Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 22

Tubcat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|1st AfD - 2nd AfD)

This article was AfD'd, no consensus. AfD'd again, and deleted because lack of proof of notability. It turns out that the Washington Times devoted an article to Tubcat and a "Russian challenger" on March 6, 2003. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=tubcat&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Thus, one can assume other legitimate references to it exist, making this article verifiable and more notable. -- Zanimum 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per valid AfD with unanimous consensus among 12 editors. "One can assume other legitimate references to it exist" just isn't good enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, a single newspaper article doesn't merit relisting. Just another journalist on a slow news day deciding to write about what they got in their Inbox. More than one might be significant, but this is apparently all there is. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, unanimous AfD, nothing new worthy of note, the sole external link in the original article was egregious spam. Try Uncyclopaedia or YTMND or someplace else. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Don't use Uncyclopedia, though; that's for funny things, not just stupid things. -Amark moo! 00:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rusty trombone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD - 2nd AfD)

Article was kept after its second AfD proposal. Was kept for "I Like It" reasons. Reasons for deletion are: 1) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rusty_trombone_%282nd_nomination%29. 2) Precedent set by Keep is very bad. Prairie Muffins (preserved here) was exceedingly better cited but deleted. CyberAnth 02:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. No one except you argued for deletion, this is obviously a well-known term, I find multiple references in an Amazon search. For the record, I think the AfD on "Prairie Muffins" was poorly done, and should have gone in the direction of this one. You have nothing to worry about regarding precedent, BTW, we don't do precedent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The community decision to retain this appeared to be... unanimous. RFerreira 04:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There is no other possible way an admin could have closed this. You simply can not close an AfD as delete when only the nominator argues for deletion. -Amark moo! 04:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • They can can do it by following the policies. Are you saying that so long as I get enough people to "Keep" my way I can get 'bout near anything into WP? CyberAnth 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, if you also manage to keep away all but one person saying to delete. Which is considerably harder. -Amark moo! 04:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Did you notice it was "Kept" two days early? CyberAnth 04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        • 6th -> 11th is 5 days. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I see nothing out of order with the closing of the afd.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per RFerreira and Amarkov. One might reasonably argue, I suppose, that, were every keep !vote entirely silent on policy and the interpretation thereof propounded by the nominator, relisting might be in order in view of the AfD's being conducted without respect to overriding policies for which a consensus plainly exists, but here several participants addressed the arguments for deletion essayed, and I imagine that any close other than keep would have been wholly without merit. Joe 06:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Meh. Relist in a while if you like, it is unsourced after two AfDs. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I can go with that. The article's editors should please take heed. Multiple good sources are the solution. CyberAnth 10:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Why, what will have changed 'in a while'? Will the article be better sourced, or are we just hoping for a different closing admin at the end of the five days? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We're hoping that if it truly should be deleted, more than one person will say so. -Amark moo! 15:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What will have changed "in a while" is that people won't !vote "keep, we only just kept this" and might instead focus on the article itself. I'd have !"voted "delete" as I habitually do for previosly AfDd articles which still have no sources second time round, and for which I can't be arsed to find sources myself. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. Nominator explicitly asked for reliable sources in the nomination, none currently in the article, none of the keep proponents provided any and consequently all of their !votes are a waste of server space. Unambiguously should have been closed as delete without prejudice against recreation with reliable sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• I dunno. This is pretty much an exact copy of the Cleveland steamer debate: an essentially dicdef sex-act article that gets kept on the basis of "pop culture references" and claims that "WP is not censored, so we can't delete this". Those debates never go anywhere, and I don't see this going anywhere either. This article is far worse in the sourcing department, though. WarpstarRider 12:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's fixable, in any regard. The problem is more that people falsely believe that terms like this are neologisms (which they aren't), and our reliable sourcing guideline isn't helpful when it comes to terminology that simply isn't appropriate for mainstream "reliable sources." No one seems to want to break down WP:RS, though, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Sam Blanning. Come on... find some sources. WP:V is not optional. --W.marsh 16:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Annoyed endorse but probably should be relisted ASAP. Since it was basically unanimous, there's really no other way the admin could possibly have closed it, so no process problems here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  Why not? DRV is pretty good at endorsing closures made according to policy rather than vote count. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Unanimous keep. Issues with reliable sources are trivial, as sources do obviously exist. Go look for them. You'll find them if you want to find them. Consensus among most editors is that sources do exist for this, just everyone is too lazy to look. The same can be said for tens of thousands of other articles which are unsourced but would get through Afd without problems. --- RockMFR 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If sources exist, why haven't they (apparently) been mentioned in the article, the afd or the DRV? Watch who you call lazy... WP:V puts the burden of proof on the people who want to keep content. Alas we've voted to ignore that. --W.marsh 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • They've been mentioned here. I haven't added them yet more because I haven't exactly been in a position to do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Claiming "multiple references in an Amazon search" is different than citing them in the article... at any rate, looking at the Amazon results, it's mostly T-shirts. The book references (that aren't speaking purely about Jazz musicians) seem like passing mentions in fiction that do not even define the term, much less give useful information on it. I don't want to debate WP:RS here, the fact is that I'm just not seeing the reliable information to write an article on this topic... and vague claims that it exists aren't helping. I'm not even understanding what information we would use to write an article here... South Park Episodes? Stuff our buddies told us over beers back in college? Just not what I think of as reliable stuff, in the context of making factual claims about the history and usage of a term. --W.marsh 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Why did the process of this AfD fail? One of the largest misconceptions among Wikipedians is that consensus trumps policies. It does not. Per WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus vs. other policies, "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles". Thus, whenever a consensus is reached that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles, the consensus is simply illegitimate. A consensus to "Keep" an article that fails Wikipedia's basic policies and principles is thus illegitimate. CyberAnth 02:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is most certainly illegitimate, but that doesn't produce a delete consensus either. And articles need a consensus to delete to actually be deleted. -Amark moo! 05:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Eh not really. I've closed "unanimous keeps" as deletes without controversy, the cases the jump to mind are ones where the article was a copyvio no one had noticed, clearly we can't just vote to violate copyright. But there are some less obvious cases. The point is that consensus isn't a suicide pact... CyberAnth is right that the consensus produced by an AfD is illegitimate if it calls for doing something obviously against our policies or even copyright law. But going against consensus in closing an AfD is certainly something that needs to be done very carefully and sparingly. --W.marsh 06:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, yes, if there is a copyvio, it should be deleted anyway, but that's a speedy criterion. I don't think that you should close near-unanimous keep AfDs as delete in any other case, though, because it's highly unlikely someone didn't consider the policies and think they were met. -Amark moo! 06:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - the AFD got this one wrong - the one and only source is the Urban Dictionary ... that's not exactly reliable. Consensus cannot override policy. --BigDT 06:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure pretty much per Starblind. Although I agree the provided source's reliability is dubious, a quick check with Google will immediately confirm that the term is in use. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Either way this would have come to DRV, right? Silensor 12:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure per Alkivar. I've also added some references that verify it is a sex act. VegaDark 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 23:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• endorse closure and keep. The discussion was almost unanimous. There is also the media use, supported by an increasing number of references. Opposition may perhaps be influenced by an NPOV attitude to non-orthodox human sexuality articles. Is there any way to keep it from being proposed it again and again until there eventually comes by chance a time when people aren't alert? DGG 02:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)