Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 23	Deletion review archives: 2007 October	October 25 >

[edit] 24 October 2007

List of snowclones – Deletion endorsed. The closing admin reasonably made a case that policy compelled deletion, supported by a consensus below. As suggested by GRBerry, this decision would be more difficult -- though not impossible -- to defend if the article were new. As a matter of common practice, if it is felt that reliable material should be easy to find and cite, AfDs sometimes result in a consensus to allow more time for an article's sourcing. Without commenting on the wisdom of that practice, it is clear that such lenience is inappropriate at a 3rd AfD. Having said that, merging is not an unreasonable outcome for the minimal information that was properly sourced. Upon request, a history restoration and redirect for GFDL compliance is permissible. – Xoloz 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

no body voted for it to be deleted, his main reason for geting red of it seemd to be that that it was OR becouse he had never herd of it and he did not give his reasoning until he deleted it. Also it survived a AFD just 2 mounth before being renominated Rafff18 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Closer's reason clearly states that he deleted because no one could prove that it was not OR. Unless it can be proven to not be OR (and given the nature of the subject, I have a hard time believing that it wouldn't be). Smashville 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse close of AFD3 (alternatively, overturn AFD2 and close it as delete). WP:NOR is non-negotiable. More than 90% of the list was unsourced, of the sources I tested 100% supported only "X said phrase Y" not "Y is a snowclone" - they don't even use the word "snowclone". With almost a year from AFD1 to AFD2, the article should have been deleted in AFD2 for failing to comply with the WP:NOR policy, so any potential flaw from renominating too soon is irrelevant. To show that this isn't inherently OR, we need reliable sources for "Y is a snowclone", preferably at least one containing multiple examples. GRBerry 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn. Rough consensus was (and always has been) to keep and do our best to improve the sources, not to give up and delete. Neil's closing statement was a rather partial attempt to belittle perfectly reasonable arguments for keeping, hardly an objective summary. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- OR doesn't have sources. That's what makes it OR. Smashville 01:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse Our core policies trump "Uh, maybe some day someone might find something that kinda looks like a source" arguments. ~ trialsanderrors 04:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse. I wish all closes were this thoughtful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn per xDanielx. Closing as delete when there are two deletes among a sea of keeps seems like an end-run around consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please keep in mind that AFD is not a vote. It's the weight of the arguments that counts, not the number of votes. And our policies are non-negotiable, regardless of the discussion in an AFD. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Well, DRV isn't AfD #2 (or rather, #4), either. It would unreasonable to suppose that we've reached a point in policy crafting where consensus can be evaluated objectively without considering !votes on a particular AfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong endorse. None of the keep arguments hold water. Even the best: "wait, we can clean this up" doesn't argue against merging, and is growing very thin at the 3rd AfD. Let me point out that although there were 18 or so references, there was really only two entries that were properly sourced - that is - only two that had sources describing them as Snowclones (the one about Eskimos, and "X is hard. Let's go shopping!"). That said, there's no need to have deleted this when it's pretty straightforward to merge the two good entries into Snowclone, so I wouldn't object to an overturn with an immediate merge (and I can do it, if people want.) Mango juice^talk 13:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
'Comment My opinion is divided. There was no consensus to delete at the AfD, and the closer simply chose to close on the basis of his own opinion, which is not the role of the closing admin. He should instead, have joined the discussion. But his opinion was in fact in my opinion correct -- and better explained than any of the actual delete arguments. DGG (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse here we are again, Can those who say "improve it" show us some sources here or are we taking it on faith. This has had 3 go-arounds and now DRV and still no sources are found, therefore it is reasonable to assume that they cannot be found per WP:DELETE and this must go - we're an encyclopedia not a repository for everyone's unsupported original ideas and research - take it to a university, get it published, then come back. Carlossuarez46 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse - There certainly is not enough reliable source information on the topic Snowclones to support a Wikipedia list, so the closing admin interpreted the delete reasoning correctly. Snowclones originated around December 2003 (see The Times, December 3, 2005), so the entries in the Wikipedia article before that time appear to be original research. There might be enough information to support a Snowclones article. See, (1) The Times, December 3, 2005; (2) New York Times June 20, 2006; (3) NPR Talk of the Nation June 28, 2006; (4) Columbia Journalism Review July 1, 2006; (5) New Scientist November 18, 2006; (6) The Mercury (Hobart) March 24, 2007, Annie Warburton, "I mean, what's it mean?" (7) Globe and Mail May 31, 2007, "Do you speak kitteh?"' (8) New Scientist August 4, 2007. -- Jreferee t/c 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Why not just merge the content and trim it over time? Seems more appropriate to go through list items individually then to make these generalizations about what should be kept and deleted. I'd be happy to help. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn. Hit me with a fish if I'm wrong, but I gather that the merits of an article are irrelevant in DRV, just the procedure. And procedurally I'm not comfortable with an admin deleting an article because of his own opinion, justified as it may be, contrary to the actual discussion. Said discussion here does seem to have enough dissenting voices for the doubt that brings lack of deletion. --Kizor 00:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion though make available if anyone wants to merge some verified examples - Re-examining the sources (which I believe is an appropriate function of DRV, no?), almost none of them use the word "snowclone". It seems like a lot of disputable and not directly verifiable stuff crops up if we attempt to create an original list of formula-based clichés which uses an old idiom in a new context. Very few things have been described by reliable sources as snowclones, so temporarily undelete if anyone wants to scavenge for any verifiable ones, but looking through most of the sources listed, I haven't seen any yet. The consensus seems to have been merge and I would have no issue if it was closed as such, but not too much information should have to/be able to be merged. Wickethewok 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and restore due to lack of consensus. Problems with the article itself may result in the list being scaled back dramatically, but that's not what we're discussing here. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 23:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn; DRV is about procedure, not article merits. On the topic of merits, however, I would say that the original article (having seen it before it was deleted) should be at a minimum be massively scaled back. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment All of you who are commenting based on procedure need to read Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, 3rd paragraph. "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions." I added here emphasis to the clause in the deletion procedure that made deletion mandatory, not optional. GRBerry 02:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is it very unlikely that this article can exist without breaching policy? I'd say the opposite is true. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn. Lists can be tricky in terms of original research. I think they can (and particularly in this case) be edited to comply with the no original research policy. The closing admin failed to take this fact into account in the close. IronGargoyle 03:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse (my) closure. The article was nominated for deletion as being original research, nobody was able to prove otherwise in the deletion discussion. Asserting "no, no, it can be cleaned up" would be great if that hadn't already happened in the first AFD - nothing changed, which is why someone re-nominated it. I will revert my closure and undelete this article if someone can cite just 10 "examples of snowclones". Not ones you have decided are snowclones - ones that are described as being snowclones, in the reliable, non-blog, reference. And if, as you say, DRV is about procedure, I refer you to GBerry above, and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. WP:OR and WP:V are non-negotiable. Neil ☎ 21:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn I wish you would have posted this request sooner neil. this page [[1]] has "In X, no one can hear you Y." "X is the new Y" among others, from here [[2]] we have "If Eskimos have N words for snow, then X have Y words for Z." "Oh my God, they killed X!" "Not your father's X" "The X that can be spoken of is not the true X", and several more. finally in this article [[3]] we have "Once an X, always an X," "My big fat X,""To X or not to X?". you might want to actually look before saying there is nothing out there—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs)

