Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 21

The Game (the game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was of reasonable quality and it is not original research - there is information about the subject around. I feel it deserves an AfD vote, rather than a speedy delete, at least. – drw25 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm also not convinced the result of [1] was a reasonable consensus. – drw25 (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Got any references to warrant an overturn?--WaltCip 22:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Given that the article is essentially The Game (game) but with a different title to evade the protected-deleted status of that title, deletion is completely appropriate. The article was not of "reasonable quality", its only source was the website set up to solicit sources so that they could have a Wikipedia article. Do we have to have this debate every week? Or are we now down to every time a blog mentions it? Guy (Help!) 23:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, at least it gets the blogs publicity. :)--WaltCip 02:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, again. Unless you can provide a convincing reason why every debate on Wikipedia we've ever had on this subject should be overturned... -Amarkov moo! 02:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close. "There is information about the subject around" is not a valid argument. Corvus cornix 03:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Basically the same article deleted many times under many titles now. No convincing reason given to overturn a plethora of prior debates. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the AFD it "deserves" has already been held, multiple times. This is a subject I'd like to be able to have a sourced article for, myself, but that appears not to be possible. That can change, but it doesn't appear to have at this time. --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse deletion, been there done that. No valid reason given for overturning. --Coredesat 08:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse deletion give it a rest. 84.145.247.165 18:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Individuals challenging the official account of 9/11 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

• Category was deleted by Radiant! when there was no consensus for deletion.
• There is the almost identically titled Category:Groups challenging the official account of 9/11, which hasn't been deleted.
• This opinion category is no different from e.g. Category:Global warming skeptics. Hereward77 21:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Wow... scrolling down that page, has Radiant ever closed a CFD as a "keep"? --W.marsh 23:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• This comment is not helpful, does not address the DRV and borders on failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 20:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Responding to simple yes or no questions with complaints instead of an answer is what is not helpful. --W.marsh 02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. No consensus. Evouga 23:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn -- there was obviously no consensus (a three-way split, with the actual proposal being for a rename, not a delete), which does not mean that the closer gets to choose according to that person's individual view. DGG (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per closing rationale: "POV concerns are important, and we don't generally categorize people by opinion". This category exists only to inflate the importance of the "truthers". Guy (Help!) 07:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - About half of the participants in the discussion suggested deleting the category, and the people opposing the rename did not exactly support keeping the category. Given the POV concerns raised with this category, the administrator was justified in deleting it. Dr. Submillimeter 08:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As Cgingold stated in the CfD debate, the term "official account" clearly translates to "the official account of the 9/11 Commission." There is no POV problem here. Also, challenging the findings of 9/11 Commission Report does not automatically make someone a fully signed-up "9/11 Truther", as Guy is suggesting. The individuals in the category doubt the official conclusions to different degrees. Re the statement "we don't generally categorize people by opinion", this category is as valid as, for example, Category:Global warming skeptics. Hereward77 15:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the AfD clearly endorsed deltion. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There was clearly no consensus for deletion. Hereward77 16:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Consensus is not vote counting. --Kbdank71 16:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe, if arguments are based on correct assumptions, which they weren't in this case. Hereward77 16:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - DRV raises two points: the existence of two other categories that haven't been deleted; and the supposed lack of consensus. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not serve as a rationale for keeping this category. The DRV thus hangs solely on the consensus issue. Clearly there was no consensus for renaming the category. There were, if I do say so myself, strong arguments presented for deleting the category and these arguments were not refuted. The closing admin correctly read the debate and deleted appropriately. Otto4711 20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The "strong arguments presented" were based on the false assumption that this is a category for "9/11 Truthers". It is not. Hereward77 21:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just because you've decided what you think the category was for doesn't make it what you think correct or your beliefs about what other people were thinking or assuming right. Otto4711 00:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• These people can think for themselves, thank you very much. That's how a consensus is reached.--WaltCip 02:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am right. Not all the individuals in the category have any connection to the 9/11 Truth Movement, they are challenging aspects of the official findings. Hereward77 14:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - First, I have to note that Radiant reached his/her decision without taking account of my comments, which I was literally in the middle of writing at the very moment he/she closed the discussion. This is important, because one of my key arguments, as it happens, addressed the very issue that was used as a rationale for deletion: I made the point that it's not a matter of mere opinion, but rather that these individuals have gone out of their way to make it known that they wish to be publicly associated with the issue.

Apart from the merits of the various arguments that have been presented, there is the question of concensus. There seems to be a very strange sort of logic at work here. If anything is clear about the CFD discussion, it is that there was no real concensus. Radiant certainly didn't use that term. After carefully scrutinizing the discussion, the results fall into four categories: 2 supported renaming as per nom; 3 simply opposed the nom; 3-1/2 called for renaming, but not per nom; and only 3-1/2 out of the 12 editors called for deletion. (The two 1/2s are User:Otto). Which means that 8-1/2 of the 12 editors did not ask for deletion. To call that a "concensus for deletion" is standing logic on its head. If anything, there was a consensus not to delete. Lacking anything even approaching such a concensus, the correct decision should have been to retain the category, and probably to modify the name. (And I would, as I suggested, spell out the definition of the category on its page.) Cgingold 23:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Why are you putting me down as wanting anything to do with a rename? I opposed any rename because I wanted the category deleted. Otto4711 00:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Um, perhaps because your comments seemed to be split that way. But even you are solidly in the delete camp, it doesn't affect the validity of my analysis. No matter how you slice the cake, there was no concensus to delete. Cgingold 01:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Given that you interpreted Oppose rename and suggest deleting as meaning "rename" in any way, with all due respect I don't accept the rest of your analysis. Otto4711 02:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist - I think it was unclear whether renaming or deletion was being discussed; the nominator proposed a rename, and deletion was only proposed in the discussion. If we read all those opposing a rename as strong "keeps", which appears appropriate, then there was no consensus. On relisting, I'd choose to delete this one based on the lack of clarity as to what the "official" count is and what "challenging" it means. However, I'd likely feel differently about a list rather than a category. A Musing 17:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn There was no consensus to delete. The closer showed no interest in the concept of consensus, but just did what he wanted. Golfcam 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. None of the keep-related voters made a valid argument as to why the guideline of holding an opinion is not a defining characteristic should be set aside for this particular category. Thus the closing admin's action was sound. Tarc 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

List of places with numbers in their name (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn as it was deleted after 48 hours, despite that the only detailed comment was for "weak keep". -- User:Docu

• Weak Endorse of the deletion - even taking into account a few spurious delete votes, consensus to delete was overwhelming - with strong disapproval of the AfD's early closing. For some mysterious reason, admins keep feeling an urge to close AfDs early, out of process, in situations which clearly do not merit a speedy keep/delete. As has been pointed out time and again, such exceptional closures are disruptive since the closures inevitably end up here for review. Evouga 00:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Evouga Bulldog123 21:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion -this is one of those 'coincidence' articles that are fundamentally meaningless. I am not keen on out of process closures but running the full timescale would have produced an identical result. Bridgeplayer 21:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Fully endorse the decision. The only keep !vote was a weak one, and there was a clear consensus developing. 48 hours is sufficient time to establish consensus when the trend is so strong. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist The only remedy against these premature closures is to relist them. If admins keep making the closes, and they are upheld, then the strong disapproval as expressed here has no teeth. DGG (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Relist I opined to Delete in the AFD Even though there was consensus, I dont see any harm in letting any AFD run its full course, so as to give more time for responses. Corpx 17:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Footballers with 100 or more caps (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• There was evidence provided that the world governing body for football (FIFA) considers 100 caps to be a significant acheivement and maintains a list of those who have reached this landmark.
• There was active debate about the distinction between significant thresholds and arbitrary criteria, that had not reached consensus either in that discussion or in the talk page of WP:OCAT. The weakness of the examples of arbitrary criteria, in that they avoid obvious round-number thresholds, is central to this debate.
• There was no consensus reached.
• There were no significant new arguments made against retention than at the time when the category was previously, unsuccessfully, proposed for deletion. Such inconsistency of decision making cannot reflect well on Wikipedia. No {{subst:delrev}} tag was posted, and the nominator had been a participant in the previous discussion.
• The administrator who made the decision to delete has not replied to my raising of these issues on his/her talkpage in three days. Kevin McE 18:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Where is the AfD? Evouga 00:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_11#Category:Footballers_with_100_or_more_caps

• Endorse self. The reason for nomination, WP:OCAT#Arbitrary_inclusion_criterion, in itself is a stronger argument than any of the keep votes (1. Radiant is a sore loser by renominating this, 2. 100 isn't arbitrary because we have ten fingers, 3. American sports have halls-of-fame, but football doesn't, so this is a good substitute, 4. I think other people's arguments for keeping are good, etc, etc). Consensus does not mean I count up the total number of keeps and deletes. Consensus does not mean all arguments are equal. --Kbdank71 02:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You seem to be totally ignoring the debate as to what is an arbitrary criteria. The examples given at WP:OCAT are are non-round numbers, and unexceptional thresh-holds: if there is to be clarity about the intent of this policy, it must cite unambiguous examples. For as long as it does not, there is ambiguity, and so recourse to this as the watershed upon which decisions are cast is fundamentally flawed. I have tried to expand the debate on the talk pages at WP:OCAT; it is clearly unresolved.
  • Furthermore, you have overlooked in your list above the most important reason for inclusion: that it is a much celebrated achievement, recognised by the world governing body in the sport and much heralded in the media (Although David Beckham so far has 96 caps, even the prospect of him reaching this landmark is such that a Google search on "Beckham 100 caps" returns 678,000 pages). Nobody, in either debate, denied that this was so, so why should an encyclopedia not what to record as noteworthy that which FIFA does? Kevin McE 11:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The votes were split roughly 50/50, although the deletion votes had a slight edge. The administrator them used his/her incentive to review the arguments in favor of and against this category. The people in favor of keeping the category mainly argued that it was a way of measuring achievement, while the people in favor of deletion argued that the category used an arbitrary cutoff point and that the category contributed to category clutter. However, the people in favor of keeping never presented any evidence that this measure of achievement is recognized outside of Wikipedia. Therefore, the category does indeed appear to be an arbitrary cutoff point. Moreover, the people voting to keep never addressed the category clutter issues. Therefore deletion seems justified. Also note that the information still exists on Wikipedia in the list of football (soccer) players with 100 or more caps and that the deletion is consistent with past actions (such as the category for people in the 3000 club in baseball). Dr. Submillimeter 13:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Dr S says "the people in favor of keeping never presented any evidence that this measure of achievement is recognized outside of Wikipedia". That is patently untrue: both the March and July debates referenced and included links to the FIFA page which recognises this achievement. As this was not questioned or challenged, there seemed little point in repeatedly harking back to it. Kevin McE 14:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - On this point, I am mistaken, although the link is a little tricky to find. Still, the other problems with the category were not addressed. Dr. Submillimeter 16:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
      • What "other problems"? The only reason proposed for deletion is the accusation of an arbitrary criterion: this has been thoroughly addressed:

a) by proving that this criterion, far from being arbitrary, is the thresh-hold for inclusion in FIFA's list;

b) by demonstrating that there is desire to better establish the terms of "arbitrary", especially in relation to the definition lifted from Wickionary: "Determined by impulse rather than reason" or "Chosen for no reason, somewhat random." If the nature of arbitrariness is up for debate, then a poorly defined and (presumably deliberately) vaguely exampled reference to that concept cannot be a valid grounds for deletion. Kevin McE 20:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The category is apparently not arbitrary, and that was the only possibly valid argument for deletion. I do not understand the reluctance of closers to simply close as no consensus when there is in fact no consensus. The job of a closer is to determine the consensus, not judge the issue. DGG (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that all arguments automatically carry the same weight? That a well thought out, researched, argument deserves the same consideration as "I like it" or "I don't like it"? I didn't judge the issue, I judged the arguments. --Kbdank71 19:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No , they do not carry the same weight., The argument that it matched the international classification carries so much weight as to justify keeping the article . DGG (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • Please cite what evidence of research beyond recourse to WP:OCAT you found in the arguments for deletion. On the other hand, there are numerous reasons, none of which are specious, offered for retention, and your summary of them above does not give the impression that you came to the matter with an open mind. Kevin McE 20:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - doesn't a category make more sense than a list here? The list currently consists of a table with names, no. of caps, and national team country, all of which can be found in the football players infobox? ugen64 06:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn/relist It is clear from the Dr's comment above that the references to the FIFA evidence were never seen by him, and I expect most voting to delete. Ideally they would have been re-added, but there was a clear reference to the previous debate, and in a renomination people should follow such links. User:DGG makes a very good point. The number of "no consensus" closes at CfD seem to have declined noticeably recently. Johnbod 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn; no clear consensus. Though neither side's argument was particular strong, votes for delete in XfDs in general have a higher burden of argument. Evouga 06:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn No consensus to delete. The closer simply used admin powers to implement a personal preference. Many strong arguments made for retention. Golfcam 22:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Consensus to delete was not obtained in two debates, and further powerful evidence for the existence of this category has been presented here. Postlebury 12:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lecktor02.jpg (edit|[[Talk::Image:Lecktor02.jpg|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted by User:ESkog for "failing WP:NFCC and so tagged for over 7 days". Not only was this not brought to my attention earlier, but I don't see how it fails WP:NFCC. It was a screenshot of Brian Cox as Hannibal Lecter from Manhunter. As it is of a fictional character, it has no free equivalent. It won't harm the sales of the film. It had minimal use and was only used in two articles. It was low resolution. And so forth, and so on. If it had lacked a fair use disclaimer, I could have very easily given it one. Thus, I am asking that it be undeleted. CyberGhostface 18:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• The uploader was notified way back on June 5 that the image had no fair-use rationale, and had a month and a half to resolve the issue. Instead of dealing with the issue, uploader cleared these warnings with the summary "This is getting pretty damn annoying." An image was tagged as violating WP:NFCC and deleted over seven days later per policy. Nothing to see here. Speedy Endorse as original deleter. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I only removed the warnings after I added the fair use endorsement to each one. And it was getting annoying; at the time, every day it seemed I'd get over 20 automated warnings and I'd have to spend time giving each one a fair use explanation. I didn't ignore the issue, as you accuse me of. Just because I was getting frustrated is not a valid reason for deletion.--CyberGhostface 18:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
    • But you didn't add a rationale to this image. That's why it was deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Well now I uploaded it again with a fair use rationale to boot. Happy?--CyberGhostface 19:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Delete - per WP:NFCC. No source is provided for the image. There is no source information about the person who generated the final image uploaded into Wikipedia e.g. did CyberGhostface create the uploaded screenshot? There is no source information about the CD from which the image was taken (e.g. name, version, etc.), the time location of the image in that CD or whether the original image was modified such as by cropping. There is no explanation of how the image significantly increase readers' understanding of each topic in a way that words alone cannot. It is not clear that omission of the image from either article would be detrimental to the reader. The rationales provided are generic and not made relevant to each use. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill misconduct issues (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page was speedy deleted with the rationale that it would probably attract WP:BLP violations. However, I did not see any reason for the page to be speedy deleted (maybe AFD'ed or certain parts removed). Therefore I feel it should be undeleted and listed on AFD. ugen64 16:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• overturn deletion. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• neutralEndorse. The article has a long history of persistent editors inserting libelous or near-libelous material. A version minus all the soap-box rallying against Churchill would be worthwhile and encyclopedic. But it's hard to see exactly how that would come about as long as editors like Verklempt and Getaway are insistent on inserting POV rants. LotLE×talk 17:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I challenge you to document even one example of me introducing any libelous material whatsover. You are defaming my editing without even bothering to try to justify your attacks with evidence.Verklempt 21:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn It's very difficult to make this judgement without being able to see the article in its most recent state but the preponderance of the evidence does seem to support the nominator's assertions. --ElKevbo 17:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my own deletion. My rationale was not that the page might attract BLP violations, but rather that the entire article was nothing more than a coatrack upon which countless BLP violations were already being hung. Material relevant to the topic that does not violate BLP should be incorporated in the Ward Churchill article, rather than creating a ghetto in which we ignore the contributions of those trying to grind an axe. Among the violations present in the revision as deleted I see: lots of uncited passive tense "was found to have stopped beating his wife" type language, original research synthesis (particularly in the "Questioned Ethnicity" section). That this happens isn't really a surprise: the article's topic itself is basically an invitation to focus undue weight on specific aspect of a living person's career. It is entirely appropriate that this issues be discussed, properly cited, and in a proper way, in his biography. But this particular article is as unsalvageable as would be an article entitled "Yassir Arafat hygiene problems" Nandesuka 18:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing you have said seems to be a valid criteria for speedy deletion. If you believe this article should be deleted or merged, please go through our normal, community-driven processes. Short-circuiting those processes through the use of admin powers is unbecoming an admin (or any editor) and weakens our community as it seems to say that you can't trust us to reach the "right" conclusion. --ElKevbo 19:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to CSD G10, which I believe outlines the issues here fairly well. Nandesuka 19:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; we still disagree. :) --ElKevbo 19:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• My motivation is that the article was a BLP violation in and of itself, not that someone might make it worse. Nandesuka 16:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to provide any specific examples of even one passage that was a violation, much less provide evidence that the entire article was a violation.Verklempt 20:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually did give specific examples; I simply did it without quoting the text of the article, because it's inappropriate to republish such material in discussing it. I am, however, happy to discuss the issue in more detail over email with any editor who wants me to be more explicit. Nandesuka 22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you waved your hands and claimed that the entire article was a "coatrack," which is patently false. However, because you have deleted the evidence, and because you refuse to provide any evidence here where it counts, others now have to take your word that what you are saying is true. If you were willing to engage in good faith discussion, you should have taken your issues to the article's Talk page instead of deleting the entire article.Verklempt 23:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have offered to provide a complete accounting of the offending material via email (and have already provided that accounting to more than one editor). No one has to take my word for anything. I'm simply declining to republish the malicious material here, which is perfectly appropriate given the egregiousness with which the article violates our policy on biographies of living persons. That you are so eager for me to republish that material here, given your intimate involvement in both the establishment of and the writing of the coatrack speaks volumes. Nandesuka 23:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You misstate the issue. There is little or no material in that article that violates policy. An articulate person would not have to republish the material here to make an argument about it, but they would need to describe it in more detail than you have even attempted. The major weakness in your action is that you could have easily deleted the offending sentence. But instead you deleted the entire article. And you refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that you may have overreached.Verklempt 02:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list per ElKevbo. I doubt very much that I would !vote to Keep this article in an AfD, but the Speedy seems out of process. Unusual situations may arise due to BLP that require expedited procedures, but this does not seem to be one of them. The deleting admin's comment about a POV fork is certainly worthy of bringing up at the AfD. After the vast discussion in mainstream media, It seems doubtful that Ward Churchill should be seen as a private person who might suffer from unwanted publicity on Wikipedia. We still have to be alert for defamation and remove it promptly. Decisions like Nandesuka's might appear to save time for admins, but I doubt that a policy debate to add it as a CSD criterion would succeed. The exception would be too open-ended. EdJohnston 20:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• overturn deletion. Deleter's rationale is too vague and non-specific. Can he cite any passages that were not well-sourced? He hasn't yet. Deleter recommends integrating the material into the main biography. I agree with that strategy, but it was a rabid pro-Churchill POV-monger who insisted on segregating Churchill's misconduct into a separate article to begin with. And since the main article is locked down due to a troll, there is no way to reintegrate the material there. By deleting this article, the material has disappeared altogether. I agree that the page makes the subject look very bad, but there is copious published evidence of this person's corruption. The citations are nearly all to mainstream newspapers and academic journals.Verklempt 20:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This editor is exactly the problem, and it is apparent in his "overturn" vote: Verklempt is on WP principally to "spread the word" of Churchill's alleged corruption. An article whose entire purpose is to smear a living individual really doesn't belong on WP. LotLE×talk 20:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You are the person who created the Misconduct Issues article, as part of your ongoing program to minimize and segregate Churchill's misconduct out of the main bio. Now you're taking this opportunity to do away with any discussion of Churchill's misconduct altogether, by advocating deletion of your own creation. I have no problem whatsoever with reintegrating this material into the main article, but that alternative does not justify the speedy delete of the perfectly well-sourced Misconduct Issues article that you yourself created.Verklempt 21:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If a particular editor is the problem then we should deal with him or her, not the article(s) he or she happens to frequent. --ElKevbo 20:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. The problem here is with the editor, not the article. Evouga 00:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn BLP does not mean we delete articles because someone might add BLP violating material to them. A speedy like this seems to justify the fears of some of us about the arb com decision, that the policy would be applied based solely upon the personal views of an individual admin. DGG (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion because of what Verklempt wrote. Churchill cheerleaders were using the ‘misconduct’ subpage to bury legitimate criticism from respected sources. For example, one pro-WC editor insisted that a major newspaper investigation proving that Ward doesn’t have any Indian ancestors should be deleted from the main page because the material was, “already more accurately discussed in sibling articles” [2]. I think the pages should be merged, but the speedy deletion needs to be overturned. Especially while the main page is locked. Steve8675309 01:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. We can not start deleting articles because someone might add BLP violations, or even because someone is likely to. We especially can not start speedy deleting them. -Amarkov moo! 02:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Although I can see problems with this article beginning with the title, I agree with the above that the mere possibility of BLP issues is not sufficiently grave to warrant speedy deletion of an entire article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not really the "mere possibility" though. Three editors—Verklempt, Getaway, and Steve8675309 (whom I didn't mention earlier, since he's been quiet lately other than his vote here)—have dominated the article for over a year, making sure that semi-libelous coatrack material remain in the article, and make up its bulk. I've been one of very few editors who have worked hard to stop the violations from being even worse than they were, but it's almost a fulltime job to combat a few editors with this persistent anti-Churchill agenda. It's a bio subject that attracts prominent detractors, and many fewer netural editors like myself (read the insults to me for remaining neutral through the article history, for example). LotLE×talk 16:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is neutral editors like me who have been able to minimize Lulu's rabid pro-Churchill agenda so far. Although with the deletion of this article, nearly all of the mainstream newspaper and academic journal explications of Churchill's misconduct have now been excised from Wikipedia. As long as this article stays deleted, the pro-Churchill POV-warriors such as Lulu have won.Verklempt 19:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Lulu, you once added an unreferenced claim to the main page that WC wrote “hundreds of published essays” [3]. When I asked you to provide a reliable source per WP:V, you called my request “idiotic” [4]. Were you “remaining neutral through the article history” when you did that? Steve8675309 01:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. This is a textbook case of a WP:UNDUE violation of BLP policy. This loks very much like a POV fork intended to allow a "controversy" section to grow beyond all sense - the "issues" article is 5,800 words to the main article's 5,100. Nobody's asking to have it deleted because people might start adding BLP violations, it is a BLP violation, in that it gives massively more weight to this one controversy than we give to the whole of the rest of the guy's life put together. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I too believe that it is a text book case. The article it was forked from is a coatrack as well. Albion moonlight 23:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you. For a minute I was concerned that I was perhaps not speaking English, since everyone else has been ignoring this point. Nandesuka 16:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to provide any specific examples of even one passage that was a violation, much less provide evidence that the entire article was a violation.Verklempt 20:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If your complaint is that I'm not going to republish uncited insults against a living person here, I don't really know what else to say other than "Yeah, so?" I am, however, happy to take the specific fictitious examples I gave above and link them to specific words in the deleted article over email, rather than putting them on any google-searchable and cachable Wikipedia page. Nandesuka 22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your original justification for deleting the article was that the entire article was a violation. Now you are changing your story, in claiming that your beef was with uncited insults. If there were uncited insults on the page -- and I don't recall any -- they would be a tiny fraction of the page's content. You should have dealt with those sentences individually as an editor. Instead, you abused your power as an administrator by deleting the entire article.Verklempt 23:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely room for editors to disagree that this is inherently a BLP issue. This particular case has garnered significant attention and raised many issues related to academic freedom and legislative involvement in public universities that extend well beyond Ward Churchill. That this incident has garnered more attention than the rest of Churchill's activities appears to be supported by the facts. I remain disappointed that administrators are using BLP to effect editorial decisions. --ElKevbo 16:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So would you think that an article entitled "Hillary Clinton hygiene issues" would be permissible? I'm sure I could find relevant citations in the major media that could form the basis of such an article. That, to me, is the issue. Nandesuka 16:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is a ridiculous analogy. Churchill is a public figure largely because of his personal corruption. It's documented in several academic journals, many mainstream news articles, and by a number of committees at the University of Colorado, all of whom have unanimously found him guilty of research misconduct. You, on the other hand, have yet to document even a single policy violation on the page you deleted. Waving your hands and vaguely alluding to BLP does not substitute for a reasoned argument from evidence.Verklempt 19:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be amenable to changing to title of the article if that is a point of contention. But speedily deleting the article is not how one advocates for a title change. :) --ElKevbo 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It was an attack article that violated the WP:BLP policy both by serving as a platform for egregious (and uncited) non-NPOV attacks on the living subject, and by focusing undue weight on this one controversy. Changing the title, frankly, isn't really the point. You can't put a dress on a pig and then call her the prom queen. Nandesuka 23:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

First, you don't seem to have read the article very carefully. It covers a variety of controversies, not just one. Second, the vast majority of the article cited to mainstream newspapers, academic journals, and similar reputable sources. Your statement that it was uncited is simply false. Third, I agree that the article should never have been segregated out of the main article, but that could be easily solved without deleting it. The person who segregated the article was one who was trying to bury the data for POV purposes, and now it looks like he has succeeded through your actions.Verklempt 02:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

To say he's a public figure because of research misconduct is a strongly POV statement. Personally, I think its just the other way round, that the research misconduct issues would never have arisen had he not made obnoxious public statements--but I know that such is only one POV, and I wouldn't impose it on the encyclopedia on the basis of my understanding of the matter. DGG (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I think that few outside his field would have cared about his research misconduct had it not been for his insults to the 9/11 victims. But on the other hand, the story of his insults would not have had such legs if all the data about his corruption had not come out in the wake. So it's a feedback process. But whichever variable has the stronger causation, certainly the news about his misconduct are a core part of his bio -- especially since CU will be firing him next Tuesday for his misconduct. And on that day people will be streaming to Wikipedia to learn more about his misconduct, only to find the page deleted. Far be it for me to assume bad faith or engage in conspiracy theories, but the timing of this speedy deletion could not be more POV in its effect, regardless of its intention.Verklempt 20:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am so very happy that you're not going to assume bad faith or engage in conspiracy theories. That would be pretty stupid behavior, if you were to do it, which I'm sure you are not. Nandesuka 22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me reiterate -- the effect of your actions is POV, regardless of your intent. Your sarcasm does not address the issue.Verklempt 23:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep POV fork deleted. Seriously. Do. It's one big BLP vio just the way it is, starting with the title. I don't see what, under our BLP principles, Nandesuka could have done except speedy it. Attacks on living people are supposed to be removed speedily. We're not supposed to let them hang about in article space or anywhere else on the site while someone "advocates for title change" or discusses it in AfD or whatever. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC).

It would be trivial to change the title. As always, the pro-delete voters wave their hands without bothering to detail a single specific violation.Verklempt 19:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse: First, it's a POV fork, which is a regular deletion guideline violation. Second, it is an attack page, which is a speedy delete criterion. Third, it is an edit war in progress, which is a policy violation. Fourth, any listing on AfD would merely be a repeat of the astroturf sod battles and result in a reappearance here. Therefore, I endorse the speedy deletion as valid. As for the people who are unhappy about the deletion because their points of view no longer have a home, they can either edit the main Ward Churchill article or be satisfied with venues other than Wikipedia. Geogre 12:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What is your evidence that this was an attack page? In fact, the page was created by a pro-Churchill POV-warrior as a ruse to segregate discussion of Churchill's research misconduct away from the main bio.Verklempt 19:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This is true of course... but I beg, beg, beg all the editors here to keep an eye on the main Ward Churchill biography. It's protected right now, but the very second it gets unprotected, Verklempt, Getaway, and Steve8675309, are going to add 5800 words of attack to accompany the 5100 words of current biography (taking the lengths of the parent and child as rules-of-thumb). I tend to think the main bio is already slanted a bit anti-Churchill, but nothing vaguely close to what is certain to happen if the above editors are allowed to "reintegrate" the attack material. LotLE×talk 16:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion because of what Verklempt wrote. --Getaway 18:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. A criticism section for a controversial living person is reasonable, but when it grows to its own article, and is larger than the actual biography, it becomes a WP:BLP issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What about cases in which the living person is notable largely because of his or her misconduct? According to your rationale, Wikipedia cannot have articles on living criminals, because that would violate BLP. Churchill is not entirely notable for his misconduct, but his misconduct is certainly a major component of his notoriety. Since you have locked down the main bio and endorsed the delete here, I would ask that you unlock the main article so that the crucial cites can be reintegrated there. tnx Verklempt 21:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. This was an attack page. We already have an article on the subject, and another one on his 9/11 essay, as well as articles on other papers or books of his, so yet another one is overkill, and the creation of a BLP POV fork is never a good idea. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There’s a link to the deteled page here [5]. And here [6]. Where are the “uncited insults”? Where is the “libelous” material? Steve8675309 14:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. If Lulu created the fork, moved all of the criticisms of Churchill there, and then deleted it, it is clearly an attempt to push a PoV on Wikipedia. The coatrack argument (an essay, not a guideline or policy) is not particularly persuasive here, as Churchill has a long history of deliberately attracting attention, and pointing out the inconsistencies and outright falsehoods he has propagated over the years is not a coatrack. Either restore the article or reintegrate its contents into the main Churchill page. The page could be renamed as Criticism of Ward Churchill or something similar, which certainly has precedents in Wikipedia (run a search on "Criticism of" as see what you find; religions, concepts, groups, and individuals all on the first page). Horologium t-c 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Lulu didn't delete the article. I did. I don't particularly have an opinion on Ward Churchill one way or the other. What I have an opinion about is that "But I think he's a bad person" isn't a valid reason to violate our policies on biographies of living persons. Nandesuka 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You functioned as Lulu's meatpuppet by deleting from Wikipedia most of the evidence of Churchill's misconduct -- which is what he's most known for. And you have yet to point to a single specific policy violation on that page. Instead, you wave your hands while refusing to point to any actual evidence.Verklempt 22:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt I've exchanged 10 words with Lulu on Wikipedia. Unless you're using a definition of "meatpuppet" along the lines of "everyone who disagrees with me is a meatpuppet." A number of respected admins and editors have endorsed the deletion here. Are they meatpuppets too? Nandesuka 20:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not accuse you of conspiring with Lulu. Instead, I point out that your deletion of this article has completed Lulu's program to excise well-sourced information about Churchill's misconduct from Wikipedia. And you have yet to give an explicit rationale, by pointing to any specific violations in the article itself.Verklempt 22:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Too many BLP concerns and controversies can be mentioned and put in perspective in main article.--MONGO 20:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Unjustified, speculative deletion. Golfcam 22:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Between the obvious forking, attempt to add undue weight, and probably BLP concerns, obvious, really. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that the fork was created by an editor user to move information he didn't like out of the main article. That same editor now supports the deletion of the article, not an overturn and merge. If the same were to occur with (as an obvious example) Rush Limbaugh, I am quite sure that the outrage would be deafening. Right now, all of the sourced material on this subject has vanished from Wikipedia; at the very least, an overturn and merge should occur. Of course, since it was nuked, it's impossible for the unwashed masses without admin tools to view the article and its history, and the repeated assertions of BLP violations make it fairly likely that a request to restore the history would be rejected. Wikipedia:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a POV makes it clear that articles of this type are acceptable, as the title makes it clear that it is not a full biography of Ward Churchill. Renaming it as Criticism of Ward Churchill would make it even more clear. The problem with Churchill is that (like criminals such as Jeffrey Dahmer), most of his notability stems from his negative behavior. He doesn't publish often in peer-reviewed journals, which limits his notability as a scholar. Horologium t-c 17:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. I'm flabbergasted to see so many overturn votes in so obvious a case. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It might be helpful to explain why it's so obvious a case when there are many upstanding editors who have come to a different conclusion. --ElKevbo 14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, total misinterpretation of what BLP and coatrack mean. It would be a coatrack if the article claimed to be a full biography and simply listed a bunch of problems. Instead, this documents the numerous criticisms and controversies that surround a controversial figure. I checked the deleted article and everything appears to be well sourced and neutrally phrased on a quick skim, so there's nothing that violates BLP. Maybe it needs some editing, but not speedy deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Yet another attempt to misuse the delete button as a memory hole by the BLP mafia. ~ trialsanderrors 17:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment these accusations of misconduct have now led to churchill's firing. The information is tremendously relevant. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn well cited, no BLP issues here. Not a case of undue weight, givent the attention media and academic, that has been focused on these issues, as demonstrated by the citaitons. There is clear policy support for "criticism of" sections of articles, including biographic articles, and for spinning these off when need be, as others hve shown above. Churchill is largely, although not exclusivly, notable for the issues discussed in this article. DES ^(talk) 02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would, however, favor a rename to soemthing like Criticism of Ward Churchill or Accusations made against Ward Churchill. DES ^(talk) 02:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Speedy delete is the nuclear option, and the admin should have considered other alternatives, such as a proper nomination for deletion with proper discussion and so forth. At the very least a page protect. To me this smacks of bias under the guise of protecting Wikipedia policy of BLP. Note that there have been other articles (like Noelle Bush) that flew under the radar for a long time before it went through a deletion proceedure (and not a speedy delete, either, I might add). More and more I see admins being quite selective in their (sometimes overreaching) authority. Alcarillo 03:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As for whether this article should exist, let's table that for a proper discussion after this speedy delete is overturned. Alcarillo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Gladys Knight & the Pips (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

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

Category:Kool & the Gang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

This category, along with the nine below, was deleted by Radiant! on 19 July 2007. The result of the discussion was 4 Keep, 3 Delete and that includes the nominator's vote. Radiant! overruled the votes of those editors who said the cats were useful for navigation, saying it wasn't "a really strong argument". Surely this is personal POV? User:Otto4711, who nominated the cats for deletion, seems to be systematically deleting categories for what he calls "Eponymous musicians", this is his right but I think administrators should rule on nominations based on the votes and not whether similar pages have been deleted in the past as I feel has happened in this case. Philip Stevens 08:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Per precedent and overcategorization. There is absolutely no point to delete some but not others. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_29#Categories_named_after_musicians_-_A Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_5#Eponymous_band_categories_-_W WP:OCAT. --Kbdank71 11:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion for this and for all the associated ones below. AfD's are not decided by vote tally but rather by strength of argument. Per WP:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people, the closing rationale was correct. Tarc 13:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I merged all ten nominations, as the arguments were identical, and likely to remain so. No need for everyone to say the same thing ten times. GRBerry 17:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure: do we really need a reminder here that XfD is not a vote? This is a very well established precedent, and precedent is a reflection of a broader consensus. Otto's actions in seeking out categories that meet the consensus criteria for deletion and bringing them to CfD can be seen as little more than as housekeeping, and the discussions as an opportunity to point out individual categories that do not meet the criteria, as I have done with several of Otto's nominations, including "Eponymous band categories - O" where my suggested exceptions were ignored and "Eponymous band categories - W" where my suggested exceptions defined the outcome. Closer correctly weighed the arguments here, dismissing WP:ILIKEIT arguments in favor of solid arguments based on precedent's broader consensus. If nom really wants to challenge any of these closings, he could try bringing Category:Oasis to DRV, where he could at least make an argument that the category was pointed out as a possible exception to the normal guidelines. Xtifr _tälk 20:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as should have been closed as "no consensus". Precedent forms no part of Wikipedia:Category deletion policy. Tim! 09:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Precedent, whether it's part of official policy or not, shows a broader consensus, and is the basis for countless well-established and respected guidelines. To completely dismiss precedent simply because it's not explicitly mentioned in a particular document is disingenuous. Not only is there ample precedent for closings based on precedent, there is precedent for upholding those closings at DRV. It may not be an official policy or guideline, but treating precedent as a weak form of guideline is clearly supported by strong consensus. (Although consensus can change, and so can guidelines, and precedents can be overturned. But there's no evidence of any of that happening here.) Xtifr _tälk 04:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Not only is there ample precedent for closings based on precedent"? I hope you realise the circular logic you are using. "treating precedent as a weak form of guideline is clearly supported by strong consensus." Where, other than your assertion, can I find this so-called strong consensus? Tim! 16:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and comment Overturn, as per Tim! I think the policy on eponymous band categories need to be seriously looked at before they come up for CFD in the future. If the policy is that they shouldn't exist, then why go through the tedium of CFD in the first place for them? I could understand if one or two of these cats existed, but their are hundreds of them. Surely all those editors can't be wrong in their initial creation? Using the arguements of they're high maintence/create clutter is total rubbish. Everything is high maintence on here! It's not too hard to have the top level for the band, then sub-cats for members, albums etc. Anyway, I ramble on... Lugnuts 13:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as nominator - the overcategorization argument was not overcome by the comments of the keepers, and the arguments which were rejected in previous CFDs were also rejected here. The notion that precedent plays no part in deletion is simply untrue. We rely on precedent to speedily delete recreated material, we rely on precedent in making decisions about categories (look at all the times !votes are "per precedent"), we rely on precedent in looking at categories that are similar to one another, we rely on precedent in developing guidelines. Ignoring precedent would make CFD a pure vote count with results even more dependent on who happens to show up than it is now. The fact that hundreds of such categories exist doesn't mean that they shouldn't be deleted. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's created a category in line with an existing category scheme only to have the category scheme itself be dismantled at CFD. And anyway, no one is suggesting that the entire Category:Categories named after musicians structure be dismantled. Otto4711 21:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Xtifr and Otto. I disagree with Tim's rationale for the same reasons as Xtifr and Otto. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• You disagree with policy in that case. Tim! 17:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think, rather, that we are disagreeing about the degree to which past decisions should be considered when judging consensus. That myriads of eponymous categories have been deleted seems important to me, and not something that should be lightly ignored. If it doesn't seem that way to you, that's fine. It would be odd indeed if we all agreed, all the time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. I don't much like the nature of the eponymous category argument Otto has been using, but precedent has been established, and it makes no sense to have some letters' artists kept and others not.--Mike Selinker 03:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)