right on the policy interpretations resulting in merge, particularly that this gentleman does not clear POLITICIAN. I looked at some of the Google search stuff above, and it sure seems like there should be media sources establishing his notability under BIO outside of POLITICIAN - he's been in public life for a while - but none jumped out at me, mostly just random quotes and articles about his cases (not about him). So I think merge is the right call given the information we have before us. Townlake (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cary_Herrman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_Original creator was blocked from defending the article by administrator after said creator upset administrator. It appears the creator and the administrator were going back and forth, to where the creator offended the admin on the admin's talk page, and the admin had the creator blocked, prohibiting the creator from properly defending the article. In my own attempts at communicating with the admin, he/she appeared to be defensive and paranoid which gave me even more reason for concern. Furthermore, the admin in question slapped a warning on my page when I attempted to edit:

June 2008 This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you create an inappropriate page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware as to his/her reasoning, but there is definitely an underlying aggression in regards to this particle article and/or contributor, LDCortez.

Upon reviewing the wiki guidelines, it is without doubt that this article was and is notable. I request that the article be reinstated, protected and that Jauerback be warned against taking such aggressive actions toward contributors. It makes a very unpleasant, hostile and "war-like" environment, as opposed to a forum to exchange information and to learn. Wiki readers deserve to have Mr. Herrman as a part of their library of living persons to study, understand and live up to. I ask that the article be reinstated. My notes are available on my talkpage for any further review. BHOrchid (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was deleted following unanimous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cary Herrman. Can you provide a response to the objections raised there? Particularly lack of notability (subject fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)), conflict of interest problems (please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before editing on a subject that you are personally involved with), and a lack of reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for what is expected of a Wikipedia article's sources). --Stormie (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Endorse Deletion - this is laughable. User:BHOrchid is either very naive or is User:LDCortez herself. I don't know what to think anymore, and frankly I don't care. However, I'd be willing to bet that a checkuser would find these two users originating from the same place, but it doesn't really matter as it's not warranted. Anyway, the whole drama can be found on links to my talk page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The AfD was extremely clear, to the point that it'd be insane to try to dispute it without having notability-establishing sources in hand when doing so (which if someone does, awesome). The speedy was most likely done properly, as it probably had the same failings as the AfD'd version. I'd prefer to stay away from accusations of sockpuppetry and the like, but I'd like to point out that the block only lasted 31 hours and was placed nearly 4 days ago (which is 24*4=96 hours, for those who don't like doin' math). Jauerback, I'd suggest not easily jumping to {{uw-create4im}} for G4's; they happen and get deleted pretty easily, usually just a simple warning about it will do. I'd personally save it for G10's myself. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The speedily deleted revision was identical to the AfD-deleted revision, yes. --Stormie (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Since I believe that these are one and the same user, or at the very least working together, given User:LDCortez's past with recreation of the article, removal of templates (including the AFD notice more than once), and User:BHOrchid's numerous attempts at recreation of the article including under a different spelling, I felt the {{uw-create4im}} warning was justifiable. And as far as the accusation of them being sockpuppets, it doesn't mean anything, because they haven't abused it... yet. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Exactly the core case WP:CSD#G4 is meant for; the redeleted article was an exact duplicate, without the AFD tag and other warning tags, of the article deleted by community consensus at the AFD. GRBerry 00:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If the allegations made by Jauerback are correct, it is a worrying development. REcreation of deleted articles is of course to be deplored, but any one ought to be able to contribute to discussion. I known nothing of the subject and thus make No comment on the main issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure you meant to say "made by" or "made about" because of your 2nd sentence. Either way, the creator of the original article had plenty of time to participate in the discussion. She removed the AFD notice numerous times before she was blocked (31 hours) and her block ended before the AFD discussion (5 days) ended. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dogma Free America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This has been deleted 5 times in the last 3 weeks or so (and is now fully protected) so I thought a review would be the way to go. There's a copy at User:Mindme/Dogma Free America that I'd like you to have a look over. This is very much just procedural from me. Many thanks, Alex Muller 12:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please view the w/u's discussion section for notability support. Mindme (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Put some of those sources on the article and it looks good to go to me. I'm gonna' leave another message on the talk page of the userfied version about other issues I'd like resolved, but they can just as easily be handled after it gets into mainspace. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources moved into the reference section and a couple linked within the body. Mindme (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ech, takin' a look those ain't that good. We need stuff that's more reliable, not so much on the blogs and forums; and we also need references that are third party to establish notability, so no press releases. It also really helps to have the sources be written about the podcast itself and not someone else. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There is nothing there that will pass web notability. The thrust of my argument is a) it's the wrong criteria to apply to podcasts, albeit wiki does not have one for this new form of media b) it is notable when it registers thousands of unambiguous google and yahoo hits and c) when a podcast demonstrates a pattern of having on notable guests and its achieved a top ten ranking in its itunes category and it appears as a notable podcast on itune's category page, this should be strong evidence the podcast is notable. A podcast could literally have more listeners than a newspaper columnist has actual readers, but a newspaper columnist would be notable for entirely circular reasoning. But since dead tree media has not yet noticed podcasting, beyond a handful, most podcasts are deemed by wiki as not notable although clearly notable people judge them notable and itunes judges them notable. Am I being unreasonable? Mindme (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was just sticking with WP:N and not WP:WEB. I think that WT:WEB would be the best place to discuss adding a special set of criteria for podcasts, so I'm not going to cover it here (it was discussed here before, just to note). Your arguements are great, and I may have to go support such an effort to add podcasts to WEB, but for right now it doesn't pass either the general N or WEB. If you get podcasts added, I'd be happy to support an overturn. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Still doesn't appear to meet any of the three criteria in WP:WEB. RMHED (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB seems poorly suited for podcasts. For example skeptoid appears to meet no notability criteria. The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, a top 10 science podcast gets one dead tree media hit. SGU was admitted because notable Randi was a frequent guest. As well, Dogma Free America is listed on a press release (see references) and actively discussed on forums of notable organizations (James Randi Educational Foundation, Richard Dawkins' site, etc.) My notability argument lies in if a podcast has a pattern of having on notable guests, it is because the podcast is manifestly notable. A high school newspaper might not be notable. It might not be notable if the editor's dad gets Jimmy Carter to do an interview. However, if the high school newspaper has a pattern of running interviews with notable people, to me it seems the high school newspaper is manifestly notable. The same criterion should apply to a podcast. It does not strike me as unreasonable. Mindme (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The core concern with notability is having adequate independent and reliable sources to allow editors to write an article on a subject that is neutral, contains no original research, being fully verifiable, while also not being a mere directory entry. For this core concern, if the independent reliable sources can't be found, it doesn't matter who the guests are. GRBerry 00:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original decision to delete. I took a look at the userspace article's discussion page and the notability (as defined by WP:WEB just isn't there. CredoFromStart ^talk 20:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse most of the speedy deletions. The one citing G4 is clearly incorrect; that should have cited WP:CSD#A7. I can't encourage moving this into article space; it doesn't meet the community standards documented at WP:WEB. If the nominator is aware of other podcast articles that don't meet those standards, lets get them nominated for deletion as well. GRBerry 00:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Salting - Still entirely lacks non-trivial reliable sources to establish notability and allow verifiability of content. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can anyone at least answer one question: how did skeptoid and SGU pass notability and this w/u doesn't? Mindme (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To attempt an answer your question, Skeptoid has never had an AfD, it may or may not survive one. SGU has been speedied once as an A7 but has also never been taken to AfD. If you believe these articles fail WP:WEB you can list them at AfD and see what the consensus is. RMHED (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Skeptoid and SGU have now both been listed on AfD. --Stormie (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is decided for those podcasts, please apply the decision evenly to Dogma Free America. If Skeptoid and SGU pass because of notability by assertion, history of having on notable guests, high ranking in its iTunes category, then that goes as well for Dogma Free America. Mindme (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Naidovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