Note Rafff18 has already argued for overturning the decision as nominator. One of those sources (wisegeeks) is a blog. But there's two references, each with a handful of overlapping examples. Still not ten. Neil ☎ 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
you asked for examples not sources and combined the two you except sight over ten examples —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

OiNK – "Keep" closure endorsed, though non-admins should still not close controversial AFDs; naming of the article is editorial and should be discussed on its talk page. No prejudice against relisting in a sufficient length of time. – Core desat 16:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

AFD snowballed after several hours because of "consensus", where most keeps were basically ILIKEITs or failed to address the nomination's concerns. Will ^(talk) 19:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. 20 keep votes and it was only open for 4 hours is as much of a snowball close as you can get. There was also no valid reason given for deletion given..."Notable for only one thing" means that it is notable. I mean, lots of people, places and things are only notable for one thing. Smashville 20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, discounting the IP's and the SPA's (of which there seems to be at least one), yes, most if not all of the Keeps were "I like it"! or "It's really really notable, I read an news story about it today", (but they didn't say where) or "It's really really notable and that's that" or "It's notable within the Bittorrent community". I think that we should Overturn the keep, because it clearly is notable for only one thing, which is not enough for WP:N and violates WP:NEWS anyway. The AfD was a complete mess, with basically all of the Keeps coming straight from WP:ATA and posted by users clearly unfamiliar with WP:N. "It sounds notable" (an argument which was used in several comments), "It's notable to me" (WP:POV, perhaps?), "it's very popular" (WP:BIGNUMBER), and "The person behind the site got arrested and the site got shut down" (wow, how many times has that happened) just aren't enough to be notable. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- What part of WP:N says that in order to be notable, you have to be notable for multiple things? Steve Bartman is an example of someone notable for only one thing.Smashville 20:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse. I don't know where this "only one thing" is coming from; BLPs have a presumption of privacy, but even if corporations are a legalistic person there's no moral obligation to preserve the dignity of an entity. This was a significant closure with international legal repercussions and this is reflected by the sourcing. The nomination interpreted WP:NOT#NEWS too broadly. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse While the AfD was tainted by a few questionable anon !votes, there are also several longtime editors who also !voted to keep the article. Multiple stories by BBC, the Telegraph, etc. adequately assert notability. Caknuck 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This is one of those days that makes me really wonder if WP:NOT#NEWS actually is policy, or is just something lacking community support stuck in a larger document that actually does have policy support. I think it is, and that the nomination was completely appropriate. There is no evidence that this thing was notable before the news, nor that it is notable apart from the news - exactly the sort of situation the policy is meant to address. What sourcing? The article cites one media report and one press release by one of the raiding agencies, and simultaneously links (pretty obviously inappropriately) to a number of other contemporaneous media reports, either copies of the wire service article or thinly disguised copies of that wire service article. That is all it had when the AFD was closed, and all it has now. This pretty obviously had no chance of being deleted currently, let's revisit in while after the article either meets standards or by failing to meet standards demonstrates that the subject is not and never was notable due to lack of reliable sourcing. Postpone consideration. GRBerry 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure even though it seems the AfD was infested with SPAs (this will only get worse if it runs the full five days). If the nominator had actually taken the time to read WP:NOT#NEWS it should have been clear that it has no bearing on the article. The Oink case has the potential to become a relevant footnote in the ongoing fight over downloadable music, and as such it is a meaningful, secondary-sourced article on a topic of ongoing relevance. ~ trialsanderrors 21:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Has the potential" is a speculative statement. You might want to read GRBerry's comment, as it's quite thorough and what I'm on about. Will ^(talk) 22:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Since I'm not writing an article here I can make as many speculative statements as I want. What matters here is that the article was sourced and there is no provision in WP:NOT#NEWS that mandates that the article has to be deleted. The nomination therefore failed to make a valid case, as the community (minus SPAs) correctly recognized. ~ trialsanderrors 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    - WP:NOT#NEWS is a subsection of WP:NOT, which details content that is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Also, CRYSTAL applies everywhere too, if not, then at least AfD. Will ^(talk) 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      - I don't think this discussion is worth continuing. ~ trialsanderrors 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      - WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't apply. This article isn't about a news event. Part of its noteworthiness comes from one. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply at all...if it doesn't exist anymore, why would it be crystal balling? Smashville 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        No, all of its noteworthiness has come from one. If not, why was the article only created yesterday? The crystal balling comment applies to trialsanderrors saying "it has the potential to be..." in defense of the article (quite easily, OiNK may wimper and we'll hear nothing of it again). Will ^(talk) 00:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Even if that is the case...you fail to accurately explain why being notable for one thing = no notability. Smashville 01:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        Notability for one thing effectively makes it a news article. Will ^(talk) 12:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        How? There are so many legitimate articles of people, places and things that are only notable for one thing. I know they are extreme cases, but these just came to mind since I'm reading a book about the Kennedy assassination: John Hinckley, Jr. is only notable for one thing, Lee Harvey Oswald is only notable for one thing. The argument that something is not notable because it's only notable for one thing is just...well...fallacious. Smashville 19:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn non-admin closure, reopen and hold for the 5 days. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse. The subject of the article is clearly notable. The close was a snowball keep. This is one of those bizarre things that seems to be happening on Wikipedia these days. People seem to have a novel, but growing, in terpretation of WP:NOT whereby anything relating to current events, pop culture, or newsworthy events is automatically assumed to be non-notable. That isn't what WP:NOT says, if anyone would care to unerstand it. I can't help but think people are making WP:POINTs about notability and non-administrative closures. If so, the proper place is the policy pages, not contentious AFD and DRV nominations. Wikidemo 13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Non-admin closer comment I closed this debate and I'm going to abstain between overturn and endorse. Please judge based on my judgment, not the fact I'm a non-admin. Computerjoe 's talk 15:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse - Snow close seemed appropriate. The keep consensus seem to think that WP:NOT#NEWS did not applied. It might be too soon to determine whether the topic is of historical notability and there seem to be no showing of the harm our work might cause. Google news seems to bring up a lot of information, but it is from two days ago (October 23, 2007 to now). There seems to be little coverage prior to October 23, 2007. OiNK's Pink Palace (www.oink.me.uk) barely has any news coverage and the only thing I found was Boulder Daily Camera, March 2, 2006, "Don't try this at home" as a one sentence mention of "British site OiNK's Pink Palace." (search Camera archives for BitTorrent). The website (www.oink.co.uk) seems to have little information as well. See [http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/display.var.1779471.0.0.php?act=complaint&cid=710789 this. The website (www.oink.cd) receives some hits. There seems to be enough reliable source information for the topic, but it may be difficult to locate since the OiNK's Pink Palace website kept changing. Then there are the similarly named websites that are unrelated: (1) www.oink.com, (2) www.oinke.com, (3) www.OinkRadio.com, (4) www.oink-oink.com, (5) www.oinkbaby.com, (6) www.oinkao.co.nz, (7) www.oinktoberfest.com, (8) www.oinkster.com. Give the article a month or two, then relist it at AfD so that the historical notability can be better judge and the SPAs a chance to move onto something else. -- Jreferee t/c 18:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse keep due to obvious consensus, although the article name should be revisited due to article naming conventions. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 23:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jamie Chandler – speedy close; duplicate nom of open item on 21 October – GRBerry 19:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The Jamie Chandler page should be undeleted because he has played for England U19's Jamie Chander plays for England U19's against Romania Sunderland06 19:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Dale Hample – Keep closure endorsed. John254 provides sound reasoning to support the consensus below. Although WP:V requires independent sourcing according to its letter (and this requirement is normally very firm and indisputable), it is within closer's discretion to apply a "reasonableness test" in any closure. The argument between "eventualism" and "immediatism" is tension at the core of Wiki-policy debates, never firmly settled in favor of either. For "eventualist" arguments to have any force at all, it must be permitted, at the very least, for sourced articles (not yet conforming to the strictest reading of WP:V, but still sourced) to be given some time and latitude to allow for further work before deletion is compelled. Although this article does not conform to the strictest reading of WP:V, it is sufficiently meritorious (and such sourcing is sufficiently likely to exist) such that its retention is not offensive to policy. GRBerry's point is interesting, and very possibly correct; however, the special cases of academics (if they do deserve special treatment) would be a subset of the reasonableness test applicable to all articles in equal measure. (Hence, no undue discrimination, to mollify Jreferee.) – Xoloz 20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The Dale Hample AfD was closed as keep. Wikipedia's policy requiring that articles be verifiable is not negotiable and cannot be superseded by editors' consensus. See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. The delete reasoning brought up early in the discussion that the topic lacked reasonable source material that was independent of Dale Hample for the article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. The keep reasoning responded by saying that Hample wrote books and journal article, which obviously are not independent of Dale Hample. A Wikipedia article is not a reward for producing scholarly works. A Wikipedia article about Dale Hample needs to be a compilation of reliable source material that conveys what others write about Dale Hample, not what Dale Hample writes about himself. The delete reasoning that the topic lacked reasonable source material that was independent of Dale Hample for the article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy was the stronger argument. Looking at strength of argument and Wikipedia's underlying verifiability policy, it appears that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly and the close should be overturned to delete. -- Jreferee t/c 14:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Was there a reason why you didn't discuss this with me before opening the DRV? I know it seems to have gone out of fashion but admins at least should try and show some courtesy. Concerning the close, Meh!I couldn't care less. It looked like a clear keep to me and I'm hardly shy about deleting articles if they don't meet policy and I have never counted heads. Then again, I went and helped out with a back log and cleared a half dozen unclosed AFDs at one go so its more than possible I got it wrong. If anyone wants to redo the close as a delete feel free - I'm really not bothered and I'm sure that we have better things to use our time at DRV considering. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Instead of posting a notice on your talk page about the close, I should have attempted to discuss the matter with you first. I apologize. Since it appears that you agree the close should have been delete, it may be appropriate for someone else to speedy close this DRV. -- Jreferee t/c 15:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying I couldn't care less not that its definitly wrong but any independent admin is welcome to redo the close if they feel like it. I think DDG's comments on notability in the AFD are persuasive and it may be that stubing the article to the verifiable bits is the best way forward but... whatever... I'm not fussed either way and I'm always open to external review. By the way, I wouldn't normally be this sensitive about the notification but I'm still feeling very bruised by the events at ANI over the weekend. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't discovered what the most thankless job is in Wikipedia, but I think AfD closer is in the top three and in my personal experience it is number one. Again, I really am sorry for not discussing the matter with you first. I won't repeat my mistake in the future. -- Jreferee t/c 15:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I used to be really big on V but since I got the shiny buttons, I find less and less people seem to take it as seriously so I really only considered notability in my close. You have a good eye for policy in deletion discussions and while I don't always agree with you, I certainly agree with you far more often than not. Lets just leave this for some passing admin to revisit the AFD and let us know what the correct answer was. I think we can close this then. No need to beat yourself up about it. We have plenty of other people to do that for us. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability does not require independence of the reliable source, see the WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB sections of WP:V. Notability normally requires independence. However, for academics as academics, the most significant indicator of importance is the publishing of papers in independent and peer-reviewed journals, not independent publishers of biographies. (See the WP:PROF guideline.) We thus sometimes end up, quite appropriately, with highly important and Wiki-notable academics where all that we can talk about is their work, not their life. The article could be better cited, but the discussion was reasonable and the close was correct. Endorse closure. GRBerry 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't thing we should be in the business of judging value of someone's intellectual contribution. To say that some academic's work is important but some rapper and cartoonist work is not important may cause discontent in those who contribute to Wikipedia and may eventually will lead us down the path to censorship. It is the discord and censorship that I am concerned about. Judging a topic only by the amount of reliable source material available seems the best way to have everyone feel that they are being treated fairly. However, I can appreciate this issue being a fundamental disagreement on how to implement Wikipedia's polices. -- Jreferee t/c 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How did you arrive at censorship? I'm not following... :O — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse closure. Jreferee is deliberately confusing WP:V and WP:N. It is incorrect and misleading to say that WP:V is not met when clearly we can verify that so-and-so has published x, y and z. Even if the publications are non-independent, if they can be verified through independent means, which journal articles certainly can be, policy is sufficiently covered. WP:N is a guideline, however, and consensus on interpreting guidelines is more flexible. Personally, I considered a !vote of delete here but ultimately chose not to participate. But if consensus is, for now, that WP:PROF is satisfied, I see no procedural issue with the close. Feel free to revisit the article in a few months, but the urgency of using DRV to get last-ditch shots at deletion is something I just don't see for this article. Perhaps if there had been a serious misunderstanding about the sources, but that does not appear to be the case. --Dhartung | Talk 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Dhartung, its not necessary to accuse Jreferee of bad faith because that's clearly not the case and its bordering on a personal attack. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure It can easily be verified that Hample has published numerous articles in scientific journals. The consensus was at AfD that Hample did in fact meet the notability guidelines set forth in WP:PROF a such the closing admin was correct. TonyBallioni 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and delete based on strength of argument. Nominator's reason seems straightforward unless someone can prove the subject meets WP:N. This could have been closed early, but it can't be now. --Coredesat 22:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment At the very least there was no consensus at the article, and as Spartaz noted DGG's argument for keep had some extremely good points; either way the article would have stayed. As such the close as keep was fine procedurally, and we should not overturn to delete when that was not the consensus reached in the AfD discussion. TonyBallioni 00:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I would have closed as no consensus reflecting the strength of argument, but as keep has more or less the same effect, endorse closure. However I fully expect this to show up on AFD again in the near future. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse The majority of the delete arguments were on the unrevised version of the article, which as submitted to AfD did not show notability because most of the content had been removed--not in bad faith, the original content was absurdly excessive, but the removal also removed the part that would show notability . After I restored the relevant portion, the other people there--almost all supported the article. The exception was one ed. who insisted on arguing that the editorships and journal publications were not significant despite explanations to him by several eds. that the comparisons he was using were not valid. I improved the article enough to pass, and can probably improve it further. As Dhartung says, the notability of an academic is proved by their accomplishments, and the publications are a matter of record and thus V is satisfied. Frankly, I am a little puzzled at the degree of vehemence shown at AfD and here about this particular article. DGG (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and delete one claim in his article was apparently overstated: he is not the editor of Argumentation and Advocacy, Randall A. Lake is according to the publication's website [[4]], he's just one of numerous editorial board. I won't go through the rest of his bio to ferret out other misclaims, but that's the problem with unsourced BLP's - a reasonable reader may (perhaps reasonably) think that the professor had inflated his position - academic fraud has been known to occur and we'd be making it seem as though this guy was party to some. Bleh. Better to delete it and get it right rather than this unsourced problem. Carlossuarez46 17:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- According to the journal's website, he's the Editor-in-Chief Elect and seems to be currently acting as the Editor-in-Chief -- see [5],[6]. The Editorial Board page states that it is "to be updated soon": [7] Espresso Addict 10:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure -- While Wikipedia:Verifiability does state in relevant part that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it", this does not imply that any article which lacks such sources at the time of an AFD closure must be deleted. Rather, where it is reasonably believed that such sources exist, the article may be retained, unless deletion would be warranted on other grounds. John254 03:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure. Those participating in the original AfD seem in agreement that he meets WP:PROF. He is verifiably Editor-in-Chief Elect of a major journal (see my note regarding this above), which seems to meet the requirement for 3rd party sources. Espresso Addict 10:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ramona Moore – There is a consensus below that the article should not be deleted; there is also strong consensus below (reading in a "bipartisan" fashion, beyond the boldfacing) that a non-admin closure was inappropriate. To reconcile these two widely-accepted points of agreement, it is best to adopt the suggestion offered and supported below to mark the debate as "no consensus", but to otherwise sustain the outcome. – Xoloz 20:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This AFD was non-admin closed without (and some would say against) consensus by John254. This closure was the subject of substantial discussion here. I request that, at a minimum, the AFD be relisted and allowed to run its course. (See also WP:DRV#Jennifer_Moore.) shoy 13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Right end state, wrong close The proper close for this was no consensus, as the participants did not agree on whether she is notable by our standards. The closer should have offered their thinking in debate, especially as it is partially correct and partially not. In particular, the closer doesn't understand WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. It is not a summary of the notability guideline, it is policy with higher standing and addressing different issues. (It was also forged, if I understand the history correctly, as part of deciding what to do about otherwise articles on non-notable victims of the 9/11 terrorism attacks, a notable event if there ever was one.) However, with DGGs argument unresponded to, the right close was no consensus. The difference between keep and no consensus is immaterial for DRV's purposes. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL appears to require further editing of the article to conform with the policy. GRBerry 14:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn, close as no consensus, and hand a WP:TROUT to John254. There obviously isn't a consensus whether WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL beat WP:N#General notability guideline. Personally, I think they do, but I appreciate that some other people think they don't. However, the closer allowed his personal opinion to supersede the apparent mixed bag of the community's opinions; the closure, as stated, clearly favors one side of the debate. Mind you, the difference between no consensus and keep can turn crucial in the potential future AfDs see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 3 and WP:NOTAGAIN. Duja► 14:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse - The AfD ran for six days, so the only remaining question is whether the closer interpreted the debate correctly. The news has run from April 2003 (the kidnapping date) to at least October 2006[8], so WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't support the deletion argument. Stories about kidnappings/crime victims eventually include biographical information to gain sympathy for the victim. Given the significant coverage about this topic, WP:BLP seems misapplied in the discussion and does not provide support to the deletion reasoning. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL applies to attempts to fondly remember a person by summarizing in Wikipedia their obituary, which this topic does not. The deletion reasoning lacked strength. The keep reasoning was clear and focused on the availability of sufficient reliable source material for the topic. The closer was correct in the interpretation of the discussion and even provided cogent summary of the closing thoughts. Trout whack to the non-admin for closing a mixed view AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and mark as no consensus a non-admin closure of an AfD discussion that was not an obvious keep. No consensus was reached one way or the other the editor should not have closed this as Keep. TonyBallioni 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Overturn and mark as no consensus. There was plenty of time for one to develop, so a relist would accomplish little, and renomination in a month would be unsurprising, so there's time to improve the article as well as incentive. But John254 is again overreaching with his non-admin closures, teasing a consensus out of none and adding a dollop of his own interpretation. I've got one, too, but I wouldn't presume to base a false consensus on it. --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and mark as no consensus. While this has the same effect, non-admins simply shouldn't close controversial AFDs such as this. If there is no consensus (which looks to be the case to me), it isn't non-controversial, and it should only be considered by an admin at that point. --Core desat 22:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure: A thoughtful and well reasoned closing argument in my opinion. But opinions do differ. Personally, I have no problems with experienced non-admins closing difficult AfD's provided they are knowledgeable of policy and the result does not require the deletion button -- Samir 23:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse my closure per Jreferee and Samir. John254 01:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Just don't do it again :) WP:DPR#NAC clearly states that you shouldn't be closing controversial AFDs, and any closure which goes completely against the weight of "votes" is necessarily controversial. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and delete. Six deletes, two keeps, one of which was without a reason - I can't draw any other conclusion. Agree with Coredesat insofar as he suggests that it is not non-controversial. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Mark as non-consensus which I think would have been the right closure. I do not think NOT MEMORIAL applies to articles like these, but I recognize that there is probably not consensus about how to handle them one way or another. I support the closers view about the article, but he should not have been the one to close it. DGG (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and delete crime victims and crime perps get the usual headlines demonstrated here, that doesn't make them notable - of the thousands of homicides in the US (and multiply that round the world) - this isn't a notable one. This article is a memorial. If you think otherwise, then you'd be glad to keep articles on her murderers, because they were party to the same notable events, and further ones such as trial, an apparent escape attempt and other things making them certainly more notable than she is. WP is not wiki policeblotter. This ought to be deleted and that was the consensus at afd, improperly overrided by the closer. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I think most such cases are appropriately handled by a single article, and when there are more, which way the merge should go is an editing decision depending on how the matter is commonly known. A few such cases will justify more than one article--I don't think this is one of them & anyway the problem doesnt arise here, since this is the single article. I really dont think we're on a slippery slope to multiple articles for each murder--that's a straw man entirely, no one would defend that. DGG (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Close, edit, and keep. In the continuing discussion of which criminal victims get media coverage, Moore's name is still cited. I believe that makes her notable (think of Kitty Genovese). However, this notability has been edited out of the article, so it needs to be re-edited. Oh, and complete agreement with DGG's point that the multiple-aticles argument is strawman. --Kayobee 15:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Chanel Petro-Nixon – Same result as Ramona Moore above: mark as no consensus, otherwise retain outcome. – Xoloz 20:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Right end state, wrong close The argument is the same as for Ramona above, here somewhat stronger due to the lower participation in the AFD. DGG's argument that this individual case is notable was not responded to, nor is it contradicted by the article. (This one definitely needs to be rewritten, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is not currently written in an encyclopedic style.) GRBerry 14:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Overturn, close as no consensus. See the reasoning at #Ramona Moore above. Duja► 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse - The AfD ran for six days, so the only remaining question is whether the closer interpreted the debate correctly. The news has run from June 2006 (the crime date) to at least September 2007[9] and there appears to be no reason to believe that new reliable source material won't be generated in the future. The deletion reasoning citing WP:NOT#NEWS is unsupported. Stories about crime victims eventually include biographical information to gain sympathy for the victim, particularly in a case such as this with widespread media coverage. Given the significant coverage about this topic, WP:BLP seems misapplied in the discussion and does not provide support to the deletion reasoning. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL applies to attempts to fondly remember a person by summarizing in Wikipedia their obituary, which this topic does not. The deletion reasoning lacked strength. The keep reasoning was clear and focused on the availability of sufficient reliable source material for the topic. The closer was correct in the interpretation of the discussion and even provided cogent summary of the closing thoughts. Trout whack to the non-admin for closing a mixed view AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 15:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn, mark as no consensus per my reasoning in #Ramona Moore above TonyBallioni 21:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse my closure per Jreferee. John254 01:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and mark as no consensus per reasoning in the Ramona Moore DRV above. --Core desat 06:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and mark as no consensus. This one has fewer in support of deleting, but there are insufficient keeps to be considered a keep result. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Mark as non-consensus just as above. I would have supported an non-admin close as non consensus, which was clearly the debate. Personally, my own view is that the article is a definite keep--somewhat different from some of the others, as there was evidence of the case being used as a matter of significant debate my major political figures reported in a great many RS newspapers sources over a period of years. Jreferees comment about why NOT#MEMORIAL does not apply is correct, and he understand that policy correctly--if others misunderstand, we perhaps need to adjust the wording. If there is going to be a policy about this type of articles, we need to develop a consensus on them, not have this sort of argument about each individual instance. DGG (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and delete as per my comments above. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Justine Ezarik – Keep closure endorsed. Unlike the above case, consensus below supports the view that this was an appropriate close for a non-admin to make. – Xoloz 20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This AFD was non-admin closed without (and some would say against) consensus by John254. This closure was the subject of substantial discussion here. I request that, at a minimum, the AFD be relisted and allowed to run its course.(See also WP:DRV#Jennifer_Moore.) shoy 13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

