Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 22

Rexist Equilibrium of Life (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The arguments that were given for this article's removal are flawed. They say it is a personal philosophy and exultation of the writer's self,but I firmly believe it is not because this is a new philosophy that extends from Zeno's paradoxes, which is a very popular and highly discussed philosophy. The article is brilliant, original and promising.Wikipedia should be happy that such an original philosophical topic and new extension of historical philiosophy is being shown on their sites instead of shoving it to the corner. I believe that the article needs to be reinstated as soon as possible due to these reasons. Throwing things out like that suppresses knowledge and academic excellence and I believe that this is not one of the attributes and values of WikipediaRexeken 19:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Rexeken

While most of us have tremendous respect for new and original thought, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it is not an appropriate venue for it. Wikipedia requires that articles be verifiable, not contain original thought, and their subjects be notable. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; it's an encyclopedia, and thus articles must be supported by reliable third-party sources. Judging from the comment above and the AFD, this wasn't. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion based on Rexeken's comments. Wikipedia cannot publish original thought; it violates one of our core policies. EyeSerene^TALK 20:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is a personal essay, as its author admits above. Sam Blacketer 20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, open and shut WP:NOT#OR case. --Coredesat 00:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

This article was deleted for no reason. Several (verifiable) sources were sited, and with a small amount of effort can be confirmed. This article, about one of the (very) few successful artists from Albuquerque, New Mexico. No attempts via talk nor email were made to pose any questions related to content. I believe this deletion was done with haste and very improperly. Mr. Thurston is a valued Artist that is well respected by the Hispanic community of New Mexico, the (elite) Tamarind Institute of the University of New Mexico, as well as the African American population of New Mexico in which his recent Lithographs (produced at the Tamarind) focused on Tribal African American Art. The deletion of this article was a large loss to the varied cultures, as well as a loss to the many children who find Mr. Thurston a large inspiration. I would like to respectfully request that this article be restored, and I John Ramos (with proper and courteous communication) will make any corrections needed and with haste. Thank you for your time, it is greatly appreciated. I personally await a response. Ramos9111 19:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Marion van de Wetering (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe the article was killed because the subject's husband, or people purporting to be him, have had issues with several of the people who voted for deletion. In fact, community consensus can hardly be guaged by the number of comments (about six different people) on the AFD page. The subject of the entry is a published author whose books were issued by a major Canadian house, as opposed to so many musicians, especially Canadian punk artists, who are considered notable simply for self-issued albums. I believe the deletion of this entry also shows a certain narrowness and age/interest/nationality bias on the part of the persons involved, since they obviously consider Canadian regional historians to be not important. Dominic J. Solntseff 19:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Nothing wrong with the deletion process, and I, for one, !voted for deletion without having previously even heard of the subject's husband. No sources were present in the article or turned up during the AfD that would establish the person as at all notable. Also, if the deletion is endorsed, would someone please delete the article linked to in the header of this discussion, created by Dominic J. Solntseff in a fit of pique. Deor 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• The argument against having the article that was put forwards at the deletion debate is that there are no secondary sources available for the author. If this is true then the article obviously has to stay deleted until there are some. She needs to be written about somewhere. Keep deleted Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse AFD deletion I reviewed the AFD before I did a WP:CSD#G10 deletion of the recreated page. After all, people who are emotional can be right. Had I thought there was anything wrong with the AFD close, I'd have discussed with the closing admin or brought a case here. Endorse my WP:CSD#G10 deletion as an attack page of the recreated pages. Wikipedia is not a site for attacks on anybody, including without limitation, editors. It is especially not a site for attacks on living people in which category I hope all of our non-bot editors belong. Also, do another WP:CSD#G10 deletion of the current article as it also was created as an attack page. This new user appears to need a civility lesson, possibly a mentor. GRBerry 21:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, nothing presented by the nom (who should probably be blocked for creating attack pages) that indicates anything that would address the AFD concerns. --Coredesat 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I also re-deleted the article as an attack page. --Coredesat 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse...keep arguments were "she wrote a book" and "she's not famous". And then this character accuses people of sexism... Smashville 03:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I worked on my comments for this afd for over an hour, trying to judge objectively the notability of the two local history books that comprise the notability. I checked whether they were in Canadian libraries--as there is no union catalog for public libraries in that country, I checked individually several dozen libraries. The Ottawa public library had the Ottawa book in multiple copies, as they probably do everything published about their own city; the Kingston library similarly for its. Only the very largest academic Canadian libraries had copies--not even the other cities in Ontario, some of which were very large libraries. I concluded from this that they were of immediately local interest only. for a narrow academic book, a few library holding may be notability, but not for popular works such as this. I asked for reviews or sales figures--no information was provided. DGG (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Arguments presented in the AFD for deletion were reasonable, and the closing admin did nothing wrong as far as I can see in closing the nomination as delete. The accusations of age/interest/nationality bias by Dominic J. Solntseff (talk · contribs) do seem to lack foundation. I also continue to endorse my own nomination of the re-created page for speedy deletion as an attack page and inappropriate re-creation of a deleted page. Camaron1 | Chris 10:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion at AFD as well as following. Arguments for deletion were valid as the article had no substantive attribution of notability to secondary sources, without which it is difficult to have an article at all. Bad faith claims in the DRV are not supported by evidence such as diffs. --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Closer interpreted the debate correctly. Comment She may have written two regional history books, but if no reliable source independent of Wetering reported biography information about her, there would not be much to say in the Wikipedia article about the matter. -- Jreferee t/c 01:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse all deletions the first at afd was clearly correct, the others for the attack pages and gratuitous insults need no further discussion. Carlossuarez46 19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

