Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 5

Winston Olde English Bulldogge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I made a post at both the Vandalism page and the Investigation page and both were reverted by an editor named yandman so I am going to post my request here in the hope that it can be resolved fairly.

• Overturn - The article Winston Olde English Bulldogge was at wikipedia yesterday because I worked on it and now it is deleted without a vote. This is a breed a dog and should be in Wikipedia. I have been advised that JzG has decided on his own that the article is not warranted and it was deleted. He recently tried to have the Olde English Bulldogge deleted with a vote and it is not succeeding, so now he is simply deleting dog breed articles he does not like. I would like the article brought back and a vote taken. I believe that this dog breed exists and it should be in Wikipedia. Thank you Headphonos 19:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• uphold deletion Article didn't assert, or provide evidence of, any notability of the breed. It's not registered with the AKC (or the British equivalent), and there were no references provided showing that outside, independent sources have written about the breed. (I'm probably the person who brought this one to JzG's attention, take that for what it's worth.) If this article is undeleted, it should be AfDd or added to the AfD on Olde English Bulldogge. Argyriou (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Did you bother to read this dog breeds history ?? Headphonos 16:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Why look![[1]]. Nina Odell 21:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That article has zero references to support the claims of that section. Not even the breeder-generated references which the article under discussion had. Argyriou (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is a breed by one breeder. No verifiable external sources have yet been provided. It did appear to be part of a walled garden, a small group of inter-related articles on variations on Olde English Bulldogge as distinct from Old English Bulldog. Investigations etc. appear to be an interesting approach, since I was already asked and replied on my Talk what the problem was. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is hogwash, there are many breeders of Olde English Bulldogges, there are verifiable external links at the bottom of the article and two books noted under the "Further Reading" section that discuss the breed. Headphonos 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bu the article in question is Winston Olde English Bulldogge, of which there appears to be one breeder, the eponymous Mr. Winston. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You were discussing both breeds in your statement. Why did you delete it without a vote ? Put it back and let the people vote ! Headphonos 01:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Argyriou (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not a dictatorship Headphonos 16:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm really against deleting, wholesale, content that's interesting and gorgeously written. I don't know about anyone trying to resurrect the breed, but it certainly seems to have significant historical interest. I viewed the article in question on a mirror site and did not view it as "cruft" at all. There was even a painting of the dogs in question.

It looked to me to be a coherent, well crafted article. All I'm saying is give the poor editor a chance to cite his work and get to know Wikipedia policy. He didn't even have a welcome template on his talk page before I gave him one yesterday. You're deleting his first major effort, which was an exceptionally good one for a beginner. Nina Odell 16:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. If you feel the need to call deletion of your article vandalism, it probably should have been deleted. And this is non-notable, with no sources. So it's dogcruft. No spamtisement, at least... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Votestacking. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I was not vote stacking I advised the members of the wiki dog project of the deletion review so they could participate. Headphonos 11:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list on AfD On process grounds, A7 'Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content' does not yet include dogcruft, so 'no assertion of notability' is NOT a reason for speedying. I'm a little concerned with something as subjective as 'notability' is becoming such a key deletion criterion - but it is certainly not a speedy criterion. I was the one who came up with the wording for A7, and it was never meant to be a justification for shooting things an admin didn't hold to be notable, or deemed 'cruft'. More importantly, on content grounds, sure there's a debate over whether this breed is verifiable and 'notable' but the place for that debate is AfD.--Doc^g 02:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I would agree with you if notability were the only concern. But verifiability is, too, and lack of sources should definitely be a speedy criterion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, but it isn't. Read the policy. Anyway lack of sources != unverifiable, it just means it is currently unverified. So mark it with {{verify}} or try to source it yourself. If, and only if, after a time that proves impossible, then list on AfD. Never speedy. --Doc^g 02:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Question: Can we tell whether the hangon tag was exercised in this instance of speedy delete? Comment: For me, reasoning like this: If you feel the need to call deletion of your article vandalism, it probably should have been deleted. is not sound. (If someone deletes the article called Earth, and I bring this event to other user's attention with a concern that it was an instance of vandalism, then the article Earth should have been deleted. ...?... I don't think so! Per Doc, I suggest Overturn and list on AfD. Keesiewonder 11:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Um... if an admin decides to delete Earth (because only admins can delete pages), we have much more pressing problems than an article being deleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this: "If an admin decides to delete Earth (because only admins can delete pages), we have much more pressing problems than an article being deleted." Admins do make mistakes every now and then. Maybe we're talking around one of those times now. That's why there's an option to have a deletion review. Please let the processes we have in place work.