NOTE - AfD#1 was close as no consensus on 18 September 2007 and AfD#2 was listed on 15 October 2007. -- Jreferee t/c 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Urk, this one has two AFDs with closes of debatable quality. My first instinct was to award the closer of the first AFD a WP:TROUT as they had participated in the discussion prior to closing it. Their close, however, was correct for AFD1, and probably helped still the sockfest, so I think we should endorse the close of AFD1. I'm tentative on the close of AFD2; I'm not sure what the proper close was, but I'm sure that it wasn't delete, so the outcome is good enough for AFD2. GRBerry 14:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
While I don't think the consensus was to keep the article, I find substantial arguments for both sides sufficient to have closed the AfD as "no consensus". However, seeing as an "nc" defaults to "keep", I endorse this AfD's closure.
Full disclosure: I !voted to keep this article in this (and the previous) AfDiscussion. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Re-evaluate AfD The second AfD has shown more points to policy that this article should be kept. The AfD did serve the five-day debate period, but due to the revolving door of AfDs on this article, as well as the subject of the debates, I feel it needs to be closed by an experienced, non-involved admin. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 15:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Re-evaluate. Decision seems to have occurred against consensus, and non-admin closures in such situations are questionable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What was against consensus? Only SPAs were generally endorsing deletion. • Lawrence Cohen 15:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mofidy closure The wording needs to be endorsed that it was a firm "KEEP". The wording as used was a bit too open-ended, which can lead to further disruptive AfDs because some apparently dislike this person. The close was within consensus relatively, but there were ample sources demonstrating notability for three factors in chronological order: 1. her videos, 2. followed by the iPhone bill mess, 3. followed by her lifecasting as "iJustine". All the "Deletes" typically were SPAs.

