Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 7

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

This pornstar was nominated for four 2007 AVN Awards [1] and therefore passes WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 22:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Note Being an award nominee wasn't one of the WP:PORNBIO criteria at the time of the AfD. Epbr123 08:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Relist as the AfD was very poorly attended, and none of the contributors seemed familiar with WP:PORNBIO. --Ginkgo100^talk 02:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, and please notify me when you do so. The past AfD had very little debate (only two delete votes!). Mathmo ^Talk 03:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. This is yet another case of confusing "verifiable" with "verified." I wish more people would read WP:DP, which I think does a good job outlining proper procedure (delete if "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources," or if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed"). — xDanielx^Talk 04:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

This pornstar has won an AVN Award [2] and been nominated for another AVN Award [3] since the article's AfD. The article now passes the WP:PORNBIO criteria. Epbr123 22:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If the subject now passes a notability guideline that it failed at the time of its AfD, then the article can be recreated. This AfD was six months ago. Is there a particular reason why you want to original version restored rather than just re-creating it? --Ginkgo100^talk 02:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe to use what had been written before? Might save on a bit of extra work.
    • I wrote a new article on her, including her new award nominations, but it was speedied for recreation. The deleting admin then advised a DRV. Epbr123 09:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse recreation. Mathmo ^Talk 03:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete per Epbr123. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete per Epbr123. — xDanielx^Talk 04:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy deletion. Recreating article after 6 months and two awards appears to not meet G4 which applies only if the new article "is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted." (I cannot see the content of either deleted version of the article and am basing my comment on Epbr123's statements about the article). -- DS1953 ^talk 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. CSD G4 applies only if "the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version". The two versions are not substantially identical, considering the fact that the recreated version cited three sources, whereas the version deleted at AfD was (though slightly longer) completely unsourced. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Article is about a non-notable actress, with no coverage in independent reliable sources. AfD received much attention from uncritical editors voting WP:ILIKEIT, and should have resulted in deletion for failing to satisfy WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:V etc. etc... Valrith 22:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - The comments were sparse because the notability of the subject is evident (link from the article itself). You repeatedly list WP:V and WP:RS as reasons for deletion without any justification--the claims in the article seem perfectly verifiable to me (in fact they have already been verified, which is more than what's required as per WP:DP). — xDanielx^Talk 22:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Having an entry in imdb is not a valid claim of notability. The upcoming movie and the 13-episode series might meet the notability criterion, but showing up here and there for a one-off series guest appearance isn't notability in and of itself. Corvus cornix 21:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No, but this person has played relatively significant roles in high-profile films. This was discussed on the AfD. This DRV really doesn't raise any unique points that weren't covered on the AfD, and there was a reasonable consensus, with no evident misinformation, sockpuppetry, etc. -- hence I vote endorse. — xDanielx^Talk 04:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep I'm inclined to say anyone with a starring role on a prime-time big-4 network TV show is guaranteed to be kept unless our notability standards change wildly (which they won't, and shouldn't). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep I'm not even sure why this is at DRV; consensus to keep was clear and the discussion was properly closed. --Ginkgo100^talk 02:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep, nothing wrong with the way it was closed. Was a clear cut closure for keep. Overwhelming consensus for keeping. Mathmo ^Talk 03:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The result of the AfD was clear. -- DS1953 ^talk 18:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - consensus to keep was clear in the AfD. --Evb-wiki 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template the regulars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

