Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 12

Google Watch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

• Here we go again, folks. Page was deleted, even though the consensus at the AFD was for a merge. Brandt requested that the redirect be deleted, and User:NuclearWarfare complied. The result of the AFD was a merge, and the deletion of the redirect was not agreed to anywhere in that AFD. The deletion of this redirect seems to me to be a violation of the proper procedure for deleting redirects, which would be to list them at Redirects for Deletion. I ask that the article be undeleted and posted there so that community can discuss the issue and decide whether or not to delete the redirect, as opposed to one admin unilaterally deciding the best course of action. It seems logical to leave redirect at Google Watch to point searchers to the current location of the information at Criticism of Google, so the reason given in NuclearWarfare's edit summary ("No reason to keep this redirect around") is not sufficient to account for this article's deletion.

• Note: I have discussed this with the deleting admin. See User talk:NuclearWarfare#Deletion of Google Watch. He consented to a review of his actions here. Cerebellum (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (i.e. allow the redirect to be restored) , per nom. The closer is of course entitled to agree with Brandt, but should go through the proper venues to propose such a deletion. --Cyclopia^talk 21:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, for pities sake. Are we to be Daniel Brandt's puppets? Restore the redirect and page history, that deletion was totally without justification. Fences&Windows 21:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy restore come on, really? Hobit (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, admins shouldn't be deleting redirects on their own that don't meet the speedy criteria. Hobit (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not see why the deletion is necessary, especially since it effectively prevented editorial overturning of the merge, the ground upon which the previous DRV was closed. Given the numerous serious irregularities pointed out during the AfD, I wonder if that debate is safe enough as a basis for taking action. Tim Song (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting admin: I have already provided a copy of the Wikitext of the article to Cyclopia and will happily do so again to anyone who requests it, provided that they attribute it properly when merging information. The history of the article has been preserved. The redirect was causing an annoyance to the website operator and was not really necessary for us (really, what good does it do?), so I decided to exercise my judgment and delete the article. NW (Talk) 22:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. This is how I would've closed the debate. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Ditto. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the two of you indicate which debate you are referring to? As far as I can tell, the debate was closed as a redirect and then the redirect was later deleted. Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I thought it was clear: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (4th nomination). It was originally closed as "redirect" and then changed to "delete." I was saying that, had I been the one to close that debate, I would've just closed as "delete" originally. The votes in favor of outright deletion seem to pretty clearly in the majority. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, that close still reads as "merge". Hobit (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete the redirect to Criticism of Google, was deleted for no real reason, is a reasonable search term. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this debate is confusing regarding the question of the XfD and the question of the deletion of the redirect (after the history was moved elsewhere). I Endorse the XfD decision, as a fair reading of rough consensus, but !vote overturn on the out-of-process deletion of the history-less redirect. When someone does searches for "google watch", do we want them sent to Criticism of Google, or pointed to "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (n^th nomination)"? Try searching now and see what you see. The deletion of reasonable search-term redirects is stupid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion of the redirect. The redirect was deleted out of process without a discussion at RfD and without meeting any of the criteria for speedy deletion. NW's reasoning for ignoring the rules and deleting the redirect is, frankly, weak. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as out of process since the AfD was foolishly closed as merge instead of delete, which was the supported outcome of the debate, and restart a proper AfD without the foolish canvassing to remove any doubt about the validaty of the outcome. What did I tell you about IAR and this AfD?[1]. I hope you learned something from this. People aren't stupid; you're hurting the cause rather than helping it when you do it this way. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -- a request by the banned user Daniel Brandt is, by itself, an insufficient justification for any deletion. Andrea105 (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that this is the banned user John254. NW (Talk) 04:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lol. Abductive (reasoning) 14:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and stop the drama queenery, since being banned does not prevent one from requesting such a deletion on BLP grounds. Some people here just need to let go. Tarc (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, "being banned does not prevent" administrators from acting on a genuinely justified request for "deletion on BLP grounds." However, any deletion (or other administrative action) requires some articulated basis beyond the mere fact that a banned user requested the action. Andrea105 (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse - 14 afds and countless articles. Wikipedia treated this guy like shit, and keeping a needless redirect either out of spite or process wankery is contemptible. Move on folks, it is the right thing to do.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I am not seeing a problem with NW's decision. This is what I would have done. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and move on already - I'm not seeing any problems with NW's decisions nor actions here. This time-wasting Brandt-hate needs to stop already, and everyone needs to move on (yes, myself included). Let it go already - Alison ^❤ 03:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me with a straight face how a simple redirect for a reasonable search term to an article that never, ever cites Brandt be "Brandt-hate". He doesn't want the link because of the quirks of Google ranking algorithms, but that's hardly our problem, and that's hardly "hating" him to maintain a simple redirect. Please. --Cyclopia^talk 03:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I calls 'em as I sees 'em, Cyclopia. How many Brandt-related articles ended up at DRV in the last month or so? Personally, I'm no fan of the man - everyone knows that, especially given that his website informed a stalker as to my whereabouts. Old news now. But this nonsense needs to stop, once and for all - Alison ^❤ 03:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the memo where it said "We must delete all trace of Daniel Brandt from Wikipedia". What merits this treatment that means we must comply with his wishes to delete all articles about him and his enterprises, regardless of editorial judgement? You're all looking like his useful idiots. Fences&Windows 03:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "regardless of editorial judgment" - that's already been made and the article has been rightfully deleted. But here we are again, at another pointless divisive DRV. The article quite simply failed WP:WEB, plain and simple. Yet somehow, these articles are so vital to Wikipedia, somehow, that we have to fight tooth-and-nail to keep them. Now why is that?? - Alison ^❤ 03:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tooth and nail? I gladly accepted the merge outcome, despite my feeling that the topic was worth an article in itself. As you can see, at least I am quite open to compromise. But deleting the redirect is plain wrong. The close made no mention of that, the deletion happened only after and without discussing it, and no one can disagree that it is a reasonable search term. About the "why", however, it is maybe because, ehm, such subjects are actually notable? --Cyclopia^talk 03:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Wikipedia Review is quite honestly becoming the new IRC for arranging shady actions, and I really hope at some point to see something done about that, to whatever extent it can be. Aside from my own personal strong distaste for that, however, the redirect does not meet any speedy deletion criteria, nor is BLP of any relevance here (the title of the redirect has nothing to do with any living person, it's the name of a website!) It's certainly a search term someone might use, and there is interest in merging (which requires leaving the redirect intact). If Nuclear Warfare feels the redirect should be deleted, there's a place for that, but it's not speedyable, and I see no rationale for why an exception is warranted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore article history. This gamery has got to stop. If people want the article deleted, close the original Afd as delete, and we can have the deletion review of that extremely screwy debate, because NW either cannot or will not answer some simple questions about his closure as merge, as well as now deleting it outright after a bit of undocumented offsite negotiations. Any article other than a Brandt one and that's a desysyopping right there tbh. You simply cannot close something as merge, throw out a DRV because it was a merge, stick two fingers up at everyone and go and delete it anyway, and then claim you are somehow doing the right thing. MickMacNee (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion but restore the redirect. The game of poking Brandt with a sharp stick has long since lost its novelty. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hardly matters, but the admins who abuse their tools in this way should resign in shame.--Kotniski (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Over one redirect...? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over the principle of the thing. If you take sides in a debate, you don't even close the debate, you certainly don't take administrative action in contradiction to what you know to have been the outcome of the debate. If you can't be trusted over the small things, you can't be trusted.--Kotniski (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:NuclearWarfare/Recall or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. If you want to call for my head, please do so through proper channels instead of dramamongering. NW (Talk) 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't you I necessarily meant... But it would be nice if admins who have done wrong would admit and reverse their mistakes instead of trying to justify them or blaming others for pointing them out. --Kotniski (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn -- it's one thing to invoke IAR in the absence of a community discussion -- but using it to override/ignore a discussion that has already taken place goes much too far. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overriding a community discussion? I'm not sure I ever did that. I closed an AfD as "the article should not exist as a standalone one." I merged it, perhaps not in the standard way of move content + redirect, but I still merged it in a way that was fine for our licensing. The AfD could have been even been closed as delete; there was a perfectly fine consensus to do so at the AfD itself... NW (Talk) 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion of the community resulted in consensus to merge/redirect; we know this because you closed the AfD that way. To then delete it unilaterally is to override/ignore a community discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I fully support deletion of anything involving Daniel Brandt. The man has a long history of outing Wikipedia editors who say things he doesn't like, and there are children and vulnerable people who edit Wikipedia. We don't need to be leaving booby traps for our people.