This article came to my attention because it has been nominated as a Good article. I have serious doubts about its notabilty, and on investigation found it was previously listed on AfD here; the debate was closed as keep despite no support for this outcome (closing admin citing WP:HEY). Although the article is apparently sourced (try following the links!) this person has not achieved anything of note. The article is basically his CV (COI may apply; a notability tag was removed in April by User:Dheitner); the external links are advertising spam; and the name given for the uploaded image doesn't match the article. EyeSerene^TALK 17:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the closing admin, Jreferee, was applying WP:HEY to his/her own edits to the article![[1]. That was inadvisable to say the least. Anyway, now that the article has been nominated for GA by one of the editors, there can be no more appeals to WP:HEY. The article is clearly not notable, and should be deleted. Geometry guy 17:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. WP is not the place to post a resume. -- SECisek 18:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Relist at AFD Jreferee shouldn't have closed the AFD, in my opinion, when you take such an interest in an article it's best to let a neutral admin close the AFD. But the article was substantially improved, it should really just get a fresh AFD. --W.marsh 18:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(Note: following comment from IP editor moved by EyeSerene to avoid breaking nomination format): winning a nintendo contest and winning a few childhood contests now a poster now makes someone notable enough to get a wikipedia page? This page was SEVERELY changed from it's original intent...first it was all about his "blog" and his agency, then when he realized he wasn't notable enough for a wikipedia, he changed it to articles about his childhood? No I say! Delete this garbage! What makes this person more notable than anyone else? Everyone has some sort of childhood achievements, everyone placed or won something in their life, does that mean they deserve a wikipedia entry? I won bowling leagues when I was a little, do I deserve a wikipedia page too? Give me a break! (repost from talk page of "darren heitner" entry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.152.182 (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Relist at AfD. I see no evidence of notability, but the article has been substantially changed since the last discussion. henrik•talk 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Relist The article has changed too much for the old AFD comments to be relevant. But the closing admin had made the changes, which makes them not appropriate as a closer. GRBerry 21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Darren has a number of achievements that individually would not merit an article, but cumulatively are very impressive. It appears that some of these at least would be widely known. Also, the article records that: "In late 2002, news reports indicated that many U.S. high school students could not find Iraq on a world map". This belongs with the 2007 article on Caitlin Upton, which notes "a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a world map." These articles document two significant points on a downward curve. A future article on decline in the US educational system might need this information. Wanderer57 21:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Relist at AfD. This individual is not a celebrity, and his achievements are no more notable than half of everyone else that has attended high school or college. The article reads like his personal resume, which is not what wikipedia is for. Dr. Cash 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Relist He won some local contests while growing up, and after that nothing, he didn't make a career as a poster designer or as a Nintendo player, 63.147.152.182 is right. Those "awards" are used as an excuse for him to have an article in WP and promote his career as a sport manager. Note also that most of this article's "improvements" have been made by the creator: User:Dheitner, User:Jreferee, unregistered users and User:ANJaffe( [2]). (User:ANJaffe has only edited in this article.) --Yamanbaiia 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Relist Wanderer57, what achievements would you say are "impressive", even cumulatively? Maybe if you're applying to be president of student government in highschool...but not worthy of an entire wikipedia entry. Give me a break! What achievement of his would be recognized in a farther reach than his local area in that small of capacity? What exactly makes him "well known"? The fact that he won a local nintendo contest or made a poster to enter in a local contest? You become notable for winning contests now? I can bet that there are many who have won the nobel prize who don't even have wikipedia pages... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.152.182 (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi 63.147.152.182. This does not warrant a big discussion since I'm obviously in the minority on this issue. Winning a contest at age 6 against 14 year olds is notable, assuming it's true of course. And winning a poster contest with 400,000 entries is some kind of achievement. Being a university valedictorian is also something that most people don't manage. IMO, an encyclopedia with (at least) 18 articles about flatulence either does not set its standards very high, or is inconsistent in applying them. Cheers, Wanderer57 06:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out the every single one of the references for all of his "achievements" came from either the Miami Herald or the South Florida Sun Sentinel, two local papers, with most appearing in minor local, neighborhood, and community sections of the paper; there are zero front page articles on him (the two sources which indicate "page 1" are page 1 of the community section, not the paper). Even the nintendo contest in 1991 wasn't national news, and it wasn't even front page; I'd even bet that the nintendo contest wasn't even national, it was local (after all, it was in the local section of the paper). There is zero national coverage of this individual. Even a poster contest isn't all that notable -- I know plenty of scientific researchers with major grant funding and 100 peer-reviewed publications or more that don't have wikipedia pages. Dr. Cash 07:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Doctor. Fair enough. Have you any feedback on my suggestion that Wikipedia "either does not set its standards very high, or is inconsistent in applying them"? I notice, for example, that there are many articles whose purpose is to list other articles that are of "low importance" or "no importance". Thanks, Wanderer57 12:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• List at AfD as closer - Since the article has substantial new and different information, the prior AfD should not affect the time period between the close of the last AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The biography of “Shoemoney” (Jeremy Schoemaker), search-engine optimization industry expert, Technorati 100 top blogger, and co-founder of the AuctionAds service, was deleted by NawlinWiki on Oct. 2, 2007 under criteria a7 nonnotable and g4 repost. I argue that Jeremy Schoemaker, a speaker at almost every search engine marketing conference for the past three years, and a major name in the Internet and search engine optimization world, is definitely important and notable. In fact, he has been called exactly that -- “notable” -- by the very popular Internet company-focused site TechCrunch (http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/02/23/mybloglog-bans-blogger-backlash-begins/).

