Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 6

Charles K Herman MD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

notability and significance clearly established by numerous peer-reviewed scientific publications and book chapters, academic and clinical position of authority, national research and clinical awards, media references, some of which were removed to maintain npov (could be added if assisted significance Afjl (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC) afjl

• Overturn and restore. The bar to survive an A7 is deliberately set low and simply requires that the page "indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Here the article states that the subject is "internationally-published", has "published several important chapters in medical textbooks", and has "won a national research prize from the American College of Physicians in 1998 for work in the field of photodynamic cancer therapy", and that he "he spearheaded a joint effort to provide plastic surgery services to injured American soldiers returning from Iraq". This to me indicates his significance and thus hurdles A7. The bar is raised for an AfD and whether the page is able to cross that is a different matter and time will tell. BlueValour (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore Asserting the publication of multiple scientific articles is an assertion of notability. Deleted for not having sources proving notability, but that just wrong--it doesn't need to do this to pass speedy. I've notified the admin who deleted it, and declined to restore it--I would be interested to hear his explanation.DGG (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Like DGG said. If it turns out the notability isn't there, it can go through AFD, but notability is clearly indicated (did you all notice? it's not "assert" anymore in WP:CSD#A7. I am so happy about that change, it seems too many people just don't know what that word means) --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I had seen this one in New Pages Patrol, and it definitely wasn't speedyable. Clear, believable claims to notability. Misapplication of speedy, which is not about sourcing. Fram (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn No objection because the second message from this editor lists some new sources that can be added that were not present before. When it was deleted none of the publications listed appeared to have subject title's name, four of the external links were from the same site, one was a list of physcians [1], one concerned a sports event [2], and I did google "charles herman plastic surgery" --Sandahl 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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

This article should not have been deleted. I know the deletion decision is not based on votes, but I would like to point out that there were 6 editors in favor of keeping, and only 3 for deleting/merging.

The reason the article was brought up for deletion was because an editor misunderstood Wikipedia's policy on neologisms. In the discussion, it was demonstrated that this particular neologism was widely used in the media, and therefore worthy of it's own article. Furthermore, accusations of the article being baised for Ron Paul could have been corrected with editing. There was no sound reson for deletion. Please overturn 155.247.166.31 (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC) byates5637

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

Standards of notability require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This article was closed as a "no consensus" due to a number of editors who claimed the independent notability of the topic despite the fact that the article only has a single trivial source. An unsourced topic is not notable by the very definition of notability. Thus the keep !votes are meaningless.
As there is no evidence that this is culturally notable (and I've tried, too), overturn and redirect to Mario (series) merging relevant information. Chardish (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• That does not need discussion here. Be bold and do it. "Merge and redirect" is a flavor of "keep". Just because there has been an AfD discussion does not mean that the article must forever after be kept as-is. Normal editing resumes. If there is dispute about the merger/redirect, sort it out on the article's Talk page. Rossami (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article as it definitely meets all of our standards and there is certainly no consensus for a redirect. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 1) You understand this is a referendum on the deletion decision and not the article itself, right? 2) How can you possibly say that it "meets all of our standards" when it doesn't have multiple sources, which is one of our standards? That's not even a matter of opinion - it is a fact that this article is not up to standards. - Chardish (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep closure. Deletion is appropriate where sources do not exist, however, many users comments at the AfD imply that sources do exist but just haven't been added to the article. If after a reasonable time (4-6 weeks) they still haven't been found and added you can renominate. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The closure seems to have been within the admin's discretion (if that is a sensible English expression...?), especially with his reasoning. The standards of notability are tools for producing a better encyclopedia, and come with the requirement to make an exception when they don't; a reasonable case has been made for that. --Kizor (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Admin followed consensus, tied nobody's hands and left it open for another AFD to be started if the article remained unmerged and did not improve. If the sources don't turn up then it can be brought back to AFD in a few months, without messy back-and-forth merges etc. and nobody can say they didn't receive enough warning. To have done anything else would have caused needless problems. Someone another (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - no consensus at AFD defaults to keep; you can propose a merge using the {{mergeto}} tag. Stifle (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The Stub “Carl Oehling” should be restored (or an article with the same title should be permitted in the future), and should not have been deleted to begin with:

• IT WAS A STUB. All of the reasons given for deletion would be appropriate if this was the best that could be done for an article. This was a stub about a Michigan politician that was available to compliment the more general article, “Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006.” To exclude this participant in that election, and not all, appears to violate the NPOV policy in spirit if not in word.

• Upon viewing the deletion log, I noticed a recreation and G4 had taken place on the same day. So I was not going to bother wasting my time like another editor apparently had. A stub on this Michigan activist should be permitted to be given a chance rather than being deleted before an article can be written.

--Redandready (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• The sources in the best version of the deleted article seem to be:
  • Official site several times
  • Short resume-ish bios on a TV-station website [3], probably campaign-provided
  • Sites about Michigan election law
  • 2 directory listings (no prose) that identify him as a contact for a pro-life group
  • 4 blog interviews
  • A page that simply links to his website [4]
  • A donor page that identifies his past claimed occupations [5]