  However, we should be more honest about the reasons why we delete Brandt-related articles.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • S Marshall, I'm not really sure what you mean. I never hid the fact that I deleted a measly redirect per DB's request. Could you explain further please? NW (Talk) 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not accusing you of hiding anything, NW; nor in fact am I accusing you of anything at all. I just think this DRV will be read in conjunction with the previous one for Scroogle and editors who aren't familiar with Brandt may be perplexed at the outcomes which are not strictly consistent with normal Wikipedian custom and practice.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (later) On re-reading that remark, it may not shed any light. I was trying to say that I think Wikipedia is officially oblivious to Mr Brandt, and I think that is as it should be. But I think the reason Wikipedia turns a blind eye has to do with a long, long series of dramas. MZM hints at this early in the discussion thread but didn't make it explicit.

      I've no doubt whatsoever that you, NW, fully understood what MZM was saying and gave his view appropriate weight. I think editors unfamiliar with the preceding drama may find this decision perplexing and more on the history would be helpful in the closing statement.

      None of the above remarks are meant as criticism of you, in any way.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn This is unjustified. Deletion of the redirect was entirely outside and contrary to process. The AfD was closed as mere, not delete. The only grounds on which such a deletion of the redirect without specific consensus to do so could be justified would be as an office action, and if so it should have been stated. Tthis is to some extent compatible with what S Marshall just stated, about how it must be done if it is to be done; I do not however endorse his reason. letting outsiders dictate the contents of Wikipedia is contrary to NPOV; removing redirects because we do not like the person is equally so, and shows irresponsibility. Perhaps that what Brandt was trying to get us to do--prove that we were incapable of following our own principles. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly, at RFD, redirects default to delete on a "no consensus" outcome; there's plenty of precedent for deleting a redirect without consensus. Whether that's as it should be is another question (and I think not one to be discussed at a Brandt-related DRV).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion.... (disclaimer: I participated in the AFD) Deleting the redirect of the name of the website has nothing to do with BLP reasons. It's about the owner of the website wanting to reduce the Page Rank of the name in wikipedia for his own personal reasons. There is no policy anywhere to do any such thing, and no consensus to abide to such requests. As other say, let's be clear here about the real reasons for deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• P.D.: the history has been posted in the other talk page for attribution, NuclearWarfare already performed a merge[2], and other content was merged by Cyclopia [3]. So, there is no problem with keeping the history deleted, I think that we can simply re-create the redirect. But I'll note that deleting the history was out of process anyways and that it wouldn't have been done if there hadn't been off-wiki pressure. All of these actions were just patches to fix the problems caused by having abided to external pressures that go against our policies on content. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion of the redirect. The AFD was not closed as delete, nor was there a DRV discussion to change that result. The redirect does not meet any CSD criterion, and there was no RFD discussion of it. The only justification for this completely out-of-process, IAR deletion is that it was requested by Brandt based on a supposed "BLP issue". But the destination article does not contain unsourced or critical material about Brandt, nor does it even mention his name. The "BLP issue" he raised: that Google might lead people to the Criticism of Google article when they searched for him! This "issue" is in no way a violation of the WP:BLP policy or any other policy, guideline or common consensus. We do not have a policy that we will help people manipulate the results given by third-party search engines. Searching for my name produces as a top result a WP article about an attempted Presidential assassin. That does not mean I should approach an admin with a request for an out-of-process deletion of that article as a "BLP issue". Absent this ridiculous pseudo-BLP complaint, it is hard to imagine what would justify the deletion of the redirect, since "Google Watch" is a reasonable search term associated with criticism of Google, and the destination article does discuss the site. Brandt is entirely within his rights to raise legitimate BLP issues when they exist, but that does not include a right to remove anything dislikes by trumping it up as a "BLP issue". --RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The decision to delete the redirect was a good and proper one, and supported by the consensus on the AfD SirFozzie (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The eventual outcome is the right one, and as SirFozzie notes is supported by the AfD consensus. Kevin (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The AFD consensus was to merge, not to delete. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the deletion of this unnecessary and inflammatory redirect. *** Crotalus *** 15:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inflammatory? There appears to be one person in the entire world who is "inflamed" by it. I understand the Endorse comments that think the AFD should have been closed as delete in the first place, but I don't see how a redirect that would seem perfectly reasonable under normal circumstances can be classified as "inflammatory" based on one person's irrational complaints. --RL0919 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as Guy mentions, this is just stick poking for the sake of stick poking GTD 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me at least it is a matter of process. Do we really delete redirects to relevant articles because someone asks us to? Or even worse, because someone threatens us? Maybe that's process for processes sake, but I'm very uncomfortable with it. Hobit (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- There surely are people who did not vote Keep in the Afd and will not vote Overturn here fearing repercussions.--M4gnum0n (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Repercussions? Like what, an ASCII horse's head left on someone's user page? Tarc (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Like being listed at Hivemind... –xeno^talk 14:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The AfD resulted in Merge, so merge it. --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was merged... NW (Talk) 20:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. But nowhere it has been decided consensually to delete the redirect. The AfD never, ever dealt with the redirect -obviously, because it had been set up by you after the closure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if the AfD was closed as delete, I think nothing prevents re-creating it as a redirect if it is a useful search term -see WP:DEL#Redirection for example. --Cyclopia^talk 20:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keeping the redirect is an important part of the merge. If the content of the Google Watch article is now in Criticism of Google, Google Watch should take you to Criticism of Google. --GRuban (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. "Merge" =/= "delete", even if you rearrange the letters. --Calton | Talk 02:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The BLP question was at the AfD and was not accepted there. BLP as applying to the redirect is ridiculous as it amounts to saying that being associated with the criticism of google is a libel or untrue. BLP questions are resolved by the community, and the only ones capable of overriding that is Office. No one individual admin, is a better judge--and this out of process deletion of the redirect shows that very well. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Per DGG. Protonk (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Behind-the-scenes talk on Wikipedia Review, IRC, whatever shouldn't affect any potentially-controversial administrative actions on-wiki. If the redirect is problematic, put it up for deletion. ThemFromSpace 12:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Very clearly against normal procedure for merge closes, and after an AfD where there were reasons for questioning the deletes, not the keeps. No reason based in policy or common sense for not having a redirect with history as usual.John Z (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of redirect I think that the decision to delete the redirect was perfectly reasonable. In all honesty, from my quick reading of the AFD, the consensus was really to delete anyway. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion of redirect Clearly out of process deletion of redirect. This is an appropriate redirect per Wikipedia:Redirect#Sub-topics and small topics in broader contexts and there was no basis in policy or guideline for the unilateral deletion of the redirect after closing the discussion as merge. No one arguing for endorse above, or for delete in the AFD has provided any policy or guideline basis for why thie redirect is inappropriate and the arguments that are not on that basis should be ignored in making the closure. Davewild (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I noted in the AfD discussion that this would inevitably close as delete, which would be completely WP:IAR no matter what window dressing and huge helpings of discussion we lathered upon it. The merge and deletion of the redirect was the crafty method used. The reinstatement of the redirect, which appears to be the consensus view here, is going to open the door to the recreation of the Google Watch article again (which could easily happen due to the myriad sources discussing it, which would normally pass 99 out of 100 AfDs for any other article). And any recreation will immediately lead to another deletion nomination. So if the redirect is reinstated, I suggest it be permanently protected so we can go on building an encyclopedia. Whether Google Watch has its own article or a few mentions in the merged article is of extremely minimal importance in the big picture, and this series of related-article debates has wasted huge amounts of editor time.--Milowent (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion of redirect, per DGG, an out of process deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion of redirect. I'm not clear why there was an IAR deletion, given the dozens of souces, but a delete and redirect seems harmless. In fact, it may better forestall the recreation of an article. Abductive (reasoning) 14:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Keyes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was dropped off at the AfD's talkpage, copying it to here: "5 votes over a period of just a few days does not translate to concensus. The article was a mess and looked like it had been written by a fan, but a little time should have been given for other persons to edit it, clean it up, and establish notability for Mr. Keyes. According to the Internet Movie Database, Keyes has had recurring roles in a number of TV shows, in addition to his co-starring role in Ben 10:Alien Swarm. I suggest that we restore this article, and heavily rewrite it to convey notability and remove the bias. Michaelh2001 (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
treelo _radda 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closer. Michaelh2001, I'm sorry you're disappointed in the outcome, and you're welcome to work on a version of the article in your userspace then return to deletion review when it appears as though the article meets WP:ENT. According to our deletion policy, the discussion and my close of it were perfectly within process. Fences&Windows 18:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Straightforward close. There is no quorum at AFD, and in any event five !votes exceed whatever threshold there may be. Tim Song (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, valid closure. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Couldn't be closed any other way. Agree that salting this would be the wrong thing. Hobit (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The !vote was 4-1, with the one keep opinion not offering any policy-based rationale for keeping the article beyond that they believed the subject was notable. Arguments have to be backed with evidence, not with hand-waiving. The admin coudln't have made any other decision here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse Consensus is clear. No serious issues have been raised. No objection to a new article if substantial new sources are presented. That has not happened. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure The consensus to delete was clear. The only "keep" voter did not present a strong argument. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Close was done per policy. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, as suggested above, if you can do better, do it in userspace, but the nominator does not offer any indicator of what substantive independent reliable source coverage exists, nor was any such provided at the AfD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Both notability and copyright issues; close accurately reflects !voting discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kairosis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Change in Reliable Sources policy since 2008 Fifelfoo (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Went to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Kairosis who recommended WP:DRV; statement from there was, Kairosis was deleted in circumstances where accepted PhD theses were not appropriate nor High Quality reliable sources. Sourcing policy has changed since mid 2008, and PhD theses available for consultation that have been accepted are RS. The grounds for the deletion of this article being overturned I requested that the deleting administrator reverse their deletion on 4 November 2009. I believe a sufficient amount of time has passed to allow that administrator to respond, and they haven't done so (they're on an extended leave). As such I would like Kairosis undeleted, as the deletion rationale is no longer an element of wikipedia policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Might be a good idea to relist this at AfD as the notability issue was not fully addressed by nom, but the change in WP:RS may justify a new discussion. Tim Song (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn because this article might not be deleted today given the changes to reliable sources policy. Relist at AfD if so desired. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit restoration in user space This needs fuller discussion. Sources are not either Reliable or Not-Reliable--there is a gradation. Though phd theses often can be RS for many purposes, they rank relative low in the hierarchy of academic writing, and the use of an idiosyncratic term in one does not make something notable--unlike the case of its use by a major author in the field. If the only author using it in the manner suggested here is Russell in his thesis, I would not say it was notable. If the application to Emma is in the thesis it can be quoted--the source is sufficiently reliable for that, though not for notability , but otherwise it is OR. On the other hand, if Kermode did use this word in this manner, it would probably be notable since he is a major academic critic, and his use of the term would be enough. But I'm not sure he did (I don't have the book at hand today) --he is more likely to be referring instead to the closely related term Kairos-- certainly that is the word and the meaning in all the GBooks quotes that refer to his use. [4]. (The adjective kairotic seems to usually refer just to Kairos). I would suggest the rewritten article try to give more of the context. I am by no means convinced. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Sound rationale as given above by Fifelfoo (talk · contribs), who is experienced with sourcing issues. Cirt (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Crit. Trusted editor thinks they can fix the issues, I say let them try. Hobit (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore without prejudice to another AFD. Given the change in WP:RS, let's allow some reconsideration. Tim Song (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Napolis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfD was closed as delete, allegedly for WP:BLP concerns. Problems I identify with the closure are:

