Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 12

Jizzle me this (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Swift and unfair deletion of well-written article Wheresmydanish 23:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse swift and perfectly reaonsable deletion of unsourced article on a game patently made up in school one day. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• The article was well written. It was also original material, very creative, and not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. Paul 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Two women operating ENIAC.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Useful, non-policy-violating fair use image. I can't find any record of its deletion--it seems just to have disappeared. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Robert K S 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment was moved to Commons and speedied under I8. However, along the way it changed from a JPEG to a GIF. Hence the understanble confusion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Case closed, then. Thanks. Robert K S 21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|MfD)

Wikipedia:Esperanza was recently nominated for deletion on WP:MFD/EA. The results, which I agree was a good handling of consensus, stated that "Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages; deletion not required. Esperanza is too big to be deleted without leaving many red-links and making newcomers wonder". The Messedrocker Solution said that "all the Esperanza pages (except Wikipedia:Esperanza itself) are blanked and made into redirects to Wikipedia:Esperanza, which is replaced with a notice on how it's closed down. This way, the history is still around, but it is effectively deleted".

However, a majority of Esperanza's subpages were deleted by a few admins against consensus established on MfD. They removed the histories of the Esperanza subpages and replaced them with redirects. IMHO, this is a serious offense against what the Wikipedia community wanted to have done. Therefore, I request that all pages under Wikipedia:Esperanza history be restored, maintaining the redirects to the main Esperanza page.

I realize that no DRV is needed to request page undeletion. However, this situation is currently under debate, and I think that we need a wider opinion here. Many requests for undeletion on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza and Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza have been met with opposition by those who were against the MfD results. Therefore, I will be using WP:IAR in order to ignore the rules on Wikipedia:Deletion review#History only undeletion and request the undeletion here. Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the status quo per community consensus is whatever the closing admin decided. So all unilateral actions after the closure amount to a challenge to the MfD decision and therefore a de facto nomination for review. Unless there is a consensus to overturn the MfD decision will be upheld. ~ trialsanderrors 17:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not challenging the MfD decision. I only posted this DRV to enforce the MfD decisions.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I know. I just clarified why you don't have to invoke IAR to request a review. ~ trialsanderrors 17:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse formally changing EA into an essay, but agree to request undeletion of history of pages in question. The admins in question should probably be notified of this DRV, btw. – Chacor 15:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Will do, Chacor--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and do whatever it is you said. That was what the closure was supposed to be. Anyone who hijacks this into a discussion about restoring the organization will be eaten by Grues, by the way, so don't. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, do not restore histories. As decided in the MFD, some parts of Esperanza were to be deleted and salted, and there really is no point in reviving them. There have been a few minority efforts already to restore Esperanza, we shouldn't be indulging them and start the mess all over again. >Radiant< 15:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe you are referring to the Members and Governance pages. If those are to remain deleted per MfD decision, then so be it. But all of the other pages were not supposed to be deleted, per the Messedrocker Solution.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore the histories, that was the result of the AfD. A few people got a bit too trigger happy with their delete button here. --tjstrf talk 16:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Leave deleted, Esperanza is dead and buried now and I don't really see the point of bringing any part of it back, if only for the edit histories. --Cyde Weys 16:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As I have said before, the deletions were against MfD consensus. As tjstrf said above, some people abused their deletion rights. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Which pages do you want restored? --Cyde Weys 16:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      • As stated before on my request, I want all subpages under the Messedrocker Solution to be restored.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        • By which I suppose you mean, all of them except those that relate to membership and governance, per the very same Messedrocker solution? >Radiant< 16:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
          • We can leave the coffee lounge history deleted as well, since it was under a different AfD. --tjstrf talk 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Well I guess we can revise the DRV request for all subpages covered by the MfD.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse MfD result, restore histories of subpages There doesn't seem to be any reason to overturn the consensus found in the result. --ais523 16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To clarify my comment: Delete what the MfD closer said would be deleted, restore what the MfD closer said would be kept. --ais523 16:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion MfD has stated it should be deleted, and I agree too. No new reasoning given why this should be undeleted. --SunStar Net^talk 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're missing the point of the DRV. The DRV is seeking to restore the history of pages as called for by the closing admin but were deleted by other admins without regard to the closing admin's decision. – Chacor 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Why is the closing admin's decisions somehow more important than the decisions of other admins? You know, the ones who've been deleting these pages. --Cyde Weys 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know, maybe because they actually reflect consensus? – Chacor 16:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        • The closing admins's decisions were regarded as a good compromise for the discussion on WP:MFD/EA. The decisions do not reflect Mailer Diablo's personal opinions, but the opinions of every Wikipedia who participated in the discussion. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep dead and buried--Doc^g 16:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind providing an strong arguement for that?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As per my MfD vote, there's no reason to do this again.--Doc^g 18:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• • OK, I get it now - do whatever original closing indicated, and let's not waste any more time on Esperatza. Indeed speedy close this DRV, since the conclusion is obvious. However, I never want to hear an Esperezian argue for deleting anything in future 'to save server space'.--Doc^g 20:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, do not restore any pages whatsoever, and would someone mind telling me one circumstance if which they have needed to look at these blasted histories where they couldn't have simply looked at the MfDs? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul-discussions after the 1st MfD
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Editors' Forum-example of efforts to refore Coffee Lounge--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, so absolutely no point whatsoever then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you still remain blind to the consensus established on WP:MFD/EA to keep the histories. The Overhauls might be viewed in the future to see discussions regarding Esperanza's problems. The Editors' Forum can be used as an example of efforts to revive Esperanza after the 1st MfD. All of EA's subpages have historical value.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, I dispute that that's what consensus was. But whatever, Mailer Diablo made a judgement call, and I'm fine with that. However, some admins decided to do their own thing and delete pages. Well, so what? Few people care - they just wanted Esperanza dead. So why push so hard to have the histories restored? What's the point? What good reason is there to look at them? For history? Who goes and looks at dead Wikipedian organisations? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Archaeologists in a few 100 years might be interested in Wikipedian way of life... I know that was a lame arguement, but the point is that history is important to Wikipedia. Why do we keep logs of XfD debates? Why do we archive our discussions? Why do we keep inactive Wikipedia project pages? Because they served a purpose in Wikipedia at one point in time.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And did Esperanza serve a purpose? No. So why pick over its remnants. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In the early days of Esperanza, some former-members claimed that Esperanza did serve its purpose in 2005. In 2006, however, it began to decline. Future people studying Wikipedia might be interested in the community itself, and would be interested in studying Esperanza, including its community-building in 2005, decline in 2006, and non-existence in 2007.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, no history restoration. There is no good reason to restore the page histories and there is no good reason to overturn the decision. My reading of the MfD decision was that pages were to be deleted and redirected (and they were). Let's just this unpleasantness fade from memory. The essay should be sufficient for anyone interested. alphachimp 16:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • alphachimp, your deletions violated MfD decisions to follow the Messedrocker Solution. Mailer Diablo specifically said "No deletion required."--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't like the thought that my deletions (and those of many other admins, although I appear to have been singled out) violated that decision. What part of "no deletion required" precludes deletion? My read of the decision (and that of the admins I queried on and off wiki) was that they should be deleted. Deleting the pages was a lot more difficult than, say, just salting and redirecting. If anything, the admins assisting in this tedious task should be commended for their good faith efforts, not hauled through a procedural quagmire. alphachimp 05:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • You don't WP:OWN your deletions. You are responsible for them, but if they are overturned, please don't take personal offence. I am currently reviewing the deletion log, so don't worry about being singled out. A dispassionate, and objective record of what happened is needed. There are a lot of pages, I agree, but saying that deleting is more difficult than salting shows you don't understand salting. Salting is deletion followed by recreating the page as a protected warning. Possibly you meant blanking and redirecting, which can be done by anyone, not just an admin, but still probably involves more key presses than deletion. Carcharoth 16:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, so I got a term wrong. Delete and redirect (3 actions): Delete -> Create Redirect -> Protect; Redirect (2 actions): Create Redirect -> Protect. Those descriptions don't include clicks between, which would make deleting about 2x as much work. Again, the pages were only deleted after discussion both on and off wiki that validated the aforementioned action. I don't "worry" about being singled out. I know that I am the only admin (other than Mailer) involved in closing this MfD who has been contacted regarding this DRV. Let it be very clear: I did not delete pages without consultation. I did read the MfD, and there was no mention of the histories. We can sit here and debate this constantly, but this purely procedural nomination is ridiculous. If some admin wants to run through restoring histories, they're more than welcome to do so. alphachimp 17:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, if the phrase "deletion not required" appeared by itself, then it could technically be interpreted as saying "these pages don't need to be deleted, but someone can delete them if they really want to", but that's a very iffy call. However, look at the full sentence it appears in:

Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages; deletion not required.

The Messedrocker solution, as it appears later in the MfD, quite clearly states that page histories are to be kept. I honestly don't see how that sentence is vague or unclear in any way. Regarding due process - the point about due process is that it's public. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a handful of people having a private chat, then deciding to change the result of an MfD as hotly contested as this one without informing anyone else. Wasn't the Esperanza council heavily criticized for having closed meetings just like that? As for you being singled out, I'm guessing Ed just picked your name cause it appeared several times in the deletion logs. If you'd be willing to contact the other admins you discussed this with, I'd like to hear their thoughts on the matter. Quack 688 18:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete and redirect as per concensus on the MfD. This DRV is not here so we can argue about whether or not Esperanza should be deleted, we've had that discussion already. This discussion is to determine if the results of the previous discussion were carried out correctly, and they weren't. It doesn't matter if you disagree with what the MfD decided, the fact of the matter is that there was concensus on the MfD for the Messedrocker solution, there was not concensus for deletion. --Tango 16:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and redirect as directed by the MfD. If the "* for Deletion" process is to work at all, any consensus reached there must be respected. Vigilante action is not acceptable. ➥the Epopt 16:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and redirect. The concensus was for Esperanza to be deleted. The option of some individual programs to be retained was kept open as a possibility. Redirecting pages to the essay effectively deleted Esperanza, deleting subpage histories only serves to aggravate people when there's no harm in their existence. Any attempts to revive Esperanza itself can be reverted. Programs that serve the encyclopedia should get a chance to be run on their own. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore Histories. I wanted to dig through Esperanza's history today, but it's so evil that some admins had to break consensus to fit their own motive. -- Chris is me _{(u/c/t) 17:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
  • _{Heh, assume good faith, my friend. I see no reason to assume such a motive by the admins involved. -- Ned Scott 20:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Comment My mistake for treating this like other DRVs with endorse/delete summaries. --SunStar Net^talk 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Restore histories. I voted Delete in the MFD, but the eventual decision in the MFD was to redirect all Esperanza subpages while retaining their histories, and that decision should be properly enforced. TomTheHand 19:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}

• _{Restore histories I see no problem with this, although I don't think it's a big deal either way. -- Ned Scott 20:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{If the histories are restored, protect as redirect to WP:EA. If not, that's fine. Ral315 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Restore history, but maintain the current version as a protected redirect to Wikipedia:Esperanza per Messedrocker's solution, which appeared to be more or less consensus, and was endorsed by the closing admin. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Restore histories as redirects per the MfD closure. BryanG^(talk) 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Reimplement MfD Closure Deciding what to do with a messy MfD is precisely the closing admins job, and the rest of us should help make that happen. It should have been blindingly obvious to anyone intentionally disregarding the close that there was a heck of a lot of discussion about this, and they couldn't claim a good faith belief that the consensus of the community would support them. So if they wanted something different done, they should have brought it back to MfD in a specific case. So either people were ingnorant of the MfD close, and thus we should return to the MfD close, or they were just plain wrong to ignore it, and we should return to the MfD close. GRBerry 20:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Whatever. I don't see tha value of the history, but I don't see the harm either. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Restore history. Not good reason not to. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}