And, I maintain, this is completely unsound reasoning: "If you feel the need to call deletion of your article vandalism, it probably should have been deleted" (Aramkov, 6 Jan 2007). Maybe if we're not sure about the reasoning here, "we" should try making that one statement WP:Policy and see what happens. Keesiewonder 16:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Notice of advertisement: User:Headphonos has advertised this deletion review on the talk pages of the participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs. —Centrx→talk • 11:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I am not an anonymous user and I did not spam and I did not advertise, I advised members of the Wiki dog project of the deletion +tags so that they can participate in the proceedings.

• FYI - while I did find out about this particular discussion from a note on my talk page, the note I received did not ask me to vote a certain way. I participate in AfDs pretty regularly on a wide variety of topics - I can give you examples if you need them. Keesiewonder 12:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, yours was the one I saw, and he explained to you how to vote "Overturn". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I used my own reasoning skills, not Headphonos input, to determine my perspective on this Deletion review. My recommendation is per Doc, as you can see above. Based on what I have seen regarding Winston Olde English Bulldogge, if the article were restored, and I chose to lend a perspective in the AfD, it would be to Delete the article. (Remember, there's the possibility that I may do more research, and then decide that I was neutral, or that I wanted the article kept. Right now, if I had to vote, it would be to delete the article, if it were up for AfD.) I don't know if that is what Headphonos wants or not, and it doesn't really matter. Does it? Being a member of both of the major dog projects on WP, and being relatively active in a relatively wide variety of tasks here, there's a very, very good chance that I would have run in to this discussion even if Headphonos had never touched my talk page. What are you going to do if editors who watch my contributions list, for whatever reason, decide to lend their opinion here? Believe me - This has happened - They just do it - And there's no regulation against it. Keesiewonder 16:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list of AfD - I am one of the other editors whose notice of this discussion was deleted from their userpage. I'm not sure I'm real happy about that, by the way. :) Personally, I tend to agree that right now the breed may not meet the standards of verifiability, and note that right now notability requirements are not extant in this subject. Therefore, I have to conclude that the only reasonable basis for deletion is verifiability, which is not speedyable. Also, I have taken the liberty of personally informing one of our editors who may be most knowledgable about this subject of these related discussions. I hope that we will hear from her shortly. She may be able to find some verification which the rest of us might not. Badbilltucker 16:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Headphonos has been a member since 20 Dec 2006. i.e. Don't Bite the Newcomers (WP:BITE). Keesiewonder 17:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I want to make it clear that I thank Headphonos of his notification. It is the subsequent removal of that notification by other parties I am, shall we say, less than enthused about. Badbilltucker 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing and votestacking is not allowed, and it is standard practice to remove it. That it was a poor attempt does not make it appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