• There was no real consensus. Bare count shows 14 Deletes and 10 Keeps ; many of the delete !votes are one-liners that sometimes did not cite policy or guidelines at all (see first 3 ones for example); while keep !votes often brought sources relevant to the page notability and directly addressed the possible BLP1E concerns
• Many of the delete !votes acknowledged nonetheless that the page passes notability guidelines, per links to academic books and by the fact that she is notable for several incidents
• The subject did not request deletion
• When asked on the talk page, the closer admin explained the closure with arguments that, in my opinion [5] basically amounted to "I don't like it": the line She was only known for "stalking" celebs, and an article like that would always have serious BLP issues. is especially worrying because (1)we are not here to judge why a subject is notable, per WP:NPOV (2)we do not delete for issues that are not yet present, and that can anyway be dealt with editing, per deletion policy

For all these reasons I believe the correct closure should have been no consensus and, per our deletion policy, default to keep. Cyclopia^talk 13:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why has it become increasingly apparent that DRV is being used as a vehicle for forum shopping? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there an increase? Looks about like the same level of attempts to make Drv Afd2 as always, although I have not made a study of it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Juliancolton and KillerChihuahua, I would appreciate if you can withdraw, or at best explain, your comments. My intention is not that of doing forum shopping or Afd part 2. This is a problematic close, at least in my view, because it does not comply properly with policy and the debate, and DRV, as far as I understand, is meant exactly for this kind of concerns. There are many AfD I participated where I was against consensus and I gladly accepted the outcome without further questioning. This is not one of these cases, and, in my own opinion, for good reasons. If you have problems with the existence of DRV per se, that's another question. Thank you. --Cyclopia^talk 18:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. I'm supporting the close (if just barely) and I see plenty of reason to bring this here. Certainly reasonable for DrV to look at. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As of late, any non-straightforward BLP-related AfD is brought to DRV by someone who happens to disagree with the result. Then there's a long, drawn-out debate, with all the usual suspects, and the admin barely scrapes by with his head intact. DRV should be used only if there's a real reason to believe the closing admin made a blatantly erroneous closure, not to try to get the desired result by starting a new thread—which, with all due respect, is what I believe is happening here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the delete !votes were frankly wrong. Claiming BLP1E and not being able to cite what the one event is indicates a serious problem. Those !votes probably should have been greatly discounted. Getting the "delete" close required a fair bit of IAR. Plus we have admins who are trying to change policy via their closes (and in many cases admit it). Those clearly need to come to DrV. As does the one where a new admin made a pretty wrong-headed closing statement. Hobit (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Juliancolton, my personal guess is that if any non-straightforward BLP-related AfD is brought to DRV by someone who happens to disagree with the result. is not for mere disagreeing with the result, but because BLPs are often being treated by a small subset of admins very differently than other articles: what I mean, more differently than allowed by WP:BLP or other policies. I guess that if BLP articles are deleted correctly following consensus and policies, there will be a sudden drop in such DRVs. --Cyclopia^talk 22:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hobit: it's not up to the closing admin to decide which votes are "wrong" or "right", just to determine which ones present more reasonable and solid arguments. Yes, changing a policy unilaterally and then closing an AfD based on the new rules is an error... but I don't see anything like that in this AfD.