• 1) Football player named to 2008 Australian Olympic team, who has played in Olympic Qualifiers. As such he meets WP:ATHLETE having have competed at the highest level in amateur sports. In the AFD it has been pointed out that Football in the Olympics is not amateur, but I feel that is wikilawyering abiding by the letter of a policy while violating its spirit.
• 2) this AFD was for 4 different people of different situations. While some were clearly not notable, others were more questionable. WP:AFD notes that for multiple deletions If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately (I'll stress the word could). I asked that they be split in the AFD and no one commented. I've asked the person who made the nomination this in other AFDs before and he has refused without noting why he won't follow the guideline.
• 3) the closing admin didn't provide any explanation to how the decision was reached as recommended in WP:GD#Closure.

Nfitz (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Totally agree with you on all counts. I particularly agree that the deletion of this article was "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit". Jared Wiltshire (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: can you provide a reliable source for him being named for the Olympic team for Beijing? He's not listed on the current squad here, and I don't see him having played in any of the recent games reported on here. As far as I can tell, his games with the U-23s squad were in the 2008 AFC Men's Pre-Olympic Tournament in February and March 2007 [40][41], one game as an unused substitute and one starting. Certainly playing at the Olympics would establish notability, and if I was confident he was in the squad I would say to restore the article now, rather than waiting until August. But does playing in the qualifiers establish notability? I don't know. --Stormie (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, good point. I was going by Australia national under-23 football team 2008 Olympic Games campaign which lists him as one of the players that have been called up during the entire 2008 Olympic Games campaign. If that Wikipedia article is wrong, then I'll withdraw my point number 1. Though there are still the procedural issues I raised in points 2 and 3. Nfitz (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, yep, that (long) list seems to cover everyone who played in any of the qualifiers. I think it really is an issue of whether playing in an Olympics qualifying match counts as "the highest level in amateur sports". --Stormie (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Player clearly fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully pro league. He has not played at the Olympics, only in the qualifiers, and football is not an amateur sport at the Olympics (how exactly is this wikilawyering, when it is the case??), so "playing at the highest level in amateur competitions" is irrelevant. Ever since I nominated Kilian Elkinson for deletion, it seems that User:Nfitz is pursuing some kind of personal vendetta against my by !voting to keep any article I nominate for deletion, and then taking it to DRV when he fails to get his way (see an incredibly poor choice here). I would also be interested to know why he notified the only editor other than himself to !vote keep in the AfD,[42] but none of those who !voted delete. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal vendetta? Absolutely not true. I have supported most of User:Number 57's deletion attempts; I've only removed one or two of his prod's that he hasn't actually challenged. In this deletion review, I did contact one user who supported keeping, because of all the people involved in the discussion, his name wasn't familiar, and I didn't think he'd find out about it otherwise. To maintain balance I also contacted one person endorsing deletion. And I contacted the deleting admin. I figured everyone else was likely to find their way here - and that appears to be correct. Meanwhile User:Number 57 has made a personal attack against me on my talk page, and yesterday attacked someone else on their talk page who also disagreed with him (on another issue). The only person getting personal here is User:Number 57. User:Number 57 also ignores that he has been making procedural errors in the here - which was part of the reason for the review, and as far as I can tell is simply attacking someone for pointing out his mistakes. Perhaps if User:Number 57 had in the AFD pointed out he was not on the Olympic Team rather than being obstinate, we wouldn't be at this deletion review. Nfitz (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you talking about? I clearly stated in the AfD that Olympics football is not amateur and that he had only played in the qualifiers! As for claiming you have supported most of my deletion attempts, that is a barefaced lie. On all three AfDs I started where you !voted, you have gone for keep.[43][44][45]. As for attacking another editor, I noted that him contacting you about an AfD which you would clearly object to could be construed to be canvassing. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Request Censure for Number 57. I am tired of his unwarranted personal attacks against me and others simply when someone disagrees with his views. Bald-faced lie? In two cases he tried deleting multiple pages, and there was only one on each page I objected to - it's quite clear that I supported most of his other AFDs - I've reviewed all the Football AFDs recently, and most were so profoundly clearly non-notable that there was little point in being the 10th person to make that comment. I'd previously noted support for him in his talk page. I have no idea why a supposed respected Admin is resorting to personal attacks, particularily after I've already withdrawn my objection to the deletion! Nfitz (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, football is not an amateur sport, especially in Australia where there is actually a fully professional football league. I might support the article's restoration only in case the guy actually takes part at the Olympic games (not merely as a call-up, however, but by means of playing football in one of the games). --Angelo (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - It would appear that the nominator doesn't quite understand WP:ATHLETE. – PeeJay 08:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure many here understand abiding by the letter of a policy while violating its spirit. I think if he is on the Olympic Team then he meets WP:ATHLETE; though I admit that if the source document (ironically a Wikipedia article) showing he is on the team is not correct, then he is not notable. Nfitz (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being on the team is not sufficient. He has to play to be notable. The criteria are quite clear cut about this. – PeeJay 15:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If he played in the final qualifications this year, then I'd say he has played at the highest level of amateur sport (ignoring the whole is Olympic being amateur issue). Though the evidence appears to suggest he hasn't. Nfitz (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If he plays in the finals tournament later this year, then I would not oppose recreation of the article, as playing football at the Olympics is quite an honour and definitely confers notability. However, your point about playing at the highest level of amateur sport is moot, as football is not an amateur sport at its highest level. – PeeJay 21:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - players still fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 12:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on recent evidence that has come to light of errors in other Wikipedia articles, I dropping point 1. However, my second 2 procedural points stand - which no one has addressed. Nfitz (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closing admin has expanded upon his decision, so you can cross number 3 off as well. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The new closing statement is The result was Delete per near unanimous consensus which in my mind is pretty wishy-washy. We've probably hashed out the issues here, but a well-written closing statement would improve the process. Nfitz (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure says A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached. Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, the four articles nominated were closely related on the grounds that all four were young Australian footballers who had signed to A League clubs, but not yet played for them. It was not immediately apparent that Jason Naidovski was in any way different - the Olympics were not explicity mentioned in his article, there was just 2 appearances for "Australia U-23" in his infobox along with other age grade appearances. --Stormie (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural objection - considering lots of people vote on AfDs about single articles without doing their homework, how can anyone expect an AfD with more than 1 article would be treated in any reasonably intelligent way? ugen64 (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist or Delete. It's true that listing multiples is not a good idea, but I don't think this one will pass a standalone listing either. CredoFromStart ^talk 21:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it would, or even should, pass a standalone listing now we've had a proper discussion on it. Part of the issue is that the Admin in questions insists on bulking these AFDs together, which only confuses the issue, stifles debate, and leads to things like this. Nfitz (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As pointed out above by Stormie, all four articles were concerning young Australian footballers signed to A League clubs, who had never played. As it has been consensus for a while that youth caps do not confer notability, there was no issue with bundling them together. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an article existed in Wikipedia noting that he had been named to the current Olympic Team, I'd say there is an issue. And as if there is a possibility of issues it should not be bundled. Nfitz (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, this article was correctly closed per consensus. Trying to get this overturned on procedural minutiae, such as stating that the closing admin didn't elaborate on the closure, is just process wonkery for its own sake. The consensus in that discussion was abundantly clear. Shereth 21:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting comment coming from an Admin who also ignores requests to provided a closing statement. Were the procedual issues the only issues, I wouldn't have started a deletion review. However through the course of the discussion here, it's become apparent that the prime reason isn't valid (something we'd have discovered at the AFD if people had actually discussed the issue rather than simply saying 'Delete - per nom.') Nfitz (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Consensus is clear. Subject does not meet the criteria to be in Wikipedia. 217.44.188.103 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