True. However, I think those who have responded all consider the article at best dubious, but are just thinking that all the data might not be in yet. Also, contacting the people who might actually know something about the notability of a breed does not seem to me to qualify as either canvassing or votestacking. I could be wrong, of course. Badbilltucker 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, will people stop using WP:BITE to defend newcomers from being wrong? WP:BITE says that we should not be mean to the newcomers because they aren't part of the community. It does not say "Never tell a newcomer they are wrong". -22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know the answer to this? Question: Can we tell whether the hangon tag was exercised in this instance of speedy delete? Also, my instinct now tells me that our nominator is not "new." They also do not seem to have 'thank you' in their vocabulary, at least in correspondence with me. They do not answer questions when I ask them. They don't implement suggestions when I make them. Believe me, I have significant questions about the variety of bulldog articles (i.e. confusing mess) on WP. See this if you want more info. And, guess who doesn't seem willing to work with me? That's not what the purpose of this deletion review discussion is, though. Please let me know how to figure out whether the hangon tag was used. Thanks! Keesiewonder 23:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No hangon tag was used. The article was deleted directly by the admin, without any delete tag being added by a first person. —Centrx→talk • 05:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Geo.plrd/Phoenix (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This was deleted under G4. I did not recreate deleted material. This was a working pilot for a proposal. Also, the closing admin voted for deletion and 12 users in a MfD does not reflect the community. Geo. 19:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, but this does. It's not a "proposal" if you're actively spamming Wikipedians to join and establishing a bureaucracy. Continuing this is getting pretty durn near WP:POINT, if you ask me. I was the closing admin, and I voted to delete it right before I changed my mind and ended it promptly, in hopes of avoiding another drawn-out debacle. Apparently, that's what we're going to get. Keep deleted. -- Merope 19:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• What bureaucracy? If you had a problem you could have suggested changes. Geo. 19:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted if you need it to work on a pilot for a new proposal, do it in a part of your user space that you do not spamvertise. Be sure your new proposal doesn't make it blatently obvious that it's just the old idea ressurected, because that's speedable. If you need any ideas, please feel free to ask me! Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted this wholde debate is intensely stupid, Esperanza had an absolutely overwhelming consensus to delete, and you think that creating a new version complete with Coffee lounge was a good idea? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for users to help me. Geo. 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. You were spamming people, people who were former members of Esperanza, with the message, "Would you like to see Esperanza return." That is not asking for help, and in any case, it has been made very clear any Esperanza type organisation is not welcome on Wikipedia. Please stop trying to subvert consensus. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Withdraw - I am going to withdraw this as i can see it is a waste of time. Geo. 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Please review the administrators' comments on your talkpage and consider the best course of action. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - the return of the Coffee Lounge? The return of yet more Esperanza-style bureaucracy? Quite apart from sounding like a bad horror film, it also violates WP:POINT by ignoring community consensus so blatantly. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Able and Baker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This should not have been closed early. There was no consensus for a speedy keep. I suggest Relist so it can generate a consensus. Naconkantari 16:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• This was absolutely the right call on David's part. A fourth nomination on something that was decisively and high-profile kept when no new information has been added and in fact the old information is being actively ignored (since the AfD didn't even btoher linking back to AfDs 1-3) is querelous and an abuse of AfD's tolerance for repeat nominations. Endorse closure. Phil Sandifer 17:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn closure. Phil, let me remind you of a certain article which was nominated 18 times before finally deleted. bogdan 17:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• We can conclude two things from this. Either AfD is a court of infinite appeals, or we should acknowledge that the GNAA was a special case where the votes were overrun by trolls and being used to maximize disruption. The former case calls into question the legitimacy of this page, since the mantra of its creation was "DRV is not a court of infinite appeals." The latter makes the observation irrelevant to this point, since the article was not kept because of an army of trolls but because a lot of people were inclined to listen to the argument "Look, I'm a real, legitimate expert on webcomics and I think this is a reasonably important topic." Phil Sandifer 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Almost everything on Wikipedia has infinite appeals, within reason, per WP:CCC. Policies and guidelines change, and consensus about their meaning changes, so reopening a discussion after a reasonable period of time is hardly inappropriate. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn closure. There is no such thing as an "expert close". Experts are of course encouraged to join in the discussion, but "expert" opinion does not necessarily weigh more heavily than the opinion of other editors, nor does it override general consensus: this is especially true in areas like webcomics where what constitutes an "expert" is not readily defined: as far as I know there aren't any Nobel Prizes given out in the field of webcomics yet. I encourage the editors who consider themselves experts to actually improve the article by adding verifiable, independent, reliable sources. That would truly put the matter to rest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn closure The AfD ought to have been allowed to run its course. I fail to see how the nomination was "querulous" or "spurious" when it was well over a year since the previous AfD nom. While I have no qualms about someone who claims expertise from weighing in with their expert opinion, the appeal for someone with proof of expertise was a bit too much appeal to authority for my liking. It was also disrespectful to those !voters who commented to the contrary, several of whom referred to various policies. This is not to say they were right or wrong, but their opinion mattered and should have been weighed. I also am a bit unnerved by his shot-gun ultimatum in his comment, and do not think an admin posting a comment in the AfD should be the closing