This just isn't enough. There would need to be prose articles about him in newspapers or other similar sources... all I'm seeing here is either candidate/campaign-written or directory listings. Keep deleted. He can be mentioned as a candidate in that election and this pagename can redirect to the election article... but I don't see the sources for a standalone article. --W.marsh 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Restore it. the article was a stub. It was there to be improved. With this deletion in place, it is likely that any future creation of an article in which “new sources have been provided” will be instantly deleted using G4 as a criteria. A quick look at the deletion log shows a G4 deletion took place today.
  The community would not have the opportunity to view any future sources to find that they were sufficient. This is a de facto block on creating an article with this name, even though it meets all the criteria that were questioned.
  The point of a “Stub” is to create a starting point not a full and complete article. --Redandready (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Your opinion that the deletion should be overturned is already clear from your nomination. You are welcome to add new evidence or respond to comments but please do not use the bolded synopsis at the front of the comment. It gives the appearance that you are inappropriately trying to get your opinion double-counted. Rossami (talk)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I concur with W.marsh's analysis. This article sat essentially unimproved between its creation on 5 Aug 2007 and the conclusion of the AFD discussion on 3 Dec. The references were reviewed by the community and determined to be insufficient. The article was properly tagged and discussed for the full 5 days. No new sources have been provided here to suggest that the AFD discussion missed anything. I find no process problems with the discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Restore the stub I just created. I log in and find a message that the stub I created this morning was already deleted. I never had a chance to post a "hang-on" or make improvements to appease the prod. I guess that’s why it’s “speedy.” Anyway, I get the impression that it was ONLY deleted because of a previous deletion discussion… Not based on the text I had placed with that title.
  I know this because comments include, “There would need to be prose articles about him in newspapers or other similar sources... all I'm seeing here is either candidate/campaign-written or directory listings.” The following such articles were referenced in the article that was deleted today (I mean December 6, it’s past midnight here). They include:
  Cm-Life [6], Harbor light news paper [7], The News Herald [8], News & Views [9]
  Furthermore, Oehling was the subject of interview [10], and the author of commentary in the Daily Democrat[11] and The Hawkeye (author)[12]
  I did not dig much deeper because I was only creating a stub. My understanding is that I only needed to give leads from which other editors could build a complete article, but since the other editors ask for more source, I dug up a couple more:
  Iowa State Daily [13], voice news [14], Constitution News [15], Third Party Watch [16], News and Views [17]
  I am sure there is much more out there, but this stub was just supposed to get the article started. But why even compose an excellent article (with lots of prose article references). If it will just get a speedy deletion based on a prior work? --Libertyguy (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed all the links you provided here. I'm sorry but they do not demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. Of the 12 links you provided above, 7 only mention his name in passing as one candidate among many. 4 are things he's written himself (blog comments by the look of it). Only the Michigan Personhood article represents an interview of him. That one article actually traces back to this blog of unknown provenance. Blogs rarely rise to the required level of reliable sourcing.
    Please do keep looking. This has already been discussed by the community and deleted once. The normal rules about "create a stub and see what happens" no longer apply. You have to show that the concerns raised in the deletion discussion can be overcome before recreation is accepted. If you can find independent, reliable sources demonstrating that he meets the inclusion criteria, the decision can be overturned. Rossami (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That is what I have done. The Stub I created yesterday was not subject to the Afd debate. It was written after that and referenced "independent, reliable sources"--Libertyguy (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure (uphold deletion) per W.marsh's analysis of the sources. There is no substantial coverage of this marginal candidate, and the closer interpreted the debate correctly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The AfD was closed as "keep", and there was indeed a clear majority of editors who !voted to "keep". However, AfD is not a vote, and the only way which I can see of counting that AfD as a "keep" consensus is by counting heads, which runs counter to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted". This article fails WP:BIO, and despite a number of WP:ILIKEIT !votes, there is no likelihood of further substantive references to establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as closer - "Being the oldest living person in the world, however temporarily, is grounds for notability.", "(Being) the oldest person in the world is as notable as the tallest person in the world or the heaviest person in the world, or even the strongest person in the world in an achievement.", "A good many of the supercentenarian articles deleted lately very much deserved to be deleted, but some should remain--such as this one." - I think trivialising these as WP:ILIKEIT arguments is unfair. I note of the two non-nominator arguements in favour of not retaining the article, one gave no reason whatsoever, and the other said "it is destined to be a stub forever". Those are not strong arguments for deletion. The consensus to "keep" was obvious. It is not the closer's role to evaluate an article and close it as they see fit (if that was the case, why bother with a deletion debate?) - it is the closer's role to evaluate the discussion. The discussion as a whole was easily in favour of retention. Neil ☎ 14:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • We agree that it is "the closer's role to evaluate the discussion", but diverge thereafter: I don't think that the closer was sufficiently rigorous in evaluating this discussion. Of the comments which Neil quotes, the third offers no reason for distinguishing this article from others, and such is clearly an ILIKEIT comment. The first two seek define one attribute as grounds for a presumption of notability, but if if this proposition was more widely accepted, the notability guidelines are clear that such a presumption may be disproven: in the end, notability is always a matter of the availability of substantive coverage in reliable sources. In this case, all we have is a small number of sources saying briefly that she is old, has a great-grandson and eats eggs. Since her claim to noteworthiness arises only through her old age, there is no reason to expect that there is more substantive coverage out there in old library files, or that there will ever be enough material to expand the article beyond a few factoids in a stub. I think that it was therefore wrong to dismiss the "destined to be a stub forever" argument: if an article can never grow beyond a stub not incorporate material not manageable in a list, why have a standalone article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't dismiss the "destined to be a stub forever" deletion argument - I lent it the same weight as any of the "keep" arguments. It was, however, grossly outnumbered by equally valid "keep"s. Neil ☎ 15:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Here's my reasoning: if notability is not temporary, then it seems to make no sense to say that a person (or anything else) is notable based on possession of a title which is almost certainly temporary. Not every person who was at one point the world's oldest person is notable, so why should the current world's oldest person be notable? On a side note, I was the world's youngest person at one point, though I didn't hold the title for very long ;) - Chardish (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, good call by Brownhairedlady. Being the alleged oldest in the world barely gets you a mention in the back of a newspaper these days, not even the Guinness. >Radiant< 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I disagree, but since you didn't specify any premise behind your conclusion, I probably won't either, unless I'm destined to convince you I'm right. While I may not collect newspapers, I certainly Google search the full name of the oldest person in the world in quotes.. Neal (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
• Endorse closure. There was a clear consensus for Keep. For the closer to override this there needed to be a balance of argument that weighed against the majority or a breach of policy. The key policy here, WP:V, is met. Whether WP:BIO is complied with is a judgement. That guideline states that meeting WP:BIO requires "published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". I have started to expand the page adding additional sources to meet this guideline. 'The world's oldest person' is a concept that most readers are, in my POV, likely to find encyclopaedic. This is a clean, informative page and I see no advantage to the Project in trying to use narrow interpretations of WP:BIO to delete it. BlueValour (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks Thanks BlueValour for cleaning up the Eva Morris article now, after the AfD. Neal (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
• Overturn and delete or, failing that, relist to AFD. I concur that the "keep" opinions ignored the established Wikipedia standards and attempted to create a new standard out of whole cloth. In addition to failing WP:BIO, the article falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. This is a minor human interest story appropriate for a newspaper. There is no basis on which an encyclopedia article could be created. Rossami (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Many of the similar articles nominated for similar reasons were deleted--the consensus was clearly that this one was different and had notability. Almost nobody except the nominator spoke for deletion. DGG (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. Unfortunately, the assertion that "that this one was different and had notability" was about as far as it went. DGG's own justification for keeping was that "A good many of the supercentenarian articles deleted lately very much deserved to be deleted, but some should remain--such as this one", which omits any reason to keep and just amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I see no grounds on which the closer should have overriden the consensus opinion. The article contains a claim to notability and the sources to establish it. The editors agreed that both were sufficient, and the article has no policy-violating deficiencies that could have caused the closer to ignore the consensus. To claim that WP:BIO can be used to override the consensus is a grave misunderstanding of our policies. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per trialsanderrors above. There is no consensus to delete present in the AfD. WP:BIO is a guideline and can be suspended by a consensus , thus there is no procedural reason to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Okay, let's do this mathematically (or possibly logically) and add up the values of the argument people made, where keep is positive and delete is negative. Therefore, someone who made 3 valid reasons for keeps get +3 points, etc. And those that voted "keep" but specified no reason, gets +0, and those that voted "delete," but also specified no reason, gets -0. Notice that +0 and -0 are the same. So let's add up the arguments on both sides. If the result was positive or negative will we decide whether to endorse deletion or not. And I guess 0 defaults to no consensus, so keep. So I'd vote endorse deletion if the result was -1 or below. Neal (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
• Overturn and Delete this article is only ever going to be a stub, all the relevant information is already at List of British supercentenarians. A seperate article is not needed. RMHED (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: that article is currentluy for deletion. Besides, the article has tons of valid souces to establish notability (+3) ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The AfD was closed as "keep", and there was indeed a clear majority of editors who !voted to "keep". However, AfD is not a vote, and the only way which I can see of counting that AfD as a "keep" consensus is by counting heads, which runs counter to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted".