I respectfully ask that you please reinstate the article, based on that and all the reasons below:

• Schoemaker has been featured in such mainstream popular magazines as Forbes and Business Week, and also has been regularly mentioned in top Internet sites TechCrunch, Search Engine Watch, PepperjamBLOG, and SEOMoz.
• As aforementioned, he has spoken at almost every search engine marketing conference for the past three years, such as Elite Retreat, Search Engine Strategies (SES) Conference & Expo, eComXpo, and Affiliate Summit 2007 East. This is not something you get if you're not an authority.
• Twelve of the Technorati Top 100 (http://technorati.com/pop/blogs/), which Jeremy consistently ranks in, are included in Wikipedia. (Matt Cutts, who has an entry in Wikipedia, ranks 89, lower than Jeremy’s 70, at this writing).
• I can see why the editors may have expected yet another Shoemoney entry to not be worthy, because the several previous entries (now deleted) appear to have been frivolous and non-serious attempts at article creation; e.g. “A shoemoney is a finctional creature created by Esrun, often referred to as a small furry creature which collects chocolate coins(money).” [sic] However, I believe these many silly attempts may have unfairly negatively weighted the ultimate serious attempt at Schoemaker’s biography against being accepted.
• Given that he is linked from another Wikipedia entry, it stands to reason that the stub should be expanded on for completeness.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful review of these comments and I look forward to your careful and reasoned decision. – Julia L. Wilkinson Further Sources:

• Coverage in Forbes Magazine:

"Bitten By The Google Spider" - Forbes.com, 12-7-06, http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/12/06/internet-advertising-search-tech_cx_ag_1207google.html

• Coverage in BusinessWeek:

“Bloggers Bring in the Big Bucks” – BusinessWeek Small Biz feature on five top bloggers: http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/jul2007/sb20070713_202390.htm

• Coverage in AuctionBytes:

“eBay Honors Developers at Annual Conference”: http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y07/m06/i12/s00

• TechCrunch on Schoemaker’s AuctionAds sale:

MediaWhiz Buys Another Ad Startup, AuctionAds http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/07/27/mediawhiz-buys-another-ad-startup-auctionads/ AuctionAds www.auctionads.com

• AuctionBytes article about AuctionAds eBay Star Developer award:

eBay Honors Developers at Annual Conference –http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y07/m06/i12/s00 Shoemoney - Schoemaker’s Blog http://www.shoemoney.com/ SEM Conferences where Shoemoney has spoken include, but not limited to:

• eBay Developers Conference 2007 - June, Boston
• Elite Retreat - June, 2007 - Orlando, Florida
• Search Engine Strategies (SES) Conference & Expo - Aug 2007, San Jose, CA
• eComXpo - March 2007, Chicago
• Affiliate Summit 2007 East - Miami Juliawilk 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. He's a blogger. And being mentioned in an article doesn't mean you've been "featured" in it...no evidence that he's somehow become more notable since the AfD. Smashville 03:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Allow Recreation. The Forbes and BusinessWeek articles linked above are both more recent than the AfD discussion which deemed him non-notable, seems reasonable to allow another crack at producing a well-sourced article about him. --Stormie 03:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • He's merely quoted in the Forbes article which is not about him and the BusinessWeek article is about ICanHasCheezburger.com and doesn't even mention him. I mean, if we can now include random articles that have nothing to do with the subject and don't even mention them or anything related to them, we could make anyone notable. Smashville 03:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The layout of the BusinessWeek article is a grotesque crime against usable web design, but there are segments in there about Shoemoney and other bloggers besides the (awesome) ICanHasCheezburger: here's the direct link to the frame: [3]. --Stormie 05:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Well...given that, I'll say Allow Recreation. Still don't think he's notable...but...no sense in not giving it a shot. Smashville 19:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. It's marginal but with the BW mini-profile there's a claim to notability. Still might not survive AFD. There's no reason we can't allow recreation of articles if they include new information and improve on the former material in other ways. --Dhartung | Talk 18:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation - The AfD was a year ago. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of usable information on the topic. Allow recreation, but expect an AfD nomination if you don't put in a lot of footnotes. I think you are (or I am) confusing coverage of "Schoemaker" with coverage of "Shoemoney". The two are not the same (Schoemaker is a person and ShoeMoney either is a production company (ShoeMoney Productions) or an online-marketing blog called "ShoeMoney". Here is the information I found on Shoemoney: April 30, 2004 Press release, December 30, 2006 New York Times, January 29, 2007 Press release, May 7, 2007 Chicago Tribune, August 1, 2007 Press release, September 5, 2007 U-WIRE. I think you would be better off creating an article on Jeremy Schoemaker [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. -- Jreferee t/c 01:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think the title reflects his using "Shoemoney" as a handle/nickname. For example, Shoemoney Biography is his self-chosen title for his profile. --Dhartung | Talk 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse my deletion: the contents of which were:

== Shoemoney is funny. Visit the real Shoemoney ==

Will the Real Shoemoney please stand up! Find a HOT date!

If you want that restored, why bother to call ourselves an encyclopedia; as for all those saying "allow recreation" - NOTHING IS SALTED HERE; BE WP:BOLD - if it is substantially different than what was deleted before - it's not G4; I didn't delete under G4 because the crap that I saw was different that what was deleted. If you want the crap I've quoted restored, let's make sure it is included on the next "best of Wikipedia" CD. It lacked content, it was crap, is was speedy bait, it was deleted. Doh! Carlossuarez46 17:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• My thinking is that allowing recreation and restoring the deleted article are different approvals. A year has passed since the old AfD and allowing recreation of the topic with the new sources listed seems appropriate. If the recreated article is insufficient, that would be best brought out in a new AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 17:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing prevents that, so no allowal here is needed - that which isn't forbidden is allowed - it just has to be sufficiently different than the version deleted after Afd. Note my deletion wasn't based on G4 because it was different and there were more obvious reasons to delete that version :-). Carlossuarez46 18:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Normally, I say show DRV a draft first. However, the nominator did mention many sources, the AfD was a long time ago, and there seems to be an article somewhere in the sources listed in this discussion that might have a chance of surviving AfD. Yes, it might cause drama (everything seems to) but I don't see any harm in giving the nominator a chance. Maybe I'm getting soft. : ) -- Jreferee t/c 18:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I should watch this page to see what develops, I am now somewhat curious. As for you getting sof....LOL Carlossuarez46 19:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Tagged as db-spam for looking too much like advertising, deleted by me. Author contacted me to ask why it was deleted and how it could be put back up. JIP | Talk 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn blatant advertising deletion is meant for cases when nothing in the article would have been useful in a theoretical good article on the subject, but there appears to multiple items in the deleted article that would be useful to keep. Article needs some cleanup and better sources, but wasn't all bad. --W.marsh 16:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, although I'm not sure why you're bringing your own deletion to DRV. The mirror I found doesn't look too bad, even if it could reasonably be merged with NetJets. The article basically describes this unique service and I don't think there's too much POV language. Restore and tag for sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 17:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I supposed he just wasn't sure if he should overturn himself or not. Admins can do so in situations like this without a lot of controversy... just in case anyone was unsure. Asking for opinions here is okay too. Discussion is rarely a bad thing. --W.marsh 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It was more the lack of an actual question. Not a big deal, though. --Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Temple of Saint Sava's bells.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