  @Cyclopia: I'm sure you understand the significance of the BLP issue and the desperate need to resolve it. Yes, BLPs should unquestionably be dealt with differently than "normal" articles. BLP, like all policies and guidelines, merely describes the most common situations and how to deal with them; it is by no means fully comprehensive. That's why we elect admins—to decide how to best deal with the circumstances at hand. I'm not explicitly endorsing this DRV yet, because I haven't evaluated the AfD thoroughly enough to do so fairly, but just my $0.02. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• By "wrong" I meant that they claimed the article was in violation of a policy (BLP1E) that it clearly wasn't. So those !votes should be greatly discounted as they were neither reasonable nor based in policy. I think we agree on the idea that an admin should discount (reduce in value, not ignore) !votes that lack a policy-based reason for the action they suggest. With respect to the more general issue, we've also had closers "defaulting to delete" and one new admin who overstepped the bounds between !voting and closing. Those all certainly belong here as there were serious problems with those closes. Hobit (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Juliancolton: First, if BLP is not comprehensive and if there is a systematic need for more guidelines and policies, let's propose and discuss them. Admins should decide "how to best deal with the circumstances at hand" by following policy and guidelines. They are, nor should be, demigods acting against community consensus and consensual guidelines. If policies and guidelines need to be implmented or changed, they have to be extensively discussed before with the community, otherwise this becomes an admin-based oligarchy, and for sure it's not what we want.

Second, I frankly see no "desperate need to resolve it". I personally think that, while for sure BLPs have presented problems, the whole BLP issue is way inflated and that the so-called BLP problem, while important, is not as huge as thought by several editors. Now, I for sure understand that BLPs need special attention, but I see no BLP issue solved through deletion. If an article is not neutral, is defamatory, subject to vandalism etc., all of this can be solved by editing and protection levels. If the BLP is really in truth describing a single event (BLP1E), usually a rename/redirect and merge, or a refactoring of the article to address the event are more than enough. I see the BLP issue as a need to have better quality control, but there is no way in which deleting articles here and there will be useful. Once notability is established, we should not decide further what is worth of inclusion and what not: we should just follow the sources. --Cyclopia^talk 23:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Second, I frankly see no "desperate need to resolve it". I personally think that, while for sure BLPs have presented problems, the whole BLP issue is way inflated and that the so-called BLP problem, while important, is not as huge as thought by several editors." All due respect, as always, but if that is really your view than I suggest it's probably best to avoid BLP-related discussions, since you clearly don't comprehend what a big problem they present. Wikipedia articles routinely ruin people's lives and reputations. Vandalism and libel inserted into BLPs has the potential to get someone fired. OTRS regularly deals with requests from individuals to delete their articles. And yet here we are, hiding beyond our pseudonyms, deciding whether marginally noteworthy people who might have, at best, received to a couple passing mentions in newspapers should be subject to that. Surely you can agree that's a bit of a problem? Surely you can agree it's downright rude to let people be miserable in real life because they happen to meet some arbitrary notability guideline? Surely you can agree that Wikipedia is a real-word entity that causes issues every day? This is very disappointing Cyclopia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't avoid BLP-related discussion precisely for my view. I expect WP to be a thoroughly comprehensive encyclopaedia. That is, the goal should be that everything which has been covered by WP:RS should be included in some form. In the case of BLPs, it seems this goal is actively repudiated, and this is a form of self-censorship I cannot accept. Because if in the short run we maybe make a couple of people happier, in the long run we make this project a laughable self-censored caricature of what it should have been, and we lose forever a collection of information which is valuable to all mankind. No reputable journalist ever restrains her/himself from freely reporting public and reasonably widespread information about a subject like we currently do. No reputable journalist retires a factual, non-libelous article from circulation only because the subject doesn't like it. If there is public information out there, good or bad, it is our duty to report it for the sake of building the encyclopedia. There is nothing "rude" in that; if you happen to be notable and already covered in public sources, everyone has the right to report such information -unless you think that reporting public facts is somehow rude. Now, I understand all what you say about BLPs, yet it doesn't make a case for deletion of any biography covered by RS. It just makes a case for being more careful about them (for example, I would endorse semiprotection-by-default of such articles). And again, yes, all what you say happens, yet when attempted to quantify it (see this thread for an example of a rough back of the envelope calculation), estimates are that ~0.1% of all ~500.000 BLPs ever presented some kind of trouble. Which is not irrelevant, given the huge amount of biographies, but for sure not as troubling as it could be, given the nature of WP. But again, that's not the point. The point is that none of these problems will be solved by deletion, unless you want to go the tough way and delete every BLP from here (I know of people who would like so). To do so, however, you need to change policy in such direction. And to change policy, you need consensus of the community. And such consensus should be firmly established and consolidated into explicit policies and guidelines. When this will happen, I will acknowledge that. If it doesn't, admins should refrain from pushing by force what they can't obtain by consensus, and live with that. If this disappoints you, well, sorry for you. --Cyclopia^talk 02:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try this again. No website is worth ruining people's real lives for. Wikipedia was largely initiated as an experiment, to see what would happen if a bunch of nobodies with computers started editing a website together. I love Wikipedia; I use it every day, I've been a contributor and sysop for years, and I think it's a great example of what the Internet is capable of. But I think we're taking ourselves far too seriously if we think deleting content on utterly non-notable people reduces our potential to be "a collection of information which is valuable to all mankind".