This article is an unreferenced stub which has remained unreferenced for four months; it clearly fails WP:BIO, and despite a number of WP:ILIKEIT !votes, there is no likelihood of substantive references to establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as closer. Per above (although this was a little closer, due to a lack of referencing); consensus to keep was crystal-clear. Neil ☎ 14:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep The keep-voters dropped the ball here, but Neil seems to have cut them a break. They never seemed to find the sources, of which there are several. [18] Several seem to be just about her. So verifiability (and the verifiability-based requirement of WP:BIO) isn't a problem here... the question is whether being oldest person in a large country is a claim of importance. I think it's weak myself but consensus seems to be that it's a reasonable claim. Pointing out sources (or better yet, adding them to the article) is one of the most powerful arguments you can make at AFD, people. --W.marsh 16:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. I have checked the results of that search, and I can't find anything more than trivial mentions of her in articles on other subjects. If there are non-trivial sources, please could you identify them rather than just pointing to a google search? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • [19], [20] seem to be written just about this person. GN Archive is incomplete, but the existence of 2 sources with non-trivial coverage suggests more exist. --W.marsh 14:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Non-trivial? You gotta be joking. This page shows that those articles have word counts of 17 and 41 words respectively, which is about as trivial as it gets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete: most of the keep !votes didn't provide a sound rationale for keeping. Just because someone is old does not mean they are notable; notability is determined by multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Also, see rationale above. - Chardish (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I have asked everyone who voted keep to make some effort to add reliable sources to the article. If they haven't done so in a couple of days I'll be calling for the decision to be overturned and the article deleted. --Stormie (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - sources now added. BlueValour (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• • The sources have been shown to exist... while improvement is nice, it's not required. Sources just need to be shown to exist. We shouldn't delete verifiable articles just as punishment. --W.marsh 02:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • As above, no sources have actually been identified; all we have is a link to a google search. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Which shows many news articles about this person. --W.marsh 14:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
        • But the only coverage in sources readable without subscription is trivial. It seems that we being asked to presume that the highbeam.com articles in tabloid newspapers are non-trivial, which looks unlikely: this page notes that the Daily Record article cited amounts to only 41 words, and quotes: "A Guinness Book of Records spokeswoman said: Annie doesn't like being in the book so we don't know much about her." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Same comment on the above for Eva Morris. However, this person probably fails on their own article. I note this person is probably forever a stub. It may take years before I can get the old folks at the GRG and Max Plank Institute on setting up their off-line sources and make them appear on the Internet. But there doesn't seem to be an immediate need for an article now. Neal (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