75th Ranger Regiment (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I fit the criteria for my entry on this page 63.125.4.210 (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC) hello, On this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75th_Ranger_Regiment I have been attepting to add to the below section : "former Rangers websites" , my website, http://shadowspear.com. I have even tried my Ranger article (which someone copied and pasted here) at http://shadowspear.com/ranger.htm. Everytime I add it, it is subsequently deleted. I have served in the 75th Ranger Regiment for 5 years, including combat operations in Afghanistan. I am also a graduate of the US Army Ranger School, class 08-01. I fit the criteria for having websites of former Rangers listed in this section. Why does my link always get deleted, and how can I correct this? Thank you.[reply]

• This is not the correct venue for this. If you are having a dispute with an editor, first talk the issue over with them on their talk page or the article's talk page. If you cannot work out a compromise between you and the other editor, please consider dispute resolution as a last resort. Deletion review is not a process capable of reviewing editorial decissions such as the inclussion or exclussion of external links. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The irate gamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I wanna make an irate gamer srticle, but some people deleted it. I wasn't done making the article, because I was getting tired. I was gonna work on it now, but I can't. Please let me. I wasn't even warned that it would be deleted. http://theirategamer.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgames22 (talk • contribs) 16:11, June 25, 2008

• Note: fix't nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has since been deleted--perhaps this should be reopened? DGG (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure, but I'll opt for it. Looks like the user left, though. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Only tiny assertion of significance is having 260k+ views on You Tube this is pretty insignificant considering the most popular clips rate in the 20 million+ bracket. RMHED (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, looks like a valid CSD A7. Vgames22, a speedy deletion does not mean that the article cannot be re-created, if you address to notability issue. But you should really read Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria and be sure that the Irate Gamer meets the notability standards before attempting to do so. --Stormie (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swivel (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted less than an hour after I created it, with no warning! I created it because I saw the band's video on TV (the LOGO channel) and couldn't believe they didn't have an entry. What more does one need that major TV airplay?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luminifer (talk • contribs) 00:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note fix't nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The article was correctly deleted because it did not assert notability of the band. Nothing prevents the creation of an improved article (hint, with independent reliable sources) that does assert notability. —C.Fred (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a stupid question, but I've been using wikipedia for a while and I've never seen any real guides for how to assert notability - I know a lot of people who are very disenchanted with wikipedia because they don't understand this concept... Is there such a guide? I thought mentioning the MTV LOGO airplay, and linking to amazon selling their CD was enough.. Apparently I don't understand notability, so any help would be appreciated.. Luminifer (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - All sorts of non-notable crap, including self-published and vanity-press stuff, is sold on Amazon; like being on YouTube or having a MySpace/Facebook page, that's not even a hint of notability in and of itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best thing when it involves bands is to look at WP:MUSIC - those are the generally established guidelines for inclusion. There's also notability in general. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question is whether "has been featured of MTV's spin-off network LOGO. " is a plausible assertion of importance. I think it just might be, though I know the subject so little I cannot say if it is of even plausible significance. There's a difference between notability enough for Afd , and the assertion or indication of some importance that is enough for speedy. DGG (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Speedy Deletion - Being featured on Logo (TV channel), a very high profile Viacom network, is an assertion of notability. I have no opinion as to being listed to AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. WP:BAND#Criteria for musicians and ensembles #12 says, "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network," which certainly seems to exclude the case of a single music video popping up occasionally. I can't see the deleted article, so I'm not expressing an "endorse" or "overturn" opinion. Deor (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an AfD notability argument, not justification for speedy deleting this article that asserts notability, which is what this DRV is about. --Oakshade (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the nom's "What more does one need tha[n] major TV airplay??" Deor (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that things like LOGO and MTV may count as 'radio' networks in some sense... So, being in regular rotation on a music video network probably is no different from being in regular rotation on a radio network, is it?Luminifer (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear to me from An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. (A7) that this should not have been speedily deleted. This has happened to me several times in the past week - an article that pretty clearly asserted importance but did not prove notability was VERY speedily deleted. What do we have to do to (a) get this article undeleted, and (b) stop this from happening, as it's a waste of time and clearly a rampant misapplication of wiki policies. Luminifer (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Host.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The following article clearly had a consensus of Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Host.net with 9 out of 10 opinions. In addition, secondary and third party sources from creditable – reliable and verifiable sources were provided to establish Notability. I believe the closing administrator allowed personal standards and/or criteria to influence their judgment when closing the Afd as delete. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn At least two of those who contributed to the AFD believed that there were sufficient sources available to meet the WP:CORP notability guideline. I cannot see any consensus against this opinion in the AFD. The nominator seems to have used their belief that the sources were insufficient above that of those who contributed to the AFD. No matter how many of the keep opinions that did not comment on notability you ignore, there is still definitely no consensus for deletion. Davewild (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to Keep deleted per copyvio found. Davewild (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A tricky one, most of the Google news hits linked to by Shoessss do not refer to Host.net, those that do link to this company seem to be press releases mostly. Still, to delete when there was a clear keep opinion, albeit most of the keeps weren't based on policy or guidelines, is dodgy. I'd favour an Overturn & relist at AfD then those editors that believe there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources can supply them. RMHED (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a copyvio then keep deleted obviously. RMHED (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - I can certainly appreciate the closer's rationale that the keep arguments were, at best, weak - however, even if you discount the keep !votes en masse there is but a single !vote for deletion which can hardly be deemed a reflection of community consensus. Shereth 21:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist (edit conflict) per RHMED. Most Google (and Google News) hits do not refer to Host.net, but nine keep !votes can't be ignored. —paranomia^{happy harry's high club} 21:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As the closing admin, I think that a relisting might indeed be the best way to proceed. I understand the opinions expressed here that, even though the "keep" opinions were weak, the two "delete" opinions (including the nomination) were not very plentiful. A relisting might produce a clearer consensus.  Sandstein  22:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, especially since the article changed substantially from when the "delete" opinions were made. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist to allow a more in-depth discussion now that the issues have been clearly identified. It is helpful that this action now has the support of the closing admin. Smile a While (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Good catch. Obviously must remain deleted until a non-copyvio version can be produced. Smile a While (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It was a copyvio of http://www.host.net/index.cfm?id=27, just like the version previously deleted. Doesn't anybody bother to check google anymore? (Admittedly, the diff between the December 2005 and June 2008 versions doesn't format well cuzza the infobox stuck in front, but the same text's still all there.) Endorse, and if someone feels motivated to start an encyclopedia article from scratch, instead of a press release, they should go right ahead. —Cryptic 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I for one never thought to double-check that it was still a copyvio but you are right - therefore this should remain deleted as such. Shereth 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can repost to my subpage, I'll give a shot at rewritting. As a side note, if this is a copyright violation, I have no problems with a delete, no matter how many Keep opinions were expressed. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the only difference between the cached version and the deleted one (other than formatting) was the Press Releases News section:

* Host.net Acquires WebUnited & Expedient Florida from CBB <ref>Host.net Acquires WebUnited & Expedient Florida from CBB [http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070919006078&newsLang=en]</ref>

* South Florida Biz. Journal Story on the WU Acquisition<ref>South Florida Biz. Journal Story on the WU Acquisition [http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2007/09/17/daily24.html]</ref>

* Host.net Opens Phase III Colo Center <ref>Host.net Opens Phase III Colo Center [http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080515005111&newsLang=en]</ref>

* FiberLight provides Metro Optical Network Solution for Host.net <ref>FiberLight provides Metro Optical Network Solution for Host.net [http://www.host.net/index.cfm?id=142]</ref>

* Palm Beach Post Article on one of Host.net's On-Net Buildings <ref>Palm Beach Post Article on one of Host.net's On-Net Buildings [http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/business/epaper/2008/06/15/sunbiz_thesource_0615.html?imw=Y]</ref> —Cryptic 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion, the right thing was done for the wrong reasons, maybe, but this is a clear copyvio. Gonna have to start from scratch if we want an article about Host.net. --Stormie (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreate given the copyvio issues. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse not only because of the copyvio issue, but also because this is a discussion, not a vote; nine weak keeps that don't adress our standards do not outrank one or two well-reasoned deletes just because they outnumber them. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nor does a single well-reasoned delete constitute "consensus" by any stretch of the imagination. The proper course of action - even discounting all of the keeps - would have been to relist. Shereth 16:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amalgam Digital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Lack of Citations... I understand the reason for speedy deletion, and that was for lack of citations. i guess i did not truely understand that the citations needed posting immediately, for that i apologize. The Record label and the digital store exist and would appreciate another shot to create the page with the proper citations. Thanks. Amaldigi 19:28, June 24, 2008