Also, both AfDs were brought within one month of each other by User:Dr Tobias Funke, and his AfD nomination itself was a gross WP:BLP violation and attack (I had been considering blanking the AfD because of this). Did anyone read what he wrote?

"I am nominating this as I want to point out that this is nothing but a vanity page of what I called an one-trick pony of an attention seeking wannabe somebody, plus like the livestream according to somebody who informed me, the hype over that bill has died down and so has the amount of google links. Like I always said, this subject has nothing but the iPhone bill to show any other form of notability.

My perdiction of this nomination are, like the previous nom, the outcome of this nom will always come out as keep because that Justine woman is a attractive young woman and therefore it attracts deluded fanboys who will always vote keep for that reason. Plus excluding all blog hits, the number of google hits for her has dropped down to 9,000.

If this stays as keep, well next time, I think we will start an article of some NN attractive young woman as that is what internet always favors, source it and see how long that will stay, which will be forever. Dr Tobias Funke 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)"

There are over two dozen sources. As I said in the AfD, we have CNET News, BizTechTalk, San Francisco Chronicle x2, Sydney Morning Herald, NY Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Manila Mail - Phillipines, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review x2, Computerworld, USA Today x2, ABC News, CNN, Fox News, WTAE TV news - Pittsburgh, NPR news, WPXI - Pittsburgh, Yahoo! News, TG Daily, and the Wall Street Journal. That is 22 distinct sources. That's just today, and there is no reason to assume more won't come. WP:BLP1E certainly doesn't apply. Does that qualify under WP:N? • Lawrence Cohen 15:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse - The AfD ran for five days, so the only remaining question is whether the closer interpreted the debate correctly. This one was not even close. The article included an overwhelming amount of footnotes. The delete reasonings were "a vanity page" and that this topic was not important enough for Wikipedia even though it was important enough to numerous reliable sources. Wikipedia is not censored and finding a topic objectionable as being beneath a personal standard is not a basis to delete the article. The non-admin close was fine given the very weak delete reasoning and strong keep reasoning. -- Jreferee t/c 15:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-evaluate AfD per WikiLeon and Starblind. -- Craigtalbert 21:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse my closure -- Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Justine Ezarik has been the subject of massive coverage in a number of the national news media, as detailed at Justine Ezarik#References, clearly meeting the standard of notability articulated in the general notability guideline. Now, let's consider whether anything in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik (second nomination) would justify deleting the article anyway. Consider the statement by the user who nominated the article for deletion: "this is nothing but a vanity page of what I called an one-trick pony of an attention seeking wannabe somebody..."[10] Naturally, the personal attack against the subject of the article didn't constitute a compelling rationale for deletion, nor did the large number of single purpose accounts who supported deletion, using largely the same argument (and I use that term very loosely). By my count, 10 established users supported retention of the article, while only 6 established users supported deletion. The established users who supported retention of the article employed largely policy-based rationales in supporting retention of the article, citing the massive media coverage of Justine Ezarik as evidence of notability, while the established users who supported deletion employed purely subjective assertions of non-notability, bordering on WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. One user actually suggested that the article should be deleted, in part, "because I have never in my life heard of this person" [11]. There wasn't a snowball's chance in heck of finding a consensus for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik (second nomination). John254 01:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse -- What is the WP:POINT of this review? Even if the closure were modified to no consensus, the result is the same. It's hard to see good faith in the timing or the content of the nom, the delete votes were mostly novel interpretations of Notability and personal POV, and the close was clearly following the WP:N and WP:BIO guidelines, so the AfD in no way supports deletion. Dhaluza 09:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not thrilled with the allegation that this is a WP:POINTy DRV. There was consensus at AN that John254 had closed some AFDs controversially. Please don't shoot the messenger, all I want to happen is that we make sure we get this right for the sake of policy, not to mention the RealWorld^TM people involved. shoy 19:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  - You are asking for a third AfD, which would be pointless. If you just wanted to set the record straight, you could have asked for a change to no consensus, but the result would be the same, so that is pointless as well. Dhaluza 14:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse / My reevaluation: I'm an independent admin, and my take on the closure is that it is correct. Almost every single delete comment was fundamentally "I don't like it" argument, which really can't counterbalance that with so many independent, reliable sources, this person meets WP:N. The one exception was the comment about WP:NOT#NEWS - but I don't think that holds water either, because this is fundamentally not news coverage of anything. There used to be the notaion that notability is permanent, and some arguments were along those lines, but (1) I don't think that notion is as accepted as it once was, and (2) all these people are assuming that this person's fame is ephemeral, and that just isn't clear. Rather, I think based on how she has managed to get so much attention so far, she probably will continue to do so. Mango juice^talk 13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
endorse unlike the two items above, i did not express a view on the article at the AfD--this is not one of the usual types of subject that I watch for at AfD. Reading the article, it seems unimpeachably sourced, and notability demonstrated for a range of things extending over time. The AfD clearly showed it, and there was consensus to keep. John254 got it right this time. The deletes seemed to be that her accomplishments were not the sort of thing that is intrinsically notable, and that's totally against WP:N policy, which does not have that sort of exception for things individual people arent interested in. DGG (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn & delete per my discussions above. Carlossuarez46 17:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't find any of your other arguments on this page to be pertinent as to whether Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik (second nomination) was closed unduly or improperly. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse - I was a bit surprised with all this action {{oldafdmulti}} was not on the talk page, but I added it. The discussion was so ridiculous. The woman has been noted in almost every media outlet and people want to debate her notability. She is so notable. People were trying to argue that her 15 minutes of fame were up on a Monday after her picture was in the Wall Street Journal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse per DGG and Mangojuice. Also (and this is slightly-off topic), these types of nominations should ideally be speedy closed as soon as they are posted. The nomination statement was filled with violations of WP:BLP, WP:CIVIL, and WP:POINT, and a more civil and reasoned nomination statement would have set the tone for a more productive discussion. However, I endorse the keep closure and do not think relisting is necessary. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Adrian Clarkson – Deletion endorsed unanimously. Redirect currently in place is unrelated. – Xoloz 21:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This shouldn't have been deleted, the subject is notable enough as it is. Whitmorewolveyr 12:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion Unanimous AFD. No evidence in the deleted article, the AFD, or the nomination here that anyone independent of the subject has ever thought it worth recording anything about them in a reliable source. Without such independent sources, the subject is not notable by Wikipedia's standards for articles about people. GRBerry 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion nothing new here... if you had sources, we could pretty easily overturn such a low-participation AFD. --W.marsh 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse - The closer interpreted the AfD debate correctly and no substantial new information has been brought forth as a basis to restore the article. Adrian Clarkson (per the deleted article) is a 36 year old radio broadcaster in England. An October 6, 2004 Bristol Evening Post article reads, "Adrian Clarkson, operational manager of the NHS CFSMS in the South West." I'm not sure if they are the same person. There also is a Canadian Governor General Adrian Clarkson and there is the Adrian Clarkson public school in Ottawa, Canada. There seems to be no information on the Adrian Clarkson that was the subject of the deleted Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee t/c 15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse. AfD was unanimous and I highly doubt she's become that much more notable in the last 10 days. Smashville 19:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse & recreate as a redirect to Adrienne Clarkson (the former Governor General mentioned by Jref). Good call on the deletion, per the discussion this was a borderline CSD A7 case. Caknuck 20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've done this. I was trying to remember why the name sounded so familiar when I read JR's comment. Chick Bowen 03:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse my deletion unless the nominator or anyone else has sources. The redirect can actually be created right now by anyone, so that shouldn't be an issue. --Core desat 22:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse. Nominator, please note that DRV is a place to note when an article has been deleted improperly, i.e. proper process has not been followed, or (if the title has been protected), when additional sourcing or relevant information has come to light. It is not a place to take a second bite at the cherry to try and get a favourable result. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse This article could not reasonably be supported on the current material.DGG (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