  Here's something that's irrelevant: we actually have a photo of this person. But I don't think that means much. Neal (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

• Overturn and Delete as per my comments in the above DRV. RMHED (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - now that references have been added to meet WP:V there are no policy reason to override the AfD consensus. Compliance with WP:BIO is a judgement call, a matter for a possible second AfD, but not for DRV. BlueValour (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The result of this AfD was apparently 'delete' except that the discussion turned out equal - 5-5 keep/delete. I am not passionate about this article and only am requesting a DR because I thought that not enough 'votes' (I know we don't use voting, etc. but I will call it that for my fingers' sake) were in either camp to turn the discussion either way. I 'voted' in the debate but can't remember doing it, unfortuantely. There was another first AfD here which included this article, now deleted. Thus, I would like a deletion review. Auroranorth (!) 13:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and redirect to List of current Home and Away characters. This article should not have been deleted, since the result of the closure was to "REDIRECT ALL to Current Home and Away characters" (which redirects to the list). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs)
  • Comment: the result of the AfD being reviewed was delete, not redirect. --Pak21 (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Relist - Article appears to have been an copyvio of this page. Needless to say, I doubt that it will survive a new AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse: none of the keep !votes made any argument with any reference to policy, mostly just being WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While it is definitely possible to write good articles on soap characters, not a single secondary source has actually been shown to exist for this character, although noting Bláthnaid's memory. --Pak21 (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I would prefer a keep, failing that a redirect and merge to a bigger article would be in order. Just deleting it, when as a major character, people will search for her, is pure vandalism. --UpDown (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not AfD II. Which policies were not intepreted correctly by the closing admin? --Pak21 (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn All articles about major soap opera characters can be sourced, but it is difficult to do so over the space of an AfD because the magazines and newspapers that write about soap operas are generally not available online. That is part of the internet's systemic bias, and it is a pity for that bias to be reflected in Wikipedia. Now that I've had time to do some research, here is an article from The Age about one of the character's storylines. There is a couple of paragraphs in this article also. Bláthnaid 09:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my overturn because the article appears to be a copyvio. Bláthnaid 11:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment (Endorse): The WP:RS does not have to be online … see this essay about researching memberships in an organization with the help of a librarian and back issues of a monthly newsletter … give us an issue and page number from Soap Opera Digest or any other periodical notable enough to have a Wikipedia article (or an ISSN, for that matter) and you can make a {{cite news}} reference that will satisfy WP:V for WP:N … also note that this DRV may set precedent for articles listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away) and beau coup other Home and Away related deletions … Happy Editing! —72.75.89.38 (talk · contribs) 20:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion: Most of the keep votes boiled down to either WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or "I bet that there are sources, I just can't find any!". AfD is not a vote, so the 5/5 split is irrelevant. Lankiveil (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
• Endorse Closure - Closure matched consensus unless you nosecount. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - OK, this article has been identified as a copyvio that should have been a G12 speedy deletion, like several others identified in this open AfD of fictional Home and Away characters ... can we please close this and MOVE ON? —72.75.72.199 (talk · contribs) 15:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Intellect books and journals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON Melaniesharrison (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC) I want to add a page about Intellect publishing. It has been deleted as it said I was advertising the company. How have the company Future Publishing added a page very similar to the one I tried to create and it still exists?

• Endorse deletion. The article made little or no attempt to wikify and had no justification of notability. I added wikify and advert tags which the author removed with no comment. I found that the creator had previously been banned for link spam to Intellect Publishing's web site, and recommended speedy deletion, which took place. I would support the creation of an article that was NPOV and showed notability.TrulyBlue (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Further, Melaniesharrison has confirmed that she is a publishing assistant at the company in question in a request for Editor Assistance. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. And consider blacklisting the website, since Melaniesharrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been spamming it all over the 'pedia. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that I have done wrong. I am a new user of Wikipedia and I don't feel like I have been given any help or advice, just punishment. I have no intention of doing anything similar again, so please don't blacklist me. I thought that people are 'blacklisted' or 'banned' or whatever to protect the site, but Guy and True blue you seem to be enjoying being horrible to me about this. Genuine mistake although may not have looked as such. I was following an almost identical format to what Future Publishing have done. Someone needs to take a long hard look at their page because all I can see is advertising and links to their website where you can BUY THEIR MAGAZINES. I never tried to deny I worked for the company. What second source material could I provide. Intellect exists (as does Future) and therefore to appear on Wiki does someone completely unconnected to the company have to supply facts about it? I am positive that that is not what has happened with Future, or Oxford Uni Press, or Bloomsbury or any other publishing companies on here. I need advice, PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T IGNORE ME!! :( Melaniesharrison (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. TrulyBlue (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and agree with JzG above that this should be blacklisted (see Special:Contributions/Melaniesharrison). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse (my own) deletion with comment - I've tried to explain to Melanie what the situation is. She seems willing to discuss, learn, understand and comply with the policies which, I suppose, she had no idea existed. I'm applying a little WP:AGF and restoring the article to her userspace so she can work on it and get to grips with the policies I've pointed her towards. In the meantime I'd appreciate it if we don't attempt to blacklist the company's website. If my faith isn't repaid by Melanie, I'll lead the charge to get it (and her) blocked. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a word of appreciation for the time you've taken over this, Rambler. Excellent work here and on Melanie's talk page. TrulyBlue (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the support. It's difficult to "keep the faith" but I'd rather be transparent about it, talk to you guys about it and then apologise should it all go horribly wrong! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. It is clear that the article was justifiably deleted through WP:CSD#G11. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, with comment: I support The Rambling Man's efforts to mentor the article's creator. Let me remind some editors of WP:BITE and WP:AGF. I'm working (currently in userspace) on improving an article on the topic of my employer's area of business, and I stayed away from the topic until I was familiar with WP policies, and I'll put my contributions through at least one neutral admin to avoid WP:COI problems... but a new user, faced with you're-welcome-to-edit messages and seeing counter-to-policy articles about competitors, could quite reasonably assume they could create similar articles. Barno (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn An article about a publisher that includes a short list listing the journals and books published is not unfixable spam. Given that its books are distributed by The University of Chicago Press, a good case could be made for notability. That is a sufficient show of notability to avoid blacklisting as well. Restore and edit. DGG (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester_John (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