Obviously, public figures such as Tiger Woods should know they're going to be subject to extremely close scrutiny, and thus it's not unreasonable to include information on their controversies and issues. But the vast majority of all BLP subjects are not public figures, nor are they even to be considered "noteworthy" in any legitimate sense of the word. Notability is a term that WP has frankly FUBAR'd. We have hundreds of thousands of articles on non-public figures who have been mentioned in two or three websites, and those are the articles we need to be particularly careful of, and delete if we deem appropriate. Of course, it will take years and thousands of kilobytes of discussion to get notability guidelines changed; but again, this is why we have AfD, to decide which articles aren't worth of inclusion. It's not "self-censorship", it's a matter of common sense. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No website is worth ruining people's real lives for. -You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. If we want a right to free speech , including the right to report factual information for knowledge purposes, we have to accept the risk that something goes awry here and there. To make an analogy: Cars kill a lot of people. I suspect no Saturday night with friends, or no puntuality at the dentist are worth ruining people's real lives for. Yet we continue to use cars for these purposes, and even more frivolous ones, and I'm sure you would not like if tomorrow someone obliges you to take a car only for life-or-death things. We simply accept a compromise, and live with that. I can't see why here it cannot be the same.

Notability is a term that WP has frankly FUBAR'd. - I happen to think instead that the WP definition of notability is the best one, because it is as objective as possible. It requires little opinion or guessing: if you have been covered in RS, it means one can derive material for an entry; therefore you deserve an entry. If we should write only about "notable" subject in the meaning of "known to the layman", you realize this project would immediately become worthless.

But I think we're taking ourselves far too seriously if we think deleting content on utterly non-notable people reduces our potential to be "a collection of information which is valuable to all mankind" - We should take ourselves seriously. This can seem a wacky website, but it is actually one of the most thorough and gigantic (even if flawed and idiosyncratic) structured compendia of information ever built by humankind, and it should be preserved with care. Now, deleting what you call "utterly non notable people" is far more worrying than deleting Barack Obama or Julius Caesar. Because even if WP disappears tomorrow, on these subjects there will be always thousands of books, essays etc., and we are superflous to document them for the future. But obscure subjects is exactly where Wikipedia shines. We can thoroughly document and collect information about subjects whose knowledge could be otherwise forever scattered among dozens of sources, often to the point of being, with all our shortcomings, the best source available on such subjects. I cannot imagine how valuable will be such a thing only 100 years from now. Imagine magically having a Wikipedia coming to us from the Roman empire: We would be reading their articles on Cicero or Nero, but we would be much more busy discovering about people whose name we would have otherwise forgot forever, to understand fully that society.

