Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 6

Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Note This is not the same as the article Infinite monkey theorem. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This article sat on AFD for almost five days and was then deleted on 31 August. The discussion was closed without intervening comment about 16 hours later as "speedy close, already deleted", with the deleting admin apparently indicating he/she intended to close the discussion then. The issue remained closed for several days. Earlier today, another sysop restored the article and posted to ANI. A series of deletions and restorations ensued (I'm ignoring the caustic issue of whether these qualified as a wheel-war for the purposes of this DRV), with the AFD also closing and re-opening. The primary argument in favor of re-opening the discussion was that relevant communities, namely Wikiprojects for mathematics and probability, were not informed of the discussion. Although this isn't required by deletion policy as far as I know, it seems to be a good idea and is similar to what is done during Featured Article Review. Personally, I think this argument is weak, but I'm willing to make it to bring some closure to this mess. Chaser - T 22:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep At least some of this content belongs on Wikipedia. Paul August ☎ 22:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV is more about whether the process was followed correctly.--Chaser - T 22:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I understand that perfectly well. But since I had no opportunuty to participate in the original deletion discussion I thought I'd record my thoughts here. Paul August ☎ 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, lest anyone misunderstands my position in this discussion, it is overturn and relist at AfD so that I and other editors have a chance to fully discuss this. Paul August ☎ 04:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• overturn and relist at AfD Personally I don't think the content is terribly encyclopedic, and I'm not terribly upset about the Math and Probability projects not being informed in this particular case, because I don't think the article was really about mathematics or probability. Still, the AfD was apparently closed at least a little bit early, and even if it hadn't been, I hope WP procedures are not about sneaking things by editors that consider themselves to have a stake. --Trovatore 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and relist at AfD I have listed this present discussion as is customary at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. (Every time I mention that that is customary, someone reminds me that the AfD rules don't require it. I am aware of that, but nonetheless there are other rules and customs that do require it.) Michael Hardy 22:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Process followed properly, consensus reached, no really coherent "Keep" arguments were presented, and the whole set of invented claims regarding not notifying specific Wikiprojects is meaningless in the extreme, since 1) Wikiprojects have no special claims over articles; and 2) the article in question is called "Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture", meaning that it has little actually to do with math or probability theory and the claims of special expertise don't apply. --Calton | Talk 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • "Process followed properly" is highly questionable at best; see my "what happened here" comment below. Michael Hardy 02:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Given that you've been consistently wrong on everything from telling time to understanding policy, handwaving about "highly questionable" -- not matter how much bolding you put on it -- is less than convincing by itself. --Calton | Talk 03:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "Special claims over articles" is not what was claimed. Knowledgeability and interest in the subject matter was claimed. Michael Hardy 02:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, riiight. And the special "knowledgeability" in pop culture is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 03:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion that was a perfectly valid closure, and although relevant wikiprojects are often informed, that is by no means (contrary to what Michael Hardy has said) a rule anywhere. However I would be happy to move it into the userspace if someone makes a strong argument to do so, where it could be worked on and then put to the community to review. Viridae^Talk 23:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist per Trovatore. It seems like most of the editors were in a hurry with this one, including the admins involved. A carefully presented AfD, with interested project groups informed, given time to mature and develop effectively, seems like a good idea to me. --xDanielx^Talk 00:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as delete. DRV, for those who are unfamiliar, is not where one says, "Keep". That, my friends, is AfD. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion review.) That said, I disagree that the decision was "out of process" or that it was wrongly deleted. The AfD ran its course, was closed a few hours before the customary 5 x 24 hours ... that isn't enough for my to scream, "Process!" It was a valid AfD close, there was only one "Keep" argument and I'm not seeing how the probability or mathematics wikiprojects are expert "X in popular culture"-ites whose input must be sought before the AfD is allowed to close. If someone wishes to userfy it, work on it, and come back here to see if we agree to let it out into the encyclopedia, do it, but overturning the AfD is improper, because it was a proper closure. --Iamunknown 00:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This commenter also says it was a proper closure. See my what happened here comment below. Michael Hardy 02:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Although there was no reason to close it that quickly, the result was delete, and would continue to be delete unless new arguments were presented. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "Unless new arguments were presented" is the crucial point: those who would be most likely to have arguments were kept out of the loop. Michael Hardy 02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. I have not yet reached an opinion on whether the article itself should be kept or deleted, but I think that's not what DRV should be about. I (like I think many Math project editors) keep track of Math-related deletions via Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity. It wasn't listed there because of the completely inadequate categorization of the original article (only Category:In popular culture). I am also fairly diligent at going through new AfDs in AfD categories B and T, and have recently been active at categorizing AfDs in categories U, ?, and with blank or unrecognized categories. It wasn't in any of those, either, because it was listed only in category F. It also wasn't in any deletion sorting categories. If I, an editor with an active interest in mathematics-related deletion discussions and large watchlist, couldn't find the AfD, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the sample of editors active on the AfD was skewed heavily towards those interested in fiction-related AfDs and away from anyone interested in the more technical topics concerned there. Relist so a broader and more representative sample of editors can be reached. —David Eppstein 00:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• No one has yet to explain what the necessary technical expertise of Math project editors towards pop-culture articles actually is. Instead of the question-begging, how's about addressing that issue? --Calton | Talk 03:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Calton, not all pop culture articles are identical. They do have unique content. A brief scan of the AfD shows that very few editors actually considered the substance of the article ("I see 'culture' - delete!"). A good AfD entry should attempt to involve those who are knowledgeable on the subject. It's not codified in the form of mandatory policy, but it's a good practice. --xDanielx^Talk 06:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Daniel, not all snowflakes are identical, but guess what? They're still snowflakes. I repeat, what's the actual special knowledge about the actual subject of the actual article? Hint 1: what are the last three words of the article title? Hint 2: "actual subject" =/= "mathematics". An actual answer to my oft-raised question instead of misdirection and handwaving would be appreciated. --Calton | Talk 02:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I count around 7 or 8 times you've asked this. Where do you want the answer? If the other ones are left unanswered, it will look strange, so if one gets answered, you will strike out the other times you've asked the same question, right? Or maybe you are asking a rhetorical question, and people know that if they reply you will counter with prepared responses? Carcharoth 03:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Did you have some kind of point, other than to hear the sound of your voice? I'm asking the question because, despite it being the central underpinning of Michael Hardy's rationale, no one has made the even the slightest attempt to address it or justify it. The rest of your weird collection of rhetorical questions (o, the irony) I'll not even bother with.