first, there is no valid speedy reason, the article was worked on by other people than the author, it had already been undeleted on that basis, the author did not repeat the request, and yet other editors added to it 2) a valid MfD was started and there was a Keep opinion 3) the close and delete was done by the nominator. This essay is a valid opinion and we just don't delete opinion essays except by community consensus. IPSOS (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• All of that is false. All edits to the page other than by the author were (1) typo fixes, (2) adding a merge template, or (3) reverted. Other than typos and that template, the initial revision of this page was exactly identical to the one the author requested deletion on. Hence, CSD #G7. Also, the page was not just any "opinion piece", but rather a toxic endorsement of incivility and an encouragement of behavior that is known to aggravate rather than resolve the situation. Other than that, it is pretty obvious from the rationale above that the requester doesn't understand how our deletion process works. So endorse, and let's go do something productive. >Radiant< 13:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's simply not true. A large section was added by another editor. Someone please undelete the article so I can identify the section and the editor. IPSOS (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Original draft. Version the author requested deletion on. Yep, identical, like I said. >Radiant< 13:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, we non-admins can't access the links you referenced. --xDanielx^Talk 18:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse initial deletion Yes, the versions were effectively identical at the time {{db-author}} was requested. All other significant changes had been reverted by other editors. That others agree with the logic is adequate basis for them to write a new essay at this title - or to put an opposition section in the other essay. GRBerry 14:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Endorse deletion I was a little concerned looking at the edit history, but it is true that those edits has no significant effect and amount to non-content typo fixing and tagging. Valid WP:CSD#G7, though. Apparently there was at least one significant edit by another contributor[4]. I don't think any prohibition on recreation should exist unless an AfD goes through. Until(1 == 2) 14:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Unless someone can show that there were significant differences between the initial version and the deleted version, I consider this to be a valid G7 speedy delete. The essay was simply terrible and would be of no value to anyone writing a replacement. Chaz ^Beckett 14:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Seems to be a valid claim that there was no difference between the revisions provided by the original author and the the time of requested deletion. And FYI, this page was clearly against the spirit of what are considered norms on Wikipedia. — Moe ε 15:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per all of above. This DRV serves no useful purpose. Newyorkbrad 15:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Valid G7. While the MfD was short-circuited in favor of an established case for speedy deletion, there were no compelling arguments put forth for keeping this essay. Its raison d'etre was an editor's exercise in playing the Devil's advocate, so it did not share the pressing basis behind WP:DTTR. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Radiant's comments above are disingenuous and misleading. He ignores this edit. I find it hard to believe he thought this edit was irrelevant. It is true that that edit occurred after the page was deleted as an author request and restored by me. It may be that I was in error in not determining that the various edits by other editors had canceled out. In any case, even when an author is the only contributor to a page, particularly a page not in userspace, and author request is just that, a request. If another editor or editors finds the page of value it is normally either retained or sent to s deletion discussion (MfD in this case). But even if the earlier restoration was a mistake, the speedy deletion now has deleted significant content added by another editor, namely myself. (If Radiant really thought my restoration was a mistake, why didn't he discuss the matter with me, or bring that restoration here for review?) I have undeleted the page and moved it to my userspace. If this deletion review endorses deletion, i will comply by deleting that version, but in that case I plan to create an essay of my own, based on the current version and very similar to it. Therefore, this speedy deletion serves no point. If anyone thinks the page should be deleted, start a new MfD and we will see what the consensus is. I also note that in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars) there was a clear consensus that both essays should be retained. Yes consensus can change, but I think that also indicates that a speedy was inappropriate. Besides, starting an MfD by nominating a page for deletion, and then closing that MfD by speedy deleting that same page very soon thereafter, and after other editors had favored a keep, strikes me a poor procedure, as flying in the face of consensus, and as most unwise. If Radiant really felt this page should go, why didn't he allow the MfD to proceed and obtain an actual consensus on the issue? Overturn the inappropriate speedy deletion. DES ^(talk) 15:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• One I don't appriciate canvassing my talk page, and two, your edit was already after the deletion request [5], thus it wasn't an inapporpriate deletion. — Moe ε 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know, correcting factual errors used as a basis of a decision is not really canvasing in my opinion. I also think that G7 does not prevent recreation. GFDL is not retractable, and if another author wished to build on a G7 document the history should be recovered, so this all seems a bit moot to me. Until(1 == 2) 15:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• He shows he has a bias towards keeping the page. Saying "please reconsider [my] comments" is canvassing, plain and simple. It doesn't prevent recreation, but it also doesn't stop it from reppearing at WP:MFD again. — Moe ε 16:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflisct)I do not feel that notifying previous commentators that I had made a later comment, which includes what I think is significant information, constitutes canvassing. if anything, it only serves to draw more attention from those who had previously favored endorsing the deletion, and may continue to do so. It is true, as I said in my comment, that my edit was made after the initial speedy deletion request by the author, and indeed after a deletion on that ground and a restoration by me. But it was made several days before Radient's deletion that is here at issue. Speedy criteria must apply at the time of deletion. If an article is tagged for deletion under A7 say, and indeed at that time has no assertion of notability, and another editor later adds an assertion, and a source, is it appropriate at that time for an admin to delete on the grounds that the earlier speedy tag was valid when it was placed? At the time Radiant deleted this, there was content in place that had been contributed by an editor who had not requested deletion. Therefore, i maintain, the "author request" speedy was invalid. Anyway, as others have said, there would be no bar to recreation, and if I recreated, using the former version as a basis, the GFDL] would require history to be restored. Could we take it that that is what happened at the time of my earlier restoration? DES ^(talk) 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Of course I am arguing for retention of the page. But my substantial edit to the page is a fact, and one not mentioned in the discussion above, and one that some editors were apparently not aware of. if you think it is not a significant or relevant fact, that is your judgment to make. But drawing attention to it is not, IMO canvassing. DES ^(talk) 16:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• (ec) WP:CANVASS now says "Canvassing may be deemed a misuse of Wikipedia resources if: 1) the content of the messages entails bias intended to unfairly skew the outcome of a matter under dispute; 2) the audience is targeted on the basis of partisanship, or other factors favoring a given "side" in a dispute; 3) the scale of the distribution is unreasonably wide or indiscriminate; or 4) the canvassing is otherwise disruptive to the operation of Wikipedia, its users, or contributors." I do not think I was anywhere near the line implied there. DES ^(talk) 16:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I still see it as canvassing, but whatever.. Why don't you delete everything prior to the deletion request, place it in the Wikipedia namespace and place this back on MFD again then? Surely this can resolve the matter. — Moe ε 16:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• And yes, you were tinkering on the edge of CANVASS, namely "content of the messages entails bias intended to unfairly skew the outcome of a matter under dispute". IMHO. — Moe ε 16:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• (ec) If by "delete everything prior to the deletion request" you mean to seletivly deelte all versions prior to that, but retain versions subsequent, that would be a GFDL violation. Of course, if the speedy is overturtned, this can be put back on MfD if peopel think it should be -- I am not arguing for an immunity to MfD for this or any other essay. I will say that IMO either both this and WP:DTTR should be deleted, or neither. DES ^(talk) 16:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, I meant that if your edit was so significant, why not restore that alone and we can place that on MFD for a final outcome. Yes, it would be a GFDL vio to keep the revisions past deleted like your mentioning, thats why those would stay deleted. I meant everything you added in that one edit alone. Not sure if that's possible since the old versions are still accessable through that edit, but recreating what you added and sending that to MFD would have been more sensible than undeleting that past revisions. But personally undeleting all of it and sending back to MFD seems less of a hassle now than anything. — Moe ε 16:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Because that section didn't stand by itself. it filled what I thought was a significant hole in the essay, increasing its word count by a third or more, but it didn't attempt to cover the parts already covered. DES ^(talk) 17:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's what I thought, nix that MFD idea then. — Moe ε 17:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per ChazBeckett. ElinorD (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Send back to MfD, simple. Until(1 == 2) 16:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems quite obvious that the essay as it existed when it was deleted shouldn't exist. Anyone is free to write a new essay at that location, if they wish. After seeing the Google cache of the deleted essay, starting fresh would be far easier than attempting to salvage the useful bits. Undeletion wouldn't serve any useful purpose at this point other than to satisfy bureaucracy. Chaz ^Beckett 16:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • ChazBeckett has gotten to the heart of the matter. Newyorkbrad 16:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• It is of coutrse a matter of opnion as to whether this essay, or indeed any essay, "shouldn't exist" (personally i am reluctant to advocate deletion even for essays with which i throughly disagree, that I won't say i would never reccomend it). If this deletion is endorsed, i plan to create a new essay at the same title. I expect that it will not be identiacal, but will make many of the same points in at least some of the same words. Assuming that happens, if anyone thinks that essay should be deleted, MfD is available. I will, of course, argue for the retention of such an essay in that event. DES ^(talk) 17:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • So are you saying that no matter what, you will see to it that there is an essay at that location, until such time as an MFD runs to full term? Is there any condition under which you would not create such an essay? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Let me put it this way. At the moment I think that such an essay is a good idea, an based on previous discussions on its talk page, WT:DTTR, and the closed MfD page for DTTR, some other editors think so too. If someone convinces me otherwise, then i will act otherwise. I haven't yet seen any arguments that I find at all convincing, but I am more than open to listening to any such that people care to present, either here or (since it is at least arguably off-topic for this DRV, deletion review being about process rather than content) on my talk page. I am not inflexibly committed to preserving this essay, but i currently see no good reasons not to do so. DES ^(talk) 17:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse totally valid deletion. Majorly (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Question - Why are we "deleting" this essay whilst allowing others to exist? Wikipedia:Don't worry about writing essays says take it easy, they're only essays. Yet we have shit like Wikipedia:Cluocracy in there, and here's some slightly contradictory essays, Wikipedia:Credentials matter and Wikipedia:Credentials are irrelevant. Are we going to delete the ones we don't like? I mean, what is the point in Wikipedia:Charitableness, it just states the bleeding obvious. Why is there an essay page telling us to be reasonable? I'm in favour of clearing out all this shit with a fire storm. - hahnchen 17:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't your average essay. This one blatantly encourages to cause a disruption and/or to be patronizing in some users eyes. I don't think 'Credentials are irrelevant' or 'be reasonable' has been labled as such before. — Moe ε 18:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Anyone who thinks they're too good to receive a template obviously needs taking down a notch. There's not that much malice in giving someone a warning template. If you're doing RC patrol, why should you have to worry about who is "regular"? Of course, I'd prefer a friendly note over generic-warning, but if I make a genuine mistake, then I'll take either. I'm not that vain about my talk page, although have removed some bullshit templates before. - hahnchen 18:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Not much malice, just annoying in some cases. And in most cases the template is misused when given to an experienced editor because it's either given by someone they are in a dispute with or some kind of bot. If it's a genuine mistake, template messages aren't appropriate for most situations anyways. I don't think everytime you make a mistake, you would want {{test1}} to appear. — Moe ε 19:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - one way or another the end result will be delete for this. I see no reason for it to go back to MFD just to get the same result. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong relist - I don't particularly agree with the merits of the essay in question, but both IPSOS's and DES's points leave me convinced that the speedy closure was inappropriate. Closing one's own MfD after four hours, with two "I agree"s and one very strong dissenting opinion is a rather extreme exercise in administrative discretion, in my opinion. And I won't bother restating the points DES made, but I find those compelling as well. --xDanielx^Talk 19:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - please do not throw around baseless accusations. As an admin, Radiant! can speedy delete pages in lieu of taking them to XFD. If he does XFD something and sees later that it could have been speedied, it is not an abuse to end the XFD and just delete it. We will determine here is it may have been an error, but it was certainly not an abuse. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I expressed my believe that Radiant's action was inappropriate; I did not say that Radiant himself is ill-intentioned, malicious, or anything of the sort. DRV seems like an appropriate place to question the correctness of a closing admin's action. I did not say anything about Radiant's intentions - perhaps the incident was accidental, perhaps it was deliberate, or perhaps somewhere in the middle. I don't know and it doesn't concern me. I articulated my view on what happened and what I think should be done, and I don't see how anything I said was "baseless." — xDanielx^Talk 03:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • You said that Radiant!'s action "is a rather severe abuse of administrator privileges". People rarely refer to things as "abuse" when they are not challenging someone's intentions. Your statement seems rather clear to me, and I would expect that others also read it as such. If I am wrong, I'll ask those other editors to let me know that they think I am interpreting this incorrectly. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I toned down the language a bit. Better? — xDanielx^Talk 18:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Thank you for your reconsideration. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion...enough process wonkery.--MONGO 19:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't process wonkery -- this is at least some editors who sincerly belive that this essay ought to exist. Not just that it was deleted by an improper route (although it was), but that the essay is desireable on its merits. I strongly disagree with the idea that it is in any way uncivil to place tempalte messages on the talk pages of "expereinced" users, in proper cases. Some people may misuse such messages. Some people may misuse anything -- the abuse of soemthing is not a proper arguemat against the valid use of that thing. I dont think that deletion is usually the proper way to deal with essays that one disagrees with -- I would want to think twice about deleting the hypothetical essay Wikipedia:Vandalism is good for the project . But in this case, I think the essay is a needed correction to the excessive misreading and misuse of WP:DTTR. At least some other editors appaer to agree with this position. DES ^(talk) 19:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If other editors wish to write something similar that is their choice, though I believe its premise is fundamentally flawed. This was a totally valid G7 deletion - the version deleted was virtually identical to that when its creator finished writing it. WjBscribe 21:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh really? Here is a comparison between the last substantive edit by the creator, and the version deleted. Do these look "virtually identical" to you? DES ^(talk) 23:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid G7. --Coredesat 22:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse all deletions - As the original author, original G7 requester, etc., I really don't see why this should be kept. As Chaz says, it's a totally pointless piece of crap that we really don't need. This DRV is invalid because it was deleted before being userfied, etc. as noted above. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 23:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - some points to raise here. (1) Not everyone may be aware of the history of the essay (indeed, the editor who nominated it at MfD wasn't aware of this history, as shown in the ANI thread). The initial (and mostly irrelevant) part of the story is that the essay was created by a user who was asked about it on their (unsuccessful) RfA, and who then requested speedy deletion during the RfA, which was followed by restoration to allow people to understand the ongoing RfA. The more relevant part of the story is that at around the same time, discussion was ongoing about how this essay should relate to the related essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. This led to a merge proposal here, and the MfD here. (2) There was much relevant discussion at the talk page. See User talk:DESiegel/Template the regulars. One particularly thought-provoking post was here. It is highly destructive to delete discussion like that, and much better to archive it somewhere, such as a subpage of Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars. (3) In general, if an admin starts an XfD and then, in light of new evidence, decides it should be a speedy, it would be best for that admin not to close the XfD and speedy it, but to request a second opinion from another admin, or let the XfD run its course. If the reason for speedy deletion was unclear enough at the time of opening the XfD, then there should be no harm in letting the XfD run its course. (4) I am very surprised that people are saying that something can be deleted under CSD G7 because its current state is identical to the state the author left it in. That seems to imply that the author of anything can revert back to the last version they edited and then request speedy deletion under G7. Utter nonsense, of course. G7 requires the author to be the only substantial contributor, which was not the case here (for the second G7 deletion) as DESiegel has consistently been saying. (5) Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is not perfect. The main problem is the use of the term "regular". Some recent proposals for a better name have included Wikipedia:Use template messages with caution and Wikipedia:Template message etiquette. See my conclusions below. Carcharoth 23:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • My overall conclusion is that the problems with this essay (which I agree had major problems) had been previously discussed, and that Radiant! could have contributed to and moved that discussion forward, instead of opening an MfD and then speedy deleting not only the essay but also the associated discussion. The current option being undertaken of rewriting the essay in user space is productive and may produce something that (with the right name) may ultimately be more useful than Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars (the main points of which I agree with). Finally, all this could have been achieved with much less drama, and all those involved should (and I'm trying to be helpful, not wagging a finger here) stop and think about how they could have avoided this drama. Oh, and as the userfication has already occurred, and that is the most logical conclusion to all this, close this DRV now. Feel free to refer to any of the above I wrote. Carcharoth 23:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite' The history is confusing; let's be practical--as it's agreed the original needed improvement, let DES simply rewrite an essay, and then reintroduce a new template. DGG (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Additional comment - in case anyone thinks that deletion of the talk page of that essay, and the drama surrounding the AfD, speedy deletion and DRV, are not actively causing harm, then look at the following: Ariel's comment on the talk page, including things like: "seeing how much controversy this article caused, I am a little hesitant about putting up such a page". Later, Ariel, in this edit announced she intended to "go ahead with writing the Etiquette guide". Now fortunately, Ariel is a long-time lurker and contributer, and hasn't been put off by this, but consider the effect that all the drama ("uh oh, I'd better not get involved") might have had on a new editor, especially when they suddenly find that the talk page has been deleted? (Really new editors might never even realise what has happened, as it would disappear from their contributions list and watchlist). I've had the rug pulled out from under me on talk pages before, and it is not nice. Please, please consider archiving or closing talk page discussions properly before deleting them. Carcharoth 00:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but won't object to someone's who subscribe to these ideas keeping it in their userspace. Oh, support salting the Earth in case anyone wants to recreate it or move it from userspace. --Irpen 03:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Ok, I could say a lot of things, but let's say we all agree, this document was released under the GFDL. Is anyone disputing that? A history of the edits is available. Fine. Therefore, under the GFDL it is completely relevant for somebody else to post a version in the same namespace. Or anywhere else they feel it belongs. If I wanted to, I could spend the money and buy a page in the New York Times to print it on. (Well, I can't, since I don't have the thousands of dollars to do it, but you get my point). Does anybody here dispute that right is guaranteed under the GFDL? Ok, well, since Desiegel put it in his user-space, I put a version of the introduction I considered appropriate on its talk page. I am completely willing to put either just that, or with portions of the original essay back in the space it was. This would not violate the prohibition against recreated material since the removal was done only at the author's request. Thus any deletion of the new essay would have to be done under standard MFD procedure. I would prefer that anybody who has objections to the essay merely inform me of their concerns and give me an opportunity to address them, whether it be with regards to tone, title, or something else, but I think it can make it through MFD on its own. Is this an acceptable course of events to everybody or is there something I'm missing? FrozenPurpleCube 04:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have received a message from the original author of this essay, backed by Newyorkbrad. He says that he now disapproves of the content of the essay, and would prefer not to have his name linked with it. I still maintain that the speedy deletion was incorrect. Of course, as User:FrozenPurpleCube, the content having been released under the GFDL, anyone can use it anywhere, subject to attribution and the other requirements of the GFDL. However, it is no part of my desire to embarrass or harass the original user, who apparently has gone through some significant negative interactions because of this essay (although IMO that rather begs the question of the essay inciting incivility). Therefore, it is my current intent, if the deletion is overturned, to rewrite the essay sufficiently that it won't include the specific wording of the original author, while still making many of the same points. If the deletion is endorsed, it is now my intention to create a new essay, based on this one, but not directly copying the text of it. In either case it is my intention to move the essay, once I am satisfied with a draft, into Wikipedia space, wither at the old title or perhaps at a different title. I will not start on either project, however, until this DRV is decided, one way or another. If at a later time anyone thinks that the new or modified essay should be deleted, MfD is open. Whether the earlier history of the article can be deleted can be decided later, but I think perhaps it might be, as a courtesy to that editor. i do intend to preserve the old talk page, perhaps in an archive of the talk of the revised essay, as suggested above. DES ^(talk) 05:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• The original author is allowed to surrender their right to attribution, but not the right for others to use it. Until(1 == 2) 13:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Since the author doesn't want it, and almost every undelete comment has been "relist because it needs more discussion, not because I disagree with deletion", what is the point in having another discussion? -Amarkov moo! 00:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I consider this DRV to be needless. I do feel the essay is reasonable. The deletion at author request is a courtesy, not a requirement. That said, doing so would seem confrontational, so I'd need a compelling reason to do so. I don't see a particular need to use the original author's version, I can just as easily write my own, but if somebody does feel it should be used, the GFDL still applies, and it could be re-used if desired. But like I said, I just don't see the need. FrozenPurpleCube 03:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The real reason this DRV is pointless is because the essay has already been userfied at User:DESiegel/Template the regulars. This should be obvious if people took the time to carefully read through the preceding comments. Putting that to one side, some of the ensuing discussion has been about how this could have been handled. My view is that a simple reading of the talk page (plus following a few links), could have led to Radiant asking DESiegel to userfy an essay that had been disowned by its original creator. That would have avoided all this drama. Carcharoth 13:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, there was a better way to handle this, and I hope maybe some of the people reading this discussion realize that there's other options. FrozenPurpleCube 16:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The article was deleted a month ago by an admin who gave the reason "deleted until independent notability is established". I recreated the article this time establishing notability very solidly. Also on the AfD some people complained of BLP issues because the article was only a couple of lines and almost solely focused on the Lekovic's association with Bin Laden. This time the article was much more well rounded and balanced and SlimVirgin has deleted it without any reason or discussion. The Google cache linked above is active for those who want to see what the article looked like. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. SlimVirgin did actually state a reason, (recreation of an article recently deleted after an AfD). However, the version deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edina Lekovic was either two or five sentences long (edit war). This version is ten times that size. It's not substantially the same article as was deleted in the AFD. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - per the comment by the closing admin in the AfD. Addhoc 17:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