During the fair use review process I got the impression that image page, together with my reasons against the deletion of the image, should be moved to the talk page of the image; but it wasn't done. So, I ask that they are moved. I haven't notified the admin who deleted the image because I believe that this is a technicality. Nikola 15:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're requesting undeletion of the image description page but not the image, we don't do that. If you're requesting undeletion of the image, endorse deletion; there was never an explanation of why that particular image of the bells was necessary for the article. It doesn't matter whether the justification was on the image description page or the talk page; it was visible to the admin, who quite reasonably deleted the image anyway. If I've misunderstood you and you were requesting something else, then I apologize; your nomination summary is a little confusing. Chick Bowen 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close WP:CSD#G8 is a basis for deleting talk pages for images that do not exist. Since the image talk page does not exist and there is no reason to create that talk page, this DRV request should be speedy closed as endorse. -- Jreferee t/c 00:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

SuccessTech Academy shooting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Controversial AFD closed by non-admin (see also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Jennifer_Moore). Keep arguments mostly based upon "wait and see". Will ^(talk) 15:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse close No comment on the Jennifer Moore AFD, but this was a valid AFD and we let non-admins close them, under the current rules. DRV is not round 2 of AFD, you can always re-nominate at AFD. --W.marsh 16:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  Which had nowhere near consensus to keep. Both closing reasons are pretty much the same. Will ^(talk) 17:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. As a non-admin closer myself I wouldn't have touched this one; I stick to the unambiguous ones as much as possible. In this case there's a stronger argument from policy and a slight edge in !votes, so I think it's a good keep, but there were strong moral arguments on the other side. I have myself long lamented the lack of a good guideline for crime cases, since even minor crimes get news coverage and can technically meet WP:N, and WP:BLP1E is not the easiest indicator to apply nor even explicitly extended to the deceased. I believe what is trying to be done here needs to be done by forging a guideline, as difficult as that is, because under the present ruleset there isn't a real consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure without prejudice against re-nomination. As I also close unambiguous AfD's (i.e. the article got speedied or there is a clear consensus to keep), I would have left this one alone until a better consensus was achieved - though as there isn't a policy or guideline to refer to, as Dhartung said, there may never be a consensus. I think it's best to leave it as a keep, and if someone wants to re-nom it for another reason, then they can go ahead. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Happy to re-open and re-close this with the same rationale if "non-admin closure" is the only objection. ~ trialsanderrors 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Close enough I'm not certain on first glance if the right closure was keep, merge or no consensus. For any of these, the article is kept. Delete doesn't look like a viable outcome for that discussion, and no compelling case is made for it above (especially as time passage will either invalidate or prove correct in a future AFD many of the arguments most disagreed with). GRBerry 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but not the way it was closed. Non-admins can only close non-controversial AFDs. This was not a non-controversial AFD, and it should not have been closed by a non-admin. I would have closed it as "no consensus" and not "keep", but there wouldn't be anything different about the effect of the AFD itself. There was no consensus to delete, so endorse the actual effect of the closure. --Coredesat 00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• 'endorse with the same limitation as Coredesat. My own feeling was to keep, but I would have closed as no-consensus. The one thing which seems clear is that there is no real community agreement on such articles, and there is no point in pretending there is, one way or another. I hope most admins would have realised that. the result would however have been the same. i see no point though in immediately re-nominating this immediately, because we must first find some place to discuss the general issue. A non-admin closing something in a situation like this is going way out on a limb, and is likely to do as much harm as good to the cause he may wish to advance. We make people admins so they can more safely take the heat. DGG (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - In situations like this where there are more than enough sources for the topic, WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:CFORK is what needs to be discussed at the AfD. The delete discussion was not convincing regarding the topic meeting WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:CFORK was never really an issue. Trout whack for the non admin closer. Non admins should not close AfDs like this because someone likly will be upset and if a non-admin does the close, they are likely to be even more upset since non-admins have not received a consensus minimum level of trust over a period of seven days. -- Jreferee t/c 00:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Belgian Americans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

List of Finnish Americans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

List of Norwegian Americans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

List of Swedish Americans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

List of Swiss Americans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

These were originally separate and I combined them. There are two AFDs and one DRV:
Belgian AFD - Norwegian AFD - Norwegian DRV.--chaser - t 04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