admin. It would have been sufficient to !vote "speedy keep" with the reasons for that !vote, but it crosses the line when that admin is the closer of the debate. It is always possible for an admin to speedy close, but I do not think this was a situation where things like WP:SNOW or WP:IAR applied. Agent 86 19:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Let's see. We've got a Delete outcome in October 2004, then in October 2005 and in an AFD initially closed as delete then overturned by the closer for another AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (2nd nomination) that was closed as keep. Reading that AFD, at that time we had a proposed WP:COMIC notability guideline, which has since ceased to exist, and WP:WEB was not a guideline, but now it is. Ok, obviously consensus on our relevant notability guidelines has changed, so that AFD is irrelevant. Since the relevant guidelines have changed, the policy Wikipedia:Consensus can change clearly applies. Overturn speedy closure. GRBerry 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, speedy keeps are only to be used in the case of an obvious outcome or clearly bad faith nomination. This one was neither. There was evidence presented in favor of keeping, and arguments made for deletion. Closing as speedy keep when the result is in clear dispute stifles legitimate discussion and goes against fundamental wikipedia policy of building consensus rather than imposing rule from above. Further, we don't care about expertise on wikipedia, we care about what you can cite, and in its current status, the article doesn't cite any of the information that was presented as evidence of its notability in the debate. Thus, it has no claim to notability. Even an article about George Washington, if it didn't mention anything that made him important, would deserve to be deleted. I wish we could censure people. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I closed it after saying "I'll close this in 24 hours if someone who can't claim actual expertise doesn't object". They didn't. (Dragonfiend was the only new objector and has resolutely refused to substantiate claims of subject expertise last time this precise article came to DRV.) - David Gerard 20:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • But the deletion rationale was nothing that expertise could address--it was that the article was unsourced and unverifiable, and that sources were unlikely to be found. Expert opinion doesn't change that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, improper close, improper appeal to authority. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• I'll stick my neck out and endorse closure. Phil knows the subject area very well, David is far from stupid and the previous Keep was unambiguous, with nothing changed since. I'd want a really good reason to go against a subject expert like Phil and support a fourth AfD on this, it really seems a titanic waste of effort on everyone's part. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, improper close. We count on all editors, whether "subject experts" or otherwise, to edit based on our content policies, not appeals to authority. For what it's worth, User:David Gerard is absolutely incorrect that I have "resolutely refused to substantiate claims of subject expertise." First, I don't rely on such claims, I hope no one ever edits anything based on appeals to my authority, and I only point out that he is incorrect to make disrespectful, baseless assumptions about the "expertise" of people he does not know. Second, two months ago I expressly invited User:David Gerard to join me in mediation on the topic of his assessment of my credentials. He has, as of yet, not accepted my invitation, which still stands. -- Dragonfiend 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Speedily closing things on the basis that they didn't suceed at some point in the past is diametrically opposed to WP:CCC. Which is a policy that has absolutely no chance of being repealed. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Admins should avoid closing AfDs in which they participated, particularly contested ones, and even more so when they close the AfD speedily and against the consensus. This article had no sources other than the comic itself a year ago, and it still has no sources other than the comic itself. WP:RS and WP:WEB are still guidelines, neither of which the article under discussion satisfies yet, and the closing admin apparently failed to assume good faith on the part of the nominator and the nine other editors who supported deletion. --Metropolitan90 05:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. While I concede that Phil Sandifer made some credible points towards keeping the article in an AFD strongly leaning toward deletion, reconciling those sorts of issues is the purpose of the AFD discussion and ultimately the onus of the closing admin. Active debate should not be squelched early, especially by an involved party, and especially with a call to "expert" knowledge and "expert closure" in flagrant disregard for the equality of Wikipedian editors. I'm sorry to say that while I would hope that any admin would understand those principles, any former ArbCom member certainly should. Serpent's Choice 08:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - This is no way a speedy keep. The reason Phil so expertly argues that Able and Baker (webcomic) is notable, is that it's a member of the Dayfree Press. This is the same as saying every book published, and every signed band is. I'd disagree with any literary expert who claims that every book published is inherently notable and encyclopedic. Just look at the presented arguments in the AFD, that the Dayfree Press guy mentioned Able and Baker in an interview, and that it's linked from other comics. That's incredibly trivial, although not as trivial as the ones mentioned in the Dresden Codak AFD. Maybe if we webcomics weren't such a trivial offshoot of popular culture, limited only to the web effluence, then we'd have more experts here. - hahnchen 18:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. I did send a note to Phil asking him to participate because I knew that he had an interest in this article. In particular I wondered if he had references to back up the claims of notability. I think that he did provide some items which are relevant to the discussion, but whether or not they equate to notability is unclear to me. In any case, with some people having said openly that they do not think the mention in Dayfree is sufficient for encyclopedic merit, this discussion should be allowed to play itself out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn closure. What kind of magic pixie dust is "an expert close"? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Colin Reynolds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Is the deleted page about a Welsh soccer player? If not, it doesn't matter. --Madnessinshorts 15:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, page was stupid, but it wasn't about a soccer player, so feel free to recreate. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This is just a redirect to a userpage, no encyclopedic content at all. If there is a notable person by this name then there is no problem with a recreation of the article name. (aeropagitica) 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Allie Sin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