• I hope the A7 wasn't for "lack of citations". A7 doesn't mention the need for citations anywhere. But since there's no cached version, I won't comment on it. If you'd like to work on recreating an article for the band, I suggest you first work on it in your userspace, though you might first want to create another account as the one you are using currently has a username which may violate our username policy. Then you work on it in a sandbox (at User:USER_NAME/Sandbox or User:USER_NAME/Amalgam Digital or something similar) and bring it back here when you believe it passes our notability guidelines for musicians and is properly sourced in reliable sources. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment maybe one of the seven speedies had to do with citations, but I doubt it. User has been blocked, I think SALT might be applicable pending this DRV. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, RHaworth already has SALTed it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See that now, I didn't when I was looking at the logs. My bad _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted I think the latest version should have been deleted under WP:CSD#G11 instead of WP:CSD#A7. I see one incarnation was deleted under PROD, but it wouldn't have survived AFD. GRBerry 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from deleting admin. The "citations" in question refer to the fact that the new baseline standard for notability is coverage in multiple reliable sources. So, if you can't reference articles where the subject has gotten coverage, that leads to non-notability (not to mention non-verifiability). That said, I could just have easily deleted it under G11 as A7 - I picked the latter because, even if the language were made less promotional, the article would still fail notability, because there's no evidence of coverage of the label. —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But lack of sourcing is not a speedy deletion reason. It is an AFD deletion reason. Speedy deletion under A7 is only for failing to make any claim of importance or significance. GRBerry 12:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, but what are the general criteria of Wikipedia:Significance? "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article failed to claim such coverage. Further, in my judgment, "first genre-specific digital download store specializing in hip hop with a strong focus on independent labels and artists" was not a sufficient claim of specific importance under WP:CORP - especially since "first" could be stricken if it was not verifiable. Nonetheless, G11 was a fallback deletion criterion, as noted in my log entry, which would still get us to the same endpoint. —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but assertions of notability are all that's required. There's no requirement to have sources backing them up — if the article says first, but doesn't have a source, you don't get to strike "first" when deciding if it asserts notability or not. Failing Wikipedia:Significance is not a criteria for speedy deletion; it may be a deletion criteria but those aren't the same thing. --Haemo (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, no, no, claims of notability which are not notable despite claims of being so, are not claims of notability. "I am the handsomest man in the universe" is a claim of notability, but would not be proof against speedy deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 02:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Hugo Lampe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

academic eminence User:clive sweeting

• Rewrite Here is the full text of the article, as edited by you only: "Geoffrey Hugo Lampe, Ely Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, edited the Patristic Greek Lexicon." GRBerry 16:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Restore and rewrite-- to say someone is professor of Divinityy at Cambridge Univ. is an unmistakable assertion of significance. its not much of a stub, but its time we stopped deleting articles for being a stub. It does not have to show significance to pass speedy, just say something that indicates it. If sufficient importance doubted, that's why we have PROD and AfD. If not enough is said that's why we have {expand} and {uncited}. DGG (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• We could restore it, but it seems like a waste of time for a nearly-two-year-old speedy. It'd be quicker for you in the long run if you just recreate the article. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation - As indicated by DGG this didn't meet the A7 criteria. However, an immediate restoration could easily result in a rapid AFD causing unnecessary extra work. I am with the pragmatic approach of lifebaka that the simplest approach is to rewrite it with rather more content and a source. Smile a While (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore - A professor at Cambridge Univerity is not a mere lecturer. I appreciate that theology does not enjoy the academci eminence that it once did, but this sounds like a worthwhile potential article, whcih should thus be permitted. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• meh. Go on, just go and recreate the article but please try and add some content if you want it to survive. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partners in torah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am confused as to why this page was deleted given that it is an organization parallel to many others within the same field of Jewish Outreach Organizations e.g. Aish HaTorah, Ohr Somayach and more. I had emulated their editorial style and used sources no different than these pages.