NOTE For anyone wanting to see the scope of this matter, I created User:Jreferee/Lists of Ethnic Americans to give an idea of where we are and where we may be going. -- Jreferee t/c 00:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Probably about 60 percent of the redlinked ethnic groups are implausible, like "Etruscan Americans," "Northamptonian Americans," etc. Badagnani 00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Some are just downright absurd - is there a serious concern that there will be a proliferation of lists like "List of Nebraskan Americans" (seems that is already covered by List of people from Nebraska"), "List of Antarctic Americans" (don't be making fun of our Penguin-American friends, now), "List of CSA Americans" (a shining example of RAS syndrome), "List of Americanh Americans" (what is an "Americanh" anyway?), or "List of ירושלמי Americans" (I guess we don't need to worry about "List of القُدس Americans")?! DHowell 01:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete. This article-list was deleted for the same incorrect reasons that the since overturned List of German Americans was deleted. This list is for a notable American ethnic group as evidenced by its having an article and having a category. There is no valid WP reason why this list was deleted. There is nothing in WP that says lists cannot also exist when categories exist. The list readily provides information for the reader that categories only provide by lots of work, reading one article after another, It provides names, dates of birth/death, and occupation/reason for notability--in other words why one might want to then read an article. The list serves as an index to the category articles. Is the list perfect? No, but the job of WP editors is to improve articles (including lists) on notable subject matter, not delete them. Hmains 01:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn: If the reason to delete List of German Americans was found to be invalid at DRV, it should be invalid for the rest of the lists. I can't see any significant difference between other lists of __ Americans, so if all the others do not violate WP policy, then neither do these, and they should be restored. Leuko 04:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong overturn - Our users have suffered over the past month or so from not having the sourced, annotated information about individuals of these ethnic backgrounds contained in these articles, and their research has consequently been hampered, as the names of the individuals from each ethnic group were conspicuously not merged into the articles about the ethnic groups themselves. Deletion was done solely to make a WP:POINT and the case that our users should not be permitted to have well sourced, annotated lists of individuals of these notable ethnic groups was not convincingly made. Neither was the case made that a category "does the same job," as a category is clearly not sourced and properly annotated. Further, the argument used by previous "delete" voters that editors should not be the arbiters of who belongs to a particular ethnic group (such as Norwegian Americans) was not valid, because our lists go by the individual's self-definition/ethnic identification, using sources that state they are a member of that ethnic group (the same process we use to cite any information in WP). Badagnani 05:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. There is no policy-based reason for these to be deleted. Hence, the debates themselves will be extremely subjective. In such cases, the result should be keep unless there is an overwhelming consensus to delete, which there obviously was not in the first two cases. --- RockMFR 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. We seem to be going through another spate of IDONTLIKELISTS with the usual vague arguments. Lists and categories can certainly coexist, preferably with the list article using its advantages over categories wisely, but this is not a requirement. I have even seen the overreaching argument that lists by ethnic group are "cross-categorizations" but that really applies to "ethnic group" + "something else" lists. If these lists can be properly sourced, there is no reason we can't retain this information. --Dhartung | Talk 17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn for the same reasons I gave in the DRV for List of German Americans. The closing admin dismissed the keep arguments by saying they justify the various articles (such as Belgian American), but not the lists. But if the notability of a topic does not justify a corresponding list, what does? In fact, the books I cited included one which was specifically about promintent Swiss Americans (not just the about the ethnic grouping "Swiss American"); if this isn't "signficant coverage in reliable souces" enough to justify a list of notable Swiss Americans, I don't know what is. The closing admin then justified deletion of the Swiss and Belgian American lists by saying that the delete arguments "cited valid policy", but merely citing policy should not be enough, there must be a demonstration of how the policy applies, and of a consensus to apply policy in such a manner; but there has never been any evidence of a consensus that WP:NOT#DIR was meant to prohibit lists of people belonging to notable ethnic groups. Policy has to be interpreted in light of the consensus supporting it, and not simply based on one's personal opinions about what policy means. Just asserting that a list is "loosely associated" does not make it a violation of policy. Further, the Scandinavian American lists were deleted without even a single policy being cited for deletion! The arguments that the inclusion criteria are not well defined ("How Norwegian does one have to be to be on the list?") are addressed by better defining the criteria, not by deletion. And even Neil acknowledged in the German American AfD that arguments that a "list could be replaced by a category are not convincing". It is clear from all of the AfD and DRV discussions that there is no consensus to delete lists of people belonging to notable ethnic groups, and per deletion policy, these lists should have been kept. DHowell 21:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn all I note that the Norwegian AFD has had a prior DRV, linked above, and am not convinced the closure of that DRV was correct, as too much of the first DRV was contaminated by an inappropriate comment and reactions thereto, and the legitimate discussion of the close may have been somewhat lost therein. I stand by my belief expressed both in that DRV and the German DRV that, once we conclude the ethnic group is notable, the default presumption is that we should have a list of individuals who are themselves notable for Wikipedia purposes, but that inclusion thereon needs to be due to a reliable source indicating that the individual belongs in the category. GRBerry 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn DHowell is correct that "the Scandinavian American lists were deleted without even a single policy being cited for deletion!" Whatever the merits of the decision, the process had the unfortunate appearance of being a pro forma sham. In my opinion, there was an agenda being pushed against ethnic-American lists generally rather than a good faith review. In the spirit of good faith myself, I acknowledge the possibility I am wrong, but in fairness I don't see any reason to think so. Either way, anyone would be frustrated by being summarily dismissed rather than communicated with. Finally, on the merits, these lists should be viewed as adjuncts to the ethnic-American articles, which after all is how such information is incorporated into historical and cultural treatments of ethnicity in America all the time. It's more than just "trivia". Langrel 22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Deletion was not based in policy. All the above articles were deleted by the same editor, based solely on the use of the following arguments to overrule the lack of consensus: "Arguments to 'keep' in a number of cases lack any justification for retaining the list [...] and a number of others don't really provide any justification for why we should keep the list. [A] duplicate argument is ignored."[10], "arguments to 'keep' "failed to address why we should have a list"[11]. No policy violation was cited by the closing admin. Rather, the personal opinion of the closer was used to judge which arguments were to be dismissed. (One editor was dismissed solely for having participated in a similar Afd!)(No, sorry. Correction: there really was a duplicated "keep" entry). As per the deletion review, the closing admin. admitted to having relied on the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to reinforce his/her decision to ignore the lack of consensus: "I closed a deletion discussion as best I saw fit, using that very link you provide to reinforce my judgement."[12]. I suggest Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators is upheld as the proper guideline to turn to for reinforcement. The lack of consensus should have been guiding the decision, here as elsewhere on Afd. In addition, participants should never be randomly dismissed unless they use "arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious." The majority of the participants were dismissed in spite of using rational arguments and in spite of their reliance on established policy for lists; they were dismissed solely for not satisfying the closing admin's personal opinion of what was is "sufficient justification" for keeping a list. or for having participating in other, similar discussions. Pia 03:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. This has been debated ad nauseum, and precedent tells us that there's no consensus in either direction. The main case for deletion of these lists seems to be negative proof-based. The burden of proof, as Xolox noted, really has to be on those favoring deletion given that there's no policy by which articles inherently meet notability criteria; rather, the general criterion for inclusion is the lack of policy/guideline/precedent/consensus violations. Deletion arguments are mostly notability/significance-based in some sense, but it would be ludicrous to apply the general notability guideline directly to lists, and there isn't really a notability guideline for lists in particular. We don't need a specific policy violation to delete an article, but in its absence we do need a rough consensus, and there isn't any consensus to delete "List of <notable ethnic cross-section>" articles. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Whilst I agree that categories serve a simular purpose too much weight was put on the WP:USELESS arguments on the cited AfD. No clear consensus, should have defaulted to keep per no consensus. EconomicsGuy 09:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Pia. (hope that is considered enough justification)Inge 10:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• comment Even as this is heading toward overturn, the deletion activity of editors claiming that lists should be deleted because categories exist continues. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people. Whatever flaw that exists in WP policies and guidelines or whatever is leading/allowing this to continue to occur needs to be addressed or this activity will simply happen over and over again. Thanks Hmains 03:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American philosophers has similarly been proposed for deletion, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American musicians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American social and political scientists have been deleted with very little input (the vote was probably not widely advertised, so only the "delete page regulars" caught it). Badagnani 03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn You can't categorise everything... and besides, lists can be expanded more than categories can, well, in some cases anyway. It was a no-consensus, no-win situation, so overturn and allow re-creation. --Whitmorewolveyr 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Pia L.--Berig 15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn These are all perfectly sensible concepts, and should be verifiable fairly easily.--Bedivere 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Demoscener Wikipedians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|UCfD)

