Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 4

Google Earth Hacks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)— (AfD)

This entry was deleted for failing WP:V. Here are some well-known sources that reference the site and give it some credibility:

Search Engine Watch [1]

BBC [2]

New Scientist Magazine (we're not mentioned in the exerpt, but we're in the full version) [3]

New Jersey Star-Ledger (the article expired on their site - link is to a cache) [4]

As for getting independent sources for the statistics about the site, I'm not sure how that could be done - site memberships, file downloads, etc, are not typically verified via a third party.

Is there any other information I can provide that would help?

Mickmel 19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete as a contested prod. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. ~ trialsanderrors 22:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Chi Iota Pi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Spanish Gibraltarians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

The thing I dont understand is why the article, which had been undeleted after a votation, was then deleted by Mackensen without a clear consensus to do so (9 votes to keep out of 19). Is this not against wikipedia rules? --Burgas00 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Prior discussion at WP:ANI. ~ trialsanderrors 19:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• I've already responded to all this on my talk page. Suffice to say that I stand by my close. Consensus isn't just the counting of heads. I looked for those keep and delete arguments which took Wikipedia policies to heart. I also looked back to the previous AfD and DRV for guidance. Based on all these things, I determined that there was a general consensus to delete. Mackensen (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is a factual reality not the product of your imagination or POV. This consensus did not exist.

Arguments, given in the AFD, in favour of deleting can be summarized as follows:

• This is racist Spanish propaganda. (Gibnews)
• Spanish Gibraltarians don't exist because Gibraltar is part of the UK. (Proto)
• Original Research. (Astrotrain)
• Gibraltarian political activists may vandalize this article, so it should be deleted. (Gibnews)

Examples of answers to such accusations given in the AFD:

Keep: This article gives its references clearly and apparently only offers as its mandate the various meanings and usages of this ethnic identification term. The article almost certainly has NPOV issues (made clear by this discussion if nothing else) but secondary source references and limited mandate seem to show it is neither OR nor a hoax...so any problems are an issue for article editors to work out, not AfD. Regarding arguments above that "edit wars are inevitable" I'd only say we shouldn't delete decently researched articles because problems MAY happen in the future. -Markeer 17:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've had enough of people using AfD in order to promote a particular viewpoint. I think this should be a procedural keep, AfD is for deciding whether or not articles belong on Wikipedia, not a space to rant about articles you disagree with. Lurker ^oi! 15:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep as per RockMFR. As for "you're either one or the other, as Gibraltar is not in Spain" i must remind people that we have African American, Arab Israeli, etc... -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 16:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the OR? I see multiple references, and a google search shows the term is used in media sources. Lurker ^oi! 15:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep It's a definate segment of the Gibraltar population. --Oakshade 23:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am still convinced you are mistaking your personal views with a consensus on an AFD. --Burgas00 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion. I disagree with the keep voters, but I do not see how you can get a consensus to delete from that. The delete people said there aren't reliable sources and it's a POV fork, the keep voters said the opposite. There's no reason for a closing admin to prefer one to the other. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure there is. Admins are expected to exercise some judgment and discretion. In particular, I saw no compelling reason to overlook the outcome of the previous AfD, which concerned substantially the same material, nor the troubling notability issues. If two sides make counter-arguments, but one has evidence and policy on their side, it is negligent to ignore that. Mackensen (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That makes sense in cases where delete !voters are citing policies all over, and the keep voters are saying "But I like it!" The keep voters expressed that they believe the sources already in the article were sufficient to meet the policies, and their opinions are not obviously misguided. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm content to disagree on that point, based on my reading of the situation. Mackensen (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion A bunch of editors saying "those sources look good" and another bunch saying "no they don't" call for a closing admin's unbiased judgment, which was applied here. After all, we should reasonably expect our reliable sources to be uncontested. Bias is a preconceived opinion on a topic and there is no evidence that Mackensen's call was biased. ~ trialsanderrors 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Entirely within closer's discression, and when a contentious source is in question, it should, properly, be assessed via WP:RS. It failed, ergo, article is not reliably sourced. Proto::► 10:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Here is a copy of the references used in the article. A saved copy of the whole article can be found on my user page. Nevertheless, the main reason for undeletion, at this point, is procedural.

