Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 30

Biomechanics of intrinsic gravity (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted in an AfD on the 10th of August and appeared on REFUND both before and after the deletion discussion. I deleted a recreation and the author asked me to post a deletion review here. He (I.R.Bhattacharjee) contends that the subject itself was inadequately covered in the deletion discussion and offers some sources and arguments on my talk page. My opinions on the page and the original deletion discussion are summarized on that talk page section: I don't think it belongs on wikipedia and I don't think the original deletion discussion was fatally flawed. Please understand that I am posting this on behalf of someone who does feel that the subject should be covered and that the deletion discussion was insufficient (ie. don't close this as without reason to overturn). Thanks. Protonk (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a note w/ the deleting admin. The page is currently at User:I.R.Bhattacharjee/BmecGrav. Protonk (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there was no other way to close that one. It _sounds_ at least moderately kooky to me, but some of the publications are in reasonable places though they appear to be more about measurement than the overall theory. Also appears to be a large WP:COI issue. I'd like to see at least one or two more papers in reputable conferences/journals by someone other than Dr. Bhattacharjee before I would argue to keep or some other sign of wider acceptance. Hobit (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, could not have reasonably been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I would like to draw the attention of user Hobit and proton towards the article "THE CORE OF THE MATTER

Core and Sleeve in the Rolfian Paradigm" in the url http://www.somatics.de/Linn/Core.htm , which explains the wider acceptance as required by them. I would not like to prove the wider acceptance in any other way but deletion of an elite article Biomechanics of intrinsic gravity from wikipedia would also entitle deletion of other related articles from wikipedia. An example of it could be Artificial Gravity article, because it also starts with some of the facts which have been deeply described by Dr.Bhattacharjee in his newly edited article [[1]]. Rajan Kashyap--Rajan Kashyap (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)--Rajan Kashyap (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)--Rajan Kashyap (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Wikipedia is not a forum for the "figurehead of a new science" to promote his new science. Edison (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep[Article on Biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity]is enriched with information having wider acceptance, comparable to any other similarly situated Wiki articles. Before any precipitative action and to get researchers view, article should be referred to list of science-related deletion discussion suggested on 3rd August,2010.–I.R.Bhattacharjee 08:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Courtney Thomas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I don't know who the musician was who's page was deleted several years ago, but there is now a new Courtney Thomas, Miss Pennsylvania 2010 and Miss America 2011 contestant who is deserving of a new page, which I would be glad to write if an administrator will unlock it and allow it to be created. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we have pages on state beauty queens? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Miss_America_2011_Delegates Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, thanks. Unlocked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed as NC "default to Keep", however there was only one "Keep" vote and one "Keep or Merge", both of which were basically WP:ITSNOTABLE and should've been given a lesser weight anyway. All the other eight comments agreed that the article was not independently notable. In no way whatsoever did the close reflect consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 13:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist (closing administrator) - I'm not against relisting to generate new consensus. I agree that keep was not one of the main choices, but I chose to keep so as to allow discussion for merge or redirect. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 16:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is already a consensus and that was delete. overturn & delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I didn't/don't think there was a consensus, but I suppose that's why we're here. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 00:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete, as the arguments toward deletion are stronger than those for keeping the article. I wouldn't be opposed to just merging/redirecting, however, which seems more sensible. —fetch·comms 17:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse but merge merging into list article is a reasonable outcome. Hobit (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as very reasonable determination that no consensus was reached after a thinly argued discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that consensus was reached that the subject wasn't independently notable, yet the AfD was closed as Keep? Black Kite (t) (c) 21:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No consensus was reached as to the disposition of the article. By policy, the default outcome was "keep," maintaining the status quo. Note also that the closer went beyond mere headcounting, finding the arguments on all sides unpersuasive as a basis for action. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • But since consensus was that the status quo was not acceptable, there is no way the discussion should have been closed that way. Reyk _YO! 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not how AfD works. If the status quo is not acceptable, it can be changed through discussion, usually through the article's Talk page. "No Consensus" defaults to keeping the article so it can be improved. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the contrary, that's exactly how AfD works, especially as of the only two Keep votes, one was ITSNOTABLE and the other was "Keep or merge". There was a clear consensus that the article should not stand alone, and the close will lead (as it already has once) to editors reverting any merge/redirect process with "But the AfD said Keep". Black Kite (t) (c) 19:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • My recollection is that we've turned away those wishing to convert "merge" results into "keep" results at AfD DrV on the basis that no tools are needed to undo the merge and discussion on the talk page can produce consensus to unmerge. Is that correct? If so, how is this case any different? Hobit (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your recollection is correct for past DRVs, but there has been movement towards hearing these sorts of cases: compare WT:Deletion review/Archive 15#Updating Scope to handle AFDs closed as Merge (December 2009) and WT:Deletion review/Archive 15#Wikipedia:Merges and Redirects after Deletion Discussions (July 2009). A procedural close here because "mergers are outside the scope of AfD" (a general position, not a specific quote) would be WP:BURO. A new discussion is required when there is insufficient consensus, but there is strong support for merging or redirecting at the AfD and here – is a third discussion at the article talk page necessary? Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to think we should overturn to merge. There wasn't anything in the discussion upon which a keep result could have hung. Merge was the least deletionist outcome that could have been arrived at, so merge was the most that was within the closing admin's discretion. Delete would have been an appropriate close too and I would have argued for delete in the AfD as I really doubt there is anything of value to merge. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP ARTICLE - The article has proved to be actively developed, have references, and people who want to continue to develop it. What is the rush to delete the thing? Do people plan to repeatedly nominate articles for deletion until they get their way? Move on. Mathewignash (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to merge. Consensus was that it wasn't notable enough for its own article. Consensus was also that outright deletion wasn't a good idea, especially with the list already in existence. So merge it should be. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but merge "merge" is a variety of "keep" outcome, so the close is not numerically unreasonable, if we're counting noses. Having said that, I still believe the merger is the most encyclopedic outcome, as I proposed in the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete- consensus was clear that the contents of the article were unsuitable for inclusion, but the participants were split on how best to remove the bad content. Keep was the only outcome that could not have been arrived at through that discussion, and defaulting to the only outcome that was unacceptable to the participants is not really an appropriate way to close the discussion. Reyk _YO! 22:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Perhaps someone should just have nominated all the Transformers spaceships to merge a single page of Transformers Spaceships in the first place instead of going on a binge of Deletion nominations. It would have not ruffled as many feathers and probably been done better, even supported by the normal editors of the Transformers articles. Heck, maybe someone should propose that now. Mathewignash (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Kite and I had a discussion about that after this had been kicked off. I tend to agree with your position, but there are issues with sourcing such that if we take a bunch of uncited stuff and put it into one big list, it's still a big mess of uncited stuff. The problem with many fictional articles is that there aren't people willing to do the legwork to make real encyclopedia entries out of them, which I find quite unfortunate. Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is the problem; if you take half a dozen unsourced articles on non-notable subjects, you're just creating one big non-notable article. Whilst merging in this way is usual, the resulting article has to be sourced from actual reliable sources and not become a magnet for page upon page of completely non-notable trivia, like most of the Transformers articles currently are (i.e. this one is 116K - two thirds of it could be removed without losing anything important). Black Kite (t) (c) 08:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect (suggested boilerplate: "redirect, content available in history for merging"), clear consensus against stand-alone article. I don't see a delete consensus, but it would be within admin discretion. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counting merge as a variant of keep here is an oversimplification that contributes to polarization – why not recommend delete if merge is actually keep? In this case, it is more useful to consider whether a stand-alone article is supported, per WP:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. Flatscan (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, I can't find any sort of consensus there (and if there was a delete consensus available, believe me I would have fished it out). Stifle (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect It seems to me there were more comments for merge then keep (and more or less about the same for delete). There is no evidance proudced to establish any notability (and there is still none).Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but merge: Looks to be no consensus on the surface. But with all the discussion here and there, it's clear there is support for a merge. No prejudice against starting an AfM discussion if this position appears controversial, but it really shouldn't be. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but hold off on the merge for now. This is a very young article, hardly over a month old. Merging would be like WP:DEMOLISH since merges often result in a loss of the majority of the information. Moreover, this subject seems to be rather unique in the transformer's universe, and spans multiple TV series so there's not obvious destination for it to be merged to as far as I know (though I must admit I know very little) —CodeHydro 14:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I said Merge in the discussion because I didn't think we'd end up keeping it. I'd prefer it kept of course since nothing is gained by destroying articles that some enjoy reading and those who don't won't ever find unless they were just looking for something to complain about and destroy. There was clearly no consensus to delete. The closure was fine. Dream Focus 17:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]