she's notable Dicejordan42 09:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed there was no article called Allie Sin, and so created it, only to find it deleted a little while later. I checked into it more (something I should have done even before I created the article, I admit) and found the article used to exist, but was deleted for her lacking notibility.

However, according to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28pornographic_actors%29#Valid_criteria

An erotic actor or actress may be demonstrated as notable by meeting any one of the following criteria:

1. Performer has won an award from:
   • Adult Film Association of America
   • Adult Video News
   • X-Rated Critics Organization
   • GayVN Awards
   • Adult Erotic Gay Video Awards, the "Grabbys"
   • Gay Producers Association
   • Gay Erotic Video Awards
   • Discontinued gay pornography awards
   • A major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, Hustler, Playgirl, or other well-known magazines, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres.

Allie Sin won the 2006 Adult Video News - Best Oral Sex Scene Video according to this page: AVN Awards 2007

Therefore, I submit that she is notable, deserves her own article, and I nominate the Allie Sin article to be restored.

Dicejordan42 09:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• What new information since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allie Sin? Other than two reposts and an A7? Guy (Help!) 09:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• The article should not have been deleted for being un-notable because Allie Sin met the criteria outlined in the page Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors), namely winning an award from Adult Video News Dicejordan42 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In my reading she's only one of 15 nominees and the Award Show is not until next week. So why don't we shelve this until the awards are actually announced? ~ trialsanderrors 09:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion since the award she "won" apparently hasn't even been awarded yet, and there's a lot of people nominated. Besides, do we really want people to have articles for giving good blowjobs? This is an encyclopedia here, people. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Endorsed twice in October here [2] and here [3]. GRBerry 14:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Hold off -- if she wins the award, this should be undeleted, because she will then be notable (and the old history would be useful). If she doesn't win the award, it could be worth a new debate, because being nominated is still a pretty significant new development (the AVN awards are the Oscars of porn), but there's no point having that debate now, 8 days before the awards. Mangojuice^talk 16:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

2024 Summer Olympics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD1)

2022 Winter Olympics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD1|joint AfD2)

This was an inappropriate deletion that did not follow procedure. There was no concensus for deletion in the original deletion review 2nd AfD. Both sides made arguments. The two articles were nominated and deleted together. I fail to see the rationale that the administrator used to judge that consensus had been reached. Both articles were subsequently re-created as redirects by one of the participants in the discussion. I personally do not care about the articles themselves, only that it appears that an administrator inappropriately deleted it without consensus. DaveOinSF 02:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Again, I am not defending or condemning the value of the page itself. I only ask that people review the original deletion reviewsecond AfD and comment on whether the administrator had or had not correctly interpreted consensus.--DaveOinSF 02:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As is now clear there were multiple deletion discussions:

• 1st deletion discussion on 2022 Winter Olympics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Winter Olympics

Did not reach consensus for deletion and article was kept.

• 1st deletion discussion on 2024 Summer Olympics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Summer Olympics

Did not reach consensus for deletion and article was kept.

• 2nd deletion discussion for BOTH pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Winter Olympics (2nd nomination)

Did not reach consensus for deletion but both articles were deleted anyway. It is this decision that I think should be overturned.