1. Spaniards in Gibraltar after the Treat of Utrecht, Tito Benady, Transborder Institute of the Straights of Gibraltar. A history of Spanish Gibraltarians and Spanish immigration to Gibraltar from the Treaty of Utrecht to the present day. 1
2. Cronica, El Mundo. Article appeared on Spanish journal El Mundo, October 2002 on the Heirs of Gibraltar Association in San Roque, Spain. 2
3. Official website of Town Council of San Roque, Cadiz, offering a historical account of the Spanish Gibraltarians who founded the city. 3
4. Vogue Magazine, describing John Galliano as Spanish Gibraltarian.4
5. Article in the Daily Telegraph on Gregory Burke's play "The Straights", in which he depicts his childhood as an English expatriate in Gibraltar. Burke describes the rivalry between the local "Spanish Gibraltarian" and British expatriate kids.5

--Burgas00 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC) --Burgas00 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn As i said at the ANI, Mackensen relied on his own judgment because most of the keep votes are unsubstantail IMO. Gibnews talks about a racist spanish propaganda. Proto says that Gibraltar belongs to the UK (which is a fact) but fails to understand that nothing relates ownership of a place with people living in that place to warrant an article in wikipedia (i.e. Indigenous Australians (Awabakal people, Anmatyerre...), Arab citizens of Israel, List of English people with Caribbean origins and the list is long). Astrotrain argues that it is OR when links given above shows the opposite. What was the need of an AfD if the closing admin failed to detect the innacuracies in the "delete" arguments?

One more important thing is that the first Afd was on another POVish article titled something like "original inhabitants of Gibraltar" and content was cleared of POV. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 11:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion unless Gibnews' argument of racism can be verified (i.e. held to the same standard as an assertion made in an article). I am far from an expert on this subject and was asked to glance at this deletion review but I'm genuinely confused why an article with clear secondary sources would be deleted based on an OR argument, why one ethnic minority in a country/region is denied an article when others are not, or why we would delete an article because something might possibly maybe happen in the future. If a verifiable argument for racism could be presented I agree that should be taken seriously, but the administrator's arguments above seem highly questionable in context. At any rate, as I said I'm not an expert on the subject so this "vote" is as far as I'll go from here. -Markeer 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion. The point with Gibnews' claims of racism is that he reads that, as long as the argument of the descendents of the former Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar has been used as an argument of the Spanish irredentism, it must disappear (regardless of any other consideration). It's as if we'd erase the mentions to the Holocaust because they can be used to claim that Germans are intrinsically bad guys. Gibnews hasn't proved that what the article said was false (even if the first versions were highly POV). I see this deletion as a politically-based preemptive deletion. --Ecemaml 18:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion Firstly, a lack of consensus to delete. Secondly, arguments made in favour of keeping were not addressed satisfactorily. Arguments in favour of deletion incuded an unproven accusation of racism and a clearly refuted claim that article was OR. Thirdly, my concern that, as I said in the AfD I've had enough of people using AfD in order to promote a particular viewpoint still applies. The article's deletion seems to be in order to promote a pro-British viewpoint, and to remove an article which does not promote that point. A highly POV deletion, which is why I suggested procedural keep as using AfD in order to promote a political position is an abuse of the process, in my opinion. Lurker ^oi! 15:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems to me that the folks arguing overturn have confused the closing admin with the delete !voters, and I don't appreciate that much. DRV should not be used to re-fight the AfD nomination. The closing admin's primary concerns, that the article was a POV fork of a non-notable ethnic group, have not been addressed. I have no idea where this racism argument came from; it appears to be a strawman of some kind. Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply Mackenson: Regarding why the racism argument is addressed so much, for myself I believe it was a simple matter of confusion of signatures (my error). In the large body of text above I had assumed that the breakdown of pro-and-con arguments had been summarized and added by yourself, as examples of the arguments you had looked at when weighing your decision. Looking at [this edit] I now see that Burgas00 had placed that lengthy summary, although those may not have been the specific arguments or factors that affected your decision. Regardless, I have yet to see verifiable sources for this ethnic group being non-notable (something that I would assume would be needed considering the sensitive nature of culture and ethnicity) and I'm afraid I was never particularly overwhelmed by any POV in the article, except to the extent that it seemed to provoke strong reactions. My overturn vote will stand, but I hope this explains the focus of some of the responses here for you. -Markeer 21:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: But you said yourself you based your closing on the arguments given by the different sides. From this discussion it is clear that the delete arguments were weak and, in my opinion, emotional and politically based. Spanish Gibraltarians (depending on the various definitions of the expression) are in no way less "notable" than, say, the Macanese people. The article does not express any POV which would make it a POV fork, and as one user expressed previously, its mandate is limited to acknowledging the use of this term to describe certain groups of people. Clearly other users do not agree with your POV on this issue and above all, there was absolutely NO consensus on the AFD. The deletion should be overturned following wikipolicy. I realise that, as an admin, you are very active on AFDs and it is only natural that occasionally you make mistakes in good faith.--Burgas00 18:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Mackensen, of course the arguments on AfD are going to be revisited. Our concern is that you deleted the article despite a substantial number of keep votes because you looked for those keep and delete arguments which took Wikipedia policies to heart. If your reason for deletion is that the pro-deletion arguments are more in line with wikipedia policy than the pro-keeping arguments, how is one supposed to challenge this decision without discussing the validity of those arguments?