The same is true of the page Jewpiter, which was also deleted. Claudbaker

• No offence to Orangemike here, but I'm going to have to say overturn because I'm pretty sure that didn't actually make A7. The cached version states that the program "currently has more than 13,000 participants", which makes me want to do a Gsearch to check for notability. A PROD or possibly an AfD would've been more appropriate. It very well may fail an AfD, but it at least deserves the chance. Also, you probably should've taken it up with the deleting admin before bringing it here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support myself. The requesting editor did not raise this deletion with me or the nominator before bringing it here; but I'm not gonna make any procedural whines about it. In a planet of 6.6 billion, 13,000 participants is not an assertion of notability in my book. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn 13,000 for a religion based organisartion is an assertion of significance. In fact, it might be for anything else also--the standard is not "world-wide significance". DGG (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Overturn probably just barely asserts enough significance to escape speedy deletion. RMHED (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD, the assertion of notability is there although I highly doubt the claim will stick when subjected to community discussion. Shereth 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy for improvement. Per WP:ORG, "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." May is permissive, so I endorse the deletion as appropriate and within the guidelines. I think the best approach is to allow the concerned editors to improve the article in userspace; it can be moved to main article space once notability is clearly asserted. —C.Fred (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list - this was a tight call but I think that there is just enough here to escape an A7. This is a division of Torah Umesorah, a notable organisation. Consequently, if it is determined that there is insufficient notability for a stand-alone page then the solution would be a merge into Torah Umesorah - National Society for Hebrew Day Schools. Smile a While (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AFD As Shereth says I doubt it will survive AFD (especially after having searched for source myself) but there is some claim to importance in the article so it should go to AFD for a decision. Davewild (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spreadtrum Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unusual procedure of deleting,no warning or adding speedel tag,and didn't examine the deleting policy carefully Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• First, I'm gonna' go out on a limb here and assume that the cached version was what's deleted since there's only one deletion. The cached version doesn't make A1 because it's pretty easy to tell what the article will be talking about, a fabless semiconductor company. However, there's nothing in there which says why the company is important or significant, and failing to assert that is another criterion for speedy deletion. So, while I don't agree with the CSD used for deletion, I believe the content should stay deleted. Feel free to write a lengthier version which does assert the company's importance, however. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its IPO on the NASDAQ do signify the notability even for a layman reader.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which isn't on the cached version. If it was on the deleted version, it was added after the cached version was taken, and the reason I can't see is I lack access to Special:Undelete. If this is indeed the case, feel free to disregard my !vote. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo Finance NASDAQ:SPRD--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See this thread. My thinking was more or less close to Lifebaka's in that I saw it straight off as an A7, then, seeing the nom's A1, for me the single sentence was not enough to give the business context so I let the nom's category stand. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. WP:CSD#A1 doesn't apply because the stub uniquely identified its subject. WP:CSD#A7 doesn't apply, in my opinion, because the stub referenced the NASDAQ stock symbol for the article, which is a claim of importance by being a company with a publicly traded stock. GRBerry 13:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only noting here, I don't find a NASDAQ stock symbol in itself to be an assertion of importance, since it can be more or less purchased. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find plenty of Category:Companies listed on NASDAQ,so whether to delete most of them is justified by your criteria?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hope that most of these would also also have some notability beyond just being listed on Nasdaq. -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, Gwen's right. -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Uphold deletion (which would not rule out the later creation -- by Ksyrie or anybody else -- of a longer article about this company, an article that asserted notability and presented sources to back this up). -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Actually, I think NASDAQ is an indicator of significance: "NASDAQ lists approximately 3,200 securities, of which 335 are non-U.S. companies from 35 countries representing all industry sectors. To qualify for listing on the exchange, a company must be registered with the SEC, have at least three market makers (financial firms that act as brokers or dealers for specific securities), and meet minimum requirements for assets, capital, public shares, and shareholders." from the WP article. Now, obviously SEC registration is a minimal requirement, but the other conditions are indicators of importance & enough to pass speedy in all cases. As for AfD, there are 3 levels, Global Select, Global, and Capital market. Global Select, which requires essentially $100 Million revenue (or $3 Million profit) for initial listing is I think certainly enough to pass AfD. The next category, Global, requires $15 million stockholders equity & $1 million income for initial listing (or a variety of approximate equivalents) and I would argue that is significant enough for AfD also. The third, Capital Market, requires