*Endorse deletion. The AfD established that she was not notable in her own right outside of her duties at MPAC. I don't believe anything has changed in the 4 weeks since the AfD and she is still just as non-notable as she was before. WP:BLP and WP:COAT were side issues and although the new version may not suffer from those concerns currently, nothing has changed to meet WP:N. I believe the admin took the correct decision per WP:CSD#G4 as although the content may be different (and more substantial compared to the version at AfD), the concerns on notability have not changed. → AA ^(talk) — 18:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

She's notable in her own right. She's a very visible in the person (Communications Director). The screenshot I used was from CNN. You dont believe anything has changed since the last afD? Please see the article. Its full of references now. She's all over the media, basically. The references confirm her notability. Here's the multiple non-trivial coverage by 3rd parties [6],[7],[8],[9] and there are others. I'll try to fix the issue with her image as it may not be fair use as pointed out by AnonymouseE, but the article is definitely valid. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe her notability status could have changed in a month (not disagreeing that the article is substantially different). She is the "newscaster" for MPAC so will undoubtedly be in the news. What we need to look for in references are BIO articles on her. However, this discussion is probably more appropriate for AfD rather than DRV. → AA ^(talk) — 08:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn G4 deletion (I don't consider the AFD close under consideration.) The old article was a couple sentences long, and used as sources her employer's website and a blog. The new article is several times longer, and somewhat better sourced. It has some poor sourcing, but it also has sourcing like Voice of America and evidencing significant activities. It probably needs further editing, and may face another AfD, but speedy deletion under G4 is clearly and obviously incorrect. GRBerry 18:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - subject is clearly notable as per Matt57's comment in the AfD. The WP:DP guidelines made it very clear that deficiencies in the present state of the article (particularly lack of sources establishing notability) do not justify deletion unless such issues cannot reasonably be remedied. This case is the opposite. --xDanielx^Talk 19:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn newly deleted article is not even close to "substantially similar" to the one deleted by AfD, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. It may well be that SV believed in good faith that it did, but if so she failed to check closely, or else has badly miss-read the CSD, I presume the former. The main reason for deletion at the AfD was notability, as summed up by the closing comment, quoited above. The text "Lekovic has made many appearances in the media including FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and the History Channel.<footnote> She has also written for several leading newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Associated Press, Chicago Tribune , and Los Angeles Times.<footnote>" which was in the version recently deleted, and was not in the version deleted by AfD, strongly implies notability, if it doesn't actually establish such notability. So the reason for the AfD deletion has been addressed, if not resolved. A new AfD is accordingly warranted, if anyone actually thinks this should now be deleted. DES ^(talk) 19:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I feel this should be deleted because the subject is borderline notable, and the article was created as a coatrack to hang an allegation of Islamist extremism on, an allegation she strongly denies. Notability: Her appearances on television and in newspapers are part of her job as a spokesperson: she's not being interviewed in her own right. The sources are an announcement by Wellsley College that Lekovic will speak there; the website of the Western Knight Center, where she offers herself as a speaker; two profiles on the websites of Muslim organizations; and some quotes from her in a Voice of America article. Criticism: Then there is the Steven Emerson criticism — that a student newspaper that had her name on it as managing editor once contained an article praising Osama bin Laden (pre-9/11). The sources for this are three self-published articles by Steven Emerson [10] [11] [12] (not allowed under BLP); and a self-published article by Daniel Pipes [13] (not allowed under BLP). The only reliable source for the allegation is an exchange between her and Emerson on CNBC's "Kudlow & Company," which for some reason isn't being used. All in all, this is the exactly the kind of BLP we should exercise great caution with. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If we have sources for the article, but not for the criticism, we keep the article and delete the criticism. Right? Surely we don't speedy delete articles for fear someone might add something to them, outright vandalism gets added to articles ten times a minute here. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 1) If there's a BLP issue, you can deal with it separately. One doesnt delete George Bush if there's a BLP problem. 2) For notability, you need multiple non-trivial reliable sources: DailyTexanOnline, VoiceOfAmerica, Jewish Journal and thats it- this fulfils the notability requirement. As for the claim that her notability is part of her job requirement and therefore cannot be used to assert notability for Wikipedia, this is a false requirement. That case can apply to everyone including George Bush or Jerry Springer. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