No consensus for delete Law Lord (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There actually a clear consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John (2nd nomination) that I can see.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Consensus has been found for deletion. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - consensus wasn't too clear, but I think we should not be keeping such pages anyway. Thanks. Redrocketboy 11:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, clear consensus to delete. --Coredesat 11:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Restore: Clearly, no consensus to delete. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. It's a close call, and I know these aren't votes, but I don't think we can describe something less than 2/3rds as a rough consensus. Prester's page had been changed to remove the offensive material by the end of the MFD. Therefore, I count the conditional keeps/conditional deletes as keeps. The tally then stands as follows:
  • Keep: Law Lord, Phoenix-wikinow endorse deletion--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC), Cygnis Insignis, Prester John, Sarsaparilla, Ned Scott, Matt57, Master of Puppets, jonny-mt, Ilywrch, Kurt Weber
  • Delete: Web Hamster, Aminz, Agha Nader, Hu, Itaqallah, Coredesat, Viriditas, Redrocketboy, Aninum, Rlevse, Brendan, P4k, Christopher Parham, gadfium, Lester, Lawrence Cohen, Rodhullandemu, Fin, krimpet, Moondyne, Cheeser1, CharonX, Tarc, Devs Ex Macina, Shot info, Jeffpw
  • Other: FisherQueen ("delete if necessary"), PrestonH ("Delete/Conditional Keep"), GlassCobra ("delete if..."), Walton ("Conditional keep"), Sarah ("comment (sort of a delete, I guess)")

So, we have 11 keeps, 26 deletes, and 5 others. As mentioned, I count those 5 as keeps, which brings it to 16 keeps, 27 deletes. If my math is wrong, please let me know. That just seems too close to count as consensus, especially after the changes that were made. Sarsaparilla (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • The fact that MFD is not a vote is one of the reasons why the page was deleted in the first place. --Coredesat 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I most certainly was not a "keep". I preferred Prester to remove the offensive material himself, but failing that, and with his refusal to cooperate, I argued quite strongly for deletion. He refused to cooperate with removal of the material and edit warred with admins, myself and Fisher Queen, and reverted it back in. The only reason it is out right now is he is blocked and unable to restore it. Also, what you are doing here is not how deletion discussions work. You are essentially counting votes when the discussion and comments must be weighed. You can't just say "keep" and expect it to be weighed equally against someone who makes an argument based in policy. This is what I tried to explain to you lot during the MfD but you refused to listen and rudely and dismissively told me I don't understanding Wikipedia. Sarah 07:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - it's not a headcount. Neil ☎ 13:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Sarsaparilla. --Law Lord (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - The vast majority of the straight "keep" votes were not based on any real policy, which is contrary to the point of XfD as noted in the guidelines pointed to above. In addition, a number of the votes listed in "keep" on Sarsaparilla's count (mine included) asked for a cleanup of the material as a condition of the keep. I think the closing admin read the consensus just fine. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 15:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per jonny-mt. He's right. After reading through the MfD, the users in favor of deletion cited policies, where as those who were in favor of keep didn't cite policy. --Son (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but allow recreation. The deletion implies that the user is not entitled to a userpage, which was not the intention of the MfD. Assuming the user does not again violate WP:USERPAGE, he should be allowed a userpage. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with no prejudice against recreation with content that doesn't violate WP:USERPAGE. I agree with jonny-mt's comments after rereading the MfD. As Lifebaka noted, just because the material transcluded from subpages was (by most readings) counter to policy doesn't mean that the user cannot have a userpage. If future use of userpage presents a problem, it should be taken to RfC (or AN:I if extreme) to remove the user rather than let him contribute as a user-without-userpage. Barno (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse was offensive--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Suggestion If there are a few dead branches on a tree, you don't bulldoze the entire thing. However, given that the user has been warned and has still taken no action, I Suggest giving him an ultimatum; if he does not remove content generally perceived as offensive, his userpage will be deleted, or modified to remove aforementioned content. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 02:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Wake up please The userpage has already been deleted! This is not a discussion as to whether it shall be deleted or not. --Law Lord (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The "keeps" were told during the MfD that this was a discussion not a vote and that both keep and delete comments which were essentially votes without any policy/guideline grounded reasoning would be weighted accordingly by the closing admin. That this is exactly what has happened, resulting in a closure of deletion is of absolutely no surprise. Endorse deletion. The closure was proper. Sarah 07:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• I received an email asking me to contribute here, did everyone get one of those? ;-) A clear consensus to delete was the result of the discussion. This was not an unexpected or unwelcome outcome, some of the stuff should have been deleted on sight, but the page gave a very good indication of that editor's other contributions. However, the scope of that discussion was too limited to address the problem of the user's long campaign, gaming the system, and this particular response by the community will only serve that user. This was [a] just [a] blow, a broader discussion is still required. I had hoped to avoid any suggestion that I was voting or arguing for anything ... no such luck. Deletion was proper, yet will be ultimately ineffectual if further discussions do not take place. cygnis insignis 10:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • May I ask who sent it, and which side was it implied you should contribute to? I perfectly understand if you can't/would prefer not to, for privacy reasons - just wondering :) Daniel 10:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course you can ask, and the answer is here. I'm not sure I understand the next part of your comment - privacy?. cygnis insignis 11:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Privacy: I think what Daniel meant was that in general if somebody sends you an email message then the sender will expect that you keep the contents of the message and the name of the sender private. --Law Lord (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. In ref to policies overriding the tally of keeps and deletes, does that apply in the case of something like WP:UP which is not a policy but a guideline? Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The deletion guidelines you cited above states that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." In an XfD discussion, the question of whether an editor's argument is based on a guideline or a policy is largely a question of semantics (the exception being when a policy overrides a guideline, which is exceedingly rare and something that we actively seek to avoid) due to the fact that both are based on consensus and thus serve to support their argument.