only $5 million equity. or similar so I can see that some people might want to require other factors, like market share, for AfD.. See [46]. DGG (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. There was sufficient context to identify it as a NASDAQ-listed company, and being listed on NASDAQ is an assertion of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. It seems as though it has now been established that the company is notable, although there really wasn't any assertion of notability in the stub. Still, perhaps AfD would have been better for it then, but given that we now know it's listed on NASDAQ, the deletion should be overturned and the article expanded and sourced. ʝuѕтɛn 22:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as certainly not an A1. The version in the cache, which has no indication that this is a NASDAQ-listed company (as a non-admin I have no access to the deleted version), would have qualified as an A7 but now that it has been shown to be NASDAQ-listed a straight overturn is in order. Smile a While (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As the deleting admin I'm happy to restore this following consensus that mention of a NASDAQ listing is in itself an assertion of importance. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to Tim Russert's death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

admin closed debate stating that the consensus was 'merge' which has stirred up a new debate on the article's talk page. Some additional admin and other opinions on this closing result and the process used would be appreciated. Rtphokie (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The closing admin closed as no consensus and said 'I think that a selective merger of this article to Tim Russert would be an appropriate editorial consequence'. A merger is an editorial decision as he says. I can't see what there is for deletion review to review here. Quite correctly a discussion is taking place in the appropriate place - the talk page of the article - to reach a consensus there. Any discussion of a merger should take place there. Davewild (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure [from AfD nominator]. This closure has been contested on Sandstein's talk page, the talk page of the AfD, the talk page of the article (sort of), ANI, and now here. Interestingly, all of these complaints about the closure are from people who want the article kept... even though the article is still around. That's right; the AfD was closed as "no consensus for deletion, default to keep", but apparently the side note about a future merge was too much for them and apparently so infuriating that it drove one of the most prominent keep !voters to storm off the wiki (ironically after proclaiming four times that I was angry). This is textbook article ownership. If there's any change that should be made to the result, it should be with a more forceful merge; the deletes and merges in the AfD are obviously interchangable, and we have keep !voters saying the equivalent of "keep now, but delete later". But, perhaps even that change is not necessary; on the AfD and on the talk page of the article itself, it's clear, if one can get past the statements of "this article is too long to merge" (more like "we have put too much filler into this article to merge"), that there's a consensus that this article does not belong on Wikipedia. Stop forum-shopping, and accept it. -- tariqabjotu 12:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about this process admin closed debate stating that the consensus was merge which they clarified here. There is NOTHING for this DRV to rule on - A merger discussion is ongoing on the talkpage, the outcome of this administration process will have no basis to influence or inform that editorial process. If at the talkpage, the consensus is that the article should be merged, it will be merged - regardless of what decisions are made here. --Killerofcruft (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong forum. Consensus to merge was not clear. Appropriate place to debate merger is on the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Close was no consensus, not merge. A suggestion to merge when explaining the close is prefecly fine. If you oppose a merger, right now the proper place to do so is the talk page of the article, not here. Also, as a note to Killerofcruft, DRV covers XfD closures whether they ended in delete or not. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarify the meaning of consensus: we seem to have a majority who favor deleting or merging the article, with a non-trivial minority opposed to it. The closing admin at the AfD appeared to suggest merging, although I'm not clear on the purpose of this statement if it carries no weight. In the absence of unanimity, is the default supposed to be "keep without merging", against the will of the majority? I realize it's not a vote, but it's not minority rule, either. We have discussed the future of the article extensively at the AfD and on the talk page. I believe it's time for there to be some resolution. I was bold and attempted a good faith merge (not simply a redirect), which was reverted and began a brief edit war. The edit warrior on the "keep" side of the argument now claims to have retired from Wikipedia in frustration, which is too bad, despite my disagreement with him. A clear judgment, one way or the other, would be better for the project and less frustrating to editors. Fletcher (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the closing admin. A somewhat more detailed explanation of my closure can be read at User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Russert tributes. No comment beyond that.  Sandstein  13:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Brunelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was marked for speedy deletion for non-notability immediately after I posted it and then deleted shortly afterwards without regard to my comments on the talk page.

I actually thought I was doing a service by translating this article from the French Wikipedia. Why is the article notable enough for inclusion on the French Wikipedia, but not the English? Are we provincial? Is the article notable for French readers, but not for English readers? I think education is global. Anyone wanting to study any global topic anywhere in the world should be able to do so without regard to his or her native reading language.