*Endorse deletion. Aside the chance of using this as an excuse by Daniel Pipes, Jared Israel and similar cadre to cry wolf, I cannot see how Leković can be considered a notable enough person. Keep deleted in the meantime. --Asterion^talk 21:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Multiple non-trivial reliable sources: DailyTexanOnline, VoiceOfAmerica, Jewish Journal. The requirement is fulfilled by these sources and I could give more. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn sufficient national RSs. Then deal with the editing problems. DGG (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, doesn't fit G4, Slim Virgin's point that the coverage is just a byproduct of her spokesperson role can be made at AfD. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Personally, G4 to me has a 1 month time limit, and should not apply after substantial changes had been made to the article even if it is recreated (in short, don't G4 unless it's almost exactly the same). Kwsn^(Ni!) 03:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn --Wallak^Talk 10:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn the speedy deletion only because the delete comments at the AfD on the original article were all over the board. If the delete comments were based only on notability, I do not necessarily think that the addition of sources has overcome those objections on the AfD sufficiently to allow this recreation of the article to stand. She is still only a spokesperson. However, enough of the comments on the original AfD seem to be based on lack of sources to establish notability that I believe that a speedy deletion is not appropriate (barely). If she is not notable, the new article can undergo its own AfD. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. G4 applies only if "the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version", which is not the case with this article. SlimVirgin's argument for deletion stated above is a contestable one that should be made in an AfD discussion; it doesn't justify speedy deletion. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - not a clear G4 candidate; deletion rationale offered appears to differ from that which would be required for G4 deletion. --Haemo 05:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Entirely new article submitted about the subject but was deleted without review. Mellentm 11:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note the cache currently does NOT reflect my article! Mellentm 12:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not "YOUR" article. See WP:OWN. – Chacor 13:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, "Please note the cache currently does NOT reflect the article I wrote and submitted. Mellentm 13:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. This is an article removed through a speedy deletion request because the previous article about this same project was just removed 2 days prior after a lengthy AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YATE. Calltech 12:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article was only deleted because question was raised about the nature of the people endorsing keeping it. This is a major open source PBX project which has been documented by third parties (reviews, O'Reily books, etc). Just because somebody in the Yate team interfered on wikipedia doesn't mean it isn't a notable project. I would like to point out after going carefully through Calltech's history that this is a person passionate about Asterix, and who has effected a deletion of every article about Asterix' Open Source competitors on wikipedia. With such bias nothing he says carries any weight. Carewolf 12:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Carewolf's comment here that I am passionate about Asterisk is a false accusation that is totally unsubstantiated and has no place here in this discussion. Calltech 12:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• DRV is not AFD take two. Endorse - deletion was appropriate. "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." – Chacor 12:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Spartaz suggested deletion review on my talk page. Mellentm 13:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Is this DRV for the deletion debate AFD, or for today's speedy deletion as G4? – Chacor 13:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Today's speedy deletion, to which I can't see how G4 could be applicable. Mellentm 13:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. !vote struck. – Chacor 13:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn A Wikipedia admin on #Wikipedia stated the G4 speedy deletion was wrong. Mellentm 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Closing admin please note that this is the nom so this is an extraneous vote. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion The article was deleted after an AFD only a couple of days ago. The reason for the deletion was non-notability and failing to meet WP:CORP. You don't get a free pass to overrule an AFD simply by recreating the article and ignoring the finding that the subject was failing core policies. The place to thrash that question out is either at DRV or at another AFD. So, the real question that needs to be asked is - does the subject of this article meet WP:CORP and is it notable? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe the article I wrote does meet WP:CORP and is indeed notable. I don't care about what was previously written. I wrote an entirely new article on the subject actually written much like similar articles in the same category as far as I can see. I'm really having a hard time seeing any valid arguments on why it can be deleted like that without review. Deleting it using G4 as the reason was wrong and that's a fact. Mellentm 19:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn for procedural reasons - AfD is not a vote, but favoring 3 delete votes over 8 keep votes is really ridiculous unless there is an extremely good reason to ignore the consensus (e.g., sockpuppetry). The closing statement presents zero reasoning; pointing out that lots of people want the article kept is hardly a sufficient reason for deleting an article. Coredesat shouldn't have 10-15 times the influence of any other editor, and one can hardly claim that his statement had any unique merit. --xDanielx^Talk 19:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Important comment - This DRV does not challenge the AFD. It is challenging the speedy deletion from 7 August under G4. Please adjust your !vote accordingly, thanks. Alternatively closing admin please note that this !vote does not address what this DRV is asking. – Chacor 01:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The G4 point was never brought up in the AfD. Regardless though, without being able to compare the two articles, it seems clear from Mellentm's commentary (see Talk:YATE, as well as his comments here) that the G4 argument is very shaky at best. No one has sighted any concerns from any previous AfD and explained how they were not met. Since the article passed with an overwhelming consensus for keep, only a very, very blatant violation of G4 would convince me to say "endorse." 8 to 3 for keep is quite significant. — xDanielx^Talk 03:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion While the recreated article is different from the deleted one, it is still about the same subject, contains mostly the same content (actually less content), and it adds nothing in terms of notability. Overturning and sending to AfD without any new evidence of notability would result in the article being deleted again and would be a waste of many editors' time simply in the name of bureaucracy. While it may not have met part of the letter of G4, it did meet "changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted" and it does meet the spirit of G4. There's no point in doing process just for the sake of process. I assure all who may question me here. If that recreated article looked to me like it had any better chance of surviving an AfD as the old one, I would have suggested overturning. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Earlier today I've rephrased parts of the article to show notability more clearly (in my opinion anyway). I have had no chance of updating the initial version of the article I submitted yet though for obvious reasons. Mellentm 21:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The new article was not even close to "substantially identical" to the previous one, and it did provides some additional external sources, in particular the O'Reilly link, which at least address the notability concerns (the only reason given for deletion in the AfD). As this appears to be an independent, good faith recreation, it deserved a new AfD, in which people could point to the old afd if that seemed persuasive. But had there been no recreation and redeletion, had the AfD been brought here for review, i would favor overturning the AfD. The closer speaks of a "campaign to get the article kept" but does not indicate which, if any, of the views favoring keep he is discounting. Notability is to a significant extent a matter of judgment, so numbers are significant in an AfD where the notability of the subject is at issue. Thus i also say that the AfD close should be overturned. DES ^(talk) 20:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The O'Reilly link is not an additional source. Several editors have referenced here the O'Reilly link as if this is a new citation and thus grounds for overturning the original AfD. It was, however, included in the original article and mentioned in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YATE discussion, so it is NOT new sourcing and was presented when arguments were made if this article met WP:CORP. The author of this particular source (Maciek Kaminski) also is a member of the YATE user community[14], whose comments are featured on the YATE website as such. Not exactly a neutral WP:NPOV citation or evaluation. Calltech 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and if necessary relist, since the article seems to have been improved since last consideration.DGG (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse my AFD deletion. The AFD was plagued with sockpuppets and SPAs arguing more about how convenient the service is and not from any policy or guideline standpoint. The AFD was advertised on YATE's website, and there were no valid reasons for keeping the article. I also endorse the G4 deletion, as the new article did not address any of the original concerns presented in the AFD. --Coredesat 01:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Evidence, please? Those do sound like some compelling claims, but I'm curious as to why you're not willing to back them up. Please post links. — xDanielx^Talk 02:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • XDanielx, please review the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YATE. Note the postings on the YATE page (referenced in the AfD) here [15], specifically the August posting by "Diana Cionoiu Re: yate wikipedia Aug 3 2007, 1:43 pm ". Diana admits in the AFD that her job at YATE is to promote the project. She asks for help from the YATE community and posts the Wikipedia link and says specifically "Help YATE become known". Note also the reply by G.Jacobsen: "Diana, I dont think that wikipedia will bring yate famedom." to her request. Following these postings, note the number of spas on the AfD around August 3rd. Calltech 03:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I missed the comment on the AfD. Still, based on contribution history I count four to five single-purpose accounts (this guy was tagged as a single-purpose user but has a perfectly reasonable edit history; this guy is kind of borderline) and no evidence of sockpuppetry. Also, the only message I could find that really talks about Wikipedia doesn't ask users to participate; in fact the author seems to really respect Wikipedia policies which typically aren't observed. I think it's fair to discount the 4-5 single purpose accounts, or give them very little weight, but that leaves us with no consensus - if anything leaning towards keep. If I'm still missing anything please let me know. — xDanielx^Talk 04:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
        • XDanielx, your this guy (above) is Diana Cionoiu, the self proclaimed promoter of YATE whose only contributions have been to this article or adding links to this article. Your second this guy (above) is a heavy contributor to the YATE project (check the archives in the link above) both on the website and its wiki. G.Jacobsen's comment was the only objection to the attempts to organize the YATE users by Diana Cionoiu, who was the author of the thread and its chief contributor. Calltech 12:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Calltech, actually Dheeman is Balwinder S Dheeman which is trying to promote YATE all the time, but is not affiliated to YATE project in any way. Him did similar "wrong" promotion for YATE in other cases and i don't think him should be considered the tipical YATE user. Diana cionoiu 23:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
        • XDanielx, if you ignore the 2 promoters above and the other SPAs that were solicited by Diana, the actual number of keep votes on the original AfD was just 2. That makes User:Coredesat's removal decision reasonable. Calltech 19:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Now there appears to be an entirely new version of YATE built by an SPA user, written entirely like an advertisement. Looks like the YATE community is becoming fully engaged. Calltech 11:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • To repeat your own words for that last sentence: This "is a false accusation that is totally unsubstantiated and has no place here in this discussion". Mellentm 14:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You are correct and I removed my opinion. Calltech 10:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I just deleted that as spam, after another editor tagged it. DES ^(talk) 12:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sitel_logo.gif (edit|[[Talk::Image:Sitel_logo.gif|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Completed fair use rationale for inclusion in Sitel article. Updated information in my sandbox Sigma 7 02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• And I made a few spelling mistakes. :p --Sigma 7 02:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• You'd probably do well to use a template, but you can just go ahead and re-create this, if the only reason it was deleted was because it was missing a rationale. --Haemo 04:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• Please note that issues related to this DRV are being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid. -- ChrisO 08:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Allegations of Chinese apartheid/Analysis by Leifern for a full analysis of this issue. This article and related articles have been subject to intense content disputes, replete with accusations, personal attacks, etc. It was nominated for deletion at 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC), and the nomination attracted at least as much controversy and discussion as the article itself.

^demon closed the nomination two days prematurely at a point where there were - by my rough count - 59 who wanted it deleted, and 45 who wanted it kept. Others counts showed slightly different results. demon justified the closure by writing he/she was most convinced by the arguments claiming that the article constituted violations of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, etc. When questioned about this decision on his/her talk page, he/she wrote "It happens with every controversial AfD such as this, and nobody can deny it. I decided to read the debate, and close it, before any "impartial" admin could come in and pass judgment."

There was clearly no consensus one way or the other, and it also appears that the closing admin misconstrued his/her role to be that of a judge in content disputes.

I'm not even going to get into the very tired content dispute here, but it's hard to see how anyone can back this deletion. --Leifern 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFD says "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days", so nothing premature about it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this nomination was not closed early... WjBscribe 14:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the AfD was opened at 01:29, 1 August 2007 by G-Dett (diff) and closed at 20:00, 6 August 2007 by ^demon (diff). I make that 5 days and 18.5 hours. -- ChrisO 18:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Kids, in case it is not understood, the AfD was actually given 18 hours, 31 minutes over what policy requires. Not only was policy followed, but more time was given. I hope this puts the "AfD closed early" meme to rest. I suggest closing admin ignore all comments for overturn based on this argument. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Without any comment to the technical merits, the above nomination makes many assumptions of bad faith. I urge the nominator to re-write it without the insinuations or step back and ask someone else to write a DRV case for the article, a subject this controversial deserves better. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion about the admin's motivations for closing, as the presented reasoning makes little sense. But I can go by what he/she wrote for the reasons. --Leifern 02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I endorsed the deletion, as I would have done it myself had ^demon not beat me by a few minutes. If his reasoning isn't sufficient, use mine. --Hemlock Martinis 02:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I note that Leifern attempted to delete your endorsement/co-closure. An extraordinary thing to do, and completely inappropriate. -- ChrisO 07:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Chris, I don't think it is particularly appropriate for one person to publicize their own opinion at the top of a high-traffic page which is not supposed to be edited. There were many admins opposing the deletion, and evidently none of them decided to express their disapproval. The additional "endorsement" gives extra support to a controversial action, creating the illusion that demon had widespread support of respected administrators, while dissenting editors were by custom not permitted to express their own opinions. I don't blame Hemlock Martinis as it sounds like the endorsement was made in good faith (i.e., to avoid a messy DRV), but it is borderline propaganda whether intentional or not. --xDanielx^Talk 07:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't made to avoid a messy DRV, it was made because he was simultaneously closing it and edit conflicted with the actual closer. It is unusual, but hardly a problem. Viridae^Talk 08:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

See Hemlock's explanation. -- ChrisO 08:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand; hence my confidence in Hemlock's good faith. Thanks for clarifying. My intent was not to discredit Hemlock, but to defend Leifern's action. (Not that I endorse the action, but I think it was permissible conduct.) --xDanielx^Talk 08:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there was THIRTY ONE MINUTES between Demon's closing and Hemlock's additional comments on page that is not supposed to be commented on. Was this really an edit conflict? Thirty one minutes seems kind of long for an action that is simultaneous. I am not accusing bad faith, but I think that Leif was justified in removing comments made (by admin or non admin) thirty one minutes after close of AFD on a page marked "do not edit". Bigglove 13:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, it is a perfectly feasible gap. Hemlock could have started closing five minutes before demon finished. The amount of time taken to make a thoughtful closure that weighed over 100 comments is well within a half-hour window and it seems readily obviously possible to have a 31 minute overlap in contributions resulting in an edit conflict. In the future, {{closing}} might be useful... — Scientizzle 16:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

