Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 15

Anti-Christian violence in India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Relist.Discussion was closed as no consensus. However there were 15 merge/delete (merge to Persecution of Christians votes, and only 5 Keep votes. I know Wiki is not a democracy but this article was little more than a fork of Religious violence in India and Persecution of Christians. As such the article relies on the testimony of one UCLA professor, and does not even substantiate a pattern. Bakaman 23:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• "No consensus" really just means "no consensus to delete". Articles for deletion really just decides whether to delete or not (articles for deletion). If you want to try a merge... the AFD would seem to provide support that. --W.marsh 01:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So I can merge the article unilaterally then? Bakaman 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No, you start a debate which I have just done ... BlueValour (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - merge is a variety of keep not a variety of delete so no consensus was the correct close. I do wish, though, that closing admins always gave reasons for their close which often forestalls these appeals. Incidentally, the nominator is being somewhat disingenuous in his choice of merge target - he proposed Persecution of Christians but the majority of the mergers went for Religious violence in India. Possible merges are editorial post-AfD actions and I have placed suitable tags. BlueValour (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Disingenuous? Its a triple fork, which is why I got a bit confused. See Persecution_of_Christians#Persecution_of_Christians_in_India and Religious_violence_in_India#Anti-Christian_violence and Christianity_in_India#Hindu-Christian_Conflict. Something is wrong here.Bakaman 02:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair point; it is pretty confusing! However, we can't sort out the mess in this DRV. The necessary actions are for discussion and action elsewhere. I have started the process by proposing to reduce the number of articles by one by an obvious merge. The other three that you highlight are all legitimate separate articles but the overlaps and links need some hard editing to make a coherent whole. BlueValour (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Close. There was no consensus to delete at the AfD and the requester seems to be pursuing a merge for which DRV is not the appropriate venue. Eluchil404 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• comment let us not be disingenuous either; merge may be technically a variety of keep, but in the ones coming out of AfD that I've followed, it generally leads to deletion of the information, either by a pretended merge that loses the information immediately, or a merge followed by a reduction and elimination of the material merged. It turns out that google does not index redirects, only articles--so keeping a redirect preserves only the indexing within wikipedia. For someone searching from outside, it essentially hides the heading. Obviously there are cases where a merge of truly duplicate content is an honest solution--but a merge as not sufficiently important for an article does not generally do what the naive think is intended. (I am not commenting on the particular situation here). But here is not the place to argue this in detail. DGG (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Relist.Discussion was closed as no consensus.--D-Boy (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (leave as "no consensus"). There is no evidence either in the discussion or here that a relist will be any more successful at achieving consensus. Give the article's editors the benefit of doubt for a reasonable period (probably a few months). If the problems still remain, the article can always be renominated then. The merger issue should be sorted out on the respective Talk pages, not here. Rossami (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

James Henry Brett, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Admin activism, no consensus to delete. No merge was performed. Why ask our opinions if they are ignored? Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. I don't see any consensus in the AfD. It should be relisted. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Recently many of these articles have been nominated for AfD. There appear to be entrenched camps on both the delete and keep sides of these arguements. It seems to me that some sort of policy should be hashed out to decide whether being the oldest person in a given country is enough of an assertion of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Reply See Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Supercentenarian, where just such a proposal has no supporters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as no consensus - I am not convinced of the merits of a relist because that seems also likely to lead to another no consensus. However a policy discussion, as suggested above, has merits. The preamble to WP:BIO includes the phrase "It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.". In my view it is open to the Community, at an AfD, to create such an exception which they appear to have done here. What is more important is that WP:V is met since this is policy. For the age of the subject we have two arguably reliable sources; the 1963 Guinness and the Gerontology Research Group. If an editor wishes to argue that these are not reliable sources then that is a different basis for possible deletion as failing WP:V. The point made in the AfD that there is insufficient sourced information for a standalone page is a somewhat different issue. This, in my opinion, is not a ground for deletion but rather for a merge of the material into one of several lists as an editorial action. In summary, the page should be restored with the option to merge tag if any editor is so minded. BlueValour (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus the decisions vary, depending mainly on who has the energy to argue them. DGG (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as per nom. I am also going to nominate Betsy Baker for deletion review for much the same reason. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The closing admin was obliged by the deletion guidelines to weigh the arguments rather than to count votes, and was correct to note that the "keep" voters did not adddress the lack of reliable sources. The World's Oldest Person Titleholders (since 1955) sole reference] is a list entry, so the closing admin was correct to disregard arguments which did not address this. Most of the article was unverified and should have been removed, so there was nothing left to merge anywhere apart from the dates of birth and death, which are already listed in Oldest people. It would have been quite perverse of the closing admin to ignore WP:V and accept a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT !votes on an article which almost wholly original research. The bottom line is that no evidence was offered that there is anything verifiable to say about him other than what is listed in Oldest people. An article about him based on reliable sources would read in full

  James Henry Brett, Jr. (Houston, Texas, June 25, 1849? - February 10, 1961) was an American supercentenarian who was the oldest recognized living person from the death of fellow American Martha Graham on June 25, 1959 (apparently his 110th birthday) until his own death.