I also checked the notability guidelines before posting. How can this artist not be notable? He pioneered a whole sub-genre of music and considered its founding father. His music has been recorded by major record labels, has had extensive radio airplay, and he has had his own daily radio program. His discography runs from 1944 to 1962 and includes 49 singles and 14 LPs. Billboard.com also has 7 listings of re-releases in the 2000's.

If anyone wants to check the French Wikipedia article, I can save you a few steps in getting a translation by providing this translated link

Jkolak (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It might've been easier to just ask the deleting admin to rethink his decision first, but now that we're here... I'm not sure what the previous version stated, but from what I can see the guy appears to pass WP:MUSIC. I'd suggest, rather than complaining here to have it restored (which will probably take about a week), you should just go ahead and recreate the article. This will probably be the fastest solution. You should also make sure that the article does say why he's important up front, so that it won't be speedied again. If you don't already, try using the "show preview" button before saving. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I deleted this, since their were no independent verifiable references to support what was claimed. I have no objection to recreation, although as indicated above it needs to make clear why he's notable, preferably with references. jimfbleak (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, but there's no provision in A7 for sources. The issue there is separate from that of notability. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I didn't get back to you Jim. I couldn't get back to this right away and your ID is no longer tagged on the recreate/deletion page. Part of my delay was in a computer crash which has kept me offline for a while, and in which I lost my document. If someone could please undelete it, I would be glad to rewrite to better suit your suggestions.Jkolak (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy to User:Jkolak/Paul Brunelle. Advice for Jkolak: Add sources in the first edit, or create it in userspace first then move it when your done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - While unsourced, it asserted rather plenty of importance over a 40 year career to avoid a speedy deletion. Actually we have a process that allows for smoother accomodation of interwiki translations: WP:Translation. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn "He is considered the pioneer of country in Quebec and the main source of influence on the artist who would popularize the genre, Willie Lamothe." That is a clear claim of significance, which is all that is needed to escape A7 speedy deletion. Lack of sources is an issue for PROD or AFD, which allow time to demonstrate the existence of sources. GRBerry 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The criterion is no assertion at all, or at least no good faith assertion, and this unmistakably passes. It might need to be improved a little to pass afd, but that's for afd, not here. Contrary to what Jim thinks, "There were no independent verifiable references to support what was claimed" is not one of the reasons for speedy. I notice from his talk page that he has used this reason elsewhere as well. DGG (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC
• Overturn - Asserted notability. Sources not yet placed in the article is not A7 speedy deletion criteria. --Oakshade (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The article clearly asserted significance and notability and hence did not qualify for CSD A7. The latter explicitly states that the absence of sources is not a valid reason for A7 deletion: "This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources". A clear error by the deleting admin but Lifebaka is correct that it would have been better for Jkolak to contact the deleting admin before bringing the case to DRV. Nsk92 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn — I can't believe we have admins deleting articles who clearly don't understand the criteria. --Haemo (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British occupations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

I am concerned that the decision that no consensus to delete had been reached (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 8#Category:British Occupations) did not reflect the debate concerning this category. My interpretation of the deletion debate is there was a consensus to delete. This category was created by User:DonaldDuck as an attack category and originally included wildly inappropriate articles such as the BAOR and the Falkland War, I reverted many of those changes resulting in a category that was watered down compared with its original formula. In addition to creating the category, he has also been deleting a similar category from articles related to the Soviet Army; namely Soviet Occupations. Its clear that he is acting with a POV agenda and the creation of this category is part of that. Of its own right, it doesn't seem worthy of categorisation since it contains very few articles. Its vague and ill-defined, could I for instance legitimately add Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy? On several policy grounds its worthy of deletion, there was a consensus to do so even if you ignored at least one comment which was for a weak delete, there was several arguments why it should be deleted, there was no real argument for it to be kept - at best it should be renamed. I can accept, with qualifications, that if properly used it could become a legitimate category but not in its current form Justin talk 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my closure. Here's what I put on Justin's talk page: "...consensus isn't about numbers, it's about arguments. Clearly this wasn't an easy one, which is why no other admin had closed it earlier and it was 10 days overdue. There seemed a genuine division of opinion on whether the category could ever be used properly, at whatever name was chosen, which is why I called it as no consensus. Narson was a "weak delete" saying that it had potential if used correctly: that's an argument about use, not existence, of the category, and I gave that delete call less weight. There were some calls for a rename, which counted in favour of retention of the category in some form, but no consensus that this was the way forward. Hence, overall, no consensus but with closing comments that I thought we'd be back here again in due course - because I'm sure someone will initiate a wider discussion at some point." Bencherlite^Talk 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• All other participants in the discussion now notified with the same message. Bencherlite^Talk 23:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Read through the CfD, and there isn't any sort of consensus there. It's pretty evenly split between delete !votes and keep/rename !votes (both of which do mean overall retention). I endorse the no consensus closure. I'd say that the solution here would be to properly use it instead of deleting it. Work at it for a month or so, and if it's no working go back to CfD. And please keep in mind that a no consensus close doesn't preclude future CfDs on the cat. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that it certainly should be renamed and, as I said, it has potential if it is used correctly and there are enough articles there. I still have my doubts how many articles there are that are suitable for the article. Occupations are a relativly modern idea as a term (I think the 'legal' definition is from the late 1800s or early 1900s?). Though yes, as I said at the deletion, it could be given a chance. However, if it remains an attempt by an editor to forward an agenda, it should definatly be deleted until such time as someone is willing to acctually do it properly. Narson (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As a participant, voting to delete, endorse closure as votes to delete or keep/rename exactly matched each other numerically, and there were perfectly reasonable arguments for keeping it in an altered form (which it now is). Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to remind everyone what the comments etc in the review said:

Myself: Delete, Narson: Weak-Delete, Pfainuk: Delete, Johnbod: Delete, Berks911: Delete

DonaldDuck: Keep

Peterkingiron:Rename to British Military Occupations, LapsedPacficist:Rename

Comments about the category being vague and ill-defined: roundhouse0, Otto4711, Cgingold