_{*Honestly don't give a flipping....you know. I don't care. I really bloody don't care. It's clear to me now that the entire Esperanza MFD has spiraled into a time wasting, annoying, hate spewing battleground. I wash my hands of this. That's it, I'm done. I'm not wasting my time arguing all this post MFD shit. ESPERANZA HAS BEEN DELETED. Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it. It will never, ever matter whether or not we have page histories preserved, I highly doubt that anyone cares. It's just going to lead the reorganization of Esperanza in all its corrupted glory. If it's ever recreated, I'll be on the front lines of the MFD, but until then, screw it. DoomsDay349 22:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}

• 1. _{This is not a vote}
  2. _{The MfD decisions were violated. Technically, that's a call for another debate!}
  3. _{You cannot just show up on a discussion page and say you don't wish to participate. If you don't want to discuss this, then don't! This also brings up WP:ILIKEIT--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 22:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}

_{Heh...fine then. Take the message away. Just proves my point more and more. God does Elara make so much sense now. Alternatively, take it as a neutral stance. Unless those aren't allowed now?DoomsDay349 22:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}

_{In all fairness, Ed, WP:ILIKEIT is part of an essay, not a guideline or policy. I agree with your arguments here, but don't pull up ILIKEIT! -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}

• _{Leave deleted per Cyde Ways. -- Earle Martin [^t/c] 23:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• Let the dead rest (ie Endorse) • No really. Zombies aren't that fun, and they try to eat your brains. On a more serious note, this is just continuing the very divisive and polarising events that Esperanza encouraged when it existed. This ghost still haunts Wikipedia. Let's excise it. Let's leave it be. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete histories - This was the consensus reached by the MfD discussion; a few admins should not have more say than the voice of the people. It does no harm whatsoever to leave the histories undeleted. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• And it does absolutely no harm to have them deleted either. "I like it" or "I want it this way" is not a compelling reason to overturn deletion. This is not a vote - it is an attempt to reach consensus. Please provide argumentation. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, Cielomobile did provide arguementation for his opinion. He is correct in saying that the "admins should not have more say that the voice of the people". As stated by trialsanderrors above, any admin who deleted Esperanza subpages not relating to Esperanza's Governance and Membership, along with any user that endorses the deletions, is acting against and protesting community consensus. Consensus has already been reached on this matter on WP:MFD/EA--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Come now, Ed, I thought an experienced editor like you would know better. There are no binding descisions on Wikipedia except those passed by WP:OFFICE. Descisions can be overturn, consensus can change. And it looks to me like consensus definetely has changed. And honestly Ed, it looks like you're just out here with an axe to grind, and it doesn't help the credibility of your case. Attacking former Esperanza members who don't agree with? *shakes head* For shame, Ed. For shame. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Um, why are you focusing on Ed and not the issues at hand? My reading of this DRV indicates more people are endorsing the original MfDs decision to keep the histories. But the really annoying thing is that this shouldn't be an issue. Keeping the history of an active organisation that later closes down should be a no-brainer. Please address that. Carcharoth 18:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I already stated my opinion on that. I shouldn't have to repeat myself. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• And I shouldn't have to repeat myself either. Do you want to answer the question: "Why are you focusing on Ed and not the issues at hand?" - or do I have to quote what you said about Ed above? That sort of thing should be taken to his talk page, not raised here where it distracts from the issues we are trying to discuss. If you retract what you said, we can continue this discussion somewhere else. Carcharoth 21:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My rationale was quite simple—consensus was reached in the MfD to keep the histories, but that consensus was ignored by the admins. Also, WP:ILIKEIT is an essay, but WP:NPA is an official policy. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. Honestly, I have to say I'm agreeing with DoomsDay349 here. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Doomsday. All that's needed is the essay at Wikipedia:Esperanza explaining where it went, whether the rest of the pages are deleted, redirects, or protected redirects with history is really completely unimportant. See, as of now, no-one has even listed the pages that need to be undeleted. And a basic requirement for a request for undeletion would seem to me to be saying what you want undeleted. If they can't be bothered to find out what actually "needs" undeleting, damned if I know why the closing admins of this discussion should try to figure it out. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you not see this link on the nomination above? It contains a full list of pages that need to be undeleted, if it hasn't happened yet.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You honestly believe that restoring every single one of those pages improves both the quality and the credibility of Wikipedia? DoomsDay349 04:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It could be proven useful by future researchers in a few thousand years... Anyway, that's not the point. The deleting admins ignored and disregarded the decisions established by community consensus. Their actions were taken unilaterally.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        • So you're willing to detract from Wikipedia solely on the basis that the admins screwed up? DoomsDay349 04:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

    A random sample indicates that a substantial number of the Esperanza subpages do not have any deleted history to undelete. Some do, but expecting a closing admin to go through every single page on what is four to five screens' worth of pages on my monitor (and I have a big monitor) looking for pages that might have had some history deleted, that might be of use to someone, then undelete them, is a total waste of time. No-one in this discussion has specified a single deleted edit that needs to be undeleted and made available to everyone. I've never seen a case for undeleting that was so clearly process wonkery, or in full, "overturn because I won't be the one doing the tedious process of overturning".

    Tell us what pages you want undeleted, of which you believe others would benefit from the content, and maybe they'll be considered and undeleted. This DRV as it stands strikes me as so unwieldy as to be pointless, and so large-scale that all beneficial action would be buried under a sea of wasted time. Speedy close without action. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

    Agreed. This entire thing seems to be process just for the sake of process. alphachimp 05:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

    Alphachimp, your username popped up on numerous occasions as I combed through the deletion logs! I wonder why you had the guts to mass delete Esperanza subpages without consensus! Ah, well...it already happened.

    List of pages needing undeletion:

    • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Slimline - I wish I knew what this page was for, since it was part of the already undeleted newsletter page. Unfortunately, the page was deleted and I have no idea what it was. bummer...
    • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul and subpages - Contained discussions that took place immediately after the 1st MfD. Too bad future readers can't see the discussions and have an idea of what everyone thought of Esperanza!
    • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Editors' Forum - Aftermath of Coffee Lounge conflicts. Surely people would want to find out how Esperanza members tried to reform the discussions, don't you think?
    • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redesign, Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redisign/Archive1 - I don't think it's a good idea to delete discussions.

    These pages weren't supposed to be deleted in the first place. Alphachimp: "This entire thing seems to be process just for the sake of process."? Since when was it just "process" to enforce community consensus?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 05:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Gut's!? I was involved in the implementation of a complicated MfD discussion. Before I did anything, I consulted with and reviewed the actions of other administrators working to close the MfD. If you need access to any of those pages, I'd be more than willing to restore them for the duration of the time you need them. Such access is available to any editor. And no, it's not process to enforce consensus. It's process for the sake of process. This is a 37 kilobyte waste of effort. alphachimp 17:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So you claimed repeatedly that you contacted other admins on and off wiki...did you bother to contact non-admins who also participated in the discussion? Is it possible that one of the editors you talked might have shown the slightest objection to the page deletions? It would be nice if you could prove the fact that you discussed this on wiki. Off-wiki, however, should not be a suitable venue for discussions about that "complicated MfD discussion". How did you communicate? Did you use email? chatroom? IRC? telephone? conference call? physically meeting each other? Those forms of communications are not necessarily setting binding decisions, since:

1. Logs are not available, or might not be credible
2. No proof can be shown that the discussion took place
3. Only witnesses to the discussion are those who participated
4. The discussion doesn't dictate consensus, since the venue is off-wiki and available to a small population
   • unless it is an office action

Therefore, your so-called "consulting" other admins do not establish decisions on how to handle a discussion. If you were confused, you should have consulted the closing admin.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 19:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

While I generally agree that one does not need every page of Esperanza to know it's history, the deleted pages cited by Ed are very odd. Why were those pages deleted? If they are going to be protected redirects then what harm could the histories have? This DRV isn't wasting out time, the deletion of those pages are wasting our time. Correct a simple mistake, please. Why is this an issue? -- Ned Scott 07:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Overturn discussions per Ed. -- Selmo ^(talk) 07:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Might as well restore the histories. I don't see why not, and it might be useful for future wikigenerations to see what Esperanza actually did. Grandmasterka 09:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn-I think this is a very important part of Wikipedia. -- Punk Boi 8 10:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and redirect - firstly, I believe this was the consensus from reading the MfD, but secondly, it seems to be denying a key part of Wikipedia's social history to delete these pages in such a way that the history is invisible. It is only reasonable that the people who put in work to contribute to the development of these pages should be recognised, even if only in the history section of a defunct set of articles. This should only apply insofar as to enforce the original intention of the MfD consensus. Orderinchaos78 10:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Restore histories. Okay, there's two things going on here. First, some people are either attempting to defy the MfD, or mis-interpreting it. By that, I mean acting against the closing statement, without any discussion. Attempting to re-activate Esperanza is an example. So is deleting pages that were not supposed to be deleted. At this moment, all the pages should be in the exact state specified by the MfD.

Now, a discussion to change the result of an MfD, on the other hand, is perfectly fine. Some people have said that all the pages should be hard-deleted. Ed requested that "all pages under Wikipedia:Esperanza history be restored, maintaining the redirects to the main Esperanza page.". I agree with Ed. Why? As I said previously, in Wikipedia terms, Esperanza's pages are the "primary sources" about Esperanza, and any historian or encyclopedia writer should recognize the importance of primary sources. The MfD is a reflection of Esperanza, but it is not Esperanza. Similarly, the Esperanza essay is a secondary source. Esperanza has been closed down, but it is still a part of Wikipedia's history, warts and all, and it should not be denied, glorified, or swept under the rug. Let its history speak for itself. Quack 688 14:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Restore histories as specified in the original MfD closure. Commend the admins who tried to help carry out the MfD, but remind them to follow the closing decision of any XfD in future. If they had followed the closing decision, we wouldn't be having this discussion here. Carcharoth 15:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Note that the WP:MfD page currently states: "Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors." - this only refers to editors, but there is currently a discussion on the WP:MFD talk page where I intend to propose that this should apply to community areas and organisations as well. Something like: "Also note that even if an active organisation or project becomes inactive or is shut down, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors."