• You forgot to sign. Since you don't like the sound of my voice here, I'll engage your arguments at one of the 6-7 other places you've stated them. See below. Carcharoth 22:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Calton, while the mathematics community has a mostly-academic focus, it isn't exclusively academic. A mathematics major and avid mathematician is more likely to be familiar with cultural references tied to the mathematics community. Just like a non-programmer isn't likely to know of the 127.0.0.1 funnies. Unfamiliarity with the cultural material inevitably leads to overgeneralized "I like culture" / "I don't like culture" discussions. We might as well just flip coins at the point where AfD participants are not familiar with the contents of the articles they judge and are not willing to do their research because "a snowflake is a snowflake." — xDanielx^Talk 09:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not even close to being a reasonable answer: the issue in question isn't which factoids are present in the list, it's the suitablity of the list itself. --Calton | Talk 02:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ahm, I believe I answered that pretty clearly. Let me quote my previous comment - "Unfamiliarity with the cultural material inevitably leads to overgeneralized 'I like culture' / 'I don't like culture' discussions. We might as well just flip coins at the point where AfD participants are not familiar with the contents of the articles they judge and are not willing to do their research because 'a snowflake is a snowflake.'" You seem to be telling me that the contents of the topic carry no importance. If that were the case, then "Harry Potter in popular culture" would be treated the same as "Pink and blue giraffes in popular culture." Such generalizations are not good practice. Perhaps you should read articles before deleting them. — xDanielx^Talk 04:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist - obviously this topic needs more discussion. Personally, I think "in popular culture articles" are sometimes good, and that the editors who blindly AfD anything with "in popular culture" in the title need to be restrained. Carcharoth 01:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the outcome of the AfD was quite clear, and I don't see how it was in error in any way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep; alternative overturn and relist. I find that the article has sufficient encyclopedic content to warrant being kept (and notwithstanding the differences between the purposes of XfD and DRV, this is a perfectly valid point to make; I don't support procedural overturns of deletions unless there is an article that is fundamentally worth keeping). At a minimum, the concern that the mathematics community was not aware of the nomination is sufficient to warrant a relisting (although the issue of the closure being a few hours early, in and of itself, would not be). Newyorkbrad 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's a popular culture "article" (really, a list of random factoids), so how, precisely, does "the mathematics community" have special input or dispensation into that subject? The calculus of Q ratings, perhaps? --Calton | Talk 03:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. Article was deleted too early and I think the close was also wrong. The arguments for deletion seem to be based on the style guideline WP:TRIVIA which says "Do not simply remove such sections", so they are not valid arguments for deletion but arguments for merging. I thus think that the comments by Canuckle, Robj and IPSOS in fact argue for merging. Furthermore I don't understand Goldcam's reasoning. Because of the combination of the early closure and my doubts about the closure itself, I think it should be relisted. Whatever happened after the article was initially deleted is not relevant for this DRV, in my opinion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC) (suffering an edit conflict with Newyorkbrad)
• Overturn and relist, and please let it go the full 5 days. Then, hopefully, this article will cause no more drama. (By the way, I do not have an opinion on whether it should be kept.) Cardamon 02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• What happened here: This was nominated for deletion in the usual way. The case was closed in the following way: after six people had expressed their views, one in favor of keeping the article, three days had elapsed. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics never found out the discussion was happening because category tags had never been put on the article, so it escaped the bots that would normally list it on the "Current activities" subpage, usually followed by someone putting a notice on the aforementioned talk page. It was closed by someone who called it a "speedy close" after three days of commenting. "Speedy deletion" is for occasions of a different kind, not proper for this situation. I pointed that out and then it was claimed that nearly five days had passed and that the rules had changed since last I was aware of them: five days rather than seven is now considered standard. Since "speedy deletion" is not proper for this situation, I complained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents. THEN people started claiming it had NOT be handled as a speedy deletion but rather the usual procedures were followed. Someone suggested reopening the discussion, this time notifying the math community. The person who closed it agreed and reopened it, just long enough for someone else who didn't care what the article said to display his knowledge of the word "bilge", then he expressed outrage that I had posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, according to the plan he had agreed to. He called it "canvassing", although I did not urge either "keep" or "delete"; it was just the usual notice that the AfD discussion was in progress. He also called it "desperate"---just the usual notice that people put there---and generally acted as it it took him by surprise, after he he had earlier said was "fine". Michael Hardy 02:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • ...and as I've said elsewhere: while most who post "delete" of "keep" views at AfD are good people; those who spend all their time on AfD far too often act as if they own the place and anyone who actually knows something about an article is an intruder to be pushed aside. Michael Hardy 02:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The person who closed it agreed and reopened it Who are you referring to here? Could you please diff where this person re-opens the discussion?--Chaser - T 02:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Michael Hardy happens to be wrong on just about every particular above, from timing to policy. Let's just highlight the simplest:

• Opening of AFD: 14:53, July 26, 2007
• Deletion of article: 08:36, July 31, 2007

• Elapsed time: 4 days, 17 hours, 17 minutes
• Length of time this was "closed early": 6 hours, 53 minutes

• Closing of AFD: 00:26, August 1, 2007

• Elapsed time between deletion and official closing: 15 hours, 50 minutes
• Elapsed time between listing of AFD and official closing: 5 days, 7 hours, 35 minutes

The only reason someone suggested "reopening" the discussion was because Michael Hardy had already undeleted it and the suggester clearly wished to avoid any wheel-warring. Michael Hardy, however, had no compunction against wheel-warring himself, since he twice more reversed the deletion of two other uninvolved admins who stepped in and closed it as "delete".

Certainly Michael Hardy made no attempt to actually relist the article himself, despite his claims he was undeleting for further consideration, so what he was doing was simply overturning the obvious consensus of the AFD decision. I myself re-added the AFD tag to the article and added my comment to the AFD, as the simplest way to run out the few hours possibly remaining and to unambiguously settle this.