--DaveOinSF 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. The two articles were not deleted in the AfD linked to from this page but in a seperate mass nomination if you look at the logs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Winter Olympics (2nd nomination). Both nominations did not establish a delete consensus and thus should be overturned.--JEF 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Rebecca 07:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete I must confess I was a bit perplexed at first, because I expected, having read the nom, to find an out-of-process deletion or a deletion of an article for which some recent mass AfD had been closed as no consensus; neither situation, of course, actually exists here. Neverthless, I must imagine that the proper close of the second AfD would have been no consensus as regards the deletion of either article (the close, though, it should be said, is not unreasonable, such that, were we to review the close for abuse of discretion, we would likely be inclined to endorse closure). Joe 07:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I merged the two nominations and restored the edit histories behind the redirects for this review. ~ trialsanderrors 08:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn 2024; the conclusion fails completely to address the sources which, according to the discussion, were present in that article. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Down near the bottom there is an extended discussion between two users about whether the sources are in fact useful for creating an article. That discussion caused the person that had previously opined to keep to change their mind to deletion, becuase they decided only one of the sources was useful. Some of the keep opinions like "information will become available" directly contradict the policy about not being a crystal ball, and therefore are supposed to disregarded. I know that JJay later disagreed, but he didn't explain his thinking. Since some of the keep opinions had to be disregarded, a delete close is well within admin discretion. I wouldn't object to userfying for someone who wanted to create the possiblefuture olympics article, but that article will have its own crystal ball problem. GRBerry 20:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding your first point, I saw that, but the reason Patstuart offered for changing his opinion didn't make a lot of sense. Evaluating his arguments, he was right the first time. Why would the fact that the sources are conjectural matter? We can report on conjecture, especially educated conjecture, and especially where the topic at issue has unquestioned significance. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as closer - I based my close of the AFD discussion upon the strength and applicability of the contributing comments to that discussion. No isse with new articles being created on the topics provided that they're inline with policy (unlike those that were deleteD). Proto::► 10:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. An obvious non-concensus discussion that should have been closed as such. --JJay 02:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Our Sever Clan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

My first try and did not realize I needed to prove notability. Was not finished, please undelete and at least let me try to fix it. Advice would be helpful. 0SC's Just John 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong article name, there is no deletion history for Our Server Clan. ~ trialsanderrors 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Our Sever Clan, and it was generic gaming clan vanispamcruftisement. Seems they couldn't even spell it right. WP:CSD crietria G11, A7 and WP:COI plus possibly WP:SPAM. Guy (Help!) 01:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed. ~ trialsanderrors 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The version you had was terrible. Any good article should get completely rewritten, which makes restoration have no point. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Game clans are default non-notable to the point where I have not seen one that hasn't been speedied. MER-C 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I don't even remember the last time a gaming-clan article got kept, and these days they rarely even make it to an AfD vote. I don't mean to be discouraging, but articles about gaming clans just don't have a chance in heck of being kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse following wiki guidelines I might have no clue how things work here, but please inform me if that gives you the right to disregard civility guidelines, and heap insults on me. I thought I remembered reading something quite different about treatment of newcomers. That aside, I made an effort to follow conventions, link all appropriate words to their wiki articles, structure the page and so forth, and I think "terrible" is a little harsh, if not blatantly wrong. Plus, it WAS in progress. I would also like to mention that I found several gaming clans on wikipedia, and that this was a sincere effort to make a valid contribution. So, only very well-known clans deserve mention. Noted. I would like to thank Andrew for courteously explaining the situation, and MER-C for at least holding off on the insults. 0SC's Just John 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. Which Wiki guidelines, this one, this one, this one, this one or this one? I thought I followed all those, myself. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Having been a member for years I expect that you know the guidelines inside and out. Having been a member for two hours when I made the article, I would imagine that the expectations on my end would be slightly lower. I apologize for not taking more time to read through all the requirements. I was only asking for a little common courtesy. I find it unfortunate that admins here do not feel the need to extend any such courtesy, but at least I realized at the start that this isn't the type of community I want to be a part of. Good day. 0SC's Just John 08:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Non-notable group as per WP:BIO; easily speedied as per {{db-group}}. (aeropagitica) 16:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• note to author Keep in mind that 'notability' and 'importance' are far different things. There are many things important to many people that sadly, cannot be verified. The WP:V policy is our collective protection against becoming swamped in the truely trivial and inconsequential. Specifically, once the subject of your article is reviewed or disscussed significantly by a third source independant of yourselves, then it meets the requirement for notability and verifibility. Also note that it is generally accepted Wikipedia policy not to edit articles in which you may have a Conflict of interest, this generally means not writing about yourself or things you're involved in. There can be exceptions made provided the subject is truely notable and you can write it in accordance with the Neutrality policy. Again, note that criticisms of the article are not criticisms of you personally, you appear to have abundant good faith and be willing to discuss, big big bonuses in working on the encyclopedia, and often sadly lacking qualities in some newer users working on articles near and dear to them, and also that lack of verifibility or notability does not equate to lack of importance. Wintermut3 05:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)