As for the racism "strawman"- it's clearly present in the AfD, where Gibnews states that "Racist rubbish does not belong". Surely an assertion that an article is "racist rubbish", with no supporting evidence, is not an argument which takes Wikipedia policy to heart. Lurker ^oi! 10:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion I actually made two comments on this page, but a user only shared one before I changed my vote from "keep" to "weak keep". This is part of it: There is a POV bent to it and I never like that. I always say that means the content should be changed, not the article deleted. I understand this is a passionate issue in Gibraltar (having been there, I've discussed it with locals), but this was a historic part of Gibraltar, even under British rule and that can't be ignored. This reminds me of the article Whites in Zimbabwe. That segment has heavily dissipated over the years and even if it totally disappears, the subject still would be relevant even for historical reasons. That said, I think there is the possibility people were overwhelmed with Gibnews passion during the AfD. I admit, I might have been. --Oakshade 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

IPhone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

Apple Computer has actually trademarked the name iPhone in various countries according to this article http://10layers.com/2006/10/apple-filing-for-iphone-trademarks-worldwide/ that also contains links to the trademark offices. The iPhone article should at least contain this fact that the product name is being trademarked and a link to Apple Computer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Novelist (talk • contribs).

• Endorse Deletion wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, not a crystal ball etc. A company like Apple probably has 1000s of trademarks which have never/will never appear on products ditto IBM etc. Wikipedia is not merely a directory of trademarks. --pgk 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If "iPhone is a word trademarked by Apple" is all we can write, then that's not an encyclopaedia article (and it's not a stub, either, because the definition of a stub is that it can be expanded). I would support redirecting to Apple Computer if that article mentioned the name, but it doesn't, so it wouldn't be helpful. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion until there are some hard facts such as a product announcement from Apple. They might only have trademarked the name to keep a competitor from using it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion until hard facts are available. Trademarks and patents are often registered on products that don't make it to market. I have every expectation that this product will probably come out, but we have no verifiable, reliable, authoritative information we could say about it at this point. Fan-1967 17:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This is one of the most well-known and talked about vaporware in recent years. There's certainly enough discussion in print/online to validate an article. User At Work 19:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• An article about rumors and discussions? Fan-1967 22:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• If any reliable sources have discussed this vaporware, please provide them, and we can consider unsalting. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Since Apple haven't public announced any product it sounds like it fails to actually be vapourware. --pgk 13:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• In fact, there is no problem with an article about rumours and speculation that was properly sourced. Indiana Jones 4 for example, has a wealth of mentions in major media. Re-title this iPhone speculation and let's stop abusing "not a crystal ball" etc.
  152.91.9.144 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but this wasn't properly sourced, it is just speculation about a possible product it even states "Despite not yet publicly confirming it will be released" that is pure crystal ball gazing. --pgk 09:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• The article has been undeleted as I now believe the article meets WP:V and WP:N. This was done before I saw this particular discussion. I was only made aware of this one. The article focuses on reporting verifiable information about the iPhone, and uses multiple reliable sources to back up the statements made in it. This is a significant improvement over the previous article which did not meet WP:V or WP:N, IMHO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• yep, WP isn't a crystal ball,and the WPedians who said delete have proved it. smile DGG 01:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and restore. A substantially different version of the article, based entirely on several different reliable sources (like the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN Money, Forbes etc.) reporting on analysts' predictions, patents, and business deals, was created in user space, approved by Nihonjoe as meeting WP:V and WP:N, restored to main space, and then speedy deleted by User:Zoe. I would like to point out that the "crystal ball" clause of WP:NOT says, "Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." Reliable sources reporting, in a nontrivial manner, on professional analysts' predictions is not "pure speculation" and "rumors". schi ^talk 15:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and restore - I stand by my decision to undelete the article as it was completely different than the previous version. I think Zoe's speedy deletion after I restored the article was completely unwarranted and unjustified. It's likely, based on comments made by Zoe since then, that he didn't bother comparing the previous version with the new one. You can see what the new version of the article is like here as I placed the contents back into Schi's userspace to work on (per his request). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Free Invision Power Board hosts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (Cfd)