• Request full list of pages deleted - it's a simple request, isn't it? Please provide a list of all the Esperanza pages that were covered by this MfD. Yet, stunningly, the MfD failed to list them. To expand on this point, some of the Esperanza pages were not just: (a) blanked and redirected (the MfD solution); (b) deleted and recreated as a redirect (what this DRV is trying to get overturned and done correctly, per 'a'); (c) deleted and recreated as a protected 'salted' page (what the MfD decision stipulated for the memberships and governance pages, but the salted pages were then later deleted); but some pages were (d) outright deleted (these outright deletions should be covered by this DRV, even though they were not specifically mentioned). The Special:Prefixindex list of subpages that Ed provided above will not show these outright deleted pages. Consequently, I requested from the closing admin a list of all the pages that were deleted (I feel that all these pages should have been listed in full on the MfD itself, or on a subpage as the list is long, as once deleted it is difficult to find out what pages were deleted unless there is an actual list somewhere). The closing admin's response was: "I think trawling through the deletion log is the only viable method at the moment I can think of, but I don't expect the deletion period to stretch to over two to three days. (~ 5000-10000 records) - Mailer Diablo 22:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)" [1]. I may be able to do this list, but seriously, it shouldn't be so difficult to get a list of the pages deleted. Can I urge anyone doing an umbrella nomination in future to list all the pages being nominated (if there are hundreds, put the list on a subpage). If you don't have the time to make the list, ask for help in making the list (copying and pasting from the subpages listing is one way). If this is not done, it makes it so much harder to see what exactly was discussed and deleted. A list of blue and red links really helps. Go into the XfD archives, and you will see what I mean. Carcharoth 15:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

After checking the entire list of subpages, I provided a list a few paragraphs above, in response to Alphachimp.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition to that, can I urge the deleting admins to not take offence and see this as reflecting on them, and that they not get defensive about this. It is simply correcting a simple mistake they made, a mistake that was pointed out at the time, but in the interests of letting things cool down, the appeal was deferred for a while (not the full month that was suggested, but hey). I agree with Ned Scott's comment above: "This DRV isn't wasting out time, the deletion of those pages are wasting our time. Correct a simple mistake, please. Why is this an issue?" Carcharoth 16:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an issue because once again you've decided to waste time. It will never matter if the page histories are there or not, and all this DRV will ever accomplish is wasting time. That, my friend, is the issue. DoomsDay349 17:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If the pages in question were not deleted, we wouldn't be here, would we? It's not our fault that other editors made a mistake over a delicate situation. Do you want to send the message in the future that procedures and consensus don't matter anymore? That is the message that we're trying to send. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 20:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Page list created - further to my request above and elsewhere for a full list of all the pages deleted, and advice that such a list could be created by looking through the deletion log, I have created User:Carcharoth/Esperanza MfD review. Please note: "It is currently in my userspace, but when it is ready, I propose to move it to an appropriate subpage of the second MfD". Looking at the list, there are many blue links (which could be salted pages or later restorations and redirects), plus many red links (deleted pages that should be under the purview of this deletion review). Please comment on the format/usefulnessof the page at User talk:Carcharoth/Esperanza MfD review. Any specific deletion discussion should remain here. Carcharoth 17:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • My initial thought on looking through the list is that deletions and redirects were carried out inconsistently. Lots have been restored, but the whole carrying out of the result of the MfD seems to lack methodical care and attention to detail, with the admins involved doing different stuff according to how they interpreted the MfD and the closing decision. Further analysis should make things clearer. Carcharoth 18:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Overturn -Overturn deletion and restore all delete content. Geo. 22:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Restore as called for by Ed. Geo. 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Geo, we're all aware of your secret agenda with Zach Crimsonwolf, and it is not in any way appreciated. The consensus, despite any details, was to delete. Deletion reviews are made for wrongful deletes, and not to overturn decisions. Esperanza is not coming back. Deal with it. DoomsDay349 23:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Geo's agenda is hardly secret, Doomsday, splashed as it is all over his talkpage, as well as Zachary Crimsonwolf, Why1991, and Culverin's. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

By secret I meant the attempt to make it secret. To my knowledge it was never made known publicly on an independent page. DoomsDay349 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

DoomsDay, deletion reviews can also be made to overturn decisions on a debate, according to WP:DRV. Geo, I would like to remind you that if you want to restore Esperanza, you have to file a seperate DRV. This is not the discussion for total restoration. Be warned, however, that the chances of overturning consensus on WP:MFD/EA are very slim.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realize that. I have changed my vote accordingly. Geo. 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, fix any glaring problems. Please could all commentator please re-acwquaint themselves with Mailer Diablo's close: "This means as from now, the membership, council and associated pages are to immediately go. They will be salted. " Many pages which Carcharoth's page note are election pages and what have you, and have been salted (many by me), and other admins have changed some of the salts to redirects or blank deletions. As far as I care, there's no difference for these election pages. There's a big fuss being made here that admins did what they want over the consensus and close by Mailer - this is nonsense, and everyone needs to assume good faith and take a look at the close again, and try contacting the admins who performed the salts (etc) which might need undoing. DRV is the wrong way to go about this, as a group of admins will again pounce on the result and fix anything that needs fixing, and doubtless someone will disagree and we'll have another review. Martinp23 23:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That list I made was primarily to give substance to the discussion. Could you, in all honesty, hand on heart, have said: x number of pages were deleted; I deleted y of them, here is a list of all the pages, if I hadn't made the list? I agree that the election and governance pages were supposed to be salted, but many of them weren't. Cyde even deleted a salted page, for some unknown reason. It had already been deleted. Quite why he had to delete the salted page is a mystery. Carcharoth 00:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No - and I'm truly glad that you've made this list, so that we can easily fix and mistakes which were made by the deleting admins (like those deletions by Cyde, which confused me too) Martinp23 15:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Once I realized that some of Esperanza's subpages were deleted, I immediately put it up for discussion and requested them to be undeleted. My request, however, was met with opposition, so I posted this DRV. We need to send the message that actions taken unilaterally against consensus will not be regarded as acceptable to the Wikipedia community. This debate isn't just about the histories of Esperanza's subpages; it's about the principle of consensus! If the consensus changes, then that's fine, but as far as I'm concerned, the consensus was to keep the histories of Esperanza.

Also, you can't just assume that another DRV will be posted after consensus here is established. As long as the closing admins establish unbiased consensus and act on it correctly, then we have nothing to worry about. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I do understand the phrase you use "actions taken unilaterally against consensus" to be in dire contravention of AGF. I'm sure that the deleting admins were all acting to the best of their ability, interpreting the close as well as they could, and making inevitable mistakes (yes, admins aren't infallible). It is unfair to attack the integrity of these admins in this way, and Carcharoth's analysis of the deletion period can help us to resolve these issues properly, as I'm sure everyone is eager to do. For my part, I salted a number of the governanace/election pages, as mandated by the MfD close, and I was careful to do it correctly (though I suspect I will have made some mistakes - everyone does!). The admins handling the deletion/Messedrockerification or Esp had a lot of work to do, and deserve to be cut a bit of slack from these accusations. Martinp23 15:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I really doubt any of us contributing our time to closing the MfD were attempting to WP:IAR in deleting the pages. Please stop the unreasonable and consistent attacks on those involved. I strongly doubt our motives are any different than yours. alphachimp 22:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• For Inclusionisim! All pages under Wikipedia:Esperanza history be restored, maintaining the redirects to the main Esperanza page, which would contain their original content for reference and so that we may better learn for mistakes of the past. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 08:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Regardless of the social stigma this could produce, Esperanza should be restored So users can be able to look back to the days when wikpedia wasn't just about robotic, emotionless editing and was a community in the day when deletionist didn't rule Wikipedia. Culverin? ^Talk 09:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Culverin, we are also well aware of your plotting with Geo and ZCW. You understand how that destroys your credibility? You just want Esperanza to come back because you enjoy how it made you feel important and gave you a place to chat. If you can honestly present good arguments and believe you can overturn the massive consensus in the second MFD, then by all means, create a new DVR to discuss it. DoomsDay349 17:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think he meant "Overturn deletions", which is what this DRV is discussing. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • He says "overturn, restore Esperanza" so we can go back to day when we aren't robotic deletionists. Last I checked, Culverin, I wasn't a robot, and just because someone is a deletionist doesn't make them wrong. You're kinda bashing everything I stand for with your message. But hey, if I was wrong, sorry. But you were involved in the Esperanza restoration secret project, you know. DoomsDay349 19:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion, do not restore histories. per Radiant, per consensus, per personal opinion. ... aa:talk 10:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original MfD decision and Undelete/redirect subpages, since this is what was decided. The original solution was a good compromise, and there's no need to try to wipe Esperanza out of history because it was overbureaucratic and didn't serve its purpose. Personally I'd rather that things like the charter and FAQ were redirected, not deleted, but I wouldn't like to argue with the original MfD. I rather doubt that anyone plans to use any of these pages to restart Esperanza, and such efforts could be justifiably deleted if they did. -- Mithent 10:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion; restore Histories - Esperanza was deleted for a reason; it went against our core beliefs as Wikipedians in that it was unnecessarily hierarchical and nothing but a popularity contest. However, the deletion of subpages was against the clear community concensus, as communicated in Esperanza's MfD Debate and therefore I suggest restoring the history for historical and archive purposes. Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C] 13:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)}

^{I'd agree with this. The deletion of subpages was against the clear community concensus, restore and protect the subpages. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 22:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)}

• Restore page histories per the result of the debate which included deletion not required. Wodup 02:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore histories and protect redirects Sheesh, aside from consensus, am I the only person who thumbs through histories? Restore them, for the sake of us non-admins who would like to become more acquainted with a posthumous program that rocked the encyclopedia. Gah! We should have had a dozen different MfDs for such a thing, what a messy discussion and consensus. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Do what the consensus says. Okay, so I struck out my old statement and am putting a new one here, cause if I had done it there it would have gotten seven kinds of confusing. I'm sorry about the statement; Esperanza's MFD has me very frustrated. I have adopted the enlightened stance of not giving a fuck, and everything is much simpler now. Please accept my humblest apologies. But yes, let's just do what the consensus stated and move on with this. DoomsDay349 04:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't worry about it. My mind is in a state of disturbance over this, although it might also pile onto my exams, my social life, and my family life...but hey! Let's move on and continue what we're doing.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Word to that. I have big articles to write... DoomsDay349 05:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore and redirect per the consensus at MfD. Consensus of hundreds of editors cannot be overruled just because a few sysops don't like something. --- RockMFR 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  That is absolutely not what anyone was thinking. I'd appreciate if you retract that statement. alphachimp 19:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Quite frankly, I can't possibly assume every deletion was the result of a good faith interpretation of Mailer Diablo's closure. At the very least, there were people who read the first four paragraphs of the closure and conveniently ignored the "Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages" paragraph. It's troubling that some people have made comments along the lines of "KILL IT! KILL IT! BURN BURN BURN RARGH!" There were multiple pages in which the Messedrocker solution was applied at first and then later on the pages were deleted and salted (by you yourself, alphachimp). Why was this done? If you want an example, check out the history and logs of Wikipedia:Esperanza/Images. Was there a reason for the deletion of that page after it had been redirected? --- RockMFR 21:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  That was the impression that many users received when Esperanza's subpages were massively deleted against consensus. RockMFR has everyright to express an opinion per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (Wikipedia is located in Florida, if I recall correctly).--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 19:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Ed, it's ridiculous to make a US Constitution-based argument. I'm responding to his comment about "a few sysops not liking something", which you did not respond to. Please start assuming good faith. alphachimp 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I think that what alphachimp was saying was a response to the attack on the involved admins who "didn't like osmething" - this is a gross assumption of bad faith, and this sort of attitude here is getting out of hand. Ed, please note that the admins involved were only acting upon the close by Mailer Diablo, which had one or two "grey areas", and we did our best to follow the consensus with the deletions which took place (and the close indicated that there was a consensus for deletion of some pages, so alphachimp's comment re: the consensus is correct). Ed - the admins involved should (if I can blow my own horn) be commended for their work, and not be admonished in the ways we see here. We did our best to act upon the consensus, and collaborated with editors and admins, to make sure everything got covered. There may have been some mistakes in the deletions, but efforts will always be made to correct them, making this DRV unneccesary. It presents an uninformed view and the confusing majority seems to advocate the undeletion of everything (which, does not compute with your DRV statement about out of process deletions being the reason for this DRV) - to overthrow MD's close which permitted the deletion of some pages. As a result of this lack of detail and onfo made public, this DRV is descending into a farce. Martinp23 19:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  I would also like to ask Ed to calm down and start assuming good faith and behaving civilly - there's no need for some of the comments you've produced. Martinp23 19:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  alphachimp, if I remember correctly, you said that you consulted with admins on and off-wiki. Let my repost my earlier comments that you obviously had no interest in replying to:

So you claimed repeatedly that you contacted other admins on and off wiki...did you bother to contact non-admins who also participated in the discussion? Is it possible that one of the editors you talked might have shown the slightest objection to the page deletions? It would be nice if you could prove the fact that you discussed this on wiki. Off-wiki, however, should not be a suitable venue for discussions about that "complicated MfD discussion". How did you communicate? Did you use email? chatroom? IRC? telephone? conference call? physically meeting each other? Those forms of communications are not necessarily setting binding decisions, since:

1. Logs are not available, or might not be credible
2. No proof can be shown that the discussion took place
3. Only witnesses to the discussion are those who participated
4. The discussion doesn't dictate consensus, since the venue is off-wiki and available to a small population
   • unless it is an office action

Therefore, your so-called "consulting" other admins do not establish decisions on how to handle a discussion. If you were confused, you should have consulted the closing admin.