DLM AG – Undeleted and userfied. No objection to restoration in main space once the article has sources and demonstrates it meets WP;CORP – Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Page was deleted without allowing time for discussion and despite a Hold On request. Page was under construction and was marked as Stub. There was no need for such hasty action because page was not libellous or copyvio. Biscuittin 11:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, what a laundry list of offered CSD criteria by the deleting admin. They cited WP:CSD#A1, WP:CSD#A3, WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. I note first that it is impossible for all of them to be true - if there is no context, it can't be spam, because the spam would provide sufficient context to allow expansion. Looking at the deleted article, it is reasonably certain that WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A3 didn't apply. WP:CSD#G11 also doesn't apply in my judgment. WP:CSD#A7 does apply, but if someone wants to continue working on the article, as was stated on the talk page and in the nomination, they should be allowed to as they might produce the required assertion of significance. Tagging for speedy deletion doesn't require immediate action, it is OK for an admin to leave the page tagged for a while to see what the expanded state of the article is. Userfy or overturn. WP:CORP is the standard the article will eventually need to meet. GRBerry 13:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Overturn and userfy, that was really hasty deletion; it wasn't either of the cited CSD criteria. It's difficult to tell whether the article would survive an AfD -- there's even a Google Scholar hit, (except that it's written by the company's CEO). Plenty of GHits, but it's difficult to tell the reliable sources from fan pages and business listings, and many are in German. It should be given a chance though. Duja► 15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse speedy deletion - DLM AG, Dampflokomotiv- und Maschinenfabrik, is a Swiss manufacturer of modern steam engines for railway and marine service. For a company to manufacture engines, the need a lot of money and important clients. Even so, WP:CSD#A7 does apply since the article itself lacked an assertion of importance/significance. Recreation of the article using reliable source material would be acceptable. -- Jreferee t/c 16:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of English Americans – Deletion overturned. At least for so long as the parent article English Americans continues to exist, it is presumed that a list of such people is a useful aid to reader comprehension and is encyclopedic (as established by the consensus at the latest German American DRV and those following.) While the agreement on this particular list found below is not as strong, an "argument for consistency" in treatment of the lists is offered and is reasonable. – Xoloz 21:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Overturn and undelete. This article-list was deleted for the same incorrect reasons that the since overturned List of German Americans was subsequently deleted. The deletion of this article was the 'trigger delete' leading to the subsequent deletion activity. 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 on a person. 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 03:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

NOTE - I created User:Jreferee/Lists of Ethnic Americans to give everyone an overview of where we regarding List of <x> Americans and where we might be headed. -- Jreferee t/c 16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Probably about 60 percent or more of the redlinked ethnic groups are implausible, like "Etruscan Americans," "Northamptonian Americans," etc. Badagnani 16:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, yet most of the plausible categories have their own list that is not deleted (with some notable, and unfortunate exceptions).Wikidemo 19:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse my deletion, nothing in the nomination is a reason for overturning a deletion. --Core desat 03:39, 24 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 English American background contained in this articles, and their research has consequently been hampered. As seen by the spate of similar deletions that followed, the deletion seems to have been conducted 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 this notable ethnic group 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, organized by occupation and date of birth and death, etc. Further, the argument used by previous "delete" voters that editors should not be the arbiters of who belongs to a particular ethnic group 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 04:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Yes, the List of <x> Americans debate rages on. Until AfDs start sufficiently discussing these lists in the context of (1) Wikipedia is not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, (2) purpose of lists, (3) list membership criteria, (4) adherence to that membership criteria, and (5) categories vs. list, we won't get any meaningful AfD results. The demotion of list membership criteria from a guideline requirement to an essay seems to be a significant blow to our ability to discuss these matters at AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. What is an "English American"? Someone who identifies as both English and American? Someone who is English but happens to have an American parent? Someone who is American but who happens to have an English parent? Is it simply someone from North America who claims some ancestry from England, in which case they would not be considered ethnically English by an English person actually from England. Is an English American simply an American who has culturally assimilated to the English way of life, and so identifies as English? Or is an English American simply someone who has some vague connection to both England and America and who some Wikipedia editor decided arbitrarily to place into the article (this seems the most likely scenario to me). Obviously this is not about citizenship because it is impossible to be a citizen of England. Alun 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It might be good if you read English American before commenting here. Badagnani 18:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, correctly closed as far as I can tell. Neil ☎ 09:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse, valid deletion. DRV is not a place to relist the same arguments in the hope of a more sympathetic reception. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Relist I think consensus has changed on this sort of article, and there is a reasonable chance the a new afd would give a different result. Consensus can change is usually given here as a reason for deleting somethingthat has survived multiple AfDs, but it works just as well the other way round. DGG (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse correct close. Carlossuarez46 17:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse. Seems like the correct close to me as well. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn While it was probably reasonable for the closer to presume consensus to delete based on the appearance of a majority opinion to delete this specific article, that was it—it was just opinion, not backed by policy or wider consensus. Consensus seems to be better represented by support for a number of ethnic-American lists, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans. The similar List of German Americans was recently restored per DRV; so even if there was once a consensus to delete, it appears that consensus is changing towards keeping such articles. The specific reasons given for deleting this list, e.g. "this is what categories are for," "too broad and unmaintainable," "loosely associated," "trivial intersection," "how English must one be to get listed here?" have all been considered in other AfDs and DRVs have been, or are now being, rejected by the community. Quite simply, it is clear from other AfD and DRV discussions that there is no general consensus to delete lists of notable people belonging to notable ethnic groups, and per deletion policy, this list should be restored. DHowell 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Five more similar lists which were deleted have just been overturned per DRV, unanimously, no less! This is now the only list of American ethnicity based on a single European country which remains deleted. DHowell 03:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn. The decision is inconsistent with decisions regarding other ethnicities and nationalities. If necessary a strong criterion can be drawn up, e.g. people born in the UK or who are former or current UK citizens who resided in the US. Something like that. But the question of English and other UK men and women and their role in the business and culture of the United States is an important, notable subject. It makes no sense to delete this yet leave Germans, Swiss, etc. Wikidemo 19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn. Most of the delete votes were based on the list being replaced by a category, but this is not a valid reason to delete in and of itself because categories and lists are different things. No one gave a cogent explanation of why a category was sufficient in this case, and since a category cannot contain redlinks, it probably is not. The only other delete argument was that this is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, but there are numerous books written on various ethnic groups in America that include examples, so that is sufficient to establish the encyclopedic suitability of these lists. Dhaluza 14:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak overturn per Wikidemo and Dhaluza. Although I can't fault the closure, I think that the general fate of these types of lists should be considered outside the framework of 5-day deletion debates. What is needed is a general consensus about if/when these lists are appropriate and how they should be structured. I know there is an ongoing discussion somewhere, but I forget the exact link. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