Deleted by Kimchi because of merge discussion here.

• reinstate the category: the reason the category was made was two-ways: (1) lighten the number of links on the Invision Power Board article and (2) to provide a place to go in deeper on the specifics of the phenomenon of free Invision Power Board hosting. It does not make sense to link from the Invision Power Board hosts article to the category Forum hosting as Invision Power Board is a forum software, not a forum hosting service. Also in the category the Free Invision Power Board category merged into I cannot find any of the original text. Francinne 09:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse merge, which was the result of the MFD. This seems to me to be ridiculously specific. I wonder how many articles we have on providers of free Invision Power Board hosting? There are only eight companies in the merged Category:Forum hosting. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Is there actually a way to show the text that was deleted from the free Invision Power Board hosts Category. I feel you can not make a good judgement without seeing the content. Francinne 10:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse merge. From the stuff which is registered in the deletion log, the rest of the content would not help. You also haven't given a reason to overturn a proper deletion discussion, other than the fact you disagree with the decision. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: *sigh* the deletion log only shows part of the first sentence. The proper reason for undeletion is given in the two points I sum up above, numbered (1) and (2).

Besides the fact that I don't agree with a merge, I can also not stress enough that the merge was no actual merge: the text of the category free Invision Power Board hosts is nowhere to be found in this new category. So the merge/delete decision of the original debate hasn't been complied to in the first place. If you want to merge something (which I don't agree to in this case), fine then do a merge instead of wiping the article. <_< Francinne 13:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The "text" in the category description when it was first deleted was: "The following companies provide Invision Power Board forum hosting. Invision Power Board hosts" None of that is applicable to the forum hosting category and hence the I did not merge the description text. Kimchi.sg 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The "text" was a lot longer explaining the differences in licensing between 1.3 and 2.x Francinne 09:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the rollback, but endorsing the merge without commenting on the merge that was no merge is too easy as far as I'm concerned. Francinne 08:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Vectrex_3dimager.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Deleted by User:Betacommand as part of a reckless purge of about 1500 images tagged as replaceable fair-use. This image, and many others were tagged with {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, but the admin seems to have spent about 5 seconds per image and did not consider any fair-use rationale. See also Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Massive_Image_Deletion. Requesting Overturn as an out-of-process deletion. Dgies 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Note this was subsequently redeleted by a different admin, but as an observation the image was tagged {{promophoto}} which has a very specific meaning and is frequently misused, I can't tell if that were the case in this instance since it had no source, so I can't check if the source was indeed a press pack releasing the image for publicity purposes. The image could also have been deleted for no source in due course... --pgk 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And it was re-restored, it seems. I have deleted it because it has been tagged {{replaceable fair use}} for over 7 days, and no convincing argument was given why it would be impossible to photograph this item. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 04:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Hmm, well it is aparently very rare. They are out there though, does anyone have an eBay acount? Maybe this seller could be convinced to snap a photo of the thing, and upload it to Commons with a proper free license, if asked nicely to help us improve the coverage of vintage gaming systems. It's not like doing so would hurt his chances of selling it or anyting (well he could insist you buy it and take the photo yourself I guess, but no harm in trying). --Sherool (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That isn't a seller, it is someone who wants to buy... --pgk 13:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I was one of the admins to undelete this image It clearly is a promotional photo put out by the vendor to advertise an accessory for the Vectrex. Due to its rarity and the difficulty in finding a replacement photo, the fact it was used in an article on the system (relevant article) and due to the fact that a valid fair use claim was made, I believe this should remain UNTIL such time as a replacement image is created. I lean towards an undelete again.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Clearly is a promotional photo" doesn't cut it, it needs a source. How can you tell it was part of a press pack from just looking at it? --pgk 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. This image cannot reasonably be replaced with a free version. The arguments used in support of deletion are a bit troubling - with enough money, I guess we could create free versions of every image on Wikipedia by buying the subject and taking a picture of it. It is not reasonable to have to contact eBay users and ask for them to upload images of difficult-to-find objects to the Commons, or any other nonsense. Fair use images and promotional images are not inherently evil - we can use them. Stop being afraid of them. --- RockMFR 22:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Evil albino (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)— (AfD)