• Although the situation now has changed, I still beleive that the deleting admins poorly took action in taking care of a complicated situation.

  Martinp23, I have every right to post this DRV. When I requested that the page histories be undeleted both on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza and WT:EA, my request has been met with opposition, and most of that opposition provided claims that "the histories aren't useful" (not a useful arguement). My arguements, however, are supported by the consensus established on WP:MFD/EA. I realize that consensus might change, but I wanted to post this DRV in order to get a wider opinion on the situation.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 19:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Anyone has a right to file a DRV - I dispute the neccesity of a DRV, and I'm outraged that the part of the close which reqeusts salting has not been mentioned by the nominator, which will produce a convulted result to this DRV Martinp23 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Ed, we engaged on Wikipedia after the close and we obviously have differing opinions on how the close was to happen. This was a hard close to read, and I don't see any value in asserting admins acted in bad faith. As to the DRV, I think it opens from a flawed position, in that it quotes selectively and isn't supported by the close. Also, I think it would be better to have a list of the pages that require review, rather than consider the whole deletion debate. Can we all calm it down a bit. This close took a lot of work by a lot of admins. Let's at least make the assumption we were all doing our best. Hiding Talk 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  How is it possible that the phrase "deletion not required" in the MfD close cannot be fully understood? It's in English, it's on the English Wikipedia, and every fluent English speaker in the world could understand that.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 20:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Because it wasn't if reference to the governance pages etc, where salting was the result. That quote is taken completely out of context. Please, start assuming good faith Ed, and realise that not all admins are out against the consensus, and that in such an MfD results, cockups in understanding will certainly occur - it's no one's fault - it just happens. Martinp23 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just stop the madness - if someone really wants to see a particular page, restore it behind a protected redirect. If nobody cares, then don't waste time on it. --BigDT 06:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore - Esperanza in Spanish means "hope", and by keeping this deleted, Wikipedia effectively has "no hope". Esperanza's core fundamentals represent those of Wikipedia's, including the formation of a community, the formation of a safe haven for the public, and as an orphanage for those new to Wikipedia. Esperanza will rise again, and the elitist deletionists can't do anything about it. *sticks tongue out*--128.227.27.105 13:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarify

• Request for clarification: Could people who are endorsing the mfd close and requesting restoration of the histories of some pages please clarify how that is in keeping with endorsing the closure. The following passage from the closure seems at odds with that viewpoint:

This means as from now, the membership, council and associated pages are to immediately go. They will be salted. This is a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a similiar fate as Esperanza.

• Is this debate based on a misunderstanding of what was meant by "are to immediately go"? Hiding Talk 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Good questions. I agree that the situation may not be as bad as the DRV statement makes it appear. When I looked at the lists here, I realised that a lot of them are indeed governance-related pages. I am much happier now that the list has been produced (though less happy that I had to do it and that the admins involved didn't list at the MfD the pages they had deleted). I suggest that the DRV here be closed with no result, but without prejudice to a future DRV that will present a detailed list of precisely which pages should be repaired to conform to the MfD. Even simpler would be if the five admins who did most of the tidying up work would agree to review such a future list and agree to any more tidying up that may be needed. Carcharoth 21:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to review the list, but like I say, I haven't as yet finished processing my end of the mfd. I'm also unsure which of my deletions need reviewing. I've seen accusations that I deleted the collaboration process when I kept all relevant history, it's a pity the deletion edit summaries allow more text to be added that actually display, granted, but I did attempt to add all details on where stuff went. Now I'd suggest that this DRV is opened on a flawed premise since it is quoting selectively and that it alleges bad faith. I've outlined below why I believe we were entitled to act interpretively. Hiding Talk 14:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

DRV's usually last 5 days, but I would be happy to submit a more detailed request.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 21:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way I would ever agree to help with Esperanza related cleanup again. This entire DRV makes it painfully obvious just why Esperanza should remain deleted. alphachimp 22:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take this so personally. I removed that piece of text because I felt it needed more explanation, and I didn't have time to explain at the time. I'll quote my edit summary: "remove admin stats - on second thoughts, this is not helpful until properly explained". My thought was that, without proper explanation, some of the admins listed there might take offence (though they really shouldn't), so I removed it. Please note that I removed it 6 minutes after it had appeared when I created the page, and 12 minutes before I even posted the link to the page at the DRV. My aim with compiling that list was (a) to get a list of all the pages being discussed in the MfDs and the DRV - the first time such a list has been produced;(b) to identify the admins involved so that this can be discussed with them - previously it has not been clear which admins other than the closing admin were involved, and hence should be approached about this; (c) counting the number of pages helped make it clear to me that 5 admins did the bulk of the work (for which they should be commended). If I had asked at the beginning of the DRV for a list of all the pages deleted and which admins I should contact, would you have been able to tell us? That is a big part of what I am trying to do here, make it clearer precisely which pages were deleted. The rest (details of actions taken by admins) follows on from that basic information that was missing. I'll also repeat what I said on this DRV's talk page: this is not about Esperanza. I have never been involved in Esperanza or a member of Esperanza. This is a general principle to ensure that Wikipedia organisations in general are shut down properly. Carcharoth 01:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And yes, Hiding, I interpreted the comment to mean that the pages are to be deleted. Make of that what you want. I guess it's "admin abuse". alphachimp 22:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Check that edit you linked to above, I deleted eight pages based on that result and I've still got over a hundred in my to-do pile. I haven't got around to deleting the calendar redirects as yet, which to my mind aren't needed to preserve history. Hiding Talk 14:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That 'result' only covers the two days of 1 January and 2 January (it also covers 31 December, but nothing happened then). Deletions after that are not recorded, but should be apparent from red-links appearing in the existing lists of 'all Esperanza pages'. Carcharoth 16:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it's likely I deleted more, which I'm guessing is your point? Hiding Talk 16:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiding, there was also this quote in the closing statement:

Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages; deletion not required.

Messedrocker later describes his solution as:

all the Esperanza pages (except Wikipedia:Esperanza itself) are blanked and made into redirects to Wikipedia:Esperanza, which is replaced with a notice on how it's closed down. This way, the history is still around, but it is effectively deleted.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about it, that's the state the pages should be in right now - membership & council pages should have been deleted and salted, the rest should have been blanked and redirected. Now, if someone wants to change that decision, one way or the other, DRV is the forum for it. Some people want to argue the case to change that decision, and delete everything? Fine, I'll argue the case to change the decision, and bring back all the page histories. The Messedrocker solution built up quite a bit of support on the MfD. Quite a few people here support restoring page histories. Why make an exception for governance? I believe we should keep the page history for things like governance, exactly because it was the worst thing about Esperanza. By keeping the history, people can see exactly what was wrong with it. Quack 688 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• You are quoting selectively here. The close had already stated to which pages the messed rocker solution did not apply, which negates Messed Rocker's earlier outline. If you recall, I did attempt to clarify these exact points during the mfd, but you told me that "there's not much point in having a duplicate vote here". It appears there may have been, it would have avoided this duplicate vote here. Hiding Talk 14:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding quoting selectively - you quoted one half, I quoted the other. The truth is a mix of both. As for duplicate votes, the point I made during the MfD was that someone who had simply voted "delete", without any explanation (is that just "get rid of the group", or "get rid of everything asoociated with the group"?) could always go back and change their vote into a "Messedrocker" or a "slash and burn delete", to be clearer - and quite a few people did exactly that. I agree that a discussion about interpreting the closing statement might have been useful, but we couldn't do that until the MfD had been closed in the first place. Quack 688 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• But that is what I tried to do. I tried to say that the consensus is for it to be shut down, so how are we going to do it, but that was pushed off the table. I don't know, sometimes it feels like to some the process is more important than the practicality. The truth of the quotations is that this DRV should quote the whole of the close, and not selective parts that make it appear to strengthen one case over another. It's silly not to think there are grey areas. Still, I'm looking at a way of resolving this. Hiding Talk 09:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The main thing though is that a list of pages has been recovered. Without that, it would have been difficult to say what pages were deleted. Can I urge anyone dealing with an umbrella nomination like this in future to keep a copy of the list they work from during the deletion (or get it from the deletion log afterwards), and put it on the MfD page to ensure an accurate record is kept of what was deleted. Carcharoth 01:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• The trouble is, it was left to admin discretion which pages related to governance and membership and which didn't. I tried to clarify all of this at the time of the close and was told by User:Ed to "Read the results of this debate. It should have the necessary steps to take". Now that's what we all did and it appears we all read different things. To be honest, I don't think we're best served having this discussion, it's recreating tensions the close was supposed to put to bed. I had thought there was to be a month of seeing how the dust settled before we revisited it all. Hiding Talk 14:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I remember that discussion about a month's cool off, I'd have preferred waiting a month myself - actually, I think Ed would have as well. If you have a look at the history of Esperanza's talk page, you'll see that Ed added mention of this month's delay there, but it triggered an edit war, ultimately resulting in the page being protected. Quack 688 00:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul was apart of that statement. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't. I haven't finished trying to figure out what happened for all the pages (it's not that complicated to work out, I just need to find a few hours to construct the database in the form of a sortable table), but for this small area it seems pretty clear. Most of the /Overhaul pages were correctly treated by blanking and redirecting, two were deleted and recreated as redirects, and another two were later just deleted. Carcharoth 04:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Correctly blanked and redirected (history accessible)
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Admin Coaching
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Appreciation Week
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Archiving
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Barnstar Brigade
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Becoming a part of the community
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Calendar
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Charter
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Coffee Lounge
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Collaboration of the Month
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Goals
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Governance
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Newsletter
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Noticeboard
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Outreach
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Stressbusters
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/To-Do List
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/User Page Award
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/WikiProject Award
• Deleted and recreated as redirects (history not accessible)
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul
  • Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Overhaul
• Deleted (history not accessible)
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Members List
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Stress Alerts