  Considering the "keep" votes, we see:

1. Smashville: reluctant keep simply because some previous similar articles had been kept. Invalid argument, because the other articles raised difft issues; should be disregarded
2. Kitia: "possibly oldest person in the world is definately notable". Wrong: see WP:BIO as it is, not as Kitia's no-support proposal would like it to be. should be disregarded
3. Richard Arthur Norton: "Keep abd reference better". Disregarded, because there is no evidence that any other references are available. Per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", and the keep voters should find the references if they want to keep the article rather than merely assuming that they must exist somewhere. should be disregarded
4. You've Got Mail!: "Keep as per, well, pretty much everyone who voted keep". WP:SPA on 14th contribution, supporting other invalid arguments, should be disregarded
5. DGG: "Keeep we are not bound by precedent, but we should be consistent. This and other articles on the oldest people at any given time in the world are notable." Wrongly assumes that other articles were kept on the basis of similar evidence, so invalid argument, should be disregarded

That leaves no valid arguments to "keep", and the closer was correct to note that "keep arguments did not address the lack of reliable sources backing up the claim of notability."

I think that the issues raised by this DRV are very important, because an AfD decision should be not be overturned just because some editors would like it to be a vote count. If the deletion process retains articles in people about on whom there is next-to-nothing to say based in reliable sources, then wee are undermining a pillar of wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion but... BHG got to it before I could, and probably summarized it better than I could anyhow. The easiest way to have kept this would have been to provide some reliable sources and improved the article. No one did and, from my own searches, I suspect they didn't because they couldn't. Thus, the closing admin's rationale "keep arguments did not address the lack of reliable sources backing up the claim of notability. Only source is itself unsure of the facts. was exactly on the money. "Having said that, however, I don't see a problem with recovering the information and merging it into List of American supercentenarians and turning his name into a redirect. Per WP:V, however, only the information that can be verified through reliable sources should be restored and placed in that article. Cheers, CP 01:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted) for the same reasons (and with the same sockpuppetry concerns) as were noted in the "Jose Luis Aquino" deletion review above. Rossami (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, lack of sources correctly identified by closer and not addressed by Keep advocates. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note that the AfD may have been skewed by sockpuppetry amongst the "keep" !voters: it seems that Kitia (talk · contribs) may be the puppetmaster of You've Got Mail! and/or User:I'll bust your beak! (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kitia). You've Got Mail! (talk · contribs) actually described himself as having been created by Kitia, though the outcome of checkuser may needed before confirming that Kitia is the puppetmaster. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The checkuser request has now confirmed both You've Got Mail! (talk · contribs) and You've Got Mail! (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets of Kitia. Both sockpuppets !voted "keep" in this debate, so three of the 6 "keep" !votes were from the same editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Per BrownHairedGirl. - Galloglass 18:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per BHG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Lack of sources is fine by me. Even if they had been found...wouldn't they most likely be obituaries? --Smashville^BONK! 21:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Question Smashville raises an interesting point, about obits. I have seen several mentions of the notion that an obituary alone does not satisfy WP:BIO requirements, and it seems to me to be a wise approach (implicit in WP:NOT#NEWS), a but I can find no mention of this in WP:BIO. Is it in any of the guidelines? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Answer Wikipedia:NOT#MEMORIAL is frequently cited to that effect, but it's not the most straightforward reading of the current wording. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Obituaries used to be mentioned on one of the "notability" pages as similar to primary source material - allowable as a contributing source but insufficient to prove notability. Sooner or later, everyone gets an obit. Rossami (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion; the problems with the article were never directly addressed by the keep crowd; the closure was proper as it went to policy and not numbers. — Coren ^(talk) 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion as above. Eusebeus (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Inkou.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Admins generally and perhaps User:Edokter more specifically refuse to delete this image, after the discussion at WP:AN#Image for deletion, I had tagged it for speedy deletion because of a fair-use validity concern. However I believe it should be deleted, my concern is that according to WP:FUC cover art can only be used when there is critical commentary of the particular item, and not as a general example of a pornography film cover, as is the case in Pornography in Japan (see the phrase This image is being used for critical commentary as a general example of pornography in Japan. in the rationale). The particular image, film or actress are not mentioned once outside of the image caption. The fair use rationale says The image is itself a subject of discussion in the article, I ask the admins to please paste here any sentence that mentions the image even briefly outside of the image caption. In my opinion sometimes some fair-use images simply have to be deleted and it is not a case of rewriting the rationale, especially not by adding incorrect info just to satisfy the FU criteria. Jackaranga (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing to review The images has not been nominated for deletion, nor has it been tagged with a speedy template, only a disputed fair-use template, which was removed after ammending the fair use rationale. This image should be nominated at Wikipedia:images for deletion first. — Edokter • Talk • 12:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Emmett H. Walker, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I wish to see this article undeleted as it does not in my view fail the SD criteria under A7 as decided. The article asserted the significance of its subject in its opening paragraph in the statement that Walker "served as the Chief of the National Guard Bureau from 1982 to 1986" - A major military command in the US. The article also mentioned his World War II service winning both the Silver and Bronze stars. I would also point out that other former chiefs of the National Guard have pages up eg. John B. Conaway and Raymond F. Rees, and it would seem incongruous to keep these articles and deny Walker's. Kiwipat (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy deletion under A7 with the option for anyone to list at AFD of course. Being the head of a military command is an indication of importance as Kiwipat says and especially when combined with the medals cannot see the article being a speedy deletion candidate. Davewild (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious Overturn Clear indication of notability, which is easy to ascertain. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• I have speedily restored this article; it appears to be a simple mistake as the article clearly asserts notability. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Per the discussion on the deleting admin's talk page it's not. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The deleting admin may have intended to delete, but it seems to me to be a mistaken application of the speedy criterion. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)