Was deleted without consensus (only 4 total responses to the AfD, and one was even for merge); I was in process of posting this:

• Merge — Merger long-proposed and uncontroversial. This AfD is totally pre-emptive of editor consensus on these articles, achieved over the last month, and ongoing work to improve them. The editorial issues with the article are already well-known, and in both evil albino and albino bias have already been flagged with fix-it tags and slated for improvement. This AfD notwithstanding, I'm performing the merge anyway, because that was already the extant consensus. I'll leave the AfD tag on it, of course. If someone wants to AfD albino bias, then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

to that AfD when the article was deleted out from under me and the AfD moved into the archives, so I couldn't even save my "Merge" comment. There is clear consensus at Albino bias to merge the content; the merge is literally in progress right now, and I need the Evil albino article restored to complete the merge and finish sourcing the content that will be retained; this may take several days, as quite a bit of research is needed. This AfD jumped the gun in at least three ways: the article was being actively edited to resolve the issues in the AfD when it was deleted (I know I made at least two such edits pretty much immediately prior to its deletion, and many more were still pending); the editor consensus already in play with regard to this content was that it should be merged and cleaned up; and the fact that it was performed with such a lack of pro-deletion response (just three!), none of which cited problems that cannot be resolved by editing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Merge. SMcCandlish perfectly encapsulates the series of events. A months long consensus among people who edited the article had developed to merge the salvageable content of "Evil Albino" with "Albino Bias". -Kubigula (ave) 04:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• You want this article to be userfied so you can move useful content? There is an issue with sourcing, but the article isn't wholly unsourced as some editors claimed. ~ trialsanderrors 06:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — Just having it restored as it was would be preferable, as part of the point of the merge will be to have Evil albino and redirs to it like Evil albino stereotype still work, as redirs to Albino bias. Evil albino has not-insignifcant usage as a wikilink, esp. in some topical talk pages. Having it be a redlink isn't optimal. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• That doesn't sound like a very convincing argument. There is only a handful of links to EA, which can esily be reset to AB, and the redlink can be replaced with a redirect to AB. ~ trialsanderrors 07:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — Well, call it a point of principle then. The deletion was very questionable to begin with. A miniscule 3-1 majority (and "AfD is not a vote" anyway), which would have been 3-2 had another two minutes passed and my save not been rejected as an edit conflict) isn't evidence of consensus on anything other than maybe what a couple of roommates are going to have for dinner whether the guy down the hall wants to eat it. The AfD was reactive and knee-jerk, demonstrating a total ignorance of the actual consensus debate on what to do with this article, despite the article being tagged for about a month with a merge template, and a long discussion on that merge taking place in talkspace. Further, it seems very odd to me that literally within minutes of me making substantive, corrective edits to the article and announcing that I was commencing the merge that the article disappeared, so fast I didn't even have time to add a comment on the AfD to that effect. Maybe just a coincidence; WP:AGF and all... I find it notable that someone who was not even part of the AfD has now also commented with an "overturn and merge", suggesting the original AfD would have been at least 3-3 if concluding the AfD had not been rushed and this new party had commented along with me. It's not a vote, but I think that the arguments on both sides are substantive, and thus that the result of the AfD would necessarily have been "no consensus" (or that it would have continued until long after the merge were complete and the AfD were rendered moot); none of the responses on either side can simply be disregarded as vacant me-too "votes". AND, the Talk page of this article has value; it would be retained, with only the article page being redirected to Albino bias; talk pages left over from old merges are often of quite a lot of value in resolving later questions or disputes that rehash old issues. I think this is a pretty routine, good-faith and uncontroversial overturn request, that will result in the article in question being merged into the target article shortly, to the extent possible and discarded otherwise, then made a redir to the improved article, which will be (is already being - go look) edited to resolve residual WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV concerns — the reasons for the delete !votes in the first place. So everyone wins. AfD is a conversation not a vote or contest anyway, right? Yes, I can complete the merge if the old article is just moved into my userspace (though not without causing an AfD-watcher false alarm by re-recreating the deleted article as a redirect, and not without loss or effective forgery of its talk page). I came to this overturn section here in Deletion Review instead of the restore-to-userspace section for a reason (check the history - you'll see that I did initially post this in the other section and then changed my mind). I'm trying to make the larger point here that this deletion was an error, not a trial, if you will.