Nomination time was too short and too soon after previous (failed) nomination roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 00:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete as per previous discussion from June/July 2007. The category was nominated again on Thursday night of October 4, 2007 by User:Jc37 without providing any new arguments or reasons that were not already debated during the deletion debate less than 3 months earlier. The deletion debate had only one comment and that was the one by the user who flagged the category for deletion in the first place. Based on that was the deletion debate closed on Tuesday morning October 9, 2007 by User:After_Midnight. If you exclude the weekend, then there was only little time for people to react and express their opinions. Compare that to the time given for the second nomination, where all expressed opinions, except the one of the nominator, were for keeping the category. Plenty of valid reasons were provided why the category should be kept. The first nomination was started on June 24, 2007 and was closed on July 4, 2007 to give editors time to comment. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 00:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - Very unremarkable UCFD which followed standard process. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

1. The time period between nomination was exactly 4 months from the prior decision and more than 4 months from the nomination, not less than 3 as asserted.
2. The prior discussion was supported by a user other than the nominator, as opposed to what is asserted.
3. Consensus can change. Many categories kept in the past are being deleted in the present; this is no different.
4. 5 days is the standard run time for both CFD and UCFD. This discussion was not closed early.

comment - I don't want to imply that you did something wrong. jc37 nominated it and was the only supporter. I don't count you as admin who closed the debate as a supporter, you are an arbitrator and executioner IMO. Last days of June (nomination)/first days of July (closure) and first days of October (nomination and deletion) are not 4 months apart but 3 months and a few days tops or less if you count from closure to new nomination. Consensus can change, but its unlikely within a subject that covers primarily past events (although the demoscene still exists) and being only a short time apart. I know that 5 days are the standard length, but I would suggest to give also Wikipedians a few days off and not count the weekends as days and do it like everybody else and use week days. To exclude holidays would be a bit too tricky :). Just my 2 cents --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete - deleted because of a single vote is hardly a consensus. // Gargaj 10:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Consensus can not possibly be determined by a single person, especially when there have been previous debates. This should have been relisted until a significant number of opinions were given by the community. --- RockMFR 14:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Relist There was no reason to delete since no consensus was reached. Relist it to get some consensus,whether it be keep or delete. TonyBallioni 15:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Relist There was nothing necessarily wrong with the close; however, discussions with so few participants (namely, here, just the nominator) should be easily overturned in light of any reasonable request. Xoloz 17:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Relist on UCfD Definitely needs some sort of discussion before deletion - that's the entire reason we have XfD in the first place. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Relist per others. --Kbdank71 20:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - While I don't have a problem with relisting, I do question the rationale. In the past, I've seen innumerable CfD "discussions" with no commenters except the nominator, which are closed on a regular basis. This is also typically what happen in speedy listings at CfD as well. The same goes for Requested moves. It's called being unopposed. Are you all, by suggesting relist, suggesting that such closures are now not to be considered? Just looking for clarification. - jc37 11:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Relist (with response to prior question). Our consensus policy has a section entitled "Asking the other parent". It reminds us that to demonstrate a change in consensus, you need to actually engage the arguments for the prior consensus, preferrably also actually engaging the participants in the prior consensus discussion. "A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one." With no link to the prior UCfD discussion, no engagement with the keep arguments therein, and no participation by those who said to keep it in the prior discussion, it is impossible to conclude that consensus did change. What should have happened was that the closing admin should have found the prior discussion (as closing admins should read the page's talk page before closing and check the history and ... a bunch of other steps that all too often get skipped) and either relisted with a link to that discussion and notification to its participants or closed the new discussion as "no consensus" with a closing comment that pointed out the prior discussion and the total failure to address the keep opinions there. In my opinion, if a XfD only has one opinion, that is enough to allow a close provided the required amount of time has gone by and there are no prior XfD discussions, but a one opinion XfD should be overturned on any reasonable request, because the low participation means that consensus is lost as soon as there is an objection. GRBerry 13:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  That doesn't address my question, however. I'm asking about current practice across Wikipedia. You seem to be talking about whether consensus can change and what to do in such discussions. I'm asking whether suggesting a relist in the case (due to the nomination being unopposed) is inconsistant with current pratice in all such discussions. While I don't oppose it (because I happen to prefer discussion, as I've said elsewhere) I think relisting for these reasons is inconsistant with current convention. So should we consider this closure to suggest that current convention now needs to be changed based on it? Or are we just WP:IAR in this case, because we feel like it? Or what? I'm looking for your and everyone else's perspective on this. - jc37 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Relist - What could possible be wrong with having a category for a Wikipedian to identify themselves as a person who produces demos that are non-interactive audio-visual presentations run real-time on a computer to show off programming, artistic and musical skills? The topic needs more participation at CfD for all the reasons listed by GRBerry. -- Jreferee t/c 00:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• 2nd comment by closing admin - my knee jerk reaction was to oppose this DRV as I felt that the close was procedurally correct, and the stated procedure is to accept the nomination if it is unopposed. In response to GRBerry, let me say that there was no talk page, as you can see from the logs, so the only way that I would have know of the prior discussion would have been from edit histories and backlinks, which I normally do not check. Most importantly, in a case like this, had Cumbrowski discussed this with me at my talk page, as recommened at the page purpose "1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look. rather than bringing it directly here, I likely would have accepted a request to extend the discussion. Therefore, I should probably withdraw my objection to the relisting of this category, as I should not penalize Cumbrowski for the poor form in his lack of discussion. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment for After Midnight. Sorry if it came across that I blame you for what you did. That is not the case. The appropriate template should have been placed by the closing admin to the talk page to refer to the discussion. I noticed that this is often not done. I don't know if that is written somewhere in the guide for admins regarding how to close a AFD or other deletion debates. If it is not, then it should be added IMO. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 23:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And I apologize for not asking you first. I was a bit upset, because of the second and brief listing for deletion followed by the deletion of the category. It's not your fault as I said. I would also not suggest to relist it, because what is the point if no new facts were brought forward since the last debate only a few months ago. It should IMO be undeleted and the discussion should be closed via speedy ... something :)--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 23:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)