Possibly there are reasons for this (such as very little useful content). It is hard to tell from the deletion summaries used. Carcharoth 04:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that all of these pages should be posted in the archive box at WT:EA, similar to the COTM discussion. The overhauls were very important discussions after the 1st MfD.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Where the links are doesn't matter too much, as long as the history is available. Incidentially, your example has lost its history. It was deleted and recreated as a redirect. Carcharoth 04:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Confused by that. I archived that and added it to the archived discussions as Ed indicates. That had already been dealt with. I had also redirected "the collaboration to Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive per mfd", as noted in the page history, but I see that got deleted. It does now appear this close generated a mess with admins overwriting the decisions of other admins. I therefore find that in some instances there does need to be a review, and that some pages need to be restored. Hiding Talk 14:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• The Stress Alerts page now exists at Wikipedia:Stress alerts, where the history is intact I believe. Governance and membership pages were to be immediately deleted and salted, if I recall the discussion properly. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore histories. Esperanza was a mistake, but we should have it so that Wikipedians and other researchers can learn about it directly if they ever want to. — Matt Crypto 12:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore histories per consensus at MfD and archaeologists everywhere.:) JorcogaYell! 03:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Question so wait, some stuff was moved then the redirects were deleted and then re-created as protected redirects, which might explain a lot of the confusion.. why was that done? If my thinking is correct, the only thing that deleting those redirects and recreating them did was cause this whole confusing mess over nothing. -- Ned Scott 04:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently, yes. The first redirects that were created preserved the history, until the pages were deleted, which hid the history. A complete log of what happened is being created to better understand what's going on.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It sounds like the histories have been preserved, but the histories moved with the page move. Without a history showing where the page was moved to.. it makes things very confusing. In other words, there is a history for X, but we don't know where it is. I don't understand why this was done.. It should be fairly reasonable to find out where the history is for a given page. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Not necessarily all of the pages were moved as required by the MfD. User:Carcharoth/Esperanza MfD review/Classification provides a classification of each page according to actions needed.
        1. Main Page - appropriate actions taken
        2. Governance - most, if not all, were deleted per MfD decisions
        3. Membership - most, if not all, were deleted per MfD decisions
        4. Programs - all moved to appropriate pages in Wikipedia namespace, per MfD decisions, histories still preserved but in different location
        5. Discussions- some deleted, some redirected to Wikipedia:Esperanza, deleted pages did not follow MfD decisions
        6. Other - same as Discussion pages, some deleted against Meesedrocker Solution
      • As you can see, we really don't know why these actions were taken. This DRV is necessary in order to get a broader opinion, since not much Wikipedians didn't care for these deleted pages (see WT:EA archives and Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza). This DRV enables us to get a broader opinion from other Wikipedians to probably didn't even participate in the MfD, and therefore are providing a more unbiased opinion.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 02:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Go edit the encyclopedia - I can't believe this is still going on. You want to restore the histories? Fine. Restore the histories. And after that, we need to have a firm consensus that the very next person who agitates ANYTHING to do with Esperanza should be banned indefinitely for WP:POINT. I don't have time for this magnitude of willful ignorance,and yet I find it ironic and apt that Esperanza continues to produce incivility , bad faith, divisiveness, and distract from editing the encyclopedia. Let it die. Bring the histories back so that there is nothing left to agitate over, and ban/block/ignore those who continue their histronics. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 02:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please attempt to AGF about everyone in this debate. Don't think that Esperanza is distracting us from the encyclopedia. This situation is inevitable. In addition, your recommendation seems to ask us to stretch the blocking and banning policies and to ban users just for discussing about how Esperanza was handled. Before moving on, please read and familiarize yourself with WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding the histrionics in your post, I'd like to point out that Esperanza has already 'died'. This process is an embalming of Esperanza before sticking it in a dusty drawer not to be looked at again for several years, if ever. This process might be distasteful to some, but some people like to try and finish something that is started, rather than leave something half-done and incomplete. OK, having said that, if anyone mentions any of my half-finished projects, they are urged to help me write the essay Wikipedia:I've started so I'll finish... (seriously, if there is an essay on how to get the balance right between giving up on something and leaving in a fit state for others to carry on working on it, I would like to know). Carcharoth 11:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Let it be. I've been working to try and get some sort of agreement on a way forward, but I can't seem to broker that, so in all honesty, this isn't worth the energy anymore. Let it be. Open invitation, though that anyone who wants to read through the history of any given page, is free to ask me and I'll be happy to restore the page to a position where the history can be read. I think ultimately, we're here to edit the encyclopedia, not research the history of a portion of the communities discussions. Hiding Talk 13:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I'll cary on working on preserving a record of what happened and what pages used to exist (as was not done at the time at the MfD). Can we be sure though that things will be done properly in the future? We need to recognise that sometimes we will need to dismantle and close down monolithic sub-organisations within Wikipedia, and it would be nice to let the historians and archivists take over, rather than just have everything turn into red links. Thanks also for the offer to restore pages on request. The main problem with that is that it presumes you will be around for the indefinite future. Also, I will say again that deletion should not be considered a rough-and-ready way of archiving. Stuff in the deletion tables was lost in the past, and considering the sheer amount of stuff in there (including images now), I wouldn't rule out future technical problems causing loss of deleted material. I think the deletion process needs an overhaul to distinguish between archiving and deletion. At the moment, the tests, spam, nonsense and other stuff that is deleted (and wouldn't be missed) is mixed up with old discussions and old versions of pages that might be of use one day. I'm going to check with the developers about this, as the situation might have changed since I last checked. Carcharoth 13:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Carcharoth, you know I wholeheartedly agree with you. I would be more than happy to put together a working party to go over this, I tried to during the debate, at the time of the close and I tried to here. But I'm not interested in finger pointing. You make an excellent point that these closes require thinking and discussion, but that needs to be accepted by the community. Where I tried to instigate one during the debate I was told it was inappropriate, and where admins try to discuss such discussions in private we are accused of operating a cabal, and where we try to discuss them in public they descend into farce. There is a serious and fundamental problem at play here, and perhaps it needs to be examined. However, I hope such problems never occur again, because I would rather we just all assumed good faith, and worked hard to avoid future organisations and factions.
    • Your points about the servers crashing and information being lost are well made, but I think they are underpinned by a misunderstanding. At some point, this information will be lost, will become meaningless, and we should never see ourselves as a preservation society, locked in a battle to save for some future historian the intricacies of the past. As someone with a minor interest in genealogy, I say this from experience; the people in the future will be more forgiving of us for losing stuff than you may believe. When we are long gone and all dust, we should be thankful that someone, somewhere, is happy just to know we existed. They don't need to know what colour socks we wore on a certain day, nor, ultimately, do they have to resurrect and extract all meaning from anything posted here. Such research is a double edged sword, as I think we can all agree, based on our experiences editing articles here.
    • Let's not assume grandiose ideals of our own worth to future generations, let's live in the here and now. What's the more important bequest we can make to the future? An encyclopedia, or the Esperanza minutiae? Hiding Talk 13:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      • "the people in the future will be more forgiving of us for losing stuff than you may believe" - LOL! Well said, Hiding. Though I hope what we've said here has got through to some people. Enculturating a historical perspective is hopefully never wasted effort. It helps when writing encyclopedia articles, remembering to put things in their historical context. All encyclopedia editors should be at least a little bit aware of historical issues. Mine are white today by the way... (ooh, scary article there, with a fetish section). Anyway, I hope no-one minds if I carry on working on that list in my spare time. Carcharoth 15:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin

Can the admin closing this DRV please reference this page that I created halfway through the debate, and which helped to focus discussion. When complete, that page would seem to be a good way to quietly tie up loose ends, hopefully with a minimum of drama. Carcharoth 15:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum

I've discussed the issue with the other main admins who helped administer the close by Mailer Diablo, and Mailer Diablo himself, and we are all happy to review the close and undertake to tie up any loose ends as we can per the closing comments of the deletion debate. I believe that commitment to rectify any errors caused by the workload and the number of admins involved should satisfy the demands of the deletion review process at this point. Hiding Talk 16:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional police detectives (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Closing admin's comments were "The result was delete. Reasons to keep are neither rooted in policy, nor convincing. Duplicate of the related category." Actual votes cast were 6 keeps (one of them "strong"), 5 deletes, 1 keep which was withdrawn so maybe should be counted as a delete, one abstain (from procedural nominator) and two speedy closes which I think need to be disregarded (one of them from a user who also voted keep). On the face of it, therefore, an obvious no-consensus default-keep, leaving us only to deal with the closing admin's discount of the keep votes and his or her own opinion that the list is duplicated by the category. It's hard to rebut the "not rooted in policy" assertion, since I cannot see what the closing admin based it on, nor what policy he or she thinks the delete votes were based on. I expect Proto will come here and comment, and I will either agree, or rebut, when I see that explanation. For my own part, I would assert that my vote ("nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it") is precisely AS rooted-in-policy, no more no less, than the nomination which asserted that the article should be deleted because it was indescriminate and unmaintainable. That leaves the suggestion that the article was duplicated by the category. The relevant guideline on this, here says "Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes... These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." When looking for "official guidance" (so to speak) on whether a list and a category can be redundant with one another, therefore, the wikipedia guideline says that they are not. I see a keep voter saying "The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition". I do not know why that was considered "unconvincing", and I cannot now look at the page to check, since it has been deleted and I am not an admin. However if David Edgar is right on that point then Proto is wrong. I would argue (and our guideline seems to support the view) that a list is not redundant with a category even if it contains exactly the same information, since it has scope to expand in a way the category does not. AndyJones 14:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse (my own) closure. If we have to go through them:

• • Keep as a common and notable character archetype. - OK, so we should have an article about the archetype. This wasn't it. Non sequitur.
  • Keep. Easily defined profession and archetype. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. - see above.
  • Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion - Docu's first vote, ignored as clearly incorrect.
  • Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. - ditto.
  • Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it - fair enough.
  • Keep as per above two comments - ignored as above two comments were to delete, and was Docu's second "vote".
  • keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list for the genre - nothing but keep it as I like it and it's useful.
  • Keep. The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition - good argument, referring to WP:NOT issues and why the user doesn't believe them to be an issue.

So there were two decent "keep"s, three poor ones, and two ignored. Of the deletes:

• Comment just a response to the statment that we should have an article about the archetye, there are at least two Detective fiction and Police Procedural, and in fact, a version of this list (and several others) can be found at the bottom of the first page. I do not think that information should be removed, does anyone here? FrozenPurpleCube 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness - OK, so asserts indiscriminate (WP:NOT). This in contradiction to one of the keep votes, but I'm not judging whether or not you are right, I'm determining whether the votes are argued well and rooted in policy. So, referencing WP:NOT, good argument.
  • Delete. A stock character of a genre, of which the only thing they have in common is carrying a badge: not nationality, era, medium, personality, hair color, height, etc. Sounds pretty indiscriminate to me. There's this thing called "Categories" which would be more useful - again referencing WP:NOT ("indiscriminate list"), and also pointing out the belief that categories duplicate the content. Good argument. There are then three 'delete per this arguments', which are fine.

So that's five good deletes, rooted in policy. The nomination was also broken up, making it look purely like a procedural nomination despite being done in good faith, but even with discountint the nomination as an argument to delete, it's still five solid delets versus two solid keeps and three very weak ones. I am aware that viewing each argument is always going to be subjective, but I believe the arguments for deletion outweighed those to keep, particularly as most information is retained via the category. Proto::► 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Arguments which are wrong do not count towards the closure. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, Proto should have made more closings in that group since several of the others were closed incorrectly. >Radiant< 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - There is nothing better about the delete comments than the keep comments. Most of both were "it's useful" or "it's unuseful listcruft". As for the arguments: are you telling me that there's a huge difference between keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list for the genre and The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition? By your reasoning, the second invokes WP:NOT, while the first is WP:ILIKEIT. This is pretty shaky grounds, and I'm worried the admin is reading what he wishes into the comments. Just as bad, he completely ignored Docu's "vote", despite the fact it contained clear reasoning (i.e., look at the reasoning in the previous afd). Patstuart^talk|edits 16:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak endorse closure. I think the actual result probably should have been "no consensus" (thus "keep"); however, this one was a judgment call and the closing admin displayed a reasonable exercise of judgment. Agent 86 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, closer's reasoning was sound and no reason to overturn. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse policy-based closure well within admin discretion. Eluchil404 08:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. User:Iamunknown created this AfD page by error two days after the extensive discussion of various arguments for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors (a listing that included List of fictional police detectives; see the explanation User:Iamunknown later provided at User:Iamunknown/afd).

Looks like this was deleted mainly because the reasons for keeping provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors were ignored and probably because AndyJones omitted to cross-reference his rejection of Radiant's argument (it was provided on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_heroic_fictional_scientists_and_engineers and cross-referenced after many of Radiant's 11 re-post's on the January 3 deletion pages). -- User:Docu

• That is false. You are the one that tagged all those pages with those ludicrous "out of process" arguments. In this case I agreed with the good reasoning by Calton, which has nothing to do with what Andy said against me on a different page. WP:KETTLE, you know. >Radiant< 11:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Did get to read User:Iamunknown/afd?. -- User:Docu

• Endorse I agree with Proto's reasoning above. Nothing out of process here. Eusebeus 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Digital Photography Review (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

It is my impression that dpreview.com is _the_ online ressource for cameras. The site was recommended to me, and when I got down to the camera store I found that they used it too. Seems to be an established site, with comprehensive coverage of current high-end camera models, ahve very active forums. Searching for "dpreview" gives me over 4 million hits.

