Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 19

Category:Jewish_American_comedians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Jewish American humor is not a trivial, random, or coincidental intersection. It is a recognized genre of comedy with distinct stylistic elements. WP:OC states: "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article." The topic of Jewish-American humor has its own section in the Jewish_humor page. And a google scholar search for "jewish american humor" brings up multiple hits discussing the topic. I think these facts were completely disregarded in the initial discussion. Osbojos 22:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong overturn and protect from future CFD, per Osbojos. Badagnani 01:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. There was nothing wrong with this closure. --Kbdank71 03:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Eminently justifiable reading of the debate. --Xdamr^talk 04:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The debate seemed to reflect good understanding of policy by most participants. The nominator, Osbojos, made an argument similar to the one he gives here in the debate itself, so the other participants could have found that information decisive if they wanted to. Finally, the argument in the CfD by Carlossuarez46 appears to knock out the nominator's point about the possible head article on this topic: The cat is being used for any comedian who is Jewish regardless of the genre of their humor. EdJohnston 05:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The consensus to merge was there. There was no error in the closing. I  ^{(said) (did)} 09:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The arguement made above is not without merit, but neither is the argument that the category was being used for any comedians of jewish background, whether they used classicly "jewish humor" or no, nor is the argument that classifing comics by the nature or sub-genre of their acts is unwise. The CfD was procedurally fine, principlaled argumetns were made on each side, adn the clsoe was in accord with the consensus. I might or might not have agreed with the arguements had I commented on the CfD, but DRV isn't suppsoed to be CfD part two. There was no error of process, and when two reasoanble principled arguements lead to opposite conclusions, it is a judgement call and the numerical consensus of good-faith editors who chose to comment must govern. DES ^(talk) 15:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - there was no error of process and there is no new information being presented here. This DRV nomination does not meet the standard laid out in the purpose of this page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as the nominator is not making any arguments of process, only carrying on AfD Part 2. Tarc 13:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The consensus was to merge, and the closer's rationale is reasonable. No procedural problems either. Sr13 17:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This article was deleted out from under me. Why? It's not well edited, but it is informative. 206.135.228.66 18:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Dunhill International List Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Dunhill_International_List_Company Would like to be contacted as to why this page was taken down. You have pages for other companies. You additionally have pages for the DMA as well as a page on Mailing Lists- so the content should not be an issue. This company is 70-yrs old and is one of the pioneers in its industry. We are happy to add content if the reason was that it was too short. but since we were not given a reason as to why this was deleted we can do nothing to fix it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunhilljoe (talk • contribs)

Anti-Iranian sentiment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I think this needs a review; I feel that the closing admin did not properly weighed the arguments of deleting side and the counterarguments, which by and large fall in the field of WP:ATA. As we all know, AfD is not a majority vote and blah blah blah. Being in the "deletion camp", I'll skip the pro-deletion arguments, based on policy (chiefly WP:SYN), well presented by the nominator, user:The Behnam, and supported at length by some other editors, myself and try to present the analysis of "keep"ers. So, what we have:

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (Taprobanus, AlexanderPar, Ali, Bakaman, Vitalmove),
• WP:ITSNOTABLE (Hajji Piruz, VartanM, SSZ)
• WP:LOOKHOWMANYSOURCES (Hajji Piruz, Dfitzgerald, Xezbeth, AlexanderPar, Jreferee, Pejman47)
• WP:NOTAGAIN (Sa.Vakilian, Benjiboi)
• WP:BADFAITH (Zereshk, Mandsforth, Sangak)
• WP:PERABOVE (Irk, VartanM, Hetoum I, Fedayee)
• WP:USEFUL (Alborz Fallah),
• WP:GOOGLEHITS (Sangak),
• WP:LOCALFAME (AhwaziKaka)
• WP:JUSTAVOTE (Kukini)

Since WP:LOOKHOWMANYSOURCES above is a red links with perhaps non-obvious meaning, let me explain: argument relies on the number of sources in the article, without answering what are those sources about (none is devoted to the topic, Anti-Iranian sentiment, but largely present quote mining and/or OR "quote picking" for the purpose of WP:SYN).
No one addressed the concern that this is a POV-fork of Iran-Arab relations and United States-Iran relations, 300 (film) etc. No one bothered to explain why there are no underlying causes and background of anti-Iranian sentiment in the article, and thus how the said sentiment can be presented in a NPOV manner.
In sum, I think that only Jreferee has presented some coherent arguments for keeping, but I disagree with his conclusion that "The request that the article be deleted because ...is a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position seems untenable". Even a casual glance over GBook search reveals that the said "anti-Iranian sentiment" relies on particular incidents related with particular historic events related with Iran; the article is a "a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position".
I don't really expect the decision to be overturned; take this as a sour grapes, if you wish. But I would like to attract some attention and focus to the problems surrounding similar articles, driven by the force of inertia, WP:WAX and, may I say, nationalist POV-pushing. On the lighter side, I invite everyone to read inspired comment by The Evil Spartan Duja► 18:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• We'll never resolve this type of discussion at a DRV. Perhaps we need a bureaucratic decision from some of the more prestigious members of Wikipedia.--WaltCip 18:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please, no. No more elitism and edicts from on high. This is an open community; decisions are made by discussion and consensus. Walton^One 15:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, it's nearly impossible to interpret this any other way. It may be the case that the delete !votes were, on a case by case comparison, superior to the "keep" arguments. However there was very little desire to delete this article and a lot of support for hanging on to it - you just can't ignore that kind of consensus. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure The conversation produces no arguments for deletion from overriding policy, and the strong policy arguments seem reasonably balanced. The numbers are clearly for keeping. With both factors present, delete was the one outcome that was clearly not within reasonable administrative discretion. The difference between keep, no consensus, merge, redirect, etc... is just noise, as all in all cases the history is kept. Feel free to continue seeking consensus on how to handle whatever level of nationalist POV pushing is troubling the article; the community hasn't found a good solution to that anywhere to the best of my knowledge. You might try an RfC on the article. GRBerry 19:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. Whether we should have *any* articles in the Category:Anti-national sentiment is an issue worthy of discussion over a period of time. However nothing decisive shows up in this AfD that should have caused the closer to think the very existence of this kind of article was a violation of policy. That, together with all the votes for Keep, suggests that the AfD was correctly closed. EdJohnston 19:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors voting here to Overturn may wish to state whether they would keep any of the other articles in Category:Anti-national sentiment. If the policy violation is strong enough to override the AfD voters here, on Anti-Iranian sentiment, why should it be any different for the other articles? I trust this is not saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is an AfD argument not a DRV argument. If policy overwhelmingly disfavors this class of articles, should a proposal be floated at WP:VPP to get rid of all of them? Give me a reason to overturn this one that won't also cause all the rest of them to go away. EdJohnston 19:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The "anti-X" concept isn't always OR. If the academic mainstream RS actually treats the concept as a unified phenomenon, we can base an article off of their narratives. Antisemitism is the best example of this as it receives an incredible amount of academic treatment, and last I checked the Wikipedia article reflects this. The problem on Wikipedia is when we have "anti-X" articles where what could be isolated incidents of "anti-X" are tied together by Wikipedians into a unique narrative to present a single phenomenon of "anti-X." This synthesis of events should NOT be done by Wikipedians because of Wikipedia's policy against original research. Unfortunately this original synthesis still happens, and is particularly common with "anti-X" ethnic articles (probably because of strong emotions ethnic-oriented editors have towards perceived attacks upon their ethnicity). Anyway, considering the ability for both legitimate and illegitimate "anti-X" articles to exist on Wikipedia, I feel that it is best to take them on a case-by-case basis. My nomination of "Anti-Iranian sentiment" was simply a case where the narrative was illegitimate per our rules against synthesis, and we've still not run into any adequate argument to the contrary. The Behnam 22:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• • The closer actually stated that he supported deletion as well but the !vote numbers discouraged the policy-oriented closure. Some clarification about the issue (even though I've stated it in many, many ways in the AFD)...The problem is the lack of serious academic work treating anti-Iranian sentiment as a phenomenon. The sentiment certainly exists - I've never contested that (in fact I've run into it a bit myself) - but this article takes what could easily be isolated incidents that mention the sentiment and ties them together to present a phenomenon. This narrative isn't being supported by RS scholarly work - Wikipedians are the ones positing this as a unified phenomenon. This original synthesis of disparate incidents to present the phenomenon of anti-Iranianism is not acceptable per WP:NOR - the second sentence: The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." We have plenty of RS academic work on antisemitism supporting a narrative - this makes antisemitism a legitimate "anti-X" article on Wikipedia. However, even after previous nominations and their respective "Keep and improve" phases, we still don't have this at anti-Iranian sentiment, and seeing the apparent lack of mainstream academic work supporting such a narrative, it isn't possible to just "fix" this article. Even if one or two papers supporting a narrative were found, this still couldn't jump above the WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE bar (or if it did, it would be a tiny article). The problem is fundamental. The Behnam 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. Enough reliable sourced material to develop a neutral and unbiased article based on the available verifiable information. I'd also like to point out the other articles listed in {{discrimination2}} and Category:Anti-national sentiment. Khoikhoi 04:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete there is/was simply no reply to the very serious charge of original research. As pointed out by The Behnam, to bring together a hodgepodge of unrelated ill feeling towards a particular country and present it as a united dislike is original research. Furthermore, the vast majority of the !votes are based on "Not OR because it has 63 references" or "Anti-X article exists, so this one should too, and as everyone knows, neither of these arguments fly. I can understand the closer's apparent uneasy-ness at closing this as delete in the face of the unified and numerically superior "keep votes", but very few of those keeps hold any water at all, being based on false premises as to how wikipedia works. Viridae^Talk 08:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Reason for deletion was not having played for professional club, today Dalton signed a contract with Carlisle United[1] so now the orginal reason for deletion is inaccurate Kingjamie 14:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Restore or at least allow recreation. Facts have changed. --W.marsh 14:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with nom and User:W.marsh - situation has now changed, and the subject meets WP:BIO. - fchd 15:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restore due to new information that makes him notable. EdJohnston 15:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I am sorry but it doesn't, there are very many youth players with a pro contract in their pocket but they only merit an article when they play for a league first team - also see Sr's comment below. TerriersFan 09:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wait This is a bit premature. As the football season hasn't started yet, although the player may have been signed by Carlisle, he hasn't yet played for them in a fully professional league, and so does not yet meet WP:BIO. Robotforaday 16:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Wait WP:BIO says "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis". The subject will likely be notable when he plays, but signing a contract isn't enough. Sr13 16:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Let's wait for a few weeks and bring the Drv back if/when he plays a league game. There's no rush. --Malcolmxl5 18:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment if we do wait, shouldn't articles like Chris Whelpdale be deleted Kingjamie 19:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Not automatically, but that article could be listed at WP:AFD at any time. Chick Bowen 20:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - he is the youngest goalscorer of a team that had a 125 year history (before being disbanded this season). Does that count for anything? ugen64 06:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - no; there are many players playing for long-established non-league teams who are the youngest, oldest etc. TerriersFan 09:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Many nn players have contracts with professional clubs. If/when he actually plays league football is the time to recreate. TerriersFan 09:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Wait until he actually plays for them. Number 57 12:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, a non-notable player simply being signed to a team isn't enough per WP:BIO. He hasn't played. Recreate the article with sources when he begins playing. --Coredesat 08:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Historic transportation in Oregon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Consensus not followed and closing admin did not follow the argument Aboutmovies 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - Since the closing admin has moved all the items out into the incorrect location (moved into Category:Transportation in Oregon instead of back to Category:History of Oregon) it is obvious they did not read the arguements. Additionally, it was 4 to 3 to keep anyway, so what is the point of having consensus or even a CFD debate if an admin is just going to go with their own subjective view? Aboutmovies 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. As the closing admin stated, "historic" is subjective. Is this 50 years ago history? 20? 6 months ago? How about yesterday? Or an hour ago? It is also overcategorization, as Category:Historic transportation in Oregon was in both Category:History of Oregon and Category:History of transportation. --Kbdank71 13:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the AfD debate. This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." Thus please address the concerns about the closing, otherwise if you want to re-open the discussion I suggest voting to overturn and re-list. Aboutmovies 14:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure: arguments to keep completely ignored issues of ambiguity, inconsistency and extensive precedent, and offered purely specious arguments to the charge of subjectivity. The keepers' primary argument seemed to be that they were unable to think of a better way to organize these articles, even after it was pointed out that similar articles for other states are well categorized without the need for such a subjective, ambiguous and ill-designed category. Closer correctly saw through a cloud of tedious obfuscatory wiki-lawyering to the underlying issues. Xtifr _tälk 07:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and speedy delete Category:History of transportation in Oregon as the recreation of the category - The votes to keep and delete were evenly split in number, which left it to the administrator to decide on the merits of the arguments. The "keep" votes failed to give a good justification for the category other than other categories exist. However, the administrator was persuaded by the arguments that this category was not the same as other "history of transportation" categories and chose to delete the Oregon category. Also note that User:Peteforsyth has recreated this category under the title Category:History of transportation in Oregon with similar content. The recreation of deleted content is a form of disruptive behavior. The endorsement of closure on this category should also lead to the speedy deletion of the new category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: As AM points out, this review concerns the factors used in closing, not the specifics of the original nomination. Kbdank's defense of his original decision is not relevant. The original CfD discussion contained several points of disagreement, and the nominator failed to engage several of them; thus, it is quite clearly a case of "no consensus." Kbdank would have done better to participate in the discussion and try to guide it toward consensus, rather than wait to close and impose his/her opinion in that role. -Pete 20:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If you're going to question my decision by opening a DRV, then my defense of it is most certainly relevant. Besides, my decision wasn't based upon my opinion of the category, it was based upon the arguments laid out in the discussion by others. --Kbdank71 03:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Just explain what I pointed out: why did you change the articles in the category to Category:Transportation in Oregon? and why did you go against the 4-3 consensus as if your vote/opinion and those votes and opinions are worth more than other editors involved? Aboutmovies 03:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
      • There is no such thing as a "4-3 consensus". Consensus has nothing to do with vote counting. My close was based upon strength of arguments, and no, not all arguments are even. --Kbdank71 03:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Kbdank, I think what AM is talking about is how close the numbers were, not the fact that there was a majority one way or the other. We all know the difference between "majority" and "consensus." In this discussion, there were reasonable arguments advanced on both sides, and several points that were unresolved. It was not a matter where those of us opposing deletion simply voted "keep" and moved on, or advanced irrelevant arguments. In many cases these CfDs are closed as "no consensus," and the category is re-nominated at some future point, allowing more people to come into the process and have a better shot at reaching true consensus. I am still confused why this did not happen here. There was nothing like "consensus" in that discussion - illustrated by the fact that we are still talking about "sides." There were two clearly articulated "sides" in the debate, and no success - indeed, little effort - at finding an acceptable middle ground or resolution, or at changing people's positions. I think the correct outcome of this review would be to find "no consensus" on the original discussion. -Pete 17:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Kbdank, you still have not explained how you carefully read through the arguments and came up with delete, but failed to see that the articles in the category needed to be returned to Category:History of Oregon? Instead you moved them to Category:Transportation in Oregon which as the nominator pointed out, these articles already existed in subs of that cat. This shows clear evidence that you failed to read the arguements carefully, thus you should not have closed the debate, or certainly not closed it as if there had been consensus to delete the category. Normally I thought that if there was no consesnsus, then it was status quo. Per "If the discussion was no consensus due to a large number of options discussed, consider renominating the category and listing the one or two options most likely to gather a consensus." But that is a policy concerning CFD, so I guess you can just ignore that if you like. Aboutmovies 01:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Speedy deletion is not relevant to this nomination, and is not appropriate. I brought up the significant differences between "History" and "Historic" in the original nomination, and Dr. Sub declined to address the issue at that time. Another illustration of the lack of consensus - not to mention the lack of effort to achieve consensus. -Pete 20:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am waiting for this discussion to close before pursuing further action on Category:History of transportation in Oregon. Aside from the fact that "history" is a noun and "historic" is an adjective, the new category is equivalent to the deleted category, especially in terms of content. Otherwise, the "history" category qualifies for speedy deletion under G4 and WP:CSD (the recreation of deleted material). Dr. Submillimeter 08:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Dr. what do you mean by wikilawyering? And, just because you disagree with with an opinion does not mean that the arguments "failed to give a good justification" for keeping something. Aboutmovies 01:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying the process you're pursuing. -Pete 17:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn on grounds that the previous discussion did not, under any definition of the phrase, reach a majority consensus. The closing admin seemed to prematurely decide that the delete arguments were simply stronger in their opinion, rather than taking into account actual consensus or a tangible conclusion to the discussion. The arguments of both sides were logical and both equally attempting to be based in policy; this was not a case of a WP:POINT or any other inappropriate nomination/argument for a side. This needs to be discussed again, and fairly. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Very few of the arguments for the keeping were anything other that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. In addition, as the closing administrator said, as well as people in the discussion, "Historic" is subjective. Without seeing what articles were there, what or who determines what is included? As best I can tell, anything that was in Category:History of Oregon that had anything to do with transportation. I  ^{(said) (did)} 23:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As everyone who is endorsing this deletion seems to be ignoring the fundamental issue of overturning closures - whether due process was adhered to - and simply re-iterating deletion arguments I'll voice my opinion on that aspect of the matter as as if this was a CFD instead of DRV...While alone, the term historic can be very indiscriminate; when qualified by the surrounding language in this case it becomes very discriminating. It encompasses only articles about transportation in a single U.S. state that are "dating from or preserved from a past time or culture" and are "having great and lasting importance" (Merriam-Webster). Sounds about as specific and verifiable as you can get. This is part of a general surge of deletion of any category even containing the word "historic", and the arguments for deletion did not take into the mitigating circumstances of this particular category. Of course historic can be subjective, historiography itself is very subjective at times, but when the term has a very limited and specific definition in application as a category it isn't fit for deletion on the grounds that it is not well-defined. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: no, "everyone" endorsing closure is not simply repeating CfD arguments. They are judging the arguments to see if closer made a reasonable interpretation of them. Which is fully within the domain of a review of a closing based on the merits of arguments. The fact that you disagree with the closer's interpretation of the debate does not mean that his (or her) interpretation was invalid or incorrect. It simply means that you disagree. And since your primary argument seems to be that arbitrariness and subjectiveness are not grounds for deletion, despite the fact that numerous categories are deleted every day for just those reasons, I don't think you've managed to cast any doubt on the soundness of the closing. Xtifr _tälk 02:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't twist my words. I'm not arguing "that arbitrariness and subjectiveness are not grounds for deletion", I'm saying that the category is not either of these things. But this is irrelevant. I'm arguing to overturn on the grounds that the "closer's interpretation of the debate" was lacking honesty, and that they deleted the category to serve their own opinion on the matter rather than do what they were suppossed to have been doing; serve an administrative function as an enactor of the will of the community. I'm saying that which side of the debate has the majority consensus is not readily apparent, because the admin closed the debate prematurely. It's a violation of due process and should be undone so an honest consensus can be reached. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
      • As to the first point, you suggest that the category should be for topics "dating from or preserved from a past time or culture". How far in the past? Hours? Weeks? Years? How many years? Two? Five? Fifteen? Twenty-seven? Where do you draw the line? If you can't draw a line, it's arbitrary and subjective. Ditto for "having great and lasting importance", but even more so. How great is great? The suggestion made at the CfD to limit this to topics described as historical is almost as bad. Something fairly recent and not particularly significant may happen to have been described as "historical" by someone, while another topic, far older and clearly more significant may not. Does it really make sense to include the former but not the latter? I fail to see any way that anyone can rationally claim that this category is not arbitrary and subjective. And given that, your second point fails. The closer did not merely follow his opinion. He simply noted that no one had refuted the irrefutable claim that the category was arbitrary and subjective and closed accordingly. Xtifr _tälk 02:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
        • How could it be both arbitrary and subjective at the same time? I think what you're trying to say is that it's subjective. It's not arbitrary at all: only articles whose subject has been described as important to the history of transportation in Oregon in a reliable source qualify for inclusion. As to whether that's subjective, perhaps it is; but so is 99% of the good content on Wikipedia. Do you think that articles on musicians should be restricted to factual lists of songs on their albums and concert venues they've visited? Should the term "art" be avoided entirely, simply because there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes art? I think you're mistaking "Wikipedia" for "Math-and-logic-o-pedia." -Pete 07:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Overturn: The question posed in this nomination is simply this: was consensus reached in the original discussion, as Kbdank has claimed? While consensus cannot be determined by majority vote, it also cannot be determined merely by what appears more compelling to the closing admin. The closing should be overturned; there was no consensus whatsoever. -Pete 07:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Procedural request. There is now mounting evidence that the person who nominated this article for deletion, NobutoraTakeda (talk • contribs • logs), is a sockpuppet of indefblocked user SanchiTachi (talk · contribs). Since he thus had no right to even contribute, it's only fair that this article be relisted for a legitimate discussion. Blueboy96 23:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted is there any actual evidence he deserves an article? The deleted article was a joke... so it wasn't the most valid AFD in the world, it apparently deleted an article that should have been deleted. --W.marsh 00:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion The AFD didn't result in deletion; an admin saw it and applied a speedy deletion criteria. I'd have used A7 myself instead of G10 (although I haven't seen the image, which might have been the source of the attack), but at most the deleting admin gets a trout for that, the "article" should stay deleted. GRBerry 01:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion While the user may have been a sock, this article was clearly going to be deleted per CSD A7. Wildthing61476 01:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion - A7 or G10 sufficient. If NobutoraTakeda (talk • contribs • logs) inappropriately participated in AfD, then NobutoraTakeda (talk · contribs) actions should be reviewed elsewhere, not in DRV. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion, article contained no apparent assertion of notability. Appears to be more A7, but possibly a rightful G10 given the sarcastic tone of the height comment in the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion Would surely have been speedied by somebody else anyway, and the reasoning was sound. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, no reason to overturn a speedy just because it was flagged by a suspected sock - particularly when it will be speedied again in short order. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion. The nominator's reason for asking for review doesn't apply. The article was not deleted due to the AfD, but due to User:Stemonitis's speedy, so that's what we should be reviewing. Since this is referring to a particular Sean McCafferty who is a soccer coach, it can be seen as an attack page, so I'm OK with the G10. In practice letting the AfD run its course would also have worked and saved us this DRV, since it was not a burning BLP problem. The image that can be seen in the copy of the article at answers.com is just a silly cartoon, not offensive. EdJohnston 15:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The truth in the article spake of men who impregnated dozens of women. There was no "hoax" in the article. Velocicaptor 04:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Technically, I guess neologisms/protologisms can never really be hoaxes, since as soon as you think them up they "exist", even if only in your own mind. But come on, an unsourced protologism with no evidence of use by anyone, anywhere wasn't going to last long. Oh, and you might be unaware that "PolyPop" was actually an old-timey brand of Kool-Ade type drink mix. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article is interesting (to me, at least). King Saud fathered more than 100 children; Brigham Young fathered more than 50 children; and Idi Amin fathered more than 30 children. Someone should produce an article that lists those men who have fathered large numbers of children. It took me more than a year to conjure the word polypop as a title. I did not expect the article to be retained (not ever in Wikipedia). Nevertheless, the subject is interesting. I only listed five men, but there have been others. I hope that someone produces an article on the subject which won't be deleted. Adios. Velocicaptor 12:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per the article creator/nominator's statement that [i]t took me more than a year to conjure the word polypop as a title from above. No point in reopening this AfD due to the admission of violating WP:V; administrative WP:SNOW appears justified. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Since the creator of the article has acknowledged a sequence of events that appears to violate WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP, this is one of the few cases where early closure of an AfD can be justified due to WP:SNOW. EdJohnston 15:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am having a very difficult time of explaining that none of the people are fictional. All of them were real. All of them have an article in Wikipedia. Please do not claim that I fictionalized the words in Polypop. Thank you. I do not care whether or not you keep the article, however, please do not claim that I fictionalized the events in the article. Adios. Velocicaptor 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the "sequence of events" refers to your coining of the term and attempting to publish a Wikipedia article to serve as a primary source of its definition (hence, WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP). --Kinu ^t/_c 20:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion There is Paul Hollis, who invented Poly Pop powdered soft drink, the predecessor to Kool-Aid. Hollis is buried in Polytechnic Cemetery, Fort Worth, Texas. There is the The PolyPops Development Foundation, which recognizes and encourages innovation in the design and application of Plastics & Polymers in Microplates and other devices used in Healthcare worldwide. But I couldn't find polypops in the sense of fathers (pops) of many children. The name of the article might have been fictional, but a list of men who have fathered more than x number of children would not be fictonal. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, clearly a neologism that would stand no chance of retention if it were relisted at AFD.--Isotope23 ^talk 04:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)