To avoid such edit conflicts, when i start closing an AfD, unless it is an obvious snowball type close (pretty much al opniins the same way, no policy issues in conflict with consensus), I fist edit it to insert {{closing}} and save that edit. This notifies other closers that a close is in progress, and avoids wasted duplicated effort. it also notifies non-closers that further comments are unwanted, as the closing process has begun. I urge all AfD closers to use this handy device to avoid such problems. DES ^(talk) 21:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse; nominator doesn't explain why demon's reading of the debate is incorrect. The normal time, 5 days, does appear to have expired. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Leifern. There was no consensus to delete, not even close. As for the above comment about "reading of the debate", I think it's very simple, there was no consensus. There was no basis for discounting any arguments of the "keep" side, so I don't see how this complies with policy. 6SJ7 04:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the accusation of premature closure is clearly inaccurate; accusing the closing admin of "taking curious pride in deleting rather than creating things" have crossed the line on personal attack, IMHO. The decision taken accurately summarised the mood and arguments of the debate, and the application of wiki policies that basically the article was in breach of WP:SYN. So who cares if the votes were "nearly tied"? AfD is not a vote. Ohconfucius 04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thanks to those who created the article ;-). I'm sorry you feel sore that "your article" has been deleted, but it has given material which has allowed me to broaden and deepen the Hukou article. Ohconfucius 09:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - it's clear there's a more general issue here, but I do not find the closure unreasonable, given the ability admins have allowed to determine what consensus is in this case. --Haemo 04:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This is one of the easier calls I've seen. A clear majority of editors put forth cogent arguments that the article should stay. demon's reasoning for closing is--literally--incomprehensible. That a later editor added an opinion (which was merely a loosely reasoned assertion, rather than an argument) after the AfD had closed is irrelevant. If AfD's are to be decided by random admins who appear to lack experience actually writing articles (correct me if I'm wrong on that), let's have that be the policy. If not, not. IronDuke 04:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• This goes for both IronDuke and Leifern: If you have a problem with ^demon's position as an administrator, please take it up with him on his talk page. DRV is NOT the place to be sniping at the closing administrator for perceived bias because they choose to be involved in closing deletion debates. Viridae^Talk 05:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is exactly the place, nobody has a problem with Demon choosing "to be involved in closing deletion debates", but people do have a problem when he uses powers he is not supposed to possess then takes it upon himself to judge which side he thinks is "better".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is not the place. DRV has no power over user conduct beyond the deletion debate in question. If you feel there's a larger problem at work here, an RfC is the best way to handle it. --Hemlock Martinis 07:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said it does, but it should be fairly obvious that the conduct goes to why the deletion should be overturned. Nobody is attempting to use DR to get demon sanctioned.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"^demon (who takes curious pride in deleting rather than creating things on Wikipedia)" - Leifern and "If AfD's are to be decided by random admins who appear to lack experience actually writing articles" - IronDuke. Both of those people took shots at ^demoon's overall position as an administrator, which is immaterial to this deletion unless there are allegations of gross administrative misconduct. Viridae^Talk 07:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, nobody here has given any indication that they are confusing this forum with arbcom, and no one believes that sanctions will be levied upon demon simply by writing here. So I fail to see the purpose of your complaining, people can write what they want as long as they are not breaking policy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to start questioning the validity of a ^demon's position as an admin. Full stop. This is regardless of wether any sanctions or de-sysopping are intended from the complaints or not. Including attacks on his general position as an admin that are only vaguely related to the subject in question and totally unrelated to the validity of this specific deletion is exremly bad form. As I said, the place for that kind of material is NOT in a DRV, it is on hsi talk page. Viridae^Talk 10:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As I have changed the nomination wording, some of this may be moot, but I happen to think that ^demon - regardless of his/her intention - was in serious violation of policy and practice in closing the AFD. I tend to avoid lodging formal complaints about individual editors, but I don't think this kind of bad behavior should go unnoticed. I can't even imagine the outcry if another admin had reached the conclusion that the consensus favored keeping the article. --Leifern 11:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming you mean "deleting" the article. IN which case, another admin DID reach the same conclusion, totally independantly of ^demon, at the same time. I know you are aware of that because you removed their comments. Viridae^Talk 12:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Questioning demon’s reasoning is perfectly valid—indeed virtually essential—to anyone who wants to !vote overturn here. I am not arguing for sanctions, but I am free to criticize admins when and where appropriate. What’s that you say, Viridae? Take it to his talk page? Let me quote from it: “This issue can be discussed places other than my talk. I'm not commenting on it anymore, so posting here is useless. ^demon”. So here I am discussing it, per his request. If you want to criticize my criticism, Viridae (which I find a bit counterproductive, honestly) maybe you could do so in a substantive manner, i.e., address my actual points. IronDuke 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with IronDuke; demon's background strongly suggests that he is an avid deletionist, and I don't think that is "totally unrelated" when it comes to closing a highly controvertial AfD against (lack of) consensus. There's nothing condemnable about being a deletionist (I myself readily admit to taking the opposite stance), but I and others feel that he's pushed his own deletion-friendly policy interpretations too far over the community's will. Different admins came to different conclusions; I don't see what's inappropriate about assessing their conflicting reasoning. --xDanielx^Talk 17:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Questioning ^demon's reasoning is one thing. A number of comments, not to mention the nom itself, have attacked his motives or qualifications instead. An ad hominem focus on the closing admin is rarely successful at DRV. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a number of the Endorsers here are launching attacks on anyone who questions the reasoning skills of an admin, and also on people who merely want the AfD overturned because they thought it was a good article, which, if both are right to do so, means we can leave off having DRV's altogether, as there could never be a reason to overturn a close. IronDuke 03:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Noone is launching attacks on the people questioning ^demon. Everyone is simply saying that if you have a problem with ^demon's overall position as an admin the place to address that is on his talk page, not in a DRV. The reasoning for the deletion to be overturned must be able to stand on its own, regardless of wether you believe the admin has an overall problem or not. Bad admins can still make good decisions, so "overturn because such and such potentially makes bad calls because of his stance on the subject of deletionism" is an invalid reason for a deletion review. A real reason is "Overturn because I do not believe that consensus supported ^demon's decision to delete this article" where the specific case is argued, rather than attacking the admin's ability too perform his abilities - which (as I have said more than a few times in this debate) is a subject for the admin in question's talk page NOT a DRV. Viridae^Talk 05:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, I’m assuming you have not read this entire thread. Again, demon stated ““This issue can be discussed places other than my talk. I'm not commenting on it anymore, so posting here is useless. ^demon”.