T-Rock – Deletion endorsed and protected blank. – Xoloz 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Article meets criteria 5 and 6 of WP:MUSIC. 5: Was part of Choices: The Album, Three 6 Mafia Presents: Hypnotize Camp Posse and Rock Solid/4:20, all released on Hypnotize Minds a major independent label. Rock Solid/4:20 also charted on two Billboard charts. Hypnotize Camp Posse charted as well. 6: Was part of Prophet Posse and an affiliate of Three 6 Mafia for a few years. This reason was called "irrelevant" and was deleted while in the process of adding sources. Sources: All Music Guide page Album info More album info To show he was on Body Parts T Rex | talk 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I corrected the links to the AfD discussions. I had salted both T-Rock and T-Rock® due to editor User:L-Burna continually reposting the article. Caknuck 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion per Caknuck's comment and the lack of reliable sources, as mentioned in both AFDs. --Core desat 02:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse - WP:CSD overrides WP:N. Will ^(talk) 13:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, good content always wins over csd - which is supposed to be for non-controversial cases. Deletion of good content is always controversial. In this case G4 only applies if the same content as was deleted at the AFD is readded. Since we are still waiting for the good content that is verifiable, well sourced and clearly demonstrates notability this was a good call by the deleting admin. But that's fine, we can wait until good content exists in user space before we unsalt. Endorse Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  - It actually was the same. Will ^(talk) 16:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment If the editor "was in the process of adding sources", presumably they know what those sources are and can mention them now. Without the sources, this review doesn't stand a chance. With sources, it will depend on the sources. GRBerry 13:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse and salt The closer interpreted the AfD#2 discussion correctly and the subsequent CSD A4 speedy deletion was correct. A Wikipedia article is not an award and meeting criteria 5 and 6 of WP:MUSIC is not relevant without reliable source material. Please list the sources in this DRV so that they may be reviewed. Swithcing the name of the recreated article so that it avoids linking to the prior AfDs seems reason enought to salt T-Rock, T-Rock®, Antonio Washington, Mr. Washington, Young David, T-Rock da Rockafela, and Prince of the Park. Comment - Even though T-Rock is trademarked, that trademark only applies to sound recordings and musical video recordings. If you use the ® after T-Rock when you refer to the person, it seems like you might lose your trademark for misusing it. You should contact your attorney, Melissa E. McMorries,[12] to get some clarification and be thankful that Wikipedia deleted the article. -- Jreferee t/c 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would prefer that T-Rock be the restored version or at least the unsalted version as it is his most commonly referred to name. T Rex | talk 19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, any article title with a registered trademark sign in it is already on the wrong path. AFDs were interpreted correctly and G4 applied properly. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Joey Shabadoo – Undeleted and relisted. The nominator is reminded to comment on decisions, not on those making them. – Chick Bowen 20:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I have asked the admin who closed the page already, long story short this AfD was not a speedy, nor did anyone, including the closing admin, suggest as much, so it should be given 5 days (not less than 24 hours), especially after the submarine nomination I got, with no notice. Regardless of the merits, this is a matter of principle. It may or may not lose the AfD vote, but this premature closure, after no notice being given, smacks of something quite wrong, and I would like it to get the same 5 days everything else gets. JJJ999 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Relist Five hours and only six discussion participants is hardly enough to build up a case for WP:SNOW. And while I support relisting the AfD out of procedure's sake, I doubt the article can stand on its own merit. Caknuck 06:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Relist SNOW closures are almost never appropriate in less than 24 hours. In a case like this, where the issue is whether reliable sources exist, they are never appropriate before sources are demonstrated to exist. One of the basic reasons AFD is a process that takes time is because, even when sources exist, they are not necessarilly online or right at hand, and the AFD time allows real research to be done. The early closing of this, or any comparable, AFD is a massive flaw that makes the close completely invalid. Award the closer a WP:TROUT for getting this so wrong. (The issue of notice is irrelevant; there is no requirement for notice.) GRBerry 13:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Relist WP:SNOW is for plowing through unneeded process because no one objects excepts on process grounds, it's not something with which to steamroll objections to ensure you get your way. At any rate, redirecting to The Last Temptation of Homer as a plausible search term seems in order here, as much fun as it is to delete anything related to pop culture. --W.marsh 14:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Relist - Obviously and per above posts. JJJ999, your behavior towards others is causing them to react negatively, and that is impacting Wikipedia, such as by us having to spend time addressing this matter at DRV. Please reconsider my post on your talk page. Comment - There are few reliable sources that even mention Joey Shabadoo. Toronto Star May 20, 2004 writes "Joey Jojo Shabadoo The Friends star hangs out with his new ... friends? Betrayer!" The Memphis Flyer April 21, 2005 writes, "That disc doesn't have its official release party until Shabadoo's mastermind Joey Pegram (Hot Monkey, 611, Joint Chiefs) takes the stage at the Buccaneer on Friday, April 22nd." That's about it. -- Jreferee t/c 17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Despite trying to politely engage with him on his talk page, DF has refused to reply to me, which shows bad faith right there. Can someone more senior please have a word to him? Given I've never even spoken to DF before, nor has he to me, I don't see how this has anything to do with past behaviour. As for searching reliable sources Jeferee, you have to remember, the name is a variant, so it might be "Joe Shabadoo" or "Joey Joe Joe" etc. At any rate, I am glad for the support for relisting.JJJ999 22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you keep assuming bad faith? Smashville 23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  - I went to his userpage, posted over a day ago, then posted again. He has since been posting other stuff, but has been unwilling to reply to my repeated query in any way, shape or form. That's not bad faith on my part, just the application of common sense to facts. He is obviously not interested in discussing it, and is being rude.JJJ999 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Don't say you didn't assume bad faith because you straight up said, "DF has refused to reply to me, which shows bad faith right there." Perhaps he just didn't feel the need to respond, Smashville 01:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Well, what else do you call a 5 hour closure which doesn't even invoke SNOW or speedy, and which he won't reply to. If that isn't bad faith, what is it? Laziness? Contempt? Whatever you want to characterise it as, it all falls under the heading of poor form, which was the gist of my above point.JJJ999 01:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        
        For the record, I meant to reply to him earlier but didn't get around to it. I have since fixed that. DS 17:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- To JJJ999: There is nobody "more senior" as admins go, we are all on an equal level and answerable to the community (and, nominally, Jimbo Wales. Indeed, we admins are just regular users with a couple of extra buttons. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and relist, six hours isn't enough for a consensus to form. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Relist. I haven't put my vote in, but I have no problem with relisting. I do have a problem with the continuous bad faith assumptions. Smashville 16:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Relist JJJ is right--there was not sufficient time allowed., considering the nature of the arguments presented in the short period. It was being asserted, and denied, that the article could be adequately sourced, and there should have been a full chance to do so. That's one of the functions of AfD--it doesn't always happen by a long shot, but it sometimes does. I'm a little skeptical about this article, but I want an opportunity to see what is proposed in the way of further sources. DGG (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Relist it wasn't a straight speedy if I recall correctly. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and relist per W.marsh. Sarah 09:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Relist As the original nominator of the article, I'd be fine with a relist for procedural purposes. I'm extremely dubious that this article will actually pass an AFD even given 5 days on strict policy grounds as it totally fails WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NEO, WP:RS and every other applicable policy/guideline. but we can at least afford it a few more days to exist. I will say though that the originator has a bit more to learn about WP:AGF.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 24 October 2007

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search