There was only one real comment for keeping it unaltered and that was DonaldDuck who created it. All of the other participants noted that it was ill-defined and that it should be either renamed or deleted. If it were renamed or deleted I would have no problem with that, since that was the consensus. Keeping it unaltered is what I have an issue with. Justin talk 09:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closure doesn't preclude either of those things. And I'd like to point out that a rename can be done editorially without the need for a CfD. You are still free to persue one if you wish, just as you are free to alter the category within editorial limits (basically I mean not deleting it without another CfD, which is difficult to do without the mop). I still suggest that you work on making the cat NPOV for a month or two before considering deletion again. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused I thought an editor couldn't rename a category, looking at renaming takes me to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. I suppose I could create a new category from scratch and move the articles to that, then nominate it for deletion when its empty, is that what you mean? If it can simply be renamed I'd happily withdraw this nomination. Justin talk 11:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming categories is an admin power. Editors have to go through CFD or speedy renaming. Pfainuk talk 12:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, just shows my ignorance of the advanced workings of categories. Fix't above, but I still suggest you try working on it before another CfD. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can certainly see where "no consensus" came from based on the discussion - I still think it should be deleted, but there are legitimate arguments to keep (as I said at CFD). If it is retained here and continues to be used for POV purposes - as it certainly has been previously ([48]) - then it should be relisted and deleted. One thing that seems abundantly clear at this point is that if the category isn't deleted there is a consensus for renaming. Pfainuk talk 10:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The problem is that the category is ill-defined, and only has two entries at present. However, I think it could be converted into a useful category. "Occupation" is potentially a POV category, since it could be applied to any colony (or other territory) seeking independence, something that I would deplore. On the other hand, any succesful military invasion (even temporary) involvesd the occupation of the area behind the front line, but such articles would be better descriebd as "invasions" than as occupations, which suggests something more enduring. The term could however properly be applied to the occupations Iraq for some years after WWI; of Palestine (1918-48) under League of Nations Mandate; of the Caucasus under a British general called Thompson after WWI; and of the British military governement in the British zone of Germany after WWII, in the period before the British army of the Rhine became a mere garrison there. In none of these cases was there any real attemtp to establish a colony. This is not my period of history, so that I am reluctant to start making the requisite adjustments, quite apart from considerations of time. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it had about 8 entries when I commented, all I would say uncontroversial as being "British occupations". It should not really be mutilated in this way during this review. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to suggest that the Falklands War and British Forces Germany and similar articles are put back simply because there is a deletion review then I will object most strenuously. The category was created by the originator to make a point and many of the articles included in it showed that clearly; the same editor who at the time was merrily removing Soviet Occupations from other articles. There were legitimate reasons for removing the articles that have been removed. Some may have had article titles that sounded legitimate but if you looked at the article itself, it was in fact inappropriate. For information I have removed 2 articles, the other articles in there were the two deletion reviews added accidentally by muself which I believe were removed by Bencherlite^Talk when he kindly corrected my formatting. I suggest you check before bandying accusation of mutilating the category about. Justin talk 16:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Falklands were not there - as I remember it had articles on Japan & Germany post WWII. You should take your own advice! Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Bizone and Allied Occupation Zones in Germany yesterday. The Bizone refers to the amalgamation of British and American zones following the post-war period. The other article defines how Germany was divided up. Neither fit the category other than tangentially. Both are already heavily categorised and the category Allied occupation of Germany seemed perfectly adequate to me. I believe Narson removed one article, British Commonwealth Occupation Force, which describes a unit not an occupation. You are perfectly welcome to check my contribution history to verify all of this and indeed could have done so before making your last remark. Were you to do so you'll find I also removed the Falklands War from this category as well. 17:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I also removed the occupation of Japan. It is commonly referred to as a US occupation, British deployment was negligable and token. There are some pretty good British occupations in history, the problem would be finding an article that concentrates on them. There was an occupation of Gibraltar, but that is only covered on wikipedia as part of the larger Gibraltar article (And is quite an early use of Occupation, hence why it is interesting). Then there was the British forces at Murmansk/Archangel near Karelia (IIRC) after WW1, but I'm not sure we have an article on that. Also the Icelandic occupation during WW2, where there is a stub about Icelandic history in WW2 but nothing much on the occupation. Narson (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment if I may. The forces in Iraq and Palestine were there under a League of Nations mandate, the purpose of which was to to administer parts of the recently defunct Ottoman Empire..."until such time as they are able to stand alone.", occupation implies the seizure and holding of territory by military force and doesn't seem appropriate in this case. Also we already have the category "Allied occupation of Germany" for the post-war occupation of Germany, adding yet more to a topic that is already over-categorised seems inappropriate to me. Your comment that the category is ill-defined at present hits the nail on the head for me, leaving it open to the potential of its abuse for POV reasons - the reason for its creation in the first place. This is why I believe leaving it unaltered is a mistake and ignored the consensus that it needed attention. Justin talk

• I thought about closing it, even thought it was rather tl;dr. Had I done so, I would have closed it as rename, which is keep by another name. So I definitely endorse closure. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • tl;dr? Justin talk 07:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • tl;dr. Bencherlite^Talk 07:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vuillard sPortrait 1889.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Image is PD-US but not in home country and will soon be deleted from Commons. Commons file name is Image:Édouard Vuillard 001.jpg. -Nard 22:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the circumstance, an overturn of the most recent I8 deletion seems proper, if there isn't a way to keep the upload history intact through other methods. I'd assume a valid fair use can be made here (possibly not on Self-portrait, but cerainly on Édouard Vuillard), but I would suggest you submit a draft of it here before undeletion so that it can easily be added to the image when undeleted. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Was just put up for deletion, so I don't think this is necessary yet, so it might not be necessary. commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Édouard Vuillard 001.jpg only has the nomination statement on it so far. I'd also like to ammend my previous statement to say that it'd probably be better to keep the image at its current title instaed of the one in the nom to avoid confusion and the need to update the articles. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore - this won't survive on commons. GRBerry 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World Trade Organization (WTO) (edit | [[Talk:Template:World Trade Organization (WTO)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|TfD)