I feel that this close was egregious enough that other editors who come to this page (and not demon’s utterly unresponsive talk page, which will in any case be scrubbed clean of this in a few days) can understand that demon may not be the best person to close debates on complex topics. I’m fine with it if people want to disagree, but I have very right to make the point. (Also, I can posit that there are certain areas demon should keep away from without alleging “gross conduct”, whatever that might mean.) I also feel that editors who support overturning the deletion are being attacked, in an uncivil and counterproductive manner. Don’t tell people “You can’t say that!” when editors clearly can (and should) be criticizing the closing admin if they disagree with him. IronDuke 00:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse That was a good thoughtful close of a tough afd. ^demon used his administrative discretion to determine the consensus on the issues of policy rather than counting the votes. Viridae^Talk 06:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Close was explicitly reasoned, and unlike the American apartheid article, there is no credible claim of a conflict of interest. Cool Hand Luke 07:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, I really don't have any problem with the vast majority of administrators, but this situation is just one more example of an admin that has either forgotten or just never knew that they are not supposed to have any more power that any other run-of-the-mill wikipedia editor, they just possess a couple more tools to help wikipedia maintain order. Demon seems to believe that he is supposed to be some kind of judge.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Viridae. I closed the AfD for Allegations of American apartheid on virtually identical grounds, and I agree with Viridae's comments above. Admins are not robots; we're supposed to close AfDs on the basis of policy arguments, not headcounts, and policy trumps consensus. I should also note that Hemlock Martinis effectively co-closed the AfD with the same reasoning (he and ^demon closed simultaneously and got into an edit conflict in doing so). This accidental but fortuitous circumstance makes it clear that ^demon's decision wasn't an arbitrary personal choice but a policy-based decision which two admins simultaneously and independently reached. As for Moshe's comment: yes, admins are "some kind of judge" - judges of policy. That's why we close AfDs. -- ChrisO 07:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually this "policy" you are so fond of quoting states just what I wrote, administrators do not have any more power than other wikipedia editors. Maybe if you understood that you would stop making inappropriate "judgements" which you have no power to make. In fact this whole situation can be thrown in with many of your own recent actions to show exactly why admins should not be "judges".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please go and read Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. I'd like to draw your attention to this line in particular (emphasis added): "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates these policies, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching these three policies, these policies must be respected above other opinions.". ^demon and Hemlock (and myself, in that earlier AfD) have quite properly followed this rule. -- ChrisO 07:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I might also add that I think the hostility being shown by Leifern, IronDuke and Moshe is inappropriate and unhelpful. Like it or not, the community has delegated responsibility to admins to close difficult AfDs. By all means disagree with our decisions and tell us if you think we get things wrong, but please don't cast aspersions on our integrity. -- ChrisO 08:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, since you abused admin powers in a recent AFD, you would be the last person to teach others about "integrity". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Care to back up those accusations with some evidence? I am assuming you are talking about the american version of the apartheid articles, in which case I see no great outcry and no deletion review overturning his decision. Viridae^Talk 08:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact there it was not overturned cannot be considered proof that ChrisO did nothing wrong as any editor with the least amount of experience well knows. Also Chris, your hostility permeates your dialogue at least just as much as the users (besides me, I probably do sound pretty angry) who you have just criticized, so you really are not one to point fingers.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no great outcry and no DRV about that article - if you believe his close was wrong, bring it here or hold your tongue. And please stop accusing him of being hostile - I see nothing hostile in anything he has said, in fact he has been quite coivil given you are questioning the validity of his opinion - an opinion any qikipediais encouraged to express if they wish. Viridae^Talk 10:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Edit: Found the DRV in which the community upheald the deletion despite the percieved COI. Viridae^Talk 11:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I am not casting aspersions on demon's integrity, merely his reasoning (which I see no real evidence of). I most emphatically do cast aspersions on your actions, however. I believe what you could be desysopped for using admin powers in areas where you are active as an editor. IronDuke 16:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, the title of the article itself was not NPOV. I find no fault with the closing admin's reasoning. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Leifern, 6SJ7, IronDuke, Moshe. The process is seriously broken if such creative accounting is allowed. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - A consensus doesn't have to be perfect, but this is far too rough in my opinion. I counted 45/46 keeps and 52 deletes, not including merges. Demon attempted to justify the decision as policy-based. My problem with his closure is that demon's own interpretation of policy should not be given a trump card over 40-50 dissenting interpretations with similar merit. To say the least, deleting the article on the grounds of WP:N and/or WP:NOR utilizes a highly contentious interpretation and application of policy. WP:VOTE aside, I think demon's actions cross the line of permissible administrator intervention. --xDanielx^Talk 08:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse deletion, well-reasoned closure of a difficult to interpret AFD. Sufficient time had passed, and especially note ChrisO's citation of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. As far as I can tell, those arguing to overturn are spending more time attacking closing admins in AFDs like these because they didn't get their way than looking for an actual policy/guideline-based reason for overturning. Needless to say, the article was an originally researched synthesis, and very few keep arguments actually addressed that issue. --Coredesat 08:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Coredesat, do you really think WP:SYN has an uncontentious application to the article in question? Frankly, I think the ambiguity of the policy makes it near-useless in its present form. If I make a list of Bridges Longer than X Feet based on a series of reports on the length of individual bridges, does that constitute unacceptable synthesis of information? What about collecting a bunch of quotes comparing certain events to apartheid, and calling them "allegations of Chinese apartheid"? My own interpretation is (in a very small nutshell) that no original research is very distinct from no original thought, and original analysis is acceptable (and absolutely necessary) if it is not a factually contentious issue. I don't say that this interpretation is necessarily the correct one (as I think the heavy ambiguity prevents there from being a correct interpretation), but can we at least agree that the policy-based reasons for deletion were contentious? --xDanielx^Talk 09:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. I would have closed it as delete, as well. The article was a synthesis, advancing a certain position, and this claim was not satisfactorily refuted, once, within the entire deletion discussion. Saying "no it's not!" doesn't really cut it outside of the playground. Neil ╦ 08:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The AfD closed with an unusually detailed comment. AfD is not a vote, if consensus is to allow violation of WP:SYN then the closer should disregard that consensus and enforce policy. Far too often that doesn't happen, fortunately this AfD was an exception to that. MartinDK 09:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, reasonable close, and any DRV that starts with personal attacks against the closer obviously doesn't have much of an argument. >Radiant< 09:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Considering the arguments, and not merely the raw number of comments, this seems to be a quite reasonable close as noted by Neil, MartinDK, &c. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn good-faith but erroneous closure. WP:DGFA#Deciding whether to delete includes four criteria, of which three are questionable in this case. Firstly, 'Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus"'. As 6SJ7 and xDanielX have noted, there is little evidence of consensus to delete. Secondly, 'Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.' Yet the judgment and feelings of numerous participants were completely overlooked. Thirdly, 'When in doubt, don't delete.' There was doubt, as evidenced by the lengthy debates over the interpretation of policy that was eventually used to close. Pages should obviously be deleted on grounds of policy when there is no serious dispute about the application of that policy, but was this such a situation? I'm not convinced. Jakew 11:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• From what I can tell, all those who endorse the closure do so because they agree with one interpretation of the article. The implication of this can only be that we do away with ADF altogether and simply find an admin who will listen to the arguments and accusations and make a ruling. What's the point of collecting views if a clearly controversial issue can be characterized as a no-brainer by the first admin who jumps in to end the discussion? (And the second one who "endorses" it on the page after it's been closed?) Leifern
• Endorse. This is about as frivolous a call for review as can be imagined. The closing admin waited the appropriate time, closely read the debate, carefully measured opinions and passions against the weight of policy, and made a judicious call, dotting every i and crossing every t. His closure was then immediately endorsed by another admin who was trying to do exactly the same thing and ran into an edit conflict with him. DRVs are not supposed to be forums for a second chance at the dice with the rhetorical stakes doubled. Move on, folks.--G-Dett 12:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure as the same ol' gang is trying to get their same ol' POV way yet again. The article was a synthesized WP:OR pile of bunk, a point that the keepers were unable to satisfactorily counter-argue against, instead preferring the strawman WP:ALLORNOTHING responses. The strength of argument clearly lay with the delete votes. Tarc 13:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn It is clear that there was absolutely no consensus before closing. If the admin who closed is one who identifies himself/herself as someone who is generally in favor of deletion of things on Wikipedia, as noted above, then probably this rather complex case wasn't the best for him/her to put his/her stamp on. We need a more thoughtful approach to this AFD. The article should be restored and given more of a chance. Bigglove 13:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The article should be restored and given more of a chance? For what? Admin-shopping for a more inclusionist sysop? — Scientizzle 16:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • There's plenty of room for selecting an admin who is less radically deletionist without tapping into the inclusionist admin base. It would be ludicrous to argue that demon is neutral on the issue, considering his track record and evident personal aspirations. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with being deletionist, but there is something wrong with pushing a very deletionist-friendly policy interpretation over the equally valid interpretations of 45/46 inclusionists and moderates. "Policy-based decisions" should not be used when 45/46 editors share a dissenting opinion of the very same policies. --xDanielx^Talk 17:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmmm...it's also ludicrous to ignore that Hemlock Martinis (talk · contribs), the (for all practical purposes) co-closer of the AfD, is a self-proclaimed "inclusionist". DRV isn't for admin-shopping. — Scientizzle 18:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Sure, I am too, though like Hemlock I don't dedicate my user page to showcasing how many items I've saved/deleted. I didn't say there was something wrong with being a deletionist -- actually I very explicitly stated the opposite. Please don't bite the straw men - they won't put up much of a fight. --xDanielx^Talk 19:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Haha, I had forgotten about that. It's not even up-to-date. I'll delete it. --Hemlock Martinis 19:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
          • [EC]As an expert on straw men, you do realize that I never said that you said "there was something wrong with being a deletionist"? And my point, again, is that a deletionist admin and an inclusionist admin came to a simultaneous agreement on a proper closure, effectively answering any argument that ^demon's oversize delete button isn't the actual issue (and, in fact, is another straw man). — Scientizzle 19:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't know there were experts on straw men. Are you sure you're not thinking of Strawson? :) If you're going to kick out of every heavily implicit claim you made, then fine -- I never said that you said that I thought that there was something wrong with being a deletionist. I'm not sure where you're geting the idea of "another straw man" from, but I can't answer an argument that hasn't been made, so I might as well not try. --xDanielx^Talk 20:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - per general principle: all "allegations of" articles are crap. Also, good closure in this particular case. ^demon used his brain. Moreschi ^Talk 13:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - You're only ever doing something right on Wikipedia when half a dozen people make more noise than a defective set of bagpipes. What do I see above, that's right, more noise than a defective set of bagpipes, and comically, people trying to rewrite the role of an administrator on Wikipedia to suit their own agendas. Funny, but tragic. Nick 13:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment/Question The closure was clearly that WP:NOR was violated by being a synthesis to make a point. To get that overturned at deletion review, clear and convincing evidence that that statement is false is needed. I look at the nomination, and no such claim is made. I also was looking at the AFD as an admin and considering closing at the very time that ^demon closed it. I had decided to wait until yesterday evening when I would have time to read the discussion one more time to see if there was any real evidence that secondary sources had discussed allegations of apartheid in China (that had been made elsewhere), as opposed merely somebody finding various places where activists had used the word "apartheid". Unless someone can point out a source that was 1) actually used in the article, 2) mentioned in the AFD, or 3) is being raised here and now for the first time and that is a reliable secondary source describing the allegations, there really is no choice other than endorsing the deletion. So, is there such a source? GRBerry 13:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Per request from deleted page:
    • A number of authors have use the words "apartheid" or "apartheid-like" in descriptions of various practices in the People's Republic of China. (REF1) The practices so described include China's hukou system of residency permits,(ref name=Macleod)(ref name=Loong) (ref name=Peter) and the treatment of Tibetans (ref name=Dalai), foreigners, and ethnic and religious minorities. (ref name=Chan) (ref name=Snow) (ref name=Elliot)
      • REF1:Solinger and Wang (China: reforms of the household registration system (hukou)", February 2005) comment that 'Some have compared it to the apartheid pass system in South Africa (Alexander and Chan, Anita 1 July 2004; HRIC 6 Nov. 2002, 4; Hou 4 Mar. 2002) because it restricts the movement of rural ThukouT holders by requiring them to obtain temporary permits to reside in cities[4] (Alexander and Chan, Anita 1 July 2004; Anh Sept. 2003, 29-30).' Alexander and Chan remark that their 2004 paper ("Does China have an apartheid pass system?") was 'inspired by Anita Chan’s contention (2001: 9) that "[China’s] permit system controls [migrant workers] in a similar way to the passbook system under apartheid." More recently, Gillian Hart (2002: 204) proposed that "[a] further constraint on labor organizing [in China] was a system akin to [apartheid] influx control."
  • If you need the urls/sources for the named ref's, please let me know. -- Avi 14:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I requested the above (thank you, Avi) because these two secondary sources (Solinger & Wang and Alexander & Chan) unquestionably comment on allegations (comparisons/contentions/etc) made by others. Indeed, Alexander and Chan tell us that these allegations were the inspiration for their entire paper, in which they explored the 'insights' in more depth. Jakew 14:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I would like the urls (if online) for further review also, thanks. GRBerry 03:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Here are links to: Alexander and Chan and Solinger and Wang. The article may have been guilty of using a broader scope than these secondary sources, but they demonstrate that the hukou section at least was not original synthesis. Jakew 10:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
        • The problem is that nobody agreed on what the article was even about, but every conception was deeply flawed. If the article had only been on Hukou as apartheid, the problem wouldn't have been WP:SYNTH but most specifically WP:NPOV#POV_forks ("The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.") By combining that with the Tibet issue and making it an article on "Allegations of Chinese Apartheid," the problem became WP:SYNTH. This is why I think Demon got it right when he mentioned both NOR and NPOV as the "non-negotiable" policies; you can frame the article around one of these policies, but not around both. Mackan79 13:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Ok, I've had time to review these. The key, most important thing to note, is that the Chan in Alexander & Chan is the same Anita Chan who supposedly inspired the paper. This clearly demotes this from a secondary source on allegations to a primary source. I also reviewed the paper, and see that it was being used in a very selective and biased way. Only quotes promoting similarity were used, not the differentiations the authors put in.
        • The sentence quoted from Solinger & Wang is the only sentence in the paper that uses or discusses apartheid. In context, it also appears to be a minority opinion on the subject. One sentence in one secondary source is not enough to support an article. GRBerry 00:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn -- closed a day early. The full week would not have run out until August 8, as it was posted Aug 1.If we are allowing eary closings, this was (accidentally) closed YESTERDAY as no consensus, and that was self-reverted to allow the the full time to elapse. -- Avi 13:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Where does the "week" bit come from? AFDs run for 5 days. GRBerry 13:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Close, as others have pointed out above the debate was not closed early. It was closed with a clear reasoning by the deleting administrator. AFD is not a numerical count and the closing administrator clearly weighed the arguments. There is no process reason to contest the AFD closure and really most of the arguments I'm seeing to overturn don't make a compelling argument of procedural error in the closing other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Beyond that, GRBerry is on the money with his assessment of the original AFD (which I was reviewing before/during it's close). Nobody provided any reasonable secondary sourcing to contest the claim that the article was synthesized original research (and a neologism) at that discussion.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closing Quality interpretation of the debate. AfD is not a vote, and the value of one' arguments and the state of policy will effect the weight your opinion is given. No reason to overturn this. The same goes for DRV, not a vote. For example if you asked for an overturn on the basis that the AfD was closed early, yet it was closed on time, that !vote will not be given as much weight as someone who is factually correct. Or if you quote vote counts, your !vote is going to get less weight that arguments based on policy and reasoning. Until(1 == 2) 14:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closing. Valid and perceptive analysis of the consensus, which gave due weight not only to the number of people expressing each opinion but to the weight of those opinions. In particular it doesn't look like the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR concerns were properly addressed by those who wished the article be kept. Many arguing to overturn are doing so on the basis of pure numbers - AfD is expressly not a vote. Seems a perfectly valid close to me and the fact that some people dislike the result is no reason to overturn. WjBscribe 14:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The position of the closing administrator on these contentious debates is not an easy one, as any decision is likely to be questioned and often shows up here on DRV. I see no technical issues with the closure - that it was done a little early is not especially bothersome, and the closer interpreted the debate reasonably. That some people feel the need to attack the closer's character for the action is unfortunate but, perhaps even more unfortunately, not unexpected in a case like this. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• It was not closed early. Until(1 == 2) 15:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Valid decision, with full rationale given. AFD is not a vote, and "I don't like that ^demon is an admin" is not criteria to overturn his decisions.-Wafulz 14:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my closure. The only regrets I have in my closure was that I do not feel I was verbose enough in it. I stand 100% behind my closure, and I believe it was fully within process. I knew if I closed as keep, the deletion voters would complain. I knew if I closed as no consensus, both sides would complain, and I knew if I closed as delete, the keep voters would complain. This is inevitable part of closing any controversial AfD. It's part of the territory, and closing such a contentious thing requires the closer to be prepared that some people may not agree with their closure. The fact that Hemlock Martinis arrived at the same decision and actually edit conflicted in doing so further assures my confidence in my closure. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and stop the insanity. Stop the attacks on ^demon, stop the knee-jerk bad-faith assumptions, stop taking his comments out of context, stop claiming it was closed prematurely, and stop rewriting the role of admins in AfD closure (and that's just in the DRV nom!) Closed reasonably, rationale explained, inevitable attacks fielded by the closing admin on his talk page. The information's not gone; it can be merged into other, more appropriate, articles should anyone care to do so. If you want a "systemic solution", this isn't the venue. If you want ^demon desysopped, this isn't the venue. End of story. MastCell ^Talk 15:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd like to second, third, fourth and nth this comment. The demonisation of ^demon (is that a tautology?) is totally unwarranted, and personally I think it's deplorable. This sort of rhetoric is unpleasant and totally unproductive; the editors responsible for it should be ashamed of themselves. They should remember that personal attacks harm the instigators far more than they harm their targets. Please stop. -- ChrisO 18:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Where is there demonization of ^demon? In my initial submission I made the editorial comment that he seemed to take curious pride in deleting rather than creating things on Wikipedia, and if you take a look at his user page, you'll see that it consists of one thing, namely the number of deletions he's made at Wikipedia. I don't see that as demonization, though I'll agree I could have spared myself the editorial comment, as it was irrelevant to the issue. --Leifern 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the closure of this full-length AfD discussion that was edit-conflict closed by two separate admins that came to the same conclusions using reasonable claims addressing the arguments proffered for & against the article. Nose counting is not how it works. — Scientizzle 16:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure The fact that another admin, Hemlock Martinis, tried to close the AFD at the exact same time and indicated that he too would have closed it as a "delete" reinforces that this was the right decision. Lothar of the Hill People 16:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: This was an excellent insightful interesting and most of all, an important article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Any real reason other than ILIKEIT? Moreschi ^Talk 17:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:IGNORE trumps unofficial rants essays. --xDanielx^Talk 18:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • What? Are you seriously trying to invoke WP:IGNORE now? Has it come to this? MartinDK 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
        • WP:IGNORE does not just say "ignore all rules"; it tells us to ignore rules where they would work contrary to common sense, etc. (I personally liked the older revision). If Matt feels that certain points which weren't policy-based were over-looked in the closure of the AfD, and Matt feels that the closure gave too much weight to controvertial interpretations or applications of policies, or to the policies themselves, that's an acceptable DRV argument. There's no rule against using common sense. --xDanielx^Talk 18:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Surely Matt can speak, and cite policies, for himself? MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Matt, deletion review is not articles for deletion. Please see the notes at WP:DRV#Purpose, specifically: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." (emphasis as in the original.) If you have a policy-based objection to the closure please post it, but I'm afraid an "I like the article" argument isn't going to carry any weight. -- ChrisO 18:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, where or what exactly is the synth? For that matter is Media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre a WP:SYN violation too? Where's the SYN in this:

China's hukou system of residency permits, introduced in the 1950s, has effectively discriminated against China's 800 million rural peasants for decades, and has been described as "China's apartheid".[9][2][10][11][12]

There are 5 references mentioning the phrase "China's aparthied" and this is just something near the top of the article. I just did a cursory glance at the AfD, but no one pointed out what exactly the synthesis was. In SYN, an editor wants to advance a certain position. What position is being advanced other than what is obvious? Also to prove that this is a SYN, you have to give some alternative synthesis. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That'd go perfectly in hukou, and I saw nothing wrong with that particular section in terms of sourcing and such. Unfortunately, the rest of the article was too synthesized, as it was just citing phrases as if someone had typed "china+apartheid" into Google and slapped on the article whatever came out of the search. The context in which many of the non-hukou sources are using it is as if it was some sort of slogan. So yeah, one of the sections was fine, but you can't construct an article off of one section. --Hemlock Martinis 01:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That was just one section which I saw. No one is able to tell me what exactly the syynth is. If you're all saying this is a SYN violation, whats the violation? What about the case of the "Treatment of Tibetans"? Where exactly is the SYN? I highlighed the word exactly because I asked for where the SYN is. People keep making allegations about the SYN, so where is it? Dont tell me "all over the article", or "rest of the article". Tell me where exactly it is. What exact position were the editors wanting to advance? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The SYN is in advancing the theory that there is a real-world "meme" concerning "allegations of Chinese apartheid", when the article had simply cobbled together every article that used both the words China and apartheid. The use of meaningful secondary sources that wrote about allegations of Chinese apartheid, rather than primary sources that compared Chinese human rights violations to apartheid, would have indicated the existence of such a meme. Their absence indicates SYN. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that editors have to prove that there is a "real-world meme" for an article to be notable? --Leifern 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

An article does not have to be named after a term of art for inclusion on Wikipedia. It is not necessary for someone to have written a book with an equivalent title. Your interpretation of WP:SYNTH involves some very creative "reading between the lines." Ignoring (lack of) consensus in favor of a Wikipedia policy is something that should be reserved for clear cases. This was a case in which roughly half of the editors involved interpreted the various policies one way, and the other half another way. Demon doesn't get a super-vote when it comes to interpreting policy. There was nothing unique about the policy interpretations presented in the closing statements; if anything the reasoning was incredibly sparse and inconclusive compared to more comprehensive arguments that had been introduced by both sides.

Besides, there were some very good references which established the notability of the subject. I don't know where to find them now -- does the article exist on someone's user space somewhere? Anyway, I think that issue was well discussed in the AfD, and I think the rough consensus was that the sources did a very acceptable job of tying together a motley of references into a common theme.

— xDanielx^Talk 04:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Refactoring. Daniel, I moved the article in question to User:Cerejota/chinese-apartheid. That user had made the request further down on this page.
• Now that we have a copy of the article available to view once more, let's go through this point by point. Now, I have few to no objections about the hukou section; the sources in there rival those we would expect for any quality article. The same cannot be said about the remaining three sections. The "Treatment of ethnic and religious minorities" section is one sentence, with simply one person's quote. Enough said. The "Treatment of foreigners" section looks like a bulletin board of complaints, with people throwing out the word "apartheid" as if it were some sort of universal solvent. We've got "apartheid" of African students (a subsection which mishmashes references to some vague event in the early 90s. We've got "political apartheid" coming from a Taiwanese government official and an editorial writer. And my personal favorite, we've got "health apartheid" from some writer looking for a nice catchphrase.
• But these all pale in comparison to the Tibet section. We've got a quote from the Dalai Lama himself who, despite my great respect for him, is still a primary source. Refs no. 25 and 26 are from pro-Tibetan activist groups in Britain and the United States. The large passage in the middle is from an American conservative think-tank. And the final one? Follow the bluelinks and you'll find that it's from a travel book. Simply put, someone typed "china+apartheid" into Google, clicked on the links, and dog piled on anything that had a passing mention of China and apartheid. That is not reliable sourcing. That is synthesizing sources. I stand by the decision to delete. --Hemlock Martinis 06:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Except "concerns about synthesis" are not grounds for deletion. The policy clearly states that it is only when an article only could be sustained with original research there is a basis for deletion. --Leifern 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think those issues are for the most part content-based and correctable. We could get rid of the travel book reference, the primary source, and any others that fail the reliable source test. In fact, I think we could do that and still have plenty of solid sources left. I'm told that the economist article (I'm not sure which one) does a particularly good job painting a broad picture, though unfortunately I can't access it without doing some sneaky things.
• Let's take a close look at WP:SYN. "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C" (emphasis mine). Combining ("synthesizing") information from multiple sources does not advance a position that is independent from those positions advanced in the sources themselves. A theme (like apartheid in China) is not a position; a position is an argumentative stance on the subject, and identifying common themes among bits of information does not fit that meaning. The rest of the section is occupied mostly by the example, which vaguely and loosely supports this interpretation since "position C" is a contentious factual claim made in the body of the article. Let's not give too much weight to the catch phrase in title of the section. I think WP:SYN is one of the more unclear, ambiguous policies, but while I don't say that my interpretation is indisputable, I think it's perfectly reasonable and contains just as much merit as any other. Perhaps a strictly literal interpretation is not best -- but in this case it makes sense that we would default to consensus, or lack thereof, as the determinant of how we should interpret the policy.
• I think the important question (keeping in mind WP:IGNORE and WP:SENSE) is whether the article in question is a useful way of organizing information. Keeping in mind that the existence of such an article can do little harm (and least in terms relative to the nonexistence of the article), I think the answer is a weak yes. Apartheid is a borderline term of art; it is typically understood from high school level onward; and it is an interesting term, to say the least. It's the sort of question that a high school student might receive as an essay topic -- "While 'apartheid' has historically been understood in reference to the traditional social/political system of Africa, other countries have suffered from similar phenomena. What are some examples of apartheid in other parts of the world?"
• Of course, all this discussion is pushing "deletion review" a little far. But I genuinely think that the policies imposed to override the (lack of) consensus were applied in a contentious manner. The policy-based arguments sighted in the closing statements were the meat of the AfD controversy, and as this DRV shows, the closing statements were not conclusive, at least not enough to satisfy the large majority of us "Keep" voters. When it doubt, keep -- or rather, when the community is in doubt, keep.
• Anyway, thanks for being open to discussion, and thanks for pointing me (and anyone else) to an accessible copy of the article.
• — xDanielx^Talk 08:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Nothing wrong with the close. --Kbdank71 18:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse- while I might have some small issue with the diction ^demon used, his closing statement was thought out, substantial, and well-measured. Looking through the arguments again and the old page itself, still think he did it right. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This is one of the most ridiculous and corrupted procedures I have ever seen. One admin closes an AfD according to his own whim, ignoring the complete lack of consensus, and a whole bunch of his little admin friends rushes here to endorse it. I think its time for term limits, or something. 6SJ7 19:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, this group of editors sounds dangerous. But "group of editors" is too clunky of a term. Perhaps a fellowship? A fraternity? A movement? No, wait, how about...a cabal? --Hemlock Martinis 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think the term I used was sufficient. 6SJ7 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is one of the stupidest and most gratuitous comments I've seen on DRV for a while. I suppose we should be should be grateful to 6SJ7 for making it clear that his argument is really about partisan politics, not Wikipedia policy. Fortunately, conscientious admins don't prostitute policy for political reasons. -- ChrisO 20:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, one of the ringleaders speaks. 6SJ7 20:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Have you quite finished with the personal attacks yet? No? Well, I recommend that you do, because frankly it just looks silly. Moreschi ^Talk 20:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please continue, all of this piling-on just proves my point. 6SJ7 03:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't have a point to prove. Per WP:CABAL; "It's much more productive to refute the arguments of the majority than implying they are wrong because it is the majority, or implying you are being repressed because it doesn't agree with you." Now please, stop embarrassing yourself. Tarc 04:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"They call them 'administrators'. A damaging faction organizing attacks on secret sites. They often use the term "WP:CABAL", a perversion of the word cabal. Admins get "epic CABALs" when they secretly delete articles which were deleted for good reasons. David Fuchs ^(talk) 04:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you have all proved his point perfectly. Kamryn · Talk 04:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I r in teh cabal. phear me. Viridae^Talk 02:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