Between the wheel-warring, the Wikilawyering (see, it's not wheel-warring because it's about only ONE article), the utter misunderstanding of policy, the inability to follow events or even read a calendar, Michael Hardy's views ought to be considered with a fairly enormous grain of salt. --Calton | Talk 03:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Could we have some accuracy here? If, as is claimed, this AfD was properly concluded, the fact remains that it was made to appear to have been improperly speedied. What is the proper procedure when an administrator find that an article is improperly speedied, if not to restore it? Michael Hardy 21:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • To talk to the admin who "speedied" it? How did you pass RfA? —Kurykh 22:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Could we have some accuracy here? If that's important to you, you ought to start. You can't even get the calendar correct. --Calton | Talk 02:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist The confusion surrounding this AfD can best be resolved by relisting, an action that costs us nothing. Closing it early was clearly a bit contentious in this instance so letting it run the full course would be best. --ElKevbo 02:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Except that it wasn't "closed early" by any reasonable definition of the phrase. --Calton | Talk 03:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay. But relisting this at AfD costs us nothing and appears likely to result in a much better discussion with the possibility that the article may be saved and improved by interested editors. I don't quite understand the animosity that failing to list this one AfD at the various interested projects has generated but relisting this one AfD to regain their goodwill seems like a small price to pay. --ElKevbo 03:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. Though the process error isn't a large one, the one thing that a full set of math editors could bring to the article is a motivated group of people that might be able to improve it. At present the article includes everything but the kitchen sink, and though I don't object to all articles that have 'in popular culture' in the title, you would have to be an extreme fan of those articles to want to keep this one in toto. Naturally, if the editing efforts of the enlarged set of participants are not enough to create a worthwhile article, we will still have to delete the thing. If listing the new AfD at WP:WPM is considered one-sided, how about we post a notice at WP:AN and WP:VPP as well, to be sure not to leave anyone out. EdJohnston 03:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist What the heck. There's no harm done extending the process. It'll stop the bickering on both sides. Sr13 is almost Singularity 04:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Changing decision to endorse deletion. Process was adequately followed. Whether the math community knew of the discussion or not is their responsibility. The only reason a discussion was set forth here was because of the controversy at ANI. Sr13 is almost Singularity 22:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Per my statement below, I stand corrected. Singularity 20:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • How irrelevant can you get? If the math community neglected its responsibility to be aware of the AfD and to assist Wikipedia by helping with this matter, then let's punish the Wikipedia math community by depriving the rest of Wikipedia and the public of their knowledge further still! That's the reasoning here. Certainly considerable gratitude is owed by the rest of Wikipedia for the Herculean work of the Wikipedia math community for the enhanced prestige of Wikipedia generally, which is the result. And why don't we punish someone who wantonly killed a child by killing all of the child's classmates too? The purpose of this page is entirely misunderstood by Sr13. This page is supposed to serve Wikipedia's interests. This discussion is supposed to be about whether Wikipedia's interests would be served by relisting or not. To make it about other things is improper. Michael Hardy 04:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist at AfD I'm shocked to hear words to the effect that, nevermind the outcome, the process was correct. Process does not exist for its own sake; the point is to achieve good results. David Eppstein has clearly explained how the very existence of the AfD was missed by someone actively looking for such. It is disingenuous, bordering on dishonest, to pretend the mathematics community would have no special interest. The fact is, this DRV has now drawn comments from enough mathematics editors to have dramatically affected the outcome of the AfD, if only they had known in time. It is rude and obstructive to dismiss that interest under the circumstances. Is this any way to collaborate on building an encyclopedia? I think not. The remedy is obvious, simple, and safe: overturn and relist. --KSmrq^T 04:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• the point is to achieve good results And it did: a useless collection of random pop-culture factoids disguised as an encyclopedia article was deleted, and done according to proper process. I'd call that a win-win, myself. --Calton | Talk 02:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Have a look at the early versions of the main article for a more restrained treatment of the subject. You have tried that with other popular culture articles, haven't you? Or is looking through the history of an article too much trouble, with "delete" being the easier option? Carcharoth 03:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, since there was not the slightest sign that there ever was a suitable version based on the version that was up, nor is it my job to go digging through the manure pile in hopes of uncovering a pony, nor was there the slightest attempt to fix anything during the run of the AFD. It's certainly more trouble than answering a simple question about why a Wikiproject gets special claims of knowledge, and certainly far more trouble to concoct a series of bogus, bad-faith rhetorical questions to avoid answering said question or denigrate an opponent. Have you thought of, I dunno, offering an actual argument or offering actual evidence? --Calton | Talk 02:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• You are contradicting yourself. First you say that there was "not the slightest sign that there was ever a suitable version" - which implies that you did look. Then you are saying that it's "not your job" to look. Which is it? And that's not a rhetorical question. You also say "nor was there the slightest attempt to fix anything during the run of the AFD" - can you think of any reasons for that? Ooh, let's think? Maybe, ooh, I don't know, just maybe those who might have been interested in the subject matter hadn't noticed it was up for AfD? It does happen you know. Would you seriously say that a good-faith "sorry, we missed the discussion, can we re-open it?" should be rejected out of hand? Now, since you want a serious answer to what a WikiProject can contribute to an AfD discussion, I suggest you ask for the deletion to be overturned and the article relisted. This is not the venue to have that discussion. Carcharoth 22:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. A) wheel warring should not be so rewarded. B) popular culture articles are generally not kept, the deletion was in keeping with that. C) at least 10 delete votes to 2 keeps and 1 merge is a clear consensus to delete, even under snowball conditions. D) There is absolutely no rule that says you have to notify wikiprojects about deletion. The community spoke on this one and spoke remarkably clearly. E) This is NOT the Infinite monkey theorem article which surely is a keep. This is a pop culture spinoff of that, something we have been trying extremely hard to remove as inherently unencyclopedic. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This statement that there is "absolutely no rule" could be applied thus: An article says "There aint no way to add two odd numbers and get another odd number". I edit it to say "The sum of two odd numbers is even". You object that Wikipedia has "absolutely no rule" requiring that edit. But the point is to create a good encyclopedia, not to follow codified rules. No one ever said there was a codified rule requiring such notification. That's a straw man. What was said was that such notification is needed in order to get good results in this case, and that such notification is a customary, if not codified, rule in this subject. Michael Hardy 17:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You STILL haven't explained the special knowledge that mathematicians will bring to discussions of popular culture, even if one grants your rather convoluted assertion about notification in general. --Calton | Talk 02:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist at AfD. Don't be tempted to treat this as a matter of approval or reward or punishment for what has gone before; or even as a vote for delete or keep. As I understand it, this is just a procedural review. I am guided by Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. The tone, especially the whole section Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Deletion process, suggests proceeding slowly and carefully, and looking for alternatives. The closure is described as something that might take a couple of days even after discussion is concluded. There's no basis for pejorative comments on people who carried through the delete previously, and Michael Hardy in particular needs to stop making shrill accusations. His behaviour was almost enough to tip me the other way; but that would be a terrible basis for a decision. In my view, the previous delete was a just a tad hasty (no criticism of persons intended) and the general tone of the discussion, from all parties, was not in line with the idea of looking for consensus. Overturn, and relist. And in fact, wait a week before relisting. All the people here who have been warring with each other have a good record of positive engagement, and deserve a bit of time to cool off before it all starts up again. If it matters, at this stage I plan to vote for delete when it is relisted. But I think it should be relisted. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Five days and seven comments grounded in policy is nowhere near "hasty". --Calton | Talk 02:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, not one of those seven Delete votes made a single reference of any wikipedia policy. — xDanielx^Talk 09:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse and WP:TROUTwhack Michael for wheel warring and namecalling. >Radiant< 08:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist to allow the Maths community time to review. IMO one of the good things about WP is the strength of its coverage of popular culture. I don't know whether the article should be trimmed, deleted, or kept fully intact because at the moment I can't read it. But I'd like to see editors who are close to the subject given a chance to make that call. Jheald 14:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've restored it so that people can see old versions in the page history. Here is the last revision before deletion.--Chaser - T 16:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Will someone, somehow, make even a minimal attempt to explain the special knowledge that the "Maths community" will bring to discussions of popular culture? --Calton | Talk 02:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The incivility and wheel-warring by a longtime admin in stirring this up is very unseemly. Quale 14:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse the outcome. There was evident consensus to delete. If any process was not followed here, it was the unilateral decision on the part of one admin to sidestep the deletion process and conclude that it ought to be undeleted. The old "But this Wikiproject wasn't notified!" is an old and tired argument - Wikiprojects do not WP:OWN articles any more than individual editors, and their lack of participation in an XfD debate is not grounds for overturning it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, a strawman. No one say any project owns the article. What was said was that those who participate there may have special knowledge of the topic. As for sidestepping, note that, as I have pointed out, at the very least there was actuall deception at least twice. Michael Hardy 17:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • And that's what gives certain WikiProjects a bad name. WikiProjects have no special authority or right over articles in their subject area. Zero. That includes any "right" to be notified of any nomination for AfD or any other edits to such articles. The reason people don't more frequently notify WikiProjects is because many of them engage in bloc-voting to keep just about anything in their area without actually taking a reasoned look. And now we've got wheel warring because something that isn't required in the first place wasn't done? That's ownership of the worst kind, and after this, I sure wouldn't be likely to notify the math WikiProject of, well, anything in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The claim that any entity, be it an individual or a Wikigroup, has some sort of "special knowledge" regarding an article and therefore ought to be consulted prior to its deletion is an expression of ownership - there are no two ways about it. Is it possible that the Math wikiproject has some sort of "special knowledge" applicable here? Perhaps. Is it possible that, had they been consulted, they could have shed some new information on the discussion? Yes. However there is not and should not be a requirement, expressly stated or implied, that any individual or group must be consulted prior to taking administrative action such as deletion. The majority of the editors expressing a desire to overturn this decision are doing so not on the argument that the Math wikiproject actually has any new, insightful or special knowledge to share with the discussion - but rather simply "Hey, we should have been notified". That's ownership. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That's just silly. I don't know how to do open heart surgery, so I don't edit the article on it. Those who do know, should be the ones to write the article. If that's "ownership", make the most of it! And these accusations of "wheel warring" are based only on the fact that the deletion was at the very least made to appear to be an improper "speedy" deletion. Michael Hardy 20:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - this debate is pointless, because the material is now in Infinite monkey theorem (see this edit), though not many people seem to have noticed. I went there to see whether that featured article had the popular culture stuff in there at the point when it was promoted, and as far as I can tell, it didn't. Carcharoth 17:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your new information is helpful. However (a) it may not suffice for GFDL reasons, since this article may have been edited since the split, (b) if the DRV ends with Endorse Deletion that may be taken by some as a ban against re-creating without getting permission through a further DRV. EdJohnston 19:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My new information was helpful? I'm glad to have been of assistance. </sarcasm> I've looked at the edit summary for your comment, and I think there might be a misunderstanding here: "Implications of Carcharoth's discovery of the whole article still lurking in the history of IMT" - the whole article is not merely "lurking in the history of IMT", it was added back there after the article was deleted, directly from the deleted version of the article, as shown by the edit summary: "Add texxt from deleted article (see talk page)", and the content is currently in the article as I write this. That is why I'm saying this review is pointless. The material has been merged back into the main article, and has probably unbalanced the 'featured status' of that article (the other point I made). I would have thought the link I provided would have made that clear. The GFDL concerns are addressed at the article's talk page here. As for "seeking permission from DRV" - that is process for the sake of process. If the editors of Infinite monkey theorem can integrate some or all of the material into that article (hopefully retaining featured status at the same time), then good luck to them. No need to 'seek permission'. If you, personally, feel that the material is unsuitable there, then your options are to take part in the editing of that article (without being disruptive), or to nominate Infinite monkey theorem for deletion (which would probably also be disruptive as it is a featured article). Nominating Infinite monkey theorem for Wikipedia:Featured article review, on the basis that the article that was promoted did not have the large chunk of text it does now, is another option. Pointing at the AfD and the DRV and 'insisting' on the removal of the material, would be counter-productive. Carcharoth 22:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the deletion appears to block us from separating the material out into its own article. In my opinion it does not belong in the main article. I have no great attachment to its presence anywhere in WP, but if it's going to be somewhere, then it really is Better Here Than There (and the essay that says to avoid that argument is flat-out wrong). --Trovatore 23:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that BHTH is not always a good argument to make. As for the deletion appearing to block you from separating the material out into its own article, I wouldn't worry about that. This DRV is showing that there is precious little consensus over what to do. Carcharoth 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• The "popular culture" section WAS in the article when it became a featured article. Michael Hardy 23:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Here it is, the version that was promoted to "featured" status. The third section is "Literature and popular culture". Michael Hardy 23:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh please! Give me some credit for knowing what I'm talking about. Look at the Article Milestones bit on the talk page, and then note that the article went through Wikipedia:Featured article review. That is obviously the benchmark for any new FAR, and pointing to the Featured Article promotion from September 2004 (nearly three years ago) is completely missing the point (though even there, the section you point out is tiny compared to the mess that got deleted as a separate article). Now, look at the real benchmark, the article that was kept at FAR in March 2007 (this year): see here. The popular culture section there is a single sentence with a link to "main article". If you look at the featured article review itself, you can see someone questioned the presence of this tiny, single-sentence stub section at the end, and the reply was : "That sentence is just a summary of Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture, the detailed contents of which were purposefully removed from the main article long ago. Melchoir 20:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)" - so obviously the process that brought the article up to the current FA standards did not include a review of the material that has just been imported into the article. Hence my comment that this "has probably unbalanced the 'featured status' of that article". Carcharoth 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - consensus to delete was clear and the keep arguments of WP:BHTT are not valid. Otto4711 17:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Those are not the arguments on which the proposed review is based. Michael Hardy 19:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment note that WP:BHTT is part of an essay, not even a guideline. In my opinion it's one of those ideas that sounds good but in practice is just wrong. This sort of content really is Better Here Than There, for reals, people. --Trovatore 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• This sort of content is better anywhere but WIkipedia. Otto4711 16:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - easy consensus, calling it an "early close" is just pedantic. Will ^(talk) 18:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, valid consensus reached. Nothing wrong with the process. "We want to repeat the same arguments again" isn't a good reason to overturn a deletion. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not a valid reason not to review. See the comment way down below, on why not. Michael Hardy 19:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "We want to repeat the same argument"s?? The arguments were never made! That's the point! Michael Hardy 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and admonish Michael Hardy for personal attacks and wheel-warring. The article was deleted as according to obvious consensus in the AfD. Overturning this deletion because something optional wasn't done is fallacious. —Kurykh 22:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I made an accusation against "Kurykh", not a "personal attack". As for "wheel warring" I ask again: Kurykh made this at least appear to be an improper "speedy" deletion, so in case of an improper "speedy", what should an administrator do if not restore the article? Michael Hardy 23:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Talk to the admin who speedied it? Standard admin procedure, which you seem either ignorant about or are actively ignoring. And your "accusation" of me being a liar was refuted easily, and yet you just love to persist in repeating the same old bilge at me. When an accusation is refuted, it ceases to be an accusation and becomes a personal attack when it is repeated mechanically without looking at the facts. Enough of your pathetic "hiding behind the 'accusation' veil" excuses. —Kurykh 04:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist for AFD Sometimes I wondoer what's going on with people around here. All Hardy is asking for is input. It's not like this article generates passions in people and needs to be kept or deleted to end wikistrife. Does it inherently violate NPOV? or is it filled with BLP violations? or does it potentially violate any of the other core tenets of wikipedia? From the looks of things a longstanding admin (what since 2002?) simply wanted input on an article he thought was worth something --and it doesn't cost you guys anything to hear him out (or the math community either for that matter). A clear case of IAR if I ever saw one (keep in mind I don't think much of IAR in general). Following process for its own sake is stupid. </rant> R. Baley 01:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think I do understand what's going on. What happened is that Michael lost his temper, said some things he shouldn't have, and antagonized a bunch of people. Now they're antagonizing back. I wish Michael hadn't done that. I'm especially upset that he's squandered some of the goodwill of the math project over a piece of trivia like this. But we all (or at least most of us) do things like that now and then, and it works out a lot better for everyone if everyone gets an occasional pass on such things, especially if we make good contributions in other ways (which Michael certainly does). So if everyone could just pretend that Michael had politely raised the issue at DRV, pointing out that there was reason to think the decision had been made a bit hastily, maybe we could agree that there's no huge cost involved in taking another look. --Trovatore 02:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • An alternative viewpoint, looking at the bigger picture (though not the biggest picture) is that there is a large spate of "in popular culture" articles going through AfD at the moment (where moment is several weeks at least) and there is a block of AfD regulars who are !voting delete regardless of the actual content (they see 'in popular culture' in the title and trot out the same arguments). Some of the popular culture articles do need to go, but what many of the !voters don't seem to realise is that there are some subjects where valid cultural studies sources can be found (this is more common for 'real world' subjects, as opposed to fictional topics - eg. compare Cultural depictions of Julius Caesar, Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great and Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, with something like Toupees in popular culture), or that many of these articles are spun out from bigger articles and should be merged back in and edited down, rather than deleted. Elsewhere, Uncle G has made some good points about how the cycle of allowing popular culture factoids to accumulate, and then deleting them, is a never-ending rinse, lather, repeat cycle. What is needed is well-written, well-sourced, brief sections on such topics, well integrated into the topic articles. This demonstration of how to do things properly should discourage the addition of trivial factoids. Getting back to the alternative viewpoint, most of the 'popular culture' AfDs are succeeding, but some, quite rightly, encounter resistance. And this is one such case. Carcharoth 02:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • In cases like this, I don't care that much about improving the treatment, and I especially don't want it merged back. I want it ghettoized. The AfD voters aren't going to be around to police the articles and keep the cruft from coming back. Off in a little corner with a long title and few links to it, the content will do little damage to WP's reputation, but can be found by anyone who really wants it. Not the most aesthetically beautiful solution, but extremely practical. --Trovatore 07:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Carcharoth, that was beautiful :O. — xDanielx^Talk 09:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Deletion was a mere 16 hours earlier than it should have been, and no discussion was going on. Arguments that project members might know more about this than other editors are largely irrelevant, as the main reason for deleting was the trivial nature of the content of the article. It doesn't take an expert to diagnose a trivial collection of loosely connected topics. There is no prejudice against someone writing a good article to replace this. Someguy1221 01:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• This is silly - if not for a wheel war, this wouldn't even be an issue. This is not a referendum on the main article as some seem to think it is - it's a question of whether we need lists of pop culture references in an encyclopedia. The AFD was correctly decided and closed. --B 02:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't be silly. This is not a referendum on the main article. I don't know where you get the idea from that anyone thinks that. There is discussion about the relationship between the daughter article and the main article. Maybe you mistook that for a referendum? Anyway, what we need is articles (not lists) about popular culture. Preventing them degenerating into lists, and then preventing people-who-forget-to-check-the-history from deleting the lists, is a problem, I admit. Carcharoth 02:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Popular culture articles are long established on Wikipedia; this is not about whether those should exist. Nobody opposes them, as far as I've heard. Just try deleting MIT in popular culture and see what happens. Michael Hardy 15:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "Nobody opposes them" — current events speak otherwise. —Kurykh 16:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • "Nobody opposes them" is, well, simply untrue, look at the AfD here. A lot of "in popular culture" stuff has hit AfD recently. Many of the debates will be no consensus at most, if they don't in the end turn out to be a delete. I tend to take a position in the middle—I think some "cultural impact of X" articles (and let's call them that, not "in popular culture") are alright and could be written from some secondary source. On the other hand, some are effectively just "Family Guy spoofed this once, and so did South Park, and it got mentioned on Beavis and Butthead one time, oh and this book that only ever sold fifteen copies mentioned it on page 405...". Those got to go. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Some people oppose many particular cases of "in popular culture" articles. So do I. But does anyone oppose something like MIT in popular culture? Most popular culture articles may be crap, but some are important. In the present case, the article contributes to understanding of allusions in literature. Michael Hardy 19:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: If it was a valid decision to delete, that's no reason not to review the decision. Perfectly valid decisions to delete after perfectly good AfD processes can be validly reviewed if new information that is relevant may be added. That is clearly the case here. Michael Hardy 19:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't mean to be snide here but what exactly is this "new information" presented in this DRV? Because all I am really seeing is folks upset that they didn't get to chime in. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 23:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Specifically what it is is what we would find out after hearing from those people, but it's likely to include information from those familiar, not with popular culture, but with the culture of mathematics and in particular of probability. Those are the people most likely to rearrange the article to connect the popular with the erudite. Michael Hardy 02:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• So you're suggesting overturning a valid deletion in the absence of new information based on the possibility that someone who didn't comment the first time might have something else to say? No. Otto4711 19:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Of course, because it is a community of people likely to know things about the topic that the few original commentators did not know. Have you never heard of consulting experts? (I'm not suggesting that everyone their would be an expert on this particular narrow topic, but some are likely to know far more than the original small group did, especially since those didn't demonstrate any knowledge. Michael Hardy 21:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sure we've all heard of "consulting the experts" - but nowhere is it listed as a required (or even recommended) step in the deletion process, nor is failure to do so listed as a reason to overturn a deletion. Requiring editors to first of all make a determination as to who qualifies as the experts on any given subject, and then consulting them, before filing (or closing) an AfD listing would be piling more unecesary bureaucracy on the process. I understand your point of view that there is some possibility that someone in the wikiproject would have some new and pertinent information to shed on the situation - but my point is that no one has. No one from the project has presented any evidence or reasoning that a relisted discussion would have any different an outcome, no one of them has presented any new information pertinent to the deletion discussion. If someone were to come forward and say "Hey, I know of an academic discourse on the subject of the infinite monkey theorem and its useage in popular culture", that would be new information worthy of overturning a deletion. Saying "maybe one of these guys knows something we don't" without providing any hint that they actually do is not a reason to put this article through another AfD and force people to slog through a debate that isn't going to turn out any differently. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• So one should do only what is "listed" or "required"? If I find an article that has a statement that I think would be clearer if rephrased in a certain way, that's not enough reason to do that, because it's not "listed" or "required" in some particular set of editing rules? Michael Hardy 22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. You could have taken the possibly unbelievable step of seeing if anyone in the WikiProject had something to add before opening a DRV. Someguy1221 23:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I've never opened any DRV. Michael Hardy 04:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Relist This was one of the first of a large number of similar articles, and it was lost in the rush. Relist so a more adequate discussion can be had. DGG (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• One would think that if it was one of the first it would have been more apparent than ones buried in a later crowd of nominations... Otto4711 19:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Relist per xDanielx and DGG. Mathmo ^Talk 03:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion A clear consensus to delete was present. No sources about the IMT in popular culture are used in the deleted article, none are referenced in the AFD, and none are offered here. An article on this topic is unsuportable on the evidence offered. If someone finds sources on the actual content of the article, it can be rewritten using those sources. GRBerry 01:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • Or the material could just be added back into the main (featured) article (something I'm not happy about). If you click on the link I provide, you will see that the material in question has been sitting in the main article for nearly four days now, which makes some of the "keep deleted" comments here look like they either aren't aware of that, or are ignoring it for whatever reason. Carcharoth 10:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's another reason besides those offered so far: few precisely articulable mathematical resutls are so widely known as this, and it's primarily because of transmission through popular culture rather than because of transmission in the classroom. Michael Hardy 04:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment 16 to 16 so far by my count. But it's not supposed to be about vote counting. Now let's ask which of the reasons offered respect the fact that this page is supposed to serve the interests of improving Wikipedia? It is said that because the Wikipedia math commuunity neglected to get involved, one should endorse deletion. So because the math community did not offer its valuable help then, Wikipedia should be deprived of its valuable help later. To punish Wikipedia's math community. If a debt is overdue, we should refuse to accept full payment offered late, in order to punish the debtor. Does punishing those who offer help later than they should have, by refusing to accept their help later, serve the interest of improving Wikipedia; does it serve the purposes of this page? Michael Hardy 04:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't know how many different ways this has to be explained, but this is not about punishing Wikipeda, or the math project, or depriving either of anything. No one from WikiProject mathematics or elsewhere has actually offered any material to solve the issues raised in the AFD. They or any everyone else is free to do so any time they feel like it, and the article can be undeleted at any time once they do. Someguy1221 05:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Why undelete the article when all the material is already at Infinite monkey theorem? I predict that in a few months time, someone unaware of this debate will spilt out the popular culture section and recreate this article. That's why a proper debate is needed. I would love to get a chance to edit this article properly during an AfD and demonstrate what needs doing. And don't ask me to do that in my userspace. There is enough material there to make a start in the article namespace, right now. Failing the chance to do it at AfD, I'll make a start here. The history (which is currently treated in the main article) can be traced back to Arthur Stanley Eddington:

      "Eddington was a superb populariser of science, writing many books aimed at the layman. He promoted the infinite monkey theorem in his 1928 book The Nature of the Physical World, with the phrase "If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters, they might write all the books in the British Museum"."

      This is a good jumping off point for a presentation of how this theorem became so popular in the public consciousness. I also found this wired article, which would be a good source for saying that the theorem is one of the thought experiments that is widely known. I could do more, but I'll wait for the result of this review first. Carcharoth 10:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a rather specious appeal to emotion - this debate is not about punishment or repaying debts or anything of the like. The question being asked here is simple: was this deletion performed erroneously? I fail to see how. There were no abnormalities in the process, consensus was achieved in the deletion debate, procedures were followed. Despite the emotional appeals that the math community was slighted, wronged, deprived or otherwise snubbed by not consulting them, no one has offered any new fact or new argument on the community's behalf. You say the Math project is offering its help but have yet to tell us just what help that is. If the Math wikiproject has any argument for keeping this article based on policy or guideline then please share that information with us instead of merely asking us to overturn a deletion just because they weren't consulted. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 05:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. It seems to me that this kind of butting heads is not helping us build and encyclopedia. The fact of the matter seems to be that, while the policies guiding AfD were followed correctly, the spirit(allowing a consensus to build on the appropriateness of the article's inclusion) of the policies was ignored(however I do not believe that this malicious). Is there any harm that could result from relisting the article on AfD? Why don't we apply WP:IAR in this case and clarify policy so this kind of thing will not happen again? --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 06:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• How was the spirit, ie. allowing consensus to build, not followed? This article was given the same amount of time and opportunity for discussion that every other article on AfD is afforded. Putting this back up for discussion simply because the Maths wikiproject wasn't notified and didn't get to chime in causes harm in that it sets a bad precedent. Are the editors who nominate an article for AfD supposed to figure out that the math WP might want to participate simply because this article mentions statistics? It mentions monkeys, does that mean we should have called WikiProject Primates in as well? How about WikiProject Books since it involves writing? The Films, Theatre, Television, Comics, Internet Culture and Media Wikiprojects could all equally stake a claim here. Every one of them could potentially make the statement that they have some "special knowledge" applicable to the discussion to add, and that the AfD is invalid as they weren't notified. The precedent of overturning any AfD on the grounds that some Wikiproject is a bad one. Again - if anyone from the Maths wikiproject can add any factual argument in favor of a new discussion, some new evidence to consider, then why haven't they done so? That would change the entire tone of this discussion and provide an actual reason to do so. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• It would set a good precendent, not a bad one. I've now proposed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy that this particular "bad precedent" should become a general prescribed rule as common sense would suggest. If this case sets a new precedent that one should do that, then this case will have served a very good purpose that benefits Wikipedia in general. Michael Hardy 20:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• ...and as for thinking of every WikiProject or person who might be able to contribute, that's a good idea. One cannot be omniscient or infallible, but an attempt at completeness would be useful. If some group is later found to have been left out that could contribute, then one can propose relisting. To treat this process as if there were some sort of stare decisis doctrine would be absurd. It's as if we were to say to someone who can add good material to an article: "You should have been here when this this article was being created. Since you weren't we will punish you be refusing to benefit from your kindness and expertise." Michael Hardy 20:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• As mentioned on my talk page, I am confused as to why you keep trying to paint this out as a case of "punishment". No one is being punished. You keep claiming someone has the ability to "add good material" to this article but have yet to demonstrate what good material there is to be added. It would be tremendously more useful to this discussion if you were to do so instead of just insisting that someone can. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, one person above did use somewhat similar language. But if you prefer to different word, that doesn't change the point. Michael Hardy 21:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: If a user or users from the Math or Probabilities WikiProject make a statement that this article can be improved (with refs and whatnot), I would fully endorse an overturn decision. But one has yet to. So for now, I stand by my opinion. Singularity 07:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Certainly even more referencees can be added than were already there. Another improvement in the article would be an explanation of the general situation at the beginning of the article: This mathematical proposition has been heard of by a broad public primarily because of its transmission through popular culture rather than because of its transmission via the classroom. That is an important reason why this "popular culture" article is more important than most. Michael Hardy 16:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: If memory serves, I think that this article had about 5 references, unusual in itself for a pop culture article. If it will allow some consensus to be reached in this matter I will gladly improve the article.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 07:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "If memory serves"? Can people please pay attention! The article history was made available very early on in this discussion. See here for the version before the AfD closed - you can see the five references right there. Admittedly, they don't appear to be the right sort of references (there needs to be at least one to someone talking about the IMT in popular culture, not just mentioning it in passing or confirming that the examples exist), but there is no need to rely on memory here. Carcharoth 10:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: Yes, the article can be improved and references added. Paul August ☎ 13:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. This article deserves a better discussion than it got the first time around. DavidCBryant 13:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist, per Paul August, DavidCBryant, and especially, David Eppstein. Also, please, abstain from arguments that read like partisan attacks and stick to the case at hand. Arcfrk 17:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, relist. The nomination was misleading, the discussion was misleading, the result was wrong. It's summer, at least in the Northern hemisphere; we are going to get these thin debates. It is not wonkery to ask for a reconsideration with a broader base of discussion. Charles Matthews 18:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

List_of_common_phrases_in_various_languages (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The page was deleted after discussion but this discussion did not in fact genuinely reveal any reason for deletion and its conclusion to delete was therefore wrong. The below analysis is based on the article Deletion Policy. 1. If it was thought that the page was in fact a dictionary article (which it was not) it should have been moved to Wiktionary rather than deleted: moving to such a source is the alternative - in this context, it has to be chosen if available, and is not optional. 2. The page did not fall in any of the categories of reasons for deletion anyway. The two main categories that were raised were a) Content not suitable for an encyclopedia and b) Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources/All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed. Arguments which asserted A) applied failed to see that the page did not necessarily function as a usage guide or a collection of dictionary entries. As a list of common phrases it was contributing to knowledge on what such common phrases are in various languages. This is more a socio-linguistic than a lexicographical endeavour and should be appreciated as such. B) Secondly, it is neither true that the information cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources nor that all attempts to find verifiable sources have failed. In fact no such attempts are cited by those voting in favour of deletion. Generally, it is I believe the correct understanding that an article (particularly one that conforms to style, categorisation, presentation and other criteria) and is quite useful should not be deleted unless the reasons for deletion can be made out. Kps22 11:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, AFD was closed correctly. Wiktionary already has this content, in a far better and more navigable manner, at wikt:Category:Phrasebook. Neil ╦ 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• This was deleted and endorsed on DRV a month ago. [1] WarpstarRider 14:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - admins are given broad latitude to interpret deletion debates. I do not find the interpretation unreasonable, though I do not agree with it. Furthermore, WP:DRV is not a "second chance"; and in this case, it's not a "third chance" either. This is months old, and has already been endorsed. --Haemo 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Admins should simply implement the will of the community. They should have no freedom to act on their personal preferences. Golfcam 18:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The will of the community is presented in the strength of the arguments, not the strength of numbers. Numbers provide a statistic. Arguments provide a result. —Kurykh 19:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Admins have no special ability to assess arguments. They are no better than other users. This admin made a very bad call, admitting that many good arguments were made for the article, and then deleting on a single weak ground. The argument was moving towards retention, with those in favour of deletion apparently having little to say in reply to the rising number of arguments put forward for retention. The result provided by the argument was "no consensus - keep". People endorsing deletion here, are not assessing the argument, they are saying, "I don't like it, so good riddance, regardles s of the discussion". This makes me wonder if there is any point in participating in discussions at all, as it is purely arbitrary whether discussions will be treated with respect or not. Those who argued for retention here have been treated with undeserved contempt. Mowsbury 22:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid on that one you're incorrect. If the only job of admins was to count votes, we could have a bot closing deletion discussions and quit wasting time for a real person to do it. The reason we don't do that is because part of the job of the closing admin is to read the unbolded words, not just tally the bolded ones. In this case, the arguments that this material is appropriate for other projects and is not appropriate here, and that the article would require a significant amount of original research, were persuasive. And if you think someone's screwed up in their assessment, we've always got here to bring it. But no, the job of admins is not to mechanically count heads and close AfD discussions, it's to actually evaluate them. The old deletion discussion area used to be called "Votes for deletion", it was changed to "Articles for deletion" in order to emphasize that very point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion again. Better for Wiktionary than Wikipedia, and WP:NOT is a policy based reason for deletion. GRBerry 17:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn There was no consensus, so the endorsements are nothing but "I agree with it". That is not what this page is for. Accepting such comments creates a systemic bias towards deletion, and devalues the contributions of those who tend to favor inclusionism. Golfcam 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse correctly decided. A useful article no doubt, but not within the guidelines here. DGG (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I believe consensus was reflected in the deletion Corpx 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse (my) deletion, didn't we already do this once? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, well-reasoned close. --Coredesat 06:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. How many times is this going to show up on DRV? --Kbdank71 18:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Consensus was very plainly not reflected in this decision. Mowsbury 22:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Deaths in Harry Potter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• This AfD was closed with delete prematurely (after 4 days 6 hours) and without clear consensus. I know that AfD is not a vote; but the AfD discussion shows 14 Delete lines and 16 Keep lines, which does not look like a consensus for deletion. Anthony Appleyard 05:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion AFD is not a vote, I closed it within a reasonable amount of time (almost all the AFDs that day were closed a few hours earlier by different admins), and I didn't see much merit in the keep votes, and a few I discounted as WP:ILIKEIT, or WP:INTERESTING and there was one user who voted keep three times (with unconvicing arguements for keeping), and another user who's first edit was the AFD, (with a it's useful summarry, which I discount as well) so it's 14-12 (I also discounted Spectre delete reasoning, which was listcruft and the cruft reasonings), but most of the delete votes show how this doesn't meet policy, unlike most of the keeps. I support a merge though. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  Spell it right... :) Will ^(talk) 18:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Er, Anthony, you say "I know AFD is not a vote but" and then continue to say that this AFD should have been decided by vote count. Sounds like an oxymoron to me. I suggest the closing admin could have been a bit more verbose in the closing summary, but I endorse the close as reasonable on grounds of strength of argument. >Radiant< 08:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• The "keep" lines do not look like "I like it" to me. Some of them seem to say things like "It is information in a convenient form, that many are likely to want to refer to.", but that is not the same. As regards cruftyness: yet again, often one man's cruft is another man's useful information: for example, to me most football info is footballcruft (and my newspaper's sport section tends to go straight in my recycling bin), but I do not go around AfD'ing football articles, as I know that some people consider football information to be important. Anthony Appleyard 08:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Harry Potter seems to have a large enough inside universe to be able to warrant its own Wiki. Rather than start up another bout of Wiki-Simpson-Mania, you could give that a shot.--WaltCip 15:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Admins are given broad latitude to determine the consensus of an argument, beyond vote-counting. I do not find anything unreasonable about the duration of the AfD, or the opinion reached by the closing admin. Everything appears to have been done properly. --Haemo 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Admins should simply implement the will of the community. They should have no freedom to act on their personal preferences. Golfcam 18:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • When you made this same comment above, another user answered you. I don't know what in my statement implied what you seem to think it says, but if you read what I said that Admins are given broad latitude to determine the consensus of an argument; i.e. to figure out what said will is. --Haemo 02:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Restore If we give admins this much latitude, they are free to do what the hell they like. They are supposed to be servants of the community, not overlords. The closer didn't even attempt to justify closure without consensus, which suggest a lack of respect for other users. Golfcam 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

*overturn Golfcam makes a good point. In a nutshell, if you are going to go against consensus or close something that would be no-consensus as something other than no-consensus you better well justify it. No such justification has occurred here nor can I think of one. JoshuaZ 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Changing to endorse per Jaranda's remarks. JoshuaZ 00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't ignore consensus, I justified it above, just forgot to put it in the AFD, i justified the list of deaths in the last book AFD though. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per justification above. One question, though: Anthony, why you vote counted the 16 keeps, did you take into account your double voting? --Kbdank71 19:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, reluctantly. I voted keep, and I think it should have been kept, but the close was not unreasonable. I urge instead an effort to revise the guidelines to clarify that such articles are acceptable, if that should in fact be the consensus generally at WP. DGG (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I think the decision reflected consensus Corpx 21:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, reasonable close, AFD is not a vote. --Coredesat 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I re-added my endorse from earlier, User:Kps22 removed it. --Coredesat 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong overturn - Clearly no consensus, and no clear policy-mandated decision. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:INTERESTING are not policy, and the policy-based arguments for delete made use of contentious interpretations, to say the least. I see no clear (and interpretation-neutral) discrepancies in the policy standing of either side of the debate. --xDanielx^Talk 00:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion AFD is not a place where you get 5 full days of free webhosting of non-encyclopedic material while the niceties of process are machinated. It was not encyclopedic when created and no argument to keep it demonstrated the encyclopedic nature of it: if we don't like WP:FICT, with specific examples drawn on the Harry Potterverse, then change it as perhaps suggested by DGG, but as it stands now this doesn't fit into an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 00:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per xDanielx. When there's no clear policy ruling (and WP:NOT was misapplied in the AFD nom, so if you're going to discount "votes" those should have been thrown out too), anyway it's best for the closer to go along with consensus (or lack thereof). Closers shouldn't just get supervotes. --W.marsh 01:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - AFD != vote, and saying an AFD was closed early after 4 days is just being pedantic (that applies to the infinite monkey theorem IPC DRV too) . No secondary sources (WP:FICT; WP:WAF), and not a single edit to that page included them (it's fine to say you will include them or they are there, but you need to actually use them - Josiah Rowe actually did present a source in the AFD). Also, I'm a bit skeptical at the lister of this DRV voting twice in the AFD. Will ^(talk) 18:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I did not intend to "vote twice", I mentioned another point which had arisen in answer to someone's statement. Anthony Appleyard 21:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no secondary sources presented, so not an appropriate article topic. WP:NOT a fansite (and for this particular subject, there are plenty of them out there to put such lists on instead). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no irregularities in closing. Wikipedia is not a vote, but I note that, of the 16 Keep lines, several were from users "voting" twice or more. Ohconfucius 04:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Nearly all of the keep comments were because the commenter liked the list or thought that because it was Harry Potter article, it should get an exception from such policies and guidelines as WP:TRIVIA. These are very week reasons to keep an article in the first place and arguments about serious problems with guidelines which where never countered. Arguments based on policy and guidelines will alway trump arguments based on one's personal interests. --Farix (Talk) 11:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. It is impossible for me to read all the comments in the AfD and find a consensus to delete. The closer is supposed to try to determine consensus. Most of the delete comments were along the lines of "delete per WP:NOT" or "listcruft". Very few gave any specific explanation of their delete !votes. For Jaranda to simply say that he didn't "see much merit in the keep votes" in light of the detailed explanation of some of the keep !votes and the almost total lack of explanatory detail in the delete !votes leads me to conclude that the closing was not based on his determination of consensus but on his own assessment of the merits of the article. For that reason, I think that the closing was procedurally defective and should be overturned. -- DS1953 ^talk 19:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Put simply, there was no consensus. If there was no consensus, it should just be relisted to see if there will be one now. DGG (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - nominator correctly interpreted the AFD. Otto4711 04:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

These redirects were deleted as a result of this debate. That was a nomination of many old unused redirects that were a result of mergers, duplicates, etc. However, {{spoil}} and {{spoilers}} actually look like very logical redirects to me (from the verb, and from the plural). I believe that these were overlooked, because it is only normal that "Template:Spoiler bottom" and "Template:Character Spoiler" get deleted to avoid confusion, but {{spoil}} and {{spoilers}} are pretty useful and common redirects. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 12:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse close as RfD closer. The consensus to delete these redirects was overwhelming. The original nom addressed specific issues brought up by some of the redirects in the RfD but those who expressed an opinion as to their desired outcome wanted all the redirects deleted. {{spoilers}} is a more plausible redirect that {{spoil}} as the verb isn't usually used to describe content. Nevertheless I see little need for either given that there appears to be a strong community consensus against extensive use of the target template. Seems for the few cases where that template is still going to be used, it could be given its actual name (which isn't exactly lenghthy...) WjBscribe 12:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the consensus was overwhelming, which is why I only nominated spoil and spoilers for DRV. I believe that the arguments for deleting these redirects were that they were mere leftovers from old mergers and duplicates, and spoil/spoilers are legitimate and logical redirects, something that was not addressed in the RfD. Also, the fact that this template is not going to be used regularly is not a reason to have no logical redirects to it. Redirects are cheap. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 13:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and recreate - those two redirects did not belong in this mass RFD. The rest of the redirects deleted were from different types of spoilers (character spoiler, minor spoiler, etc). These two are unrelated to the rest of the RFD and make sense as alternate names for the template and will help someone looking for the actual template to find it. (Personally, I think having spoiler warnings is silly - but that's a completely different issue.) --B 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's what I was trying to say. :-) Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• overturn per B. JoshuaZ 19:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)