Of course, WP:SOAPBOX is part of WP:NOT, but my point stands regardless. --jonny-mt 03:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse the deletion. From what I can see at the MfD was a clear consensus to delete the page, and counting who "voted" for what and counting the "other votes" as "keep"s is not how we operate in any deletion discussion. Spebi 09:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse without prejudice to the user recreating a more friendly version, when he comes off his block next year. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Raccoon Police Department (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Possibly flawed closing and deletion by admin against consensus. I'm actually bringing this against my own closing because I'm wondering if I did the right thing. I'm confident that I evaluated the discussion fairly but because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raccoon Police Department includes a number of strong keeps, I'm now wondering if I should have gone for a no consensus decision. I'm still new enough to closing AfDs that I'm worrying about poor judgment in cases like this. Pigman☿ 07:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The article was tagged for references since September, and nobody offered any during the discussion, so it fails WP:V as well as WP:N. If someone wants to add the refs, the article can always be userfied and brought back here. So don't fret, you did the right thing. Dhaluza (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, with the proviso that of course if someone comes up with references, the article could be recreated (G4 speedy wouldn't be applicable since references would "address the reasons for which the material was deleted"). --Stormie (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, WP:V is non-negotiable and closure was correct. Neil ☎ 13:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. With the article failing WP:V and WP:N, I believe that was the right decision to make. --Son (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The delete arguements were clearly stronger. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Whew! Glad people think my judgment was sound. Since I received complaint (my first on an AfD closing) I decided I preferred other opinions to remaining in doubt. If I was more confident, I wouldn't have brought it here. Question: If an AfD decision has the possibility of being contested/challenged, is it better to provide a rationale for the decision or just leave such things to DRV to decide? Is it helpful to provide such a summary or is it just a waste of time? Just curious. Cheers, Pigman☿ 19:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I believe that a rationale for any AfD closing is appropriate, and if the closer sees it as likely to be contested, almost mandatory. It definitely helps an individual understand the close (and makes it more likely to be resolved by a simple talkpage exchange); and if the matter is brought to DRV, it helps reviewers determine whether process was followed in evaluating the arguments (as compared to simple headcount or imposing one's own opinion). Barno (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Also, I don't think that a childish rant, rejecting core WP policy, is very much reason for much worry about closing an AfD where no evidence of verifiability (other than "you can verify it from the game itself") was offered. If you close AfDs, especially in the videogaming area, you'll get these complaints all the time. Thank you for trying to be sure that you hadn't overstepped. Barno (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: The use of closing "statements" was one I had observed and thought an excellent idea if there was the slightest question of the resulting decision or the policies/reasoning behind the outcome decision of the closing admin. I figure it's not so necessary if the outcome is clear and unambiguous from the discussion and opinions. However in this particular case, I think my saying "Technically, the consensus leaned toward keep but..." was a mistake to articulate in the closing; it's practically an open invitation to second-guess the closer. While I've been getting used to process of closing AfDs, I've attempted to steer clear of those AfDs calling for more detailed policy knowledge than I have at the moment. Or maybe I have it but I'm not comfortable exercising it. And, yeah, I know I can't please everyone in any charged or mixed opinion closing. I'll be better able to put complaints into perspective once I have some confidence in my skills in the area. Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it. Cheers, Pigman☿ 01:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
        • No, I think it is important to note that the number of comments lean one way, but the weight of the arguments lean the other. It shows that you did consider all the evidence in reaching your decision. As the closing admin, you are the arbiter of policy, and you must respect the broad consensus reflected in policy over any narrow consensus formed in a particular AfD. Dhaluza (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Good call that you explained clearly. Rossami (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and it's a positive thing that you've sought further discussion and that you offered your reasons for closing as delete. The article did not pass WP:FICT and none of the keep arguments made any inroads in that department. The five keep arguments were 'notability is inherited'x2 (it ain't it can be in some circumstances, but not this one), 'it's notable'x3/'there's primary sources, they're good enough for character articles' (notability is a standard not just a word we like bandying around and it wasn't demonstrated, character articles are given much more leeway with regards to notability, though that's been changing too). If sources are found there's nothing stopping the article being reinstated and brought up to standard - it's not like deletion is a scorched earth process. Someone another (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - the guidelines are quite clear - game-guide material needs real-world context and this page has none and no RSs either.BlueValour (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and Pigman, good on you for reading and evaluating the unbolded words instead of just counting the bolded ones. Keep it up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn As the closer said, "consensus leaned to "keep", and then he gave his own judgment on this issue, & closed on that basis. He should rather have joined the discussion, and I'm glad he realised it and brought it here. I did not comment on the afd. My personal view on the issues is opposite to the closer's. I could have closed, saying "slight consensus to keep" giving my own opinion as support. That would have been wrong for me to do, & I would never close an article on a topic where i had views about one side of a relatively equally disputed debate. Closing is not a casting vote. He should have let someone else close. That the views on the article of the people here so far agree with the closer is irrelevant. They should instead say to relist it, and join the debate, not debate it here. I have notified all those who joined in the discussion--both sides--who have not already participated here. Personally, I think that should be required--seems elementary politeness.DGG (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. From WP:PRACTICAL: ...wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting ("Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy"). This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se. Polling is generally discouraged, except in specialized processes such as AFD.... (Emphasis added is mine except for "not a binding vote".) But that's not to say that only polling and votes can apply to AfD; it's saying that for article space, polling should be avoided, in xfD it's recommended. --Son (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as there was obviously no consensus to delete and there still is not. If we operate by consensus, then situations like this one in which a good deal of good faith editors believe the article has merit, we should not delete it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse although at the same time I see no reason whatsoever that a redirect can't point to the Resident Evil series article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Relist at AFD. I think relisting, instead of closing as a no consensus, would have been the right call...I think there was still some discussion to be had. And isn't it supposed to be "Raccoon City Police Department"? --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  No need to relist. Find references, and it can stay; no references, and it must go (at least for now). Anybody can make a redirect as needed. Dhaluza (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse though a redirect won't do any harm 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Resident Evil, on the whole a Redirect makes a lot of sense. RMHED (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid closure. Go on and replace it with a redirect. --Coredesat 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Tokyo in pop culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2)