Finally, where can we move this discussion? It is going to be waaay offtopic. My place or your place? :) --Cyclopia^talk 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, there is no "right of free speech" on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and keep, it is clear that no consensus was established in this debate. Cerebellum (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• very weak endorse I personally think the arguments to delete were poor. If people want to delete an article due to a policy (BLP1E) they should explain why it applies when asked. I'm still unsure what the claimed "one-event" was. That said, this one probably hits the "do no harm" part of WP:BLP and while I'd have certainly closed it as no consensus to delete due to the weak !votes for deletion, I think it was within admin discretion to delete due to the BLP issues (mental health issues). Just because many of the !votes cited the wrong policy, doesn't mean the admin can't accept them for what they were trying to argue. Hobit (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bah, I'm moving to overturn honestly per Protonk. Counting and looking again, the arguments to delete were weak (as I said above) and while I would likely !vote to delete this by IAR (as "icky") I don't really see consensus to delete. I'm quite sympathetic to the desire to delete this, but don't see any justification in the AfD or policy to support it. Hobit (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Looks like a reasonable close to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I hate those BLP DRVs. Endorse per Hobit, mostly. The BLP1E argument was fairly weak, but there are serious BLP concerns here independent of the BLP1E issue. Tim Song (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns that cannot be addressed with editing, protection etc.? Which ones? Neither the closer nor you ever explained why such "concerns" qualify for deletion. --Cyclopia^talk 20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I rarely do this, but I think this is just one of the subjects on which we should not have an article, not because she does not pass WP:N or WP:1E, but because it's just unseemly, in my view, to have an article on a mentally disturbed person whose only claim to notability is due to her mental disturbance. This is not a biography that we absolutely must have. If necessary, consider this an explicit invocation of WP:IAR as a basis for my !vote. Tim Song (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand your concerns, really. I think that cherry-picking subjects that you personally deem unfit ("unseemly") for an article, despite notability, is a WP:NPOV violation: it brings, at least, a substantial bias on our scope. However thanks for your clarification. --Cyclopia^talk 21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Whatever the close, the closer should have taken into account the canvassing at Wikipedia Review - but they themselves posted to that Wikipedia Review thread. This canvassing has been plaguing BLP AfDs lately and it needs to stop. That it involves admins who are !voting in and closing discussions is even worse. This is part of a campaign by a group of admins to delete marginal BLPs, and after they failed to get a change in policy they are instead proceeding to close AfDs as they see fit rather than by consensus. Fences&Windows 22:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, not. AfD and DRVs tell us if things are shifting or not. They are. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Na, a group of admins are just trying to get around a consensus they don't like, and are skirting WP:CANVAS to do it by doing their canvasing off-site. The next discussion at WP:DEL will be like the last half dozen. Hobit (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you call yourself, Cyclopia and a few others who always take up more than half of these DRVs a consensus... *coughs*. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I call [6] a consensus. I'm pretty sure you are aware of it, as you commented there... Hobit (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion... as Julian says, it would be nice if every single BLP didn't get DRVed regardless of the outcome. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably would happen more if the admins closing the BLPs followed policy more often. Just saying. Hobit (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn Clearly not a BLP1E. Not having every possible BLP concern fixed during an AfD is not grounds for deletion so closing rationale doesn't work. I also agree with Fences remark that offsite canvassing for the deletion of articles needs to stop. It taints these discussions to an extent that simply from that I'd be inclined to overturn. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure BLP concerns place this in the realm of admin discretion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse -- an article for the sole purpose of describing a living person's craziness is inconsistent with intent of the biographies of living persons policy. Andrea105 (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse BLP concerns are valid, I'm getting a little tired of Cyclopia and others using DRV as forum shopping. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again? If you think this is forum shopping, all of DRV is. I listed several points which made the closure problematic. As I said above, I accepted tons of AfD where I was against consensus without blinking, when the closure was correct. Now, you're more than entitled to disagree with the DRV and endorse the closure, but please avoid such poor attempts at reading my mind. It is a shame I have to remind an admin to assume good faith. That said, could someone please, please explain everyone with some detail what are such vague "BLP concerns" that absolutely require deletion instead of editing or protection? --Cyclopia^talk 02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what AGF says, I'm also well aware of what policy wonkery is. You need to stop citing that one page as a reason for why admins can't close these AFDs per IAR. Things can change, even if you don't think they are changing the way you want them to. I don't understand why some of you want to keep an article, no matter what problems arise from it. We have to protect Biographies of living people, more than other articles. I just don't get why there's so much fuss about something that should be uncontroversial. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they were indeed "changing", it would be apparent from the consensus in that WT:DEL thread. But that page shows that consensus on that matter is pretty the opposite. So, you can delude yourself that "things are changing" but fact is, they aren't. At least not as fast as you would like. The fact is that there is a small group of idiosyncratic admins which happen to be paranoid with respect to BLPs, to the point of deleting them against consensus, and since these people call up to arms at once when these articles are concerned, they manage to skew individual AfD's/DRV's consensus with narrow margins sometimes. But that thread pretty much showed that this kind of decisions are not really endorsed by the community. Oh, and if you don't get why there's so much fuss about something that should be uncontroversial. maybe it means that it is controversial, what do you think? --Cyclopia^talk 22:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Given the nature of the page, deletion falls within the realm of admin discretion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as nominator is either unable or unwilling to articulate a valid reason for a review of the closing administrator's actions beyond "I don't like it". Simple disagreements make this a 2nd chapter of the AfD, which is not what the venue is meant to be. Tarc (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The (main) reason is: the closer appealed a non-existent consensus. And no, again, this is not meant to be AfD part 2, this is meant to debate the outcome of the AfD. Would you all please put your straw men down? --Cyclopia^talk 03:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, this isn't a strawman; don't use terms you do not understand, pls. You disagree with the closer about consensus. That is all this is, there is no assertion that the closer did something wrong. Tarc (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand perfectly what is a straw man argument, thanks. It will surprise you, Tarc, but people