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Have you actually asked Mailer Diablo if he would reconsider his call in light of what you just wrote? Looks like no. Endorse deletion, no procedural problems, I recommend coming to an agreement with the closing admin. ~ trialsanderrors 09:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• He's been notified, as per the instructions on this page. If he doesn't care to respond, I don't see what pestering him on his talk page is going to accomplish. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• It accomplishes that you might actually get what you want without clogging process pages with frivolous accusations of impropriety. ~ trialsanderrors 22:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'd endorse an undelete for merge and redirect if there were any compelling evidence that this is other than OR. The Malfoys, for example, are not stated to be albino in the books. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Malfoys were already the first to be removed; plenty of others will be as well. I was working on that when the article was deleted.— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and merge most likely an honest mistake by the closing admin but AfD'ing an article which is in the process of being merged and detagged is not fair to the people working on the article. Problem could have been solved by asking for recreation in userspace since the article itself will serve no purpose once merged. MartinDK 15:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It would still have its talk page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Actually if you go to Talk:Albino bias you'll see that the "discussion" consisted of 5 !votes over the span of six months. There was clearly no "in process". In any case if SMcC asks Mailer Diablo I'm they can hammer out a solution, but I don't seee any process violations here. ~ trialsanderrors 17:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. No process violation and maybe I worded it wrong. He was in the process of merging it. Therefore the article should be recreated in userspace so he can complete the merger. No need for deletion review, a simple request to an admin could have solved this. MartinDK 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Usually when I get mixed delete/merge responses I just redirect and let editors pick salvageable material from the edit history. That solves the "matter in the wrong place" problem of userfying or leaving the merge tag up. ~ trialsanderrors 19:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Works for me. 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy - there is no evidence of improper closure but userfying the content to allow a systematic merge seems entirely reasonable. TerriersFan 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We'd still lose the talk page. Not a desirable result. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — To summarize my responses: I'd be very happy with Trialsanderrors' idea: '...just redirect and let editors pick salvageable material from the edit history. That solves the "matter in the wrong place" problem...' I wouldn't keel over and die, exactly, if it were simply userified, but it would leave me wondering whether it would be considered a Bad Thing to manually restore the contents of the Evil albino talk page after the merge were complete and Evil albino were made a redir to Albino bias. I understand the viewpoint that some here feel that I was being frivolous or even uncivil, even if I don't agree with that assessment. I don't want to argue further for the points I was trying to raise, since ticking people off seems likely, and the points are not that important. My goal isn't angering people, it's getting the merge+improvement done. And to be clear: The bogus WP:OR material in both articles is already on the chopping block (and I have some ideas about how to dissuade further additions of such hooey in the future). Every example will be cited with at least one and usually two references, as will things in the intro materials that need citations. If you look at the difference between the current half-finished verson of Albino bias and what it looked like a couple of days ago you'll see this already happening. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)