This was kept because the "the article is now more than a list". However, the entire text of this article is duplicated near-verbatim in the Tokyo in popular media section of the Tokyo article. Needless to say, the 2nd nomination for deletion was shouted down. This pointless fork should not have been kept. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse closure as it was obviously too soon to relist it for AfD. This should be a merge discussion, not at DRV. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The merge has already been performed. The article remains a fork. I don't believe the first closure was a good one. I took this to Deletion review on the advice of the editor who performed the 2nd closure. Now I'm hearing this is the wrong venue, and I should have started a Merge discussion before copying one sentence to Tokyo. Is Wikipedia a bureaucracy or what? / edg ☺ ☭ 06:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that there is no need to bring this here if all you ultimately want is to have the information merged to another article. If that merge has already happened, simply redirect the article to where you merged the information. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's all I have to do? And this won't be promptly reverted? / edg ☺ ☭ 06:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BOLD. If someone objects, they'd have to object to my removal of the actual list; after all, there is no other content. If we end up back at that version, things can be challenged. You might have avoided a lot of pointless debates if you had just talked to me about my original closure. Mangojuice^talk 06:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This merge has been reverted, and my performing this merge has been called "an attempt ... to singlehandedly reverse the clear consensus", by an Admin no less, who cites this DRV as part of the consensus to keep the article, and explains the fork must be kept per WP:CONSENSUS.