Was speedy deleted after being tagged with {{db-web}}. Thue | talk 14:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Three sentence stub had no assertion of notability. That makes a valid WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion. Post it at Wikipedia:Requested articles if you don't have time to to find independent, reliable sources and write an article yourself. GRBerry 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So if we just insert a link to [2] which says that dpreview is a top 1000 website, thereby documenting notability, then you would be satisfied that the article should be restored? There doesn't seem to be any complete reviews of the site on the web, but nytimes and cnet regularly link to it. Why not simply undelete the stub and use it as a starting point? It is irrelevant that the speedy deletion was formally correct because the article did not cite notability. Thue | talk 15:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Yes, it is relevant that it was formally correct, because you can and should just start a new article with notability asserted. Understand, though, that since you imply there are no sources, I'll immediately AfD it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - again, appears to be an improper speedy. If it's even close, it goes to afd. If it appears notable (as 1 minute of research would show) and is unsourced, then tag it with {{unsourced}} or afd it. Otherwise, it's what one admin decides despite what community consensus may be: and that is definitely against what an WP:ADMIN is not - above the rest of the community. At least undelete it so the poor guy can give sources. Patstuart^talk|edits 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• You are all missing the point!. I don't care if it was an improper delete (I myself think it was proper). What matters is that I have now (quite strongly IMO) asserted notability, which means that Wikipedia should have an article, and the deleted article should be restored and used as a starting point. What you are doing is meaningless Wikipedia:WikiLawyering about the properness of the original speedy delete, not thinking about improving Wikipedia. Thue | talk 16:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  That's what I meant by what I said. Overturn to let you source it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  Oh, sorry. I guess I focussed on your first "appears to be an improper speedy" sentense. Thue | talk 20:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  No, an after the fact assertion of notability does not mean that the old article should be returned. It means that you believe it is possible to write a decent article - so you should just go write that decent article. GRBerry 20:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  If you actually did look at the deleted article then you would see that it is very decent, except for the point that it does not claim notability. I am trying to improve Wikipedia here, in a completely reasonable way, and you are working against me. Why? Thue | talk 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Agree with GRBerry. As it stood, the article was an unsourced stub. Even just adding a single link for notability wouldn't have helped much. Rather than working to have it undeleted, a better option would be to rewrite the article, expanding it outside of being a stub and adding more WP:N references, then add it to Wikipedia. Even just a couple paragraphs with references would be good enough to stand as an article. -- Kesh 21:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  While sources would be nice, we usually don't delete articles when the facts such as website owner can be verified in 30 seconds by actually going to the website. I think the people here voting delete are acting quite silly, caring more about WikiLawyering than improving Wikipedia, but it is getting easier to just rewrite the article that to convince you of (what I think is) the obvious. Thue | talk 21:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite. -- Kesh 21:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Heritage_Guitars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This AfD debate was closed by a non-administrator as a "keep". Per WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators closing discussions, any closes by non-admins must be "unambiguous "keep" decisions". This, in my opinion, wasn't one of those. Note: the current "disputed" tag is not about this sentence of that section, but rather an addition to it regarding closing as "delete" which is unrelated to this DRV. The fact that the section is disputed is non-consequential to this because it is unrelated to the part I'm talking about.

Firstly, remember AfD is not a vote. Donald Albury's input was still under dispute as to whether it brought up a good reason to delete, and the status of that argument is certainly ambiguous. Although some of the keep opinions were explained, a lot weren't, and I would have felt that, at the third-last version[3], a no-concensus close is right on the money.

However, this diff[4], the last before it is closed, is the best argument of the lot, in my opinion. With this, any hint of unambiguity is vanquished and this becomes an AfD which needs to be interpreted on the guidelines of WP:CORP and WP:NOTE by an administrator. I feel that, given Nick's argument, this should either be relisted to gain further input so concensus can be reached, or else the AfD reopened, allowed to run a couple more days to discuss Nick's extremely valid input, and then closed on its merits again.

Note that I am a huge advocate of non-admins closing discussions, and I acknowledge that people do make mistakes; maybe I made one by nominating this for DRV, who knows? I hold nothing against the closer, however I felt that he/she should probably have erred on the side of caution given the circumstances, especially the undiscussed last deletion comment by Nick, and left it for an admin to apply the guidelines to. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• That argument was also made by Donald Albury on 7 January, four days earlier. Had I found (and even looked at) closing that AFD, I'd have closed it as keep. (Although I do think that argument should have been better responded to - either by explaining the depth of coverage in those books or by agreeing with it if the depth is trivial.) Since reopening it and closing with the same outcome is pointless; I endorse closure and award the non-admin closer one light slap on the hand. GRBerry 14:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The "subject of the book issue" wasn't mentioned, nor was the specifics WP:CORP. Neither of these were actually discussed in any way, shape or form. What I mean is reopen it, let it run for a few more days while discussing the validity or otherwise of Nick's arguments, then reclose it on its merits. For all we know, the concensus may swing on the basis that a rational argument based in Wikipedia guideline and common practice. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - consensus to keep was obvious and unambiguous. Proto::► 15:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but Undo closure if you wish - appeared fairly unambiguous to me. But the linked WP:DELPRO section states quite clearly that if a non-admin closes a debate that you think was ambiguous, then you can just undo their closure. -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as keep, without prejudice to another AfD in a couple of months if the article is not sourced further. Additional work on the article may (or may not) render the delete arguments moot, and no harm will follow from allowing the article's proponents some time to work on it, rather than overturning closure which will put it back on AfD right away. Newyorkbrad 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per endorsements above, esp. GRBerry, and also because it's how I would have closed it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. It doesn't matter how good the delete arguments were; the keep arguments were good, so there was no consensus, at the least. And arguing about whether it should have been closed as "keep" or "no consensus" is stupid. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That wasn't what I was arguing for...I think you totally missed the point of me requesting this review XD I wanted it to be reopened so Nick's argument, the best of the lot in my opinion, could be discussed/maybe draw more people in/maybe refuted. Meh, doesn't matter, I'll just re-AfD it in a months time, as NYB said, and then it can be deleted. It's quite handy to know that non-ambigious non-admin closes can be reverted - is that only by admins, or can anyone? Responses on my talk page please, as this is withdrawn by candidate. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to Lose (Heroes) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

• There was clearly no consensus for deletion, episodes of TV series are notable inheritly and encyclopaedic. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• As noted at the AfD, the page was almost devoid of content, because there are no sources for any content, because the show has not yet aired. The only information that is not devoid of content is "The episode's title was originally given to the seventh episode, which was ultimately titled "Nothing to Hide".", which is unsourced. The rest is simply ""Nothing to Lose" is the fifteenth episode of the TV series Heroes." That's not an encyclopedia article, and an influx of fans of the show saying "Every other television show has an article" does not change that; calling every episode of every television series "inherently notable" is bizarre. —Centrx→talk • 13:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. In the vast majority of situations, an article should not exist on an episode that hasn't yet aired. Exceptions would be episodes such as series finales that receive lots of coverages, such as the Seinfeld or Friends finales. While I agree that this episode should have article after it airs, I strongly disagree that TV episodes are somehow "inherently notable". SuperMachine 14:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion WP:V is a policy that trumps consensus. Additionally, the claim that "all episodes of a TV series are notable" has, to the best of my knowledge, never been proven correct, and is not likely to. For certain series, yes, for certain broadcast networks and times of day (prime time), yes, but for local public access TV, absolutely not. GRBerry 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist (if you wish) - agreed page is worthy of deletion, non-notable and unsourced. However, not a single person made that argument (i.e., unsourced) in the discussion, which makes it appear that Centrx paid no attention to the discussion and formed his own opinion on the article. This is a problem precisely because we have a discussion in order to gain consensus - otherwise, any admin could delete any file without community input. If a closing admin disagrees with the prevailing consensus by bringing up a new point which has not been mentioned, it should be placed in the text of the discussion under delete, simply because sometimes, certain arguments to not occur to those in the discussion, and the new idea should be discussed, not unilaterally decided. Bit of a run on statement, but I think I got my idea across. -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In this comment User:Srose correctly noted that this episode hadn't even aired yet (it won't for nearly a month). It's nearly impossible for an episode to be notable or reliably sourced if nobody has even seen it. AfD isn't a vote, so one insightful comment such as this can have more weight than any number of keep "votes" with weak justification. SuperMachine 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There most certainly can be sourced information on an upcoming episode, even if it's not much. For that matter, I think you may have it backwards: it's actually more likely to be sourceable than not, as the article writer has not just watched the episode (i.e., OR?), but gotten his/her information from other sources. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, but the question is if they're reliable sources. Spoiler sites and the like are often quite inaccurate. SuperMachine 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        • In the vast majority of cases, there's at least some early info about the episode from the network itself, either on their website or from a press release. Articles about movies aren't forbidden until the day of release, are they? Or any other unreleased "product". --Milo H Minderbinder 19:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
          • A film is usually singular and major; there are typically many articles in newspapers and magazines about upcoming films. The same is true for various other products such as computer software. The analogous product on television, however, is not a single episode, but the entire television series. Most individual episodes of television shows do not have any reliable sources about them even after they air, let alone before. In this case, there was no early info. —Centrx→talk • 01:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn (no objection to relisting) - I find it very alarming that an admin would close an AfD with a reason that hadn't even been mentioned by any of the people supporting deletion, it gives the impression that instead of determining consensus, he ignored it and made a unilateral decision. In addition, information being uncited is something that is potentially fixable, if this had been brought up during the AfD instead of being mentioned for the first time at the closing, editors would have had the opportunity to remedy that (if that's possible). If it turns out there's no verifiable info about the episode yet (I don't personally know either way), then the article will only stay deleted until the first information arrives, which is a matter of a couple weeks, if not days. There's no question that this is a temporary deletion, and that there will be a complete article soon. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The idea that episodes are "inherently notable and encyclopaedic" is a statement of doctrine, not an argument to policy. This is not a hugely popular programme, an article per series should be fine. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, when the episode airs and a full article is written, will you still support deleting it? You do realize that wikipedia has many articles on individual TV episodes, many for shows much less notable than Heroes, right? And what policy supports the notion that shows should only have episode articles if they are "hugely popular"? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hugely popular shows always have reliable sources about them, while unheard-of shows usually do not. —Centrx→talk • 01:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Heroes has plenty of reliable sources about it (although it seems like not much about this episode, yet). So would that mean you consider this show "hugely popular"? --Milo H Minderbinder 02:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For some values of reliable, anyway. I wonder why we are considered to be an episode guide for TV shows? I thought this was an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure how you come to such a conclusion about its popularity: [5] Overturn per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - For the same reasons Patstuart and Milo H Minderbinder have already placed. It was an unjustified removal.Jacobshaven3 00:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. Unaired episodes must have reliable secondary sources to have articles because the primary source is not availible. After it's aired, it is at least basically verifiable from primary and trivial (TV listing) sources and we can have the WP:N based battle royal discussion of whether to keep the article or move any notable information into a series or season article. But untill then, it can and should stay deleted per policy. Eluchil404 08:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn What the heck is the point of having the discussion if one administrator can over rule many keep votes. At the very least this should have been no concensus. EnsRedShirt 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per above (V, CB, etc...). The assertion that TV episodes are "inherently notable" is certainly not a claim that I agree with. Eusebeus 07:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oi! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

It was deleted for absolutly no legitimate reason, without any discussion. Oi! is a genuine music genre, and not a "neologism" as described by the editor who incorrectly deleted the article. There are many, many Wikipedia articles that link to the Oi! article. It should be restored immediately. Also, judging by the comments on User:Jimfbleak's talk page, perhaps his powers of deletion should be revoked, at least temporarily until he gets a better handle on Wikipedia policies. Spylab 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at AfD, I can attest to this being a very notable term in Australia. Like Wanker before it - which was kept - this is a very grey area, and not one which is solved by CSD. I can't see the content, so if it was not expressing any notability at all then consider this opinion void, but on the face of it this term is notable. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Silly me, this wasn't the term (I should stop guessing) - Oi exists (note that the addition of "Oi! is a genuine music..." was after I commented). I wouldn't have bothered commenting, but now I'm left to, so neutral pending a history restore so I can see the content. Spylab, please leave the deleters credentials, or possible lack thereof, out of this - this debate is about the article, not the deleter. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• The article appears to have been deleted when it was in a vandalized state. I will restore it now and inform the admin who deleted it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The_Game_(game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