LOLadmins now? Dear God, what have we unleashed? -- ChrisO 08:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the best way to convince someone that admins are nice people is to put words in their mouth and then take the piss out of them based on those words. WAY TO GO :) Kamryn · Talk 08:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We are nice people, but we reserve the right to mock people who make fools of themselves. :-) -- ChrisO 08:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is only a pity that it is the admins making fools of themselves here. Kamryn · Talk 08:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - Demon used his head and made from what I can tell the most appropriate decision. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - I missed the AfD but the article was worse than even a POV fork; it was total OR. Also, some of the ones who were voting keep on the afd, would probably have done themselves a favour if they didnt keep harping on imagined breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and other such inanities when the real topic of discussion was WP:NOR. Sarvagnya
• Endorse deletion — I recommended deletion at the AfD because I believe the article was WP:SYNTH. As others have mentioned, many of the article's defenders didn't seem concerned with Allegations of synthesis of allegations of Chinese apartheid, but instead focused on WP:RS, WP:ALLORNOTHING, and WP:OTHERSTUFF. At the same time, many of the article's opponents focused on WP:POINT. I appreciate that ^demon and Hemlock Martinis cut the Gordian knot and made an unpopular decision based on relevant policy instead of taking a head count. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Not one, but TWO thoughtful closing statements (the first time I've seen something good come an edit conflict) that sum up the issues, problems, and solutions quite nicely. And, frankly, the assortment of claims offered up in this DRV started off as, to be charitable, grasping at straws, but have devolved rapidly and seem to be getting worse and worse. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Clearly the community consensus was delete/merge and both closing admins deserve barnstars for having the bravery to take on such a long and tedious task and come up with such a hard decision in face of a controversial article. I voted "keep", and I do think the article should have been at least merged into parent, so I do request an admin place the contents in User:Cerejota/chinese-apartheid so I can put it in Allegations of Apartheid. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• As per your request, I have moved the article into the page you linked. --Hemlock Martinis 06:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks!--Cerejota 12:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

*Overturn, you can call it a lot of things but it wasn't a consensus. I suggest that people need to look up what 'consensus' means. Wikipedia really has bastardised the concept. Kamryn · Talk 05:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, no actual consensus, but see below. Kamryn · Talk 07:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  Please see Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus (emphasis added): "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates these policies, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching these three policies, these policies must be respected above other opinions.". -- ChrisO 07:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If it were that simple ChrisO, why even go through AFD? Why can't we just allow editors to submit articles they find objectionable to a panel of admins, and then the first one that comes along can user his/her judgment and delete it. There has to be some point to allowing the community to weigh in. And you're acting as if there is only one possible interpretation of this issue, which is demonstrably not true. Unless you're willing to state for the record that two uninvolved admins have a fundamentally better understanding of policy than anyone who disagrees with you, the argument makes no sense. --Leifern 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Mmm but there was no consensus that those policies were actually violated. Kamryn · Talk 07:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• The guidelines leave it up to the closing admin ("A closing admin must determine whether any article violates these policies"). --Hemlock Martinis 07:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm really? That seems strange. I'll remove my comment then. Kamryn · Talk 07:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not really - the idea is that admins are supposed to be able to make an independent evaluation of the arguments. -- ChrisO 08:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• It seems we've been lied to then, I was under the impression that admins were supposed to see if there's a consensus. Kamryn · Talk 08:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• The correct place to clarify or alter policy is the talk page of the policy not AfD. Consensus can never overrule policy and the closer is supposed to keep this in mind every time he closes an AfD. Consensus in itself is not enough - you need to demonstrate why you believe that WP:SYN does not apply. This is why AfD is not a vote - it's the quality of the arguments being made that matters - not the quantity of identical arguments. MartinDK 08:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in changing policy. I don't much care about policy. Kamryn · Talk 08:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• In terms of whether the policy was disputed, you might try a ctrl f search for "synth" through the afd. The issue was actually raised a number of times with no response. I'd credit both Demon and Hemlock Martinis with recognizing this as the key problem. Mackan79 14:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as per Christopher Parham. Nominator's comment on ^demon doesn't make the closure any less justified. -- Feathered serpent 06:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Official Cabal endorse, AfD is not a vote, and this promised to be a tough one. While there was bound to be disagreement no matter what the close was, it's clear that ^demon read the unbolded words and didn't just tally up the bolded ones. I don't believe the close was an abuse of discretion or an unreasonable interpretation of the debate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• weak overturn Avi's comments above give secondary sources, so the OR matter is more or less handled. If there is still OR that should be removed, not deleted. If we only have these secondary sources it might make more sense to merge the content with the main Hukou article. However, the closing rationale that it was all OR is clearly incorrect. JoshuaZ 14:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  I believe Demon addressed that, in saying that any of the valuable material should go in Hukou. Of course one could have removed the original synthesis, renamed the article to the more specific topic, and then merged it with the more appropriate article; under the circumstances, I think deletion while offering to reproduce the material on request also made more sense. Mackan79 15:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn This AfD was many things, but not consensus. The conventions which keep WP running smoothly should be embraced specifically on such controversial topics, not ignored. Tewfik^Talk 20:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is one of those few cases where no specific outcome would have "kept WP running smoothly", so an intelligent and justified close by an experienced, sensible and humble administrator is the best option, even if it sadly upsets a few users. Nick 02:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong endorse; those on the "losing" side of controversial AFDs need to stop trying to use DRV as a second dry run of the same debate. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong insanity; how can you people possibly think that it is helpful to close controversial AfDs 3 days early? Controversy means that there needs to be more discussion, not less. -Amarkov moo! 00:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  Y'know what they say, if you repeat a lie often enough, sooner or later someone is going to believe it. In this case though, I would hope people would be sensible enough to note that the AfD opened by G-Dett at 21:29, 31 July 2007, and was closed by ^demon at 15:00, 6 August 2007, which works out to a span of 5 days, 18 hours, 29 minutes. Since WP:AFD clearly states that "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days", the aforementioned and dearly hoped-for sensible people here will be able to see that any claims of early closure are without merit. Tarc 01:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, when people lie without reason, I do tend to believe them, because the alternative would be checking every statement ever made, which is a waste of my time. Y'know what they say, if someone makes an honest mistake, there will be no lack of people making sarcastic comments about their sensibility. -Amarkov moo! 01:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• It is a waste of one's time to check to see if a statement like "...to close controversial AfDs 3 days early" is actually true before saying it? Yea. Some sage advice; when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging. Tarc 02:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• The nominator claimed that the AfD was closed early. Since the length of an AfD is easily checked, I assumed that he was right. For verifying that to be worth my time, I would have to have a reason to assume that he is either incompetent or lying, neither of which are a good thing to assume. Turns out he was wrong. You still haven't come up with a halfway reasonable explanation for why I'm not sensible. -Amarkov moo! 04:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Um, getting back to the issue...the AfD was closed on time. Does that change your opinion of the closure? --Hemlock Martinis 05:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's ok to drop a drama-bomb into a conversation under a mistaken premise because you're too busy to check the facts? I'm not certain I agree. The best part is that you seem to be defending your mistake instead of just retracting your statement. Also, the issue had been covered and corrected well before your edit, so it appears that you just read the initial message and responded to it instead of being part of the conversation. In situations like this, that doesn't usually help the group work towards consensus, it creates something more akin to a room full of cowboys shooting in all directions trying to see which wall ends up with more holes in it. Just a suggestion for the future. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I do think that since this claim has definitively been proven false, the people making it should strike it out to avoid misleading others in this discussion. -- ChrisO 07:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I struck it from the nom. I hope this isn't controversial, but it is clearly WP:IAR as the guy is saying something not open to debate, that has already caused confusion in at least one editors. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, stricken out now that I'm not busy defending myself from random accusations of stupidity. Still no opinion on whether or not to overturn. -Amarkov moo! 20:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Not much of a retraction. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • What do you want? I'm not going to say "I'm sorry, I should have checked", because I don't see why I should have. All I will do is admit that I was wrong and strike out the text, which I have. -Amarkov moo! 04:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per xDanielx. Mathmo ^Talk 03:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - --Tom 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Having read and evaluated diff the sources offered to avoid the WP:SYN, WP:NOR charge, I see that the deleting admins conclusion that the article was a clear WP:NOR violation is valid. One sentence in one secondary source just can't support an encyclopedia article. To be handled in accordance with WP:NPOV, the material needs to be merged to a broader topic. It is already treated in Hukou#Consequences on rural workers. GRBerry 00:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)