My request in this DRV was that the original Keep decision be overturned for reasons given above. We have since received two (2) votes in this DRV (which I was advised to make by yet another Admin) toward keeping this article, which exactly duplicates a section of Tokyo, and serves no purpose but to have trivia items appended. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep article as a large number of good faith contributors find it encyclopedic and are willing to continue developing and improving it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. How about reading about deletion review, instead of just writing keep? This isn't the same as an AFD debate. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I believe the closer went completely off the reservation on this one. Other than the nom, there were no straight delete comments--there was one "trainwreck", one delete or merge, and the rest were merge or keep which preserves the content. Nobody suggested a redirect, which effectively deletes the content. Even after discounting the questionable nom portion of the comments, the result is the same. The closing comments go into great detail about the closer's non policy related opinions on the article itself, and speculation on commenters' intent, rather than impartial evaluation of the actual AfD discussion taken at face value. If an admin has an opinion on an article, they should comment in the AfD as an editor, not as the closing admin. Also closing the same AfD twice is probably a bad idea. Dhaluza (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as no consensus There was no consensus for deleting the content as the closer did. Dhaluza (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse own closure - I have made an "impartial evaluation of the actual AfD discussion taken at face value" - and it is written in the close comments, i.e: Keeps all conflate notability of LEDs with the circuit that happens to have one, so don't you say I made no such evaluation. The sources all point to notability - not of LED circuit but of LED. Would we envision having a "light bulb circuit" article? I dare say no! In cases where all keep comments are blindly conflating things or simply disregarding the nominator's rationale, it is up to the closing admin to sort things out and apply some comon sense. I further noted that there is nothing to merge to LED in this article, the content totally duplicating Ohm's law. In this case a merge comment is equivalent to a redirect comment; this is standard operating procedure. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The commenters explicitly addressed "LED Circuit" in their comments, so your assumption that they were conflating LED with LED Circuit is not taking what they actually said at face value, it is making a value judgement. Dhaluza (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus. There does not appear to have been any consensus in the original AfD. It should probably be relisted. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - I understand, and have sympathy with, the reasoning of the closing admin. However, it is so far off the consensus that it must be overturned. I think that merge would have been a better close. The problem with the simple redirect is that some useful content is lost; for example the Typical voltage drops section contains mergeable material. I suggest the closing admin starts a merge discussion as a separate editorial action. BlueValour (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A number of uninformed keeps is not consensus. The table in LED circuit#Typical voltage drops is already present in light-emitting diode#Considerations in use (towards the end) where voltage is labeled as potential difference instead. Pegasus «C¦T» 08:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • (Personal attack removed) Whether your argument is correct or not, it was not supported by consensus. And by making it in the close, rather than in the discussion, you denied the contributors the opportunity to rebut it. For example, your assertion that there is no mergeable material is demonstrably false. The essence of the article, the circuit diagram itself, does not appear in the LED article, but it does appear in the references, so it is relevant. Dhaluza (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I am too dumbfounded to respond to your claims except the first one, that "you are judging the contributors to the discussion, not their contribution". That is plainly untrue and I have no idea what magic hat you pulled that rabbit from. The closure was not dependent on who commented; if any other editors had expressed the same rationales for keeping the article I would have closed the AfD the same way. Pegasus «C¦T» 15:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
        • No magic needed, just reading your comments at the close and here. We give the closing admin discretion to evaluate comments in relation to policy, because a narrow consensus at AfD cannot override a wider consensus in a policy. But we do not give the closer discretion to dismiss comments to substitute their own judgment, especially based on the closer's own "expert" opinion of the subject. This is what you have done--you did not impartially evaluate the AfD discussion to try to divine rough consensus, you rendered you own judgment on the article, and dismissed dissenting views, effectively casting a super-vote. As you just said, you would have closed the same way, regardless of how many editors expressed opinions contrary to your judgment. Dhaluza (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Look, I can take it when you say I cast a super vote; I blatantly overruled consensus - fine. But when you say I judged the contributors instead of the substance of their contribution, that is untrue and a grievous slander on your part. I cannot take your injurious insinuation lying down - I did not make remarks about any editor(s) themselves. Period. Pegasus «C¦T» 10:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
            • It is not intended as a slander, and I apologize if I expressed my observation in a way that you find offensive. But after reconsidering this, I still think the observation is consistent with the evidence. I find your comment that "...a lot of people have wrongly conflated the notability of LEDs themselves..." as judgmental. You are saying that they are wrong and you are right. If this were a policy interpretation, that would be within your purview as a closing admin. But you are saying they don't understand the subject as well as you do, and for a closer, that is going off the reservation. You should have made those types of comments as a contributor, and left it to someone more impartial to close. Dhaluza (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (outdent) "Judging the contributor" requires one to name or identify specific editor(s) in the remark. I did no such thing in the closure. Please, strike that blatantly untrue statement. I did not make remarks about any specific editor or editors, which the phrase "judging the contributor" implies to most people. Pegasus «C¦T» 14:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no such implication. Other than that clarification, I will let you have the last word. Dhaluza (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Countering the claim in the nomination, the edit history is still available for anyone to merge any content anywhere they please. There are essentially two meaningful contributions in the discussion, one by Edison, one by Dhaluza. Closer performed due diligence on the references and concluded that Edison's position has more merit. That's a perfectly valid thing to do. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Closer was not impartial. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - "consensus rooted in policy" is the phrase, not just "consensus". Information is duplicated elsewhere, and content is retained in the redirect's history in case anything has slipped through the gaps. Neil ☎ 14:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus, as clearly there was none. I also note that the closing admin was a contributor to the AfD. It was therefore not appropriate for him to close it, regardless of the outcome. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to point out his comment in the midst of the AFD was procedural (I closed this as a "speedy keep" earlier but after objections on my talk page, I've reverted my closure), not about deleting or keeping the article. Neil ☎ 15:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but his other comment applied more or less specifically to the argument. --Smashville^BONK! 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus. Looking at the AfD, there just wasn't any consensus. I agree with gorgan_almighty that it was inappropriate for a user involved in the discussion to close it. --Son (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I have an issue with an admin who participated in the discussion making a close against consensus. IMO, anyone - admin or not - who participates in the discussion should not close it. --Smashville^BONK! 16:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (which was only to not delete). The pagehistory has not been deleted. This is consistent with the closure decision and the community opinion. The decision to merge/redirect is then a normal editorial decision since it can be reversed by any editor without the need for special admin powers. The argument that a redirect "deletes content" is without merit and is untrue given the Wikipedia process. Normal editing (including turning some pages into redirects) is not deletion as we use that term here.
  All that said, I agree with the closer that there is no independent material here. None of the sources describe this topic as a topic. An LED circuit is a circuit with an LED is self-evident. Until a more substantial article can be successfully written and sourced, our readers are better off with a redirect. Rossami (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I was careful to characterize the outcome as effectively deleted, because if an editor were to restore the article, another editor would be likely to point to the AfD and revert. So absent an overturn here, the article is effectively deleted. I don't disagree that the article could be better, but we generally do not turn articles needing improvement into redirects, especially when there are ample references. Also, as I pointed out above, it is plainly obvious that the actual "LED circuit" diagram from the article was lost, so there was independent info, making that a false assumption. Dhaluza (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • And if they did unredirect and then have it reverted, that would be completely consistent with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. That sort of content dispute gets settled on the respective article Talk pages. It does not require discussion here. The image is not lost - it can be moved to another article if useful. Rossami (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Not true, as the Talk page of a redirect is seldom if ever used. There was clearly no consensus to redirect, so the article should have been left as it was. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus. Looking at the AfD, there was not consensus. I agree that it was inappropriate for a user involved in the discussion to close it. There are over a thousand uninvolved administrators who could have done it. DGG (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)