"The Game" is the name of a legitimate game that does not exist on any physical medium. That it does not exist physically is one unique aspect of The Game, another being that no one can ever win The Game, though that point is debated by some. The way The Game works is as follows: when you think of The Game, you lose The Game. The Game restarts after one who loses The Game "forgets" about The Game, i.e. when it leaves the person's present state of thought. When one loses The Game (meaning he thought about the game), he anounces it to those around him which technically makes them lose The Game, however the loss does not count for them in when this happens. The Game deserves a page on Wikipedia for the same reasons that Monopoly or The Game of Life deserves a page on Wikipedia. Just because it is not well known, is not tangible, and is simple does not mean that it is illegitimate. Please consider this appeal. Spylab 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I don't care about well-known. It's verifiability that's the problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the appellant has showed no reason why the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (6th nomination) was faulty, nor any new information to consider that close null and void. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Daniel Bryant Bwithh 12:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close, endorsed less than a fortnight ago, no new information. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought it was, but whatlinkshere didn't show any recent DRV's. On re-reading, I presume you mean the AfD closed late December. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no new information provided that would give us a reason why the article should be undeleted. --SunStar Net^talk 13:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion again No new information presented that wasn't considered in the AFD and in the deletion review on January 1. GRBerry 14:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's where it was :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 15:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tumbler Ridge coa.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Deleted here, requested undeletion here, used here: Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. It was tagged with {{coatofarms}} but I didn't upload or watch it so I did not get the notice that its (what-they-thought-was-a) "copyright tag" was removed. I request that it be restored, tagged with {{symbol}}, and kindly moved to a better name, so that it can be used that article again. Also, same with Image:FSJ Flag.jpg deleted here, used here. Thanks. maclean 04:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Image was deleted as lacking any copyright information. Do you have the source information? Guy (Help!) 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Baker's Dozen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The Baker's Dozen is a accapella singing group from Yale which was Deleted on December 26, 2006 due to lack on notability. However a week later, the group has gained a great deal more notablity in the United States (and possibly worldwide) due to an assault on the entire group which is allegedly being mishandled by the San Francisco Police Department, below are a few sources

• Yale Choir Assaulted; No Arrests By SFPD - KGO-TV.
• KESQ-TV story about outrage caused by assult
• WTNH story
• Yahoo! news report
• Google news search results for the group

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbmixpro (talk • contribs)

• Relist The AfD closure was completely correct, so that's not a particularly contentious issue. This atack has certainly made the news, but we must recall that WP:NOT Wikinews. Thus, I'd suggest a relisting (with the news sources added to the restored article) as opposed to a simple (kept) restoration to decide if the group has any actual notability. -- Kicking222 03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist because of new information with the usual pointers about "multiple coverage of a single day's news event counts as one coverage". I am unclear, having read the AFD, whether there was consensus on anything that would count as a second source for notability. GRBerry 04:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  Keep deleted I'm convinced by the arguments of Bwithh, and Guy. GRBerry 03:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep closed Group has gained a little bit of news notability for being assaulted and being a minor news item. No substantive claim of encyclopedic notability from new sources. Wikipedia is not a news report archive. Bwithh 09:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This is a pretty good example of how "notability" and "verifiability" are similar but not necessarily identical concepts. For a music group, getting beat up does not equal additional notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, Wikinews is over there on the right. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per above. Eusebeus 07:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn or relist... they've suddenly found notability. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Catholic-link (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|TfD)

Catholic-link is a talk page template which recommends the use of the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Such a template is unprecedented for Wikipedia. This will open the way for similar banners from other sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and many others in the public domain or otherwise, resulting in conflicts over which sources should be given special lobbying treatment. Already there is considerable conflict over this (the TfD was "no consensus"), but the issue is bigger than that - do we want users lobbying with banner templates for a particular source to be used? Recommend a change from no consensus to Delete. Thank you. Stbalbach 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure The closing admin was correct, there was no consensus to delete. Nominator here does not cite a policy that overrides consensus. We frankly could use more pointers to old historical sources; we aren't very good at using them in our daily editing. Concerns about competition could be improved by a template that takes a list of sources and links; something akin to {{historical-free-sources|source1=[url|name]|source2=[url|name]|...}}. GRBerry 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• That is true multiple listings could be created. But I've rarely see someone who is an expert on a topic use old encyclopedia articles, so why encourage it? Wikipedia is beyond the stage of having to fill up blank space, it needs to improve quality, not encourage old material that has not been properly vetted by an expert who knows if it is still accurate or not. It takes someone with a lot of skill, time and knowledge to properly import an old article into Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 20:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, you provided no reason why the closing was bad, just reasons you disagree with it. DRV is not XfD round 2, most especially not for things which weren't deleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why was the closure bad? Because the majority of people wanted it deleted - most of us are veteran experienced editors who have dealt with the endemic problem of old encyclopedia article material on Wikipedia for many years. The keep arguments are weak in comparison to the problem. This problem of old encyclopedias has been discussed in many places, see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#The_origins_of_bias (last bullet point), Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica and various discussions at Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. We also have pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/Resources which list resources for editors at the Project level. -- Stbalbach 20:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Don't you see, you're doing the same thing again. The fact that you think there is a problem doesn't mean we can ignore consensus (which is not just a majority). -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• But there's no problem if you believe the consensus in the debate was for deletion ... I don't see a single well-founded argument for keep and the delete arguments address three of the four TfD criteria (not useful/encyclopedic, redundant and isn't NPOV and can't be fixed). It only escaped the fourth (is not used) because editors who disagreed with it's WP:BEANS application to articles had not made a concerted effort to remove it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• They thought it was useful, so that's gone. If you claim it's redundant, that implies that there's another template that you don't intend to delete, so that doesn't really make sense. And POV claims are absurd; saying that there is an article on the subject somewhere else is objectively true. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• It goes beyond objective fact. The template says "could be used as a source in this article" - it is encouraging users to use it as a source. Why this source and not another? We all agree links should be in External Links - but object to the "could be used as a source" sentiment of the template. -- Stbalbach 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you're saying. Yes, you could use another source, but the template says "Hey look, here's a source someone found, you can use that!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, here's two I made earlier. As it says on the page, others are easy. Writing the PBW/PIR/PmBZ articles will only take a little while. Let's all get writing talk page templates to recommend the sources we'd like to see used. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from a classic illustration of WP:POINT what are you trying to show? If there are a multitude of sources that can be usefully used to expand an article then we could use a multiple template as in {{Oldafdmulti}}. JASpencer 23:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I happen to know Angusmclellan is sincere in wanting to use that source as he added it to another resource list earlier today. Let's get past all this personal stuff - the idea of a general "resource" template is a great idea and resolves some problems - although I fear it may have larger un-intended consequences, this is virgin territory that has never been done on Wikipedia before - I can see room for abuse, but it's worth a try. -- Stbalbach 23:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Amarkov, it is redundant in comparison to the effects that a simple, plain text notice and signature can produce on an article's talk page. It duplicates a very simple effort that any interested editor can perform, but it adds a pseudo-official feel to the suggestion, especially for new editors who mistake templates for official endorsement. But its function can be accomplished by plain text; that's how it's redundant. And I've addressed the POV-and-can't-be-fixed criterion below, especially in my replies to Gimmetrow. — coelacan talk — 02:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and encourage edit-warring over JASpencer's templating rampage. No, on second thoughts that's a bad plan. At least one keep opinion was entirely misinformed (MrDarcy (talk • contribs) confused these templates with {{Catholic}}), one was a simple vote (but TfD is notavote). There was no consensus here to keep these templates and the concerns from a wide variety of editors (including me: I've written articles for the Saints wikiproject, as have Stbalbach and Wetman) were real and justified. We should not encourage the addition of any more CE or EB material. Overturn and delete per clear consensus at TfD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Personal opinion. I beleieve that my closing was correct (obviously) but I believe that according to policy, the template should have been deleted. However, consensus comes before what I personally believe policy says, so take my vote here with whatever grain of salt you would like to. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Endorse No clear consensus at TfD and no overriding policy (as opposed to pragmatic) reason to delete. I would not be opposed to a relist (as I am generally not opposed to relists of no consensus closes). Eluchil404 08:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure There are a number of items here that have not been addressed. Despite what Angus McLellan says the original summary is right in one respect, there was "considerable conflict" on this subject. The nominator also overlooked the negative response to an attempt to drum up indignation here, which he did revisit later without deeming to pass this on. Although this has nothing to do with the fact that there was no consensus it should be pointed out that his was an admitted attempt to insert a "late-twentieth century secularist systematic bias" to Wikipedia articles. This makes the original nomination, and even more so the review, an inappropriate nomination. If the two objectors wish to enforce a bias against pre Vatican II Catholic beliefs and practices through a purge of links to an online source they really should try to change WP:NPOV first. Doing it through deletion votes looks to me to be gaming the system. JASpencer 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please stop this campaign to paint anyone who disagrees with you as being biased, it is distasteful and wrong. No one has a problem with linking directly to the Catholic Encyclopedia article in the External Links section. -- Stbalbach 20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't get personal. I was merely repeating what you said. It is perfectly legitimate to prefer a "late-twentieth century secularist systematic bias" to the aims of WP:NPOV but it should be argued openly, not through template deletions and deletion reviews. JASpencer 20:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Followed up on your talk page. -- Stbalbach 21:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• relist This one needs a further discussion, especially as it is being abused by being placed on pages containing any pre20th c content, even when the articles was in fact derived in large pt from that dictionary. Everyone writing on the range of subjects covered knows about it. If it was an attempt to counter unfair 20th c POV it has backfired. The reason for a deletion relist is to get this deleted with enough of a message that people wont try the like again. If opinion is to do a 2nd listing, that's OK too.DGG 09:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Consensus was clear. Thirteen votes for deletion, five for keeping. One of those keeps (Mr. Darcy) was obviously an argument for keeping Template:Catholic by mistake, and another (Grutness) was almost certainly making the same mistake of conflating with Template:Catholic. Three clear votes for keep, one of which (Goldfritha) made no argument. So, two actual arguments for keeping (JASpencer and Freder1ck).
  

Of these two arguments for keeping, Freder1ck's was the strongest ("I would like to see more articles that integrate historical points of view with contemporary points of view", but Wetman countered this argument ("In general, no template for Wikipedia articles can be automatically applied. A cut-and-pasted note on a talkpage — "This article might benefit from material in the Catholic Encyclopedia" — where explicitly relevant, might be a useful head's-up") as did Sugaar ("The appropiate way to do it is to use Template:Expand and, if appropiate, suggest that this or that source may be helpful (in the talk page)") and myself ("There isn't usually any useful information there to be had. When there is, an editor can take eleven seconds to make explicit note of it on the article's talk page. The templates sitting around add very little helpful direction. ... They mention that the CE could be used. A nice sentiment in theory but in practice it's practically cruft"). Thus Freder1ck's argument should have been considered adequately answered, and then it's just JASpencer against the world. In the face of thirteen Deletes, I fail to see how this one argument standing could be considered No Consensus, and so I believe that RyanGerbil10 closed the TfD incorrectly.

Regarding the template itself, now that I've addressed the procedural problems, I'd like to make something clear that was not fully discussed in the TfD. Templates carry a weight of authority. Multiple IPs and new users have mistaken me for an admin just because I left warning templates with stop-signs on their talk pages. This has happened to me often enough that I am certain others among you have experienced it as well. Wikipedia should not be giving the appearance of officially endorsing a partisan source, and regardless of intention, this template gives that appearance. This template is a blinking POV barrier to many potential new users, and will discourage participation from many communities whose participation we need in order to thrive. When there is actual useful information in the Catholic Encyclopedia for an article, a plain old text note on the talk page, followed by a user's signature, will make that clear to everyone without inadvertently suggesting any official endorsement. JASpencer loses nothing when this template is deleted; that user is perfectly capable of using unadorned text to make notes. But the unintended consequences of this template upon the rest of Wikipedia are not worth the convenience it may serve for JASpencer. — coelacan talk — 09:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure So long as the template is on the talk page, it should be fine. I would welcome a similar banner for The Jewish Encyclopedia and the 1911 Brittanica. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freder1ck (talk • contribs) 05:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

• Freder1ck, do you believe that the template adds something (besides the appearance of authority and endorsement) that a plain old text note on the talk page would not add? Does it accomplish some measurable purpose that unadorned text, with a section header and signature, cannot accomplish? — coelacan talk — 05:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete per coelacan, to whose eloquent summary of the concensus I have little to add. Persuasive points were made against suggesting articles be sourced from a dated source with a singular world view. Minority keep opinions were well rebutted during the debate and at least one keep voter was clearly thinking of another template altogether. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 05:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I said delete during the discussion stating it be recreated fresh as a progress template for wikiproject CE. This same argument could be used to support a keep, and contrary to nominator there is precedent for templates which "suggest" some other text be used. Neither of these arguments were addressed by other "delete" voters. I personally think the history surrounding this template makes deletion necessary so a progress template can be created without baggage. However, I endorse RyanGerbil10's assessment of the discussion. Gimmetrow 05:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Neither of these arguments were addressed by other "delete" voters" I believe I have addressed this in my (apparently TLDR) post above. The problem with using a template to suggest this particular text (the CE) is that it gives an appearance of official partisanship on the part of Wikipedia. Templates are mistaken by new users for being something that only admins can apply. Shouldn't be that way, but that's how it plays out. An appearance of official Catholic partisanship on the part of Wikipedia cannot be a good thing. As to the progress tracker for a wikiproject, this is something the wikiproject can handle on their own project page, isn't it? It's one thing to say "this page is within the scope of the Catholicism WikiProject"; it's quite another to use a template to suggest that the Catholic Encyclopedia needs to be consulted before this article can be considered finished. It's not a huge deal to say "try consulting the old Brittanica too" but the suggestion that an openly partisan source like the CE must be consulted is a different thing entirely. — coelacan talk — 05:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Clarify: Neither of these arguments were addressed by the "delete" voters during the TfD, and there were about five days from my making them until close of TfD. Therefore I agree with the admin's closure based on the discussion at the time. I disagree that you have addressed these arguments even here. I agree with you the template text should be rephrased, but that's not the point. Gimmetrow 06:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, there's nothing wrong with addressing things that were not addressed during the deletion discussion. Deletion review is also for considering new evidence, and I believe my argument above should be considered the same as new evidence. Now, can you explain to me how I have not addressed your concerns? Because it seems clear to me that I have. You cannot "agree with [me] that the template text should be rephrased" because I hold no such stance. No template of this kind should exist, because it gives entirely the wrong impression to new users. And a progress indicator can be handled at the Wikiproject's own internal page. What's not addressed? — coelacan talk — 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• 1) There is a precedent for templates suggesting some text could be used to improve an article. The nominator said there was no precedent. I see nowhere you have addressed this.
• 2) This template was (AFAIK) intended as some sort of progress template, apparently created as an alternative to a category. If you now want to offer yet more alternatives for the wikiproject, we would need to revisit the entire discussion that resolved on a template. I don't think WP:DRV is the place for that.
• I hold that the current text is unacceptable for (I'm going to assume) much the same reasons you do, however that does not preclude some other template that functions as a wikiproject progress template. Thus, this template could also be rephrased in that way. How could you possibly object to an unknown template you've never seen? Gimmetrow 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• There is certainly no precedent for templates suggesting openly partisan sources, nor should there be; this template would be the beginning of such a precedent. The template cannot be considered an alternative to a category, because it adds a category. And the template is not being used as a progress tracker, because as DGG points out above, it is being abused and applied even to articles that have already long since passed the point of potentially being helped by CE material. Read the TFD again. JASpencer will not let the template be removed unless an article "has all the usable text from the Catholic Encyclopedia article". This is not a progress tracker; it is an attempt to force Wikipedia to mirror all CE partisan content. I object to any templates that would be applied whenever a Wikipedia article has not used "enough" of another particular source yet. We should not be beholden to any particular sources, and we should not have to carry around templates reminding us that we haven't used the CE or any other source "enough" yet, as though we should or must and cannot shed such templates until we do. On a side note, if it your opinion that there should be further discussion of the template's actual usefulness, then a vote of "relist" is more in line with your thinking than one of "endorse". Endorsement will not lead to further discussion, only acceptance of the current template's status quo. — coelacan talk — 07:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for telling me how to vote and telling me to read the TfD again, but I disagree. The TfD was closed correctly as "no concensus", even though it was closed opposite to my view. It is now up to JASpencer and/or wikiproject CE to rephrase the template and use it appropriately as a progress tracker, such that the delete arguments are irrelevant. If the template is abused, bring it up for TfD #2 in a few months. Gimmetrow 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if you felt I was insulting or patronizing you. You've raised objections and I have tried to answer them. In doing so, I needed to refer back to something that JASpencer said earlier. That's all. Forget I said anything to you about relisting. I should have kept my mouth shut. So anyway, please, can you explain to me why two arguments for keeping and over ten arguments for deletion should be construed as "no consensus"? And how could the template possibly be used in such a way that the deletion arguments would be irrelevent? Any kind of CE progress tracker template, no matter how worded, would effectively mean that Wikipedia has not used "enough" CE yet, and still needs to use more. This is simply not something we should carry around on article talk pages, no matter how worded. The meaning behind it, "Wikipedia needs more Catholic Encyclopedia" is tantamount to taking articles hostage. There's no wording that would change the effect of such a template. — coelacan talk — 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete, xFD is not a vote, arguments do matter. MaxSem 07:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Stbalbach, Angusmclellan, Coelacan, MaxSem. I feel the arguments to delete it (the huge problems with old encyclopedic material, the redundancy with some existing templates) outweigh the keep votes in that particular AfD. — mark ✎ 08:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I thought this was a debate not a vote, so as far as I can see the consensus was clearly for delete (see Coelacan's thorough analysis). The delete arguments are stronger if improving this encyclopaedia is your chief concern. The Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1913 fails WP:RS in too many areas (the same goes for the 1911 Britannica). The whole idea of this template is based on the false premise that the longer an article is, the better it must be. But less is more in this case. I've improved articles by chopping material from out-of-date sources, including this one. We should be aiming for increased accuracy, not increased length. The "Catholic Encyclopaedia" is available online anyway, so what's the point of reproducing it here? Just give an external link. When you access the CE site, you know what you are getting; it's quite clear what POV the authors are working with and the era they were writing in. That isn't the case with Wikipedia, which aims at WP:NPOV. It's also offensive to editors who have been working with more recent sources trying to create a more accurate article to have this template slapped on their work; it might be seen as a violation of WP:CIVIL. --Folantin 08:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The admin closed the debate properly. This is turning into a second AfD attempt, with most of the delete votes based on "it might be misused", which is not an argument for deleting anything that has even a small set of positive uses. --tjstrf talk 09:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Except that none of the deletion arguments are just "it might be misused". Every single deletion argument has pointed out that consensus was overlooked. There were two arguments for keeping, and they were well addressed already in the Tfd. Tell me, what is the "small set of positive uses" for this template that cannot be achieved by plain text on a talk page? And what is it that overrides the fact that JASpencer has already stated intention to use this template to hold articles hostage until full mirroring of CE content? Again, it's very convenient to say "oh this is turning into tfd again" because that gives the impression that we're just using DRV to argue about content, but please, point out exactly who is not attesting to broken procedure and overlooked consensus? Yes, there will be discussion of content. That is pretty much unavoidable, but it doesn't negate the fact that every deletion argument is also about procedure. Please don't set up straw men. — coelacan talk — 10:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note also, above, that the closing admin has already said "according to policy, the template should have been deleted". So the question is only whether the keep arguments were properly counted, (I have argued they were not) and whether the remaining keep arguments were sufficiently answered (I have argued they were). Why don't you scroll up to my analysis, starting with "Overturn and delete. Consensus was clear. Thirteen votes for deletion ... two actual arguments for keeping (JASpencer and Freder1ck)." Read that, please, and actually respond to it, tell me precisely where I'm wrong about the consensus, instead of claiming that all we're doing here is whining "it might be misused". — coelacan talk — 10:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and deleted; good arguments trump a headcount, but I see few good arguments on the 'keep' side of the debate (one is a plain "vote", one says "doesn't match the TFD criteria", one is circular). >Radiant< 10:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - there was clear consensus to delete; what is more, even if there hadn't been, XfD is not a vote and we should be encouraging editors to stay away from this kind of material at all costs. We simply should not be using this kind of POV pushing source, which run into a severe collision with WP:RS. Improper closure based on arguments and number crunching. Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete I did not vote in the deletion discussion, although I made I think three comments. I was hoping that the proponent(s) of the template would engage in discussion, which unfortunately did not happen before the vote was closed. Some of my objections have been addressed (now to be on talk page, text made more tentative by Stbalbach) but I still have not seen a convincing case for the retention of the template, if used en masse. The anon comment above, welcoming similar templates for all comparable encyclopedias, just makes me shudder. I am not criticising the admin, but in my own case, despite watching the page, the closure took me by surprise (I don't follow many of these & am not clear on the form), before I could vote - which would have been delete, as JASpencer, when he did finally comment, just chose to abuse those editors on the other side rather than argue the merits of the template. Johnbod 16:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is there an equivalent of {{afdnewbies}} JASpencer 20:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see what the point of that would be. There aren't any single purpose accounts here. I notified everyone who commented in the Tfd but not here yet to give input here. That's why Freder1ck and Gimmetrow showed up here and endorsed closure. No one is merely "voting" here anyway; everyone is giving their comments on whether or not the consensus was observed and whether or not the Tfd was closed correctly. What exactly is the problem that you'd like to solve with that template? — coelacan talk — 20:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete per the summary laid out by coelacan. Eusebeus 07:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete diddo. I'm somewhat new to the wikipedia, but I also thought there was consensus. Jeff Carr 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. I agree that the original voting yielded a supermajority for deleting; I do not agree that it yielded a consensus. As the discussion above shows, there are clearly 'unresolved issues'.

Both in the original argument and supra there were suggestions of making an improved and more general template for referring to old sources. If this is not done within a couple of months at the longest, I think that a new RfD is due and has greater chances of success.

As to the matter itself: IMO, a reference to available old sources on talk pages is far from automatically bad. Old sources should be used with caution, but so should new sources, and the older ones may be a means to balance the recentism bias.--JoergenB 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely nothing wrong with a simple list, "a reference to available old sources on talk pages". That is not what we are talking about here. The template functions as a requirement that the CE be used more, until it has been used "enough". I'm sorry, but your argument raises no new issues that the simple response of "use a plain text note with a signature instead" does not address. And you do not address any of the issues raised in this DRV or in the TFD concerning the appearance of official endorsement, the functional redundancy of using a template (see my response to Amarkov. above), nor the fact that there was not a supermajority but a clear consensus with every objection (that is, both objections) adequately addressed. Nor do you address the fact that even the closing admin endorses deletion by our NPOV and RS policies here,[6] and the only thing standing in the way of that is the counting of the votes and the weighing of the arguments. If two fifths of the keep votes were erroniously applied to the wrong template entirely, and one fifth had no argument, and the remaining arguments were refuted, then there can be no claim that consensus was anything but delete. — coelacan talk — 04:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)