who disagree with you are not necessarily dumb or disingenous. Now, one thing is disagreeing with the outcome; another is disagreeing about consensus. DRV is for sure not the place for the first. But it is the venue for the second: If a closer reads consensus where there is none (or v/v), I'd call it something wrong. --Cyclopia^talk 23:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you really don't, but whatever. This is a flawed and disruptive DRV brought for no other reason than you disagree with the close. That is abuse of the process, and should be dealt with accordingly. Tarc (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Dealt with accordingly"? Is it your habit to intimidate everyone who happens to disagree with you? But let me quote WP:DEL just for the sake of argument: If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review.. I followed these steps, the closure is far from being obvious, and what is disruptive, if anything, are your attempts at misrepresenting the opinion of people who disagree with you, and intimidating them. --Cyclopia^talk 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and optionally relist, I don't see a consensus either way here, and no consensus as delete clearly did not have consensus to implement in the absence of a subject request. I also see the coverage being quite substantive and for multiple events here. BLP is intended to exclude unsourced or poorly sourced information. I don't see any evidence of source unreliability or lack of sources here, so it doesn't apply. Also, the closing administrator does not seem to have taken into account the fact that several of the editors appearing at the AfD appear to have been canvassed [7]. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, please read the final comment in that thread. The closing admin was part of that discussion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Tarc. This is not AFD round 2. MuZemike 05:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn though the article needs to be written carefully and watched, she is nonetheless notable. BLP policy does not say that if an article is susceptible to BLP problems, we remove it. IAR applies to situations where the action is so necessary to improve the encyclopedia that essentially everyone who in in good faith will endorse it. It does not mean, do as you please, regardless of the consensus. If there is no consensus that it applies, then it does not.. There is no admin discretion to ignore the community, our discretion is to do what the community wants even though there is no specific rule provided. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This close is well within the bounds of admin discretion. Kevin (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I'm not seeing an issue with this admin's decision here - Alison ^❤ 21:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (as original AFD nominator). I don't want to revisit the whole debate, but it's important to point out that the claimed academic source coverage consisted of a two-paragraph (one rather long) footnote (De Young) and a case study (Bocij), which could fairly be evaluated as insufficient to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No consensus default to keep per noms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT#I_don.27t_like_it statement (because this opinion seems to be present even at this DRV and per DGG's persuasive argument. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn - Subject known for 2 different topics separated in time and space (was an important figure in creating the 1980s SRA panic, and later became mentally ill): thus WP:BLP1E rationale cannot be applied. Closing admin misrepresented the level of consensus. Closing admin was also on a messageboard where votes were canvassed.[8] - that alone taints the AfD (and this DRV) with WP:MEAT and WP:TAGTEAM. And most importantly, WP:BLP does not, last I recall, demand the complete deletion of articles on notable people - only that all defamatory information which cannot be sourced is immediately deleted. I agree with DGG and JoshuaZ above. Put the article back and delete all insufficiently sourced assertions, if that's what you feel is needed. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse perfectly valid close and I'm fairly sick of treating living people as a inhouse football.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, restore - clearly passes notability, clearly not notable for just one event, clearly covered in many, many sources that focus specifically on the subject and the article was not disparaging, mocking, cruel or otherwise abusive of the subject. Everything was sourced to a reputable news outlet, there was no original research and neutrality was never brought up as a concern. Remove the BLP1E and there are a lot of "do no harm/I don't like it" !votes that don't really make sense - no harm was done, and there are a lot of people who "like" the article, as in think it is informative and encyclopedic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per "no consensus defaults to keep" and DGG's poignant commentary on "admin discretion". Per WLU, notability was clearly established and BLP1E does not apply. While I appreciate the sentiment behind the various "do no harm" arguments these are knee jerk reactions to content editors don't like unless the nature of possible harm can be explained, bare minimum. No one was forthcoming with such an explanation. People just believe in their gut that its wrong to have an entry about this person, but that needs a valid policy rationale or else its just "i don't like it". If BLP policy needs strengthening this nonsensical application of current policy is not the way to go about doing so.PelleSmith (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse this was a proper close. Do No Harm and BLP concerns override many other potential objections. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The closing admin himself said he was not convinced by the allegations of BLP violation. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This business of picking and choosing what are "icky subjects" is disconcerting. There are BLP concerns and were this the AfD I could be convinced that the subjects marginal notability wasn't enough, but I can't justify counting numbers in that debate and coming up with "delete". Protonk (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I agree with Alison (talk · contribs) on this one. The close by admin Secret (talk · contribs) was appropriate. Cirt (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - could someone clearly articulate the harm that was done by the article as it existed before deletion? I don't see it as it read as neutral, well-sourced and free of original research, disparagement and other reasons to !vote delete. We have articles on John Hinkley and Florentino Floro, both of whom are very, very comparable - mentally ill and allegedly mentally ill subjects who did one big thing that got them in the press. If we're applying standards evenly, those pages should probably be deleted as well (certainly Floro), but if I were to nominate it for deletion, what would I write? "I think this page is harmful to its subject, please vote delete"? If "do no harm" is a standard that can be applied to justify deletion then we should articulate it in a more substantive way so it can be referred to with clearer criteria. I don't edit many BLP pages, if there is a clear rationale that I just don't know about, please refer me to it using my talk page so I don't miss it. I'm trying to learn a general principle here, and so far all I'm seeing is opinions that can't be extended and seem to be arbitrarily applied. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse both sides said their piece, and here they're just repeating it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, pretty reasonable close, given the BLP circumstances around this one. There is no real damage done to Wikipedia by not having an article around this extremely marginally notable person, but there can be damage done to the person if we do keep it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Google Watch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• The outcome of this AFD was a merge with Criticism of Google. The reason given was "there is sufficient consensus in this AFD that the article should not exist as a standalone article." Considering the breakdown of !votes (18 for deletion, 9 against, a few for a merge), no such consensus exists.

Also, if one looks at the rationales given by those in favor of deletion, some discrepancies will appear: one user, MzMcBride, supported deletion but did not provide a coherent argument in favor of it, (his reason was "it's not good to do anything half-assed), and this argument was cited by two other users as the basis for their own decisions.

This aside, there were two main arguments for deletion: the article is no longer notable, and a lack of reliable sources. As for the first, see WP:NTEMP, and for the second see Cyclopia's comment in the AFD where she linked three separate books which discussed the website in detail. There are also many web sources.

Add to these reasons a violation of WP:CANVASS (see the AFD for details), and I think it would be best to get some more eyes on this.

NOTE: I have already discussed this with the closing admin. See User talk:NuclearWarfare#Merge of Google Watch. Cerebellum (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse result and call for an admonishment of this user for initiating a frivolous, XfD Round 2-style discussion. The DRV process is supposed to be to call for a review of a closure when there is clear indication of an admin doing something wrong, ignoring or bypassing policy and the like. It is not supposed to be a venue to air simple disagreements with how an XfD was closed. Yes, you believe the sources gave substantive coverage to the subject matter. Yes, you have made the canvassing allegations. Guess what? Someone didn't agree with those assessments. Get over it. Tarc (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Deletion review#Principal purpose - challenging deletion decisions for the reasoning behind this DRV, particularly the following quote: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." I have not had any experience with the DRV process before and I apologize if I have indeed misused this venue. If I have misinterpreted the above quote, please explain how. Cerebellum (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral : On one hand, the closure was a reasonable compromise. On the other, it is true that the AfD was tainted by the Google Watch's webmaster canvassing, and it is reasonable to think that without such outside pressure, the AfD outcome would have been much different, given the amount of sources on the website. But, to avoid stirring further the drama, all what is necessary is, I think, that the merge indeed includes most if not all the material of the article. By the way: It would make much more sense to DRV Daniel Brandt, since the merge compromise of the latest AfD fell to pieces with the latest deletions/merges and he hasn't ceased to be notable. Just a suggestion, definitely not to discuss here, and not something I am going to do soon (so keep guns down :) ). --Cyclopia^talk 03:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DRV cannot overturn a merge to a keep, so speedy close. Tim Song (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I do not see that anywhere on the DRV page or in WP:DP. Could you please explain this? Cerebellum (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The longstanding practice at DRV is to speedy close requests that do not require use of the admin tools, such as changing among keep/merge/redirect/no consensus. Those decisions can be overridden instead by a local consensus at the appropriate talk page. The standard essay to cite is WP:ND3. Tim Song (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Makes perfect sense. --Cyclopia^talk 05:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse result. This is an absurd nomination and it shows a worryingly high level of poor judgment. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]