Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 23

Order of the Phoenix (organisation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This AFD closing as "Keep" was an egregious error. There was a clear consensus to delete the article, unless you vote count, and a non-admin made the opposite decision. The deletion reasoning was based upon failure of several policies and guideline, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:N, WP:FICT. The arguments for keeping were WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:WAX, WP:ONLYESSAY, WP:NOTINHERITED. Some had suggested invoking WP:IAR, but only provided the circular reasoning of ignoring the rule to keep the article which we must ignore the rule to do. Jay32183 23:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete. I have read this five times. There is not one legitimate keep argument. Godwin was even invoked as a keep argument. Smashville 23:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• And if this counts for anything, it was then quickly retracted when the user realized how stupid it was. --Kizor 23:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse keep, as there were many strong keep arguments and there was clearly no consensus to delete, plus no clear policy violations. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and send Jay32183 to Azkaban. This issue has come up plenty of times - here, here, here, and here to list a few. The bottom line is that the relevant guidelines are too fuzzy and arguably inconsistent to be of much use, and articles about stories which sell 325+ million books are eligible for exceptions. Consensus was to keep, and precedent supports a keep. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Guidelines are intended as guidelines, not rigid policy. Notability of specifics in books & book series does depend on notability of the book or series. DGG (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep This is the epitome of no consensus - a cornucopia of users throwing UPPERCASE letters at each other. the_undertow ^talk 02:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep, I hate to say it, but there was no real consensus here. --Coredesat 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment My main concern, and the reason I would suggest an overturn, is because of the non-admin closing. To be blunt, this is one AfD that an admin should have handled as there wasn't a unambiguous keep when taking policy and guidelines into account. --Farix (Talk) 02:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've been trying to figure out what the best remedy should be to deal with this improper non-admin closure. The most like admin closing would be "no consensus", so the article would have been kept anyways. I also don't think it is productive to relist the article either. Therefor, I suggest that the original AfD be reopened to allow for an admin closing. --Farix (Talk) 12:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Farix is right that this shouldn't really have been a non-admin closure. Still, even on the weight of the arguments, I just don't see a consensus to delete. I don't think that relisting at this time would be worthwhile. Much better to wait a month or two and see if the article improves. Eluchil404 03:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • How is every single keep being an invalid argument combined with a valid deletion reason not a consensus to delete? Jay32183 03:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • If one side was obviously more valid than the other, why did it fail to convince 13 of 17 editors? — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      • AfD isn't a vote. There was not one valid keep argument. Otherwise, by your logic, any article that goes through AfD with even one keep vote should be closed as a keep. Smashville
        • Huh? Where on earth did I say that? AfD isn't a vote, no, but it's not an autocracy either. We do aim to follow consensus in unexceptional circumstances, and consensus in this case did not favor deletion. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that every single keep vote was completely invalid. Weak, perhaps; invalid, no. In particular, the argument was not made that the information was completely inappropriate to Wikipedia just that it was in the wrong place. Deletion is rarely called for in such cases. Even when, as here, there is little or nothing worth merging, a redirect is often appropriate. Also, I generally consider it the purview of wikiprojects and concerned editors how best to divide up information between articles. "We have too much Xcruft and these minor articles should be deleted." Is a fairly common but exceptionally poor argument at AfD since the result is almost always prune and merge which does not require, and is rarely helped by, an acrimonious deletion discussion. Eluchil404 06:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Redirecting for the sake of not having to delete an article that shouldn't be kept, merged, or transwikied is a terrible idea. In this case, the redirect is not a reasonable search term or link. Why would anyone add (organisation) or (organiztion) to the end of Order of the Phoenix when simply typing "Order of the Phoenix" will already give the article the person is looking for? Also, how does "strong argument" not beat "weak argument" when you aren't vote counting? Jay32183 20:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Throwing uppercase letters at the "keep"s does not render them invalid. It is beyond the pale that Harry Potter is a major series, and that the Order of the Phoenix plays a major role in that series, as significant as any of the major characters. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, while I may sympathize with the nom that this really isn't encyclopedic content and probably shouldn't be an article, it's impossible to ignore the volume of commenters whose opinion is just the opposite of it. While I may not agree with the consensus here, the consensus was still very obviously to keep. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus is never determined by vote counting. It is determined by the strength of the argument. Vote counters should never be allowed adminship because it allows for "WP:IAR, because I feel like it" to be an unbeatable argument, no matter what is being discussed. Ignoring policies and guidelines requires good reasons backed by strong arguments. If you can't actually explain why a rule should be ignored, then it probably shouldn't be. Jay32183 20:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am quite aware of what consensus is and is not. The majority of the voters argue that the topic is notable for being a notable part of a notable series. Whether or not I agree with them is not important; the fact that I am in the vast minority in disagreeing with them is important. These were not just "Me too" votes but well thought out arguments for keeping the article. To discard such a tide of sentiment in favor of hyperstrict reading of the rules would be doing a gross disservice to Wikipedia and the concept of community editing. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• None of the keeps were well thought out. In fact, every one of them was factually incorrect. Notability is not inherited. This wasn't a discussion of people disagreeing, there was a right and wrong here. It's not a strict application of rules. Strict application would be following the exact letter of the law. However, people were ignoring the spirit of the law with information that indicated they had no clue what that spirit was. Even if the specifics of WP:FICT are unclear, the spirit of the guideline is quite clear. That spirit is that "importance to the plot is not how articles on fictional topics are decided" which is a direct result of WP:NOT#PLOT. WP:IAR is the rule most often applied to strictly. People become obsessed with being able to ignore a rule without considering why a rule should be ignored or not. Jay32183 21:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Jay, please just stop trying to summarize the AfD for others. You've demonstrated that you are not willing to do so without cherry-picking, caricaturizing, misrepresenting, or otherwise belittling the arguments on the side you disagree with. It's fine to criticize particular arguments, but blanket assertions like "every one of [the keep !votes] was factually incorrect" are really unhelpful. All of us can read the AfD, and I trust that all DRV participants would do so. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Coming to any conclusion other than "delete" means you did not understand the AFD. I did not disagree with anyone during the AFD, people were wrong and I corrected them. There was an undeniable consensus to delete. Strong arguments trump numbers every time. Jay32183 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• I actually see no consensus to delete in the AfD because there where only four editors for deletion, counting the nomination itself. At the same time, I see enough keep arguments are just strong enough to make this a border line between no consensus and keep. The real problem, though is that the closing was done by a non-admin That's part of the problem with coming up with a remedy for this particular situation. That is why I'm suggestion an admin re-close using the existing comments. --Farix (Talk) 01:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Let me also add that while admins are allowed to give less weight to week arguments, such as those detailed in WP:ATA, that doesn't mean they must completely ignore them. At some point, numbers do matter. It is only when dealing with WP:V or when there is a case of sock puppetry at an admin can completely ignore the numbers. --Farix (Talk) 01:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Numbers never matter when determining consensus. Admins should not ignore weak arguments, they should point out that they are weak and inform the people making them not to make them. An invalid argument must never be used to determine the outcome of the AFD. Wikipedia is not a democracy, there is no majority rule. In this instance, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOR, and WP:V were concerns, so by your own argument this should be overturned and deleted. Jay32183 02:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Numbers never matter when determining consensus" is going rather far. If you look "consensus" up in a dictionary, you will find nothing directly related to strength of argument, let alone an individual's opinion on strength of argument. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, but that doesn't mean that we should throw WP:CONSENSUS out the window and ignore the opinions of an overwhelming 13 editors because we don't like the outcome. Doing so would fly in the face of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DP, WP:DGFA, and a clear six-year-old precedent of acting by the will of the community. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• The AFD doesn't reflect the will of the community if you only count the votes, because such a small percentage of Wikipedia participated. Existing policies and guidelines already have consensus. The will of the community is reflected in the policies and guidelines written by the community. We can't let fanboys who do not understand the spirit of Wikipedia destroy that just because there were more of them who bothered to show up to a particular discussion and only spouted nonsense. The reason vote counting doesn't determine consensus is that so few people participate that it creates a sampling error. It's a safe assumption that the people saying nothing against the existing policies and guidelines have no problem with them. 17 people wanting to throw WP:NOT#PLOT out the window because they want to do whatever they want, is not a consensus just because a group smaller than 17 pointed out the flaw of their argument. Jay32183 05:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would agree with that principle on issues such as image copyright policy or BLP; those policies are fundamental and relate to Wikipedia's legal obligations, and therefore can't be overruled by the consensus on a single AfD. However, I also agree with xDanielx that numbers do matter in determining consensus; the closing admin should not make a decision on his/her own, but should attempt to determine a rough consensus. Such a consensus is not always present, which is why we have the No consensus result (which many admins should be willing to use more often, IMO). Notability guidelines are just guidelines, and although they do enjoy a broad community consensus, they can be disregarded to some extent where there's a clear consensus to do so on an AfD. As to WP:NOT, it's so vague as to be completely unhelpful in deletion discussions. Walton^One 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• There is not a clear consensus to disregard them in this case. People asking for them to be disregarded does not create a consensus. There needs to be a strong reason to disregard guidelines. The "it's a guideline, not a policy" is one of the bad arguments that is not supposed to be made during an AFD. I specifically linked to WP:ONLYESSAY in the nomination because I did not want people making that terrible argument again here. There are plenty of admins who do terrible jobs because they don't know how to analyze a discussion. Vote counting is not a part of that, especially when the majority aren't making a valid point. "The argument is weak but a lot of people made it" does not justify the action they were calling for. No consensus closures only make sense when both sides of the discussion have a point. In this case one side had really strong arguments based on the spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the other made weak arguments for disregarding policy and guideline simply because they felt like it. WP:NOT#PLOT is clear as day, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to consist only of plot. Other parts of WP:NOT may not be as clear, but they weren't part of the issue, so that doesn't matter. Jay32183 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Except for a few situations, the outcome of an AfD discussion is based on a *rough* consensus, not on which side has the better or stronger argument. WP:ATA only describes week arguments, it can not declare those arguments as invalid. --Farix (Talk) 00:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• WP:ATA or not, every argument presented for keeping the article is invalid. The "keeps" have a collective weight of zero. The only way that there isn't a consensus to delete is to vote count because the people saying delete were the only ones to say anything meaningful. Vote counting is stupid because Wikipedia is not a democracy. Jay32183 02:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Jay, if you haven't done so already, I'd strongly suggest that you participate in the development of some guideline -- say WP:NEO for example. You may be surprised with how easy it is for a small handful of regular editors to push their own views into guidelines that will later be cited in AfDs and other discussions with many more participants than the guideline itself. That's not so say that I'm particularly convinced the article in question violated a guideline -- WP:FICTION, WP:NOT#PLOT and the like are quite vague, and including the article is arguably supported by WP:SS and similar guidelines. But if we were to suppose that it did violate some guideline, it would certainly still be reasonable to make an exception for one of the most widely-read stories of all time, especially when that action is supported by a loud consensus in the AfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• How can you claim "reasonable exception" when no reason for the exception was ever presented. WP:IAR is the single most abused policy on Wikipedia because most people have no clue what it means. The claim for this article would be "We need to ignore this rule to keep this article, so we should ignore this rule to keep the article". That's circular logic. WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICTION are both clear as day to anyone intelligent. Articles must contain more than just plot summaries. Because of WP:V and WP:NOR this additional content must be sourced. Although WP:SS does not specifically state that the sub-articles must meet the inclusion criteria, the sub-articles do have to meet the inclusion criteria. Using WP:SS is an attempt to claim that notability is inherited. Wikipedia's general definition of notability is "significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic". That is something impossible to inherit. Having a lot of people saying something that is incorrect doesn't make it right. An overwhelming majority could be arranged to claim that 2 + 2 = 19. By your logic of numbers mattering in determining consensus, Wikipedia would never be able to claim that 2 + 2 = 4 because the consensus was against it. You may want to look through the old ArbCom decisions where you can find that consensus based decisions are supposed to come from admins and bureaucrats analyzing the discussion, not simply counting the votes. Jay32183 05:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. I agree that the closure should have been a No consensus rather than Keep (and therefore should probably not have been closed by a non-admin, although I trust Dihydrogen's judgment); however, there would be no point in re-opening on those grounds. There certainly wasn't a consensus to delete, so the outcome was correct. Walton^One 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - perhaps there needs to be a refresher course on what these deletion debates are decided by. It is not a vote count, it is who has a better and more valid argument. An article that asserts no notablity, and whose defenders can demonstrate none, have lost the debate, and they can marshall a million keep votes if they wish, it is still not notable, has no referencing or out of universe perspective, is entirely a retelling of the harry potter plots, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 20:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Concur and Imprison nominator per Walton and Daniel. Walton's comment pretty much sums up the entire argument in a no-nonsense fashion, and one I wholeheartedly agree with. Endorse keep and throw away the key. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- I think I hear an echo going around.....Why would you even want to get this outta here in the first place? Keyblade Mage 23:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage
  • You mean aside from the article being inconsistent with policy and guideline, with no means of correcting the problem, and no reason presented as to why the spirit of the policies and guidelines does not apply in this case? Jay32183 00:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep. I'd close as keep as an admin too, not no consensus, clear keep. "Clear consensus unless you vote count?" What is that, pray tell, consensus among the few people who agree with the nominator? Not even close to a consensus to a delete. There were fine arguments presented for keeping, including "Effectively collects information from the 7 book articles into 1 place" (that's called Wikipedia:summary style, for those wanting chapter and verse from guidelines), "the subject of numerous book reviews, and Time magazine hyping" (that's called Wikipedia:Notability), "extremely important part of an extremely notable series of literature" (that's called Wikipedia:Ignore all rules), "satisfies WP:FICT" (that's called ... :-) ), and those are just from the first few argument. That you don't agree with the arguments doesn't mean they weren't made. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That is not what summary style is, that's what WP:NOT#PLOT says not to do. Summary style is actually about how to rewrite a section of the main article after an appropriate split, not a suggestion to split anything to shorten an article, some stuff should be outright deleted. The book and the film, not the organization, have been subjects of numerous reviews. That is not a justification to ignore all rules because it is WP:NOTINHERITED, one of the agruments we're supposed to avoid because of its weakness. Does not satisfy WP:FICT. WP:FICT says the article must contain sourced real world content. The article contains no real world content, and no sources exist to provide it. The users claiming WP:FICT was satisfied were lying or can't read. There was not one "keep" i disagreed with, because everyone was factually incorrect. Agreeing and disagreeing has to do with opinions, not facts. Existing policies and guidelines have consensus, the small scale discussion cannot overturn that on a whim. We wouldn't have this problem if people knew the difference between Wikipedia and the Harry Potter Wiki at Wikia. Jay32183 17:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep. User:AnonEMouse says it quite well, and I agree - just because you don't agree with the argument does not invalidate it. My original argument in the AfD itself isn't very clear, but many of the other "keep"s are. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 18:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You are incorrect. Every argument for keeping was factually incorrect and things that should never be said in an AFD. It isn't a matter of disagreement. Jay32183 21:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Ultra Endorse KeepIamhungey 22:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not edit the comments of other users. Also, just like an AFD, this is not a vote. Endorse and overturn don't mean anything if not accompanied by commentary. 00:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep- if stuff like this isn't noteworthy, what is? Oh no! More info! Run... this has gotten silly, and is probably someones personal grudge.JJJ999 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a personal grudge. AFDs are never, under any circumstance, closed by vote counting. Interpreting the debate, no one made any valid claim as to why the article should be kept. People did ask for a reasonable exception but did not present a reason for the exception other than that they wanted it. People getting together with no reason does not create a reason. Jay32183 00:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete Clearly fails the standard laid out at WP:FICT; the accumulation of fan-driven votes cannot trump wider policy & guideline. At a minimum, should not have been closed by a non-admin. Eusebeus 22:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep I can't find anywhere in consensus policy where it says we ignore arguments simply because a few editors believe they are invalid. Wikipedia policy and guidelines flow from consensus, not the other way around. Insisting that one's own interpretation of policy is the only correct one and all others are wrong is also unhelpful. If many multiple editors are independently coming to the conclusion that a certain page doesn't violate policy, well then that is the consensus (or at least it shows a lack of consensus if there are a similar number of editors who disagree), and if policy is often being interpreted in ways that are against consensus, then that policy ought to be changed. That is a major reason why we have the policy to ignore all rules. DHowell 06:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not that a few editors believe that the keep arguments are invalid, they are invalid. They are based on incorrect information and faulty logic. No one has presented a different interpretation of any of the relevant policies or guideline. Ignoring rules for the sake of ignoring rules is contrary to the intent of WP:IAR. The WP:IAR argument is always presented as circular logic, also invalid. Jay32183 17:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You have not demonstrated that the arguments are invalid or based on incorrect information and faulty logic. Proof by assertion is not a valid argument either. Everyone who argued to "keep" is presenting a different interpretation of policies and guidelines than you, or they wouldn't argue to keep. No one is ignoring rules for the sake of ignoring rules, they are ignoring rules to improve and maintain the encyclopedia, exactly what WP:IAR says to do. Now you may believe that this article does not improve the encyclopedia, but that is merely your opinion, not an iron-clad "fact" which no one can deny. I also believe your interpretation of consensus is itself circular; you seem to be saying that "consensus" means only arguments which are validly based in policy may be considered. But as policy is determined by consensus, the argument is that consensus means only arguments which are validly based on consensus, making it a circular argument. DHowell 02:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and Keep I think that this article is needed in Wikipedia. You cannot delete it. No way. I think it is a slightly informative article, although it could do with improving, it should be kept. