Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 7

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

Nominator is incorrect to delete it for the reason of non-notable as the article is within WP:BIO under the criteria of 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 as D1 Grand Prix is one of the two highest professional level drifting series in the world with a huge worldwide fan following and Fukuda was in 2004 as a top 10 finisher and has appeared at exhibition and pointscoring events in both the US and UK. Willirennen 23:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion without prejudice against recreation. The article that One (talk · contribs) deleted had the following biographical info: "Hiroshi, nick named Fluke, is one of the few D1 competer that drives a 180sx, and is and have been the top scoring entry 180sx for a few years. He has a calm drifting style and his cars are of a hard tuned street look. Heres the spec of the car." And then it followed to give some mechanical specifications. That in itself is not an assertion of notability, because no information was provided connecting him to a professional league - "D1" could've meant anything, and the article was, in general, not very coherent at all. It could be argued that it was One's responsibility to search around for what "D1" means on the off chance it was a professional sports league, but that isn't really a reasonable thing to demand. However, I have no prejudice against recreation of the article if this recreation makes it clear that Hiroshi is, in fact, a notable driver in a professional league. That would count as an assertion of notability. Picaroon (Talk) 23:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as above. Nothing indicates that WP:BIO is satisfied. Eusebeus 10:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, allow recreation, per Picaroon. Trust me, the deleted article won't be a help here. Just start over. Mangojuice^talk 18:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse No matter how famous or important he is or how the topic might fit within WP:BIO, unless the article information is taken from reliable sources, the article will never satisfy Wikipedia's verification policy. Note: Hiroshi Fukuda at issue here is a race car driver, he is not Japanese foreign ministry Justice Hiroshi Fukuda. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Club Penguin Timeline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article, if it recieves more attention from the WikiCommunity, can become reliable. Defender 911 22:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The article as deleted appeared to be hopelessly trivial and unencyclopedic (basically a list of in-game free items players got on certain dates) and was referenced only by blogs and forums. I really don't see how it could possibly be cleaned up, even with a complete rewrite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There was clearly nothing wrong with the debate, and consensus was definitely to delete. I would not want to allow re-creation at this time, either, as there has not been adequate sources exhibited that would suggest that a compliant article could be constructed. Mangojuice^talk 18:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Undelete - the image had a fair use rationale that was accepted for months until Picaroon9288 took it upon him/herself to remove it and then delete the image. Ridiculously out of process. If there's a problem with the fair use rationale then the admin should address it through channels instead of a series of unilateral and borderline underhanded actions. Otto4711 17:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse my own deletion, Otto fails to address the real reason I deleted the image - it had no source. The image was tagged by Orphanbot as having no source on May 11, 2007. You removed Orphanbot's tag without adding a source. I deleted the image under CSD I4 a few minutes ago as not having a source because it had gone unsourced for over seven days - in fact, it had gone unsourced for months. This had nothing to do with the image rationale, nothing at all. I fail to see what I did that was out of process - the process to remove unsourced images is to delete them seven days after they have been tagged (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#I4). My deletion was in line with both process and policy. Picaroon (Talk) 17:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Information on the image was in place until you reverted the edit to remove it. If there was a problem with that information, then you should have expressed the problem instead of reverting with no comment. How is someone supposed to know what the issue is when it looks like some random revert? Otto4711 20:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• The problem was not with the image's information. The problem was with the image's lack of information. All you had to do was look at Orphanbot's tag, which was {{no copyright holder}}. Note the three questions the template asks: "Who created this image?," "Who owns the copyright to this image?," and "Where did this image come from?." Instead, you decided to remove the tag - without answering the questions! What possessed you to do that? Now can you please state the problem you have with my deletion of an unsourced image. Picaroon (Talk) 21:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've already explained the problem I have with your conduct. It would have taken you what, 15 seconds to type up an explanation of your conduct instead of making a silent revert to an edit that had stood undisturbed for months. Your action could have been vandalism for all anyone knew. Otto4711 22:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• You're being asked what problem you have with my deletion, and you refuse to answer. I would have guessed that by filing a deletion review you had a problem with my deletion. Please either withdraw this vexatious nomination or answer my question: what was the problem with my deletion? Picaroon (Talk) 22:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, Otto4711 has yet to explain why he feels the article should have been kept. No source provided, image goes. Corvus cornix 00:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• The Answers.com mirror has neither a source (or even a statement of what film/T.V/etc. the screenshot was from) nor a fair use rationale, and I would expect it to have both (even though it is a mirror) if they had been provided for months ... so, what's up? --Iamunknown 20:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It needs a source, and that means it needs to have a description of what it's a screenshot of. The rationale was therefore insufficient. It seems like it'd be perfectly acceptable with a full source and rationale, so reupload with one and we're golden. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and don't re-upload, unless it is demonstrated the article actually discusses that particular TV show the screenshot was taken from (it might be the one mentioned in the article, but it's never been stated.) If it isn't that, I don't see what a reasonable fair-use rationale should possibly look like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the deletion: images must have a source specified, and none was given, or has been given at this point. Feel free to reupload if all the relevant policies can be followed: not only giving a source and copyright holder, but also a good fair use rationale. Mangojuice^talk 18:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:User socialist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedy deleted under CSD T1, which specifiesd that the template be "divisive" and "Inflamatory". I fail to see what is divisive about "This user is a socialist believing in peaceful measures of providing basic needs to everyone" Overturn DES ^(talk) 16:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I was the deleting administrator, and, frankly, I'm quite sick of people running to DRV to report any deletion they disagree with without saying a word to me. It's uncooperative, specifically against the process on this page, and an admin should know better. In any case, this political POV advocacy was deleted multiple times in many months, but recreated, and this was simply the latest recreation. Note that it was already moved and deleted according to the userbox migration procedure. Dmcdevit·t 21:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't. I recreated it in my userspace, and you deleted/protected the redirect. SalaSkan 23:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• You had been asked, in this edit, this edit, and at least one earlier edit. You declined to undelete in this response. Why exactly should I ask you a question you have already answered? In hte past I have been accuesd (falsely) of harrasment for asking such questions. I note also that it was speedy deleted multiple times, ther was no TfD that I can find, so "recreation" cuts no ice at all. DES ^(talk) 04:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong overturn - You wouldn't reply to the discussion on your talk page. Please do not claim this DRV was filed "without saying a word to me". There is nothing inflammatory in "This user is a socialist believing in peaceful measures of providing basic needs to everyone". CSD T1 doesn't apply here. If it is your POV that we need to delete these kind of templates, please don't speedy them, nominate them for deletion. There is no compelling reason to delete this template, because there is a whole load of these kinds of templates at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics. If the template I'm a capitalist is allowed to exist, then so is I'm a socialist. SalaSkan 13:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please also see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User socialist. SalaSkan 13:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. There never was a discussion about this template, and the stated reason for deletion does not seem to match the item. DGG (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Tony Sidaway just removed this discussion from the page... if someone is going to close this early they should at least close it properly. --W.marsh 22:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I reopened the discussion, nobody gave a reason for closing this one early. SalaSkan 13:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Close discussion as moot it probobly shouldnt be i the temmplate space, however the deletion was not valid because it is neither divisive or inflamatory. That said there is a userfied version just use: User:Salaskan/UBX/socialist. Viridae^Talk 02:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I see no good reason why this shouldn't be in the template space, for any user to find and use. It is much harder to find in userspace, and besides allowing the deletion to stand furnishes a false precedent. There is clearly disagreement here, so an early close of this discussion is improper. DES ^(talk) 04:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed with DES, and even if I keep it in userspace, there is no need to delete and protect the redirect (the template is used on tons of user pages). SalaSkan 16:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, does in no way meet the T1 criteria. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse/close per Viridae. We should stick with the whole userbox migration thing. I understand when people say they see no big deal in having templates like this in template space, but if we allow some but not others, it will start to get ugly again. I'd rather see us steer well clear of resuming the userbox wars. Until someone deletes the template out of userspace, I think this is fine. And, yes, it is reasonably interpretable as divisive, as all belief or politics userboxes can be. Mangojuice^talk 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Mangojuice. My understanding of the truce embodies in WP:GUS is that the broad interpretation of T1 (which was endorse by a number of admins at th time of the "userbox wars) is to apply in templatespace while the narrow interpretation (which likewise had many supporters) is to apply in userspace. Thus this is an acceptable userbox but not an acceptable template. Eluchil404 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if you endorse, why not restore the redirect? It is used on many user pages. SalaSkan 13:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The GUS involves replacing the currently made userboxes with a soft redirect until all existing uses are updated, and then deleting the soft redirect. If you're worried about users being able to find the userboxes they want in userspace, there are ways to help that. WP:UB is a good place to start, and they could probably be organized better. Mangojuice^talk 14:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Then Dmcdevit's actions were not in accordance with the GUS project, because he speedily deleted "This user is a socialist believing in peaceful measures of providing basic needs to everyone" as divisive, didn't reply on his talk page, and salted the template. That's not a "soft redirect". SalaSkan 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, the thing is, this was already migrated back in march, to User:Octane/userboxes/User Socialist, and this is simply a repost. I'm sure Dmcdevit didn't realize the extent to which this was being used. But having the regular redirect in place is harmful. Why don't you just update the userpages that still link to the template, if it bothers you? There aren't that many of them. Mangojuice^talk 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Consensus to keep the article on this wrestler was ignored. 5 keep votes to 4 deletes. While the closing admin used long and convoluted arguments to ignore the keeps, the same admin didn't apply the same standards to the delete votes that were WP:JUSTAPOLICY. --Oakshade 16:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral forget the number counting, I looked through the deleted article and the AFD and found no evidence he meets WP:N, e.g. no sources. Article was unreferenced, the sole link anyone produced in the AFD was a trivial mention, but he does get some mainstream and industry press results at [1]. It was a hard AFD to close due to the lackluster keep arguments... maybe he actually deserves an article but in 2007 for a marginally notable wrestler that means citing some sources, or at least showing that they exist in the AFD. I'd suggest userfying and trying to reference the claims of notability. --W.marsh 16:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; closing admin seems to have acted appropriately, serious notability concerns were raised at AfD and never addressed per WP:RS. Counts of !votes do not trump policy. Heather 16:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• But that's an AfD opinion, not a non-partial closing of an AfD based on WP:CONSENSUS.----Oakshade 21:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus does not trump policy. If there are no sources, and requests for sources do not come up with any sources, the article has to go. Corvus cornix 00:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:CONSENSUS is policy, WP:BIO is not. --Oakshade 01:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research)" It's just lawyering to say "Well in this AFD we had a 5 to 4 vote to ignore a policy/guideline, so we get to go for it because consensus is a policy and WP:BIO is just a guideline" --W.marsh 02:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Consensus doesn't top common sense. Just because a majority of the people in the United States (allegedly) voted for George Bush doesn't make them right. Corvus cornix 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, AFD is not a headcount. Perhaps we can solve the issue by redirecting this to to the article on the wrestling competition he's in? >Radiant< 13:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The delete comments were definitely valid deletion reasons, and were not close to countered by the keep comments. So, I think this is well within the reasonable discretion of the closer. Also, let me echo W.marsh: if you want the article back, ideally, work on a draft.. but barring that, at least present some sources that could be used to recreate the article. Mangojuice^talk 18:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, as the nominator I felt the lack of notability was clear, the AfD was well discussed, there was ample opportunity for the keeper to provide evidence of notablitity. Darrenhusted 23:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Closing admin seems to have acted appropriately. I found the following that mention Shane Hagadorn, but it's not substantial new information: (1) Miami Herald (November 10, 2006) Ring report.; (2) Miami Herald (January 11, 2007) Wrestling events, notes. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse; The closing admin was well within his discretion; the arguments put forth by the deletes were based on policy and guidelines, and not addressed by the keeps. AfD are not ballots. — Coren ^(talk) 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This page shouldn't have been deleted. It's obscure, not a hoax article or nonsense, and it's not unencyclopedic. No reason to delete this article, especially considering its notability too. Skycrest502 12:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

— Skycrest502 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - What a surprise. Corvus cornix 00:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• endorse deletion we can't just take your word for it that it's not a hoax... we'd need some reliable documentation. I'm not seeing any [2] --W.marsh 13:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse it's a hoax. See this for details. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, the last "fake town" hoax I dealt with, Azythia, Idaho didn't have anything on this one in terms of longevity. --W.marsh 14:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and relist neither "suspected hoax" nor "recreation of previously speedy deelted materiel" is a good reason for speedy deletion. The Afd should have ben allowed to proceed. i agree that sources are needed in this is to stay in, but giving the length of an AfD to find such sources seems perfectly worth while. DES ^(talk) 15:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Why? People can find sources during the DRV just as easily. Recreating the article risks giving the hoax more coverage via Google and mirrors... --W.marsh 16:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, the article was an attack page, basically stating in a sentence or two that Jocker City has lots of prostitutes, with no other context or information. Some versions also said it was in Canada, while others said the UK, and at least two versions claimed it was somehow in both. For this to be speedied 11 times in 2005 really says something. With our current tighter standards, this wouldn't last 15 seconds before being deleted again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion though as a hoax it would be necessary to send it to prod, at least the last version was such as to make it an attack page. I can think of about 3 or 4 other perfectly adequate reasons for deletion, including lack of context. This is below the level of serious concern. DGG (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Not only should this article be deleted, but anyone wanting it back should be blocked on sight. This was a common target of a well-known long-term vandal, and I can see absolutely no redeeming quality to it. Good faith cannot be assumed; I suspect Skycrest502 is another sockpuppet of that vandal. Note that the user's first and only edit was creating this DRV. --Golbez 23:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse, provide sources or forget it. Corvus cornix 00:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unless actual sources are provided. While hoaxes are not an explicit CSD, I think they qualify as vandalism as a general rule and see no exception here. Stifle (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, fake "city". And while we're at it, I'm going to salt the article: 11 deletions is ENOUGH. Mangojuice^talk 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse and salt per all above. Newyorkbrad 16:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse and salt per all above. Joker city, we get it. But enough already. It's not even a notable hoax. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:David Cate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Why was this deleted? David Cate is an employee of Kingsport Times-News Idav 09:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• User:David Cate doesn't seem to have been deleted. David Cate was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cate. --W.marsh 13:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse (deletion of David Cate, if Idav doesn't have anything to say about the AfD. Reasons were perfectly good. Mangojuice^talk 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Republic_Airlines_flight_4912_&_SkyWest_Airlines_flight_5741 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

AFD closed less than 24 hours on a weak consensus because the article itself was only 2 days old. Overcoming the irony here, allowing the AfD to continue while others work on the article is not at cross purposes. Suggest relist and allow to run its course. InkSplotch 02:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Page move: Re-titled article as 2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion which is the common naming convention (not "official") for other runway incursion articles (see 1999 T. F. Green Airport Runway Incursion or 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion). Hope this isn't a problem, thanks. Lipsticked Pig 06:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy relist, non-admins should not close AFDs that are less than 5 days old, and they definitely should not close AFDs that are less than 24 hours old regardless of the arguments and age of the article. --Coredesat 02:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• While IMO the original AfD nomination was ill-advised, and the AfD did look like it was heading for keep, this quite speedy close was also, IMO, rather ill advised. However, in this case, it may be that the best bet would be to close this DRV discussion and allow anyone who chooses to do so to re-list the article on AfD. Reviving the earlier AfD with its arguments on the propriety of the nomination seems counter-productive to me, as opposed to simply starting a new, clean AfD, if anyone now things that the article should in fact be deleted. I would advise the closer in this case that speedy closing of an AfD should be done quite carefully, and quite often causes more trouble than it saves. DES ^(talk) 06:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, closed less than 6 hours after creation, and it seems that almost all of the commenters who got in that window were drawn by canvassing on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. Definitely needs wider discussion. --Stormie 14:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Non admins closing a discussion is fine, but please don't do it unless you understand the guidelines. AfD was closed far too early and close reason is invalid; an article may be brought to AfD at any time, because AfD decides on the potential of the article, not its current state (with some exceptions, such as BLP). --Rory096 16:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you. I've gotten a lot of abuse from the Project members who feel they WP:OWN all aircraft articles, even those about non-crashes in which nobody was injured. Corvus cornix 00:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, you got alot of comments from people who think you were ill-advised to nominate an article one minute after it's creation. And "abuse" is definitley a strange word for someone who couldn't wait more than one minute to file an AfD. - BillCJ 00:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Where in the AfD rules does it say that there's a minimum age before an article can be nominated? Besides, in general, unless they're improperly speedy closed, you get five days to improve the article. Corvus cornix 01:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I've never said it's in AFD rules. But maybe it should be, as you seem to think you're exempt from WP:AGF. Is that such a hard thing to do? I am sick and tired of people who think that, just because they watch recent changes list and the AFD pages, they don't have to actually communicate with other editors, even though the AFD rules I've read do reccomend that. Is it really too much to ask you to show some common courtesy? Projects exist to make the articles within their subject matter better, and we spend large amounts of time discussing improving not-quite notble articels, and often merging their content elsewhere and deleting the page, without ever even considering an AFD. is it too much to ask you to actually try to work with other editors? Just because you can file an AFD anytime or place you want doesn't always mean it's the prudent thing to do, or the best way to handle the situation. As it is, someone within the Aviation Accident Task FOrce has suggest putting most of the info on this accident in the Airport Movement Area Safety System, which is probaly a good idea. It's really too bad you weren't thoughtful enough to suggest it before your AFD. Oh, I fogot, the AFD rules don't require thoughtfulness. Well, it's about time they did. - BillCJ 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
        • It's probably a good thing that the nominator brought this to the attention of other Wikipedians if you're merging and deleting; that's very much a violation of the GFDL. In addition, please WP:AAGF, and be a bit more civil. --Rory096 00:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist: this article doesn't seem notable to me. Nobody died, and there was no more than any momentary drama. The comparison with a British Airways airplane that had all its engines stalled by volcanic ash and only barely got them started again is not well-founded. Also, the aircraft authorities keep reports available, so there seems little reason to keep the article here in an encyclopedia. In 20 years would anyone care about this article? I don't think so. More worryingly, there also seems to have been violation of the spirit of the AfD rules.WolfKeeper 02:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist: quite clearly an incorrect closure with a sizeable helping of WP:CANVASS thrown in for good measure, which makes the whole AfD completely meaningless. Nick 10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • THe only "canvassing" that occurred was a notification place on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force page. The task force is a group of editors dedicating to standardizing and managing coverage of avitaion-related incidents, including the current formulation of notability guidelines. These activities necessite an awareness of articles being nominated for AfD. In the past month, 3 other article nominated for AfD have been posted on the talk page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 897, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight 952, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 1455. Two of these were deleted, as they were not notable, and on of those was a hoax. If canvassing has occured in this case, then the same canvassing occured with these three AfDs, and they should be listed here for review. However, I strongly contest the canvassing accusation, as, per WP:CANVASS, It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. While some may classify the group as "partisan", it does strive to be objective, as the other examples given illustrate. I see no reason why projects should not be informed of AfDs of articles within their subject, and infact would like to see notification of the concered projects formally allowed, if not made mandatory. - BillCJ 17:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Relist as above. Eusebeus 10:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Reluctant relist This will likely be kept anyway - in fact, I'll eat my keyboard if it isn't - but it shouldn't have been speedy closed. So, annoyingly, we have to start all over again. How fun. BTW, can we stop bickering, please? Maybe it shouldn't have been listed so quickly, but things have been blown out of all proportion by both sides of the argument; can we all just be forgiving and move on? Please? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep closed - Article was nominated only one minute atfter creation. Within the next 40 minutes, the creator addressed all of the nominators concerns that were addresable, and numerous sources and improvements have been added to the article by other editors since then. Article asserts notability with sources. Re-running the process at this point only serves to prolong the inevitable, and the new AfD may not be fair, and this relisting is now serving to canvass for new participants with an obvious bias against the article because of one editor's mistaken, good-faith speedy. Relisting also justifies the original ill-timed nomination, and encourages such rash behavior in the future by this nominator. - BillCJ 19:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The AfD nomination was for the subject, not the content, and it's notability or lack of it is the same a minute after the article was created as at any other time. --Stormie 21:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Typical. Never question the "purity" of an AfD nomination, it'll get you nowhere. The article had NO sources when nominated, so how could the nominator know if the "subject" was notable or not? He's admitted he knew nothing of the incident beforehand, and based his nomination soley of the initial description of the incident. He based his nomination solely on what was in the article, and that changed immediately after his nomination. Notability in aircraft incidences is proven by its continuing coverage and effects long after the incident itself. Just because no one was injured does not make it non-notable in and of that fact itself. I honestly hope the reviewer will take time to consider what I've said in this case, and weigh the probable outcome of a new AfD. - BillCJ 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Change from keep to speedy close - I think the speedy close was appropriate given the fact that it was super speedy AfD'ed. But in the case of a speedy close, no consensus should be drawn. There is no need to relist it for process reasons, if someone wants to nominate it again, they can at any time. However such a nomination would now be ill advised, as the article has been improved. There is no requirement for fatalities or even significant property damage in Notability, only that people take notice. Dhaluza 10:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  I nominated this article with intent to relist. Currently, I disagree with the claims of notability, particularly considering there are only two sources and one is the NTSB (who is going to file reports on this sort of thing - no matter how 'notable' we might think it is), but I didn't bring to to DRV to argue the AfD all over again. This is about the procedural close of the initial AfD. I think it was wrong, not because it was kept, but because it was closed in under 24 hours on a false consensus of "it's too new". That's an absurd reason in a process that's supposed to take a week for review. Plenty can done to improve the article in that time, just like plenty of reasonable, calm discussion can take place here. Being listed on AfD isn't an automatic death sentence, though, and no one's trying to persecute the editors of this article. --InkSplotch 13:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Relist per all of the above. Controversial non-admin closure with some possibility that there was a conflict of interest. Not saying anything ungood happened here but given the potential for just this sort of reaction means it was a bad idea. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. We should all realize that AfDs are open for 5 days for a reason: so that uninvolved people have a reasonable change to notice the debate and comment. When a debate is closed this quickly, but still has so many comments, it's likely because a select portion of the community has become aware of it. I see the debate was canvassed here, which is how it managed to get so many comments in such a short amount of time. I understand DES' point of view above, but I want to see this closure explicitly overturned because it was wrong, and because a previous "keep" result can affect further debates. Mangojuice^talk 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. I think that the article is not even close to notable. I don't think that Wikipedia should be an end-all repository of every aviation near miss that has ever happened, anywhere. However, the issue is that this article was closed after less than a day. And I don't know how everyone else interprets it, but the AfD looked to be headed in the direction of a 'Keep' to me. I don't see any reason that the AfD couldn't have remained open for the full duration. Trusilver 22:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Pretty obvious to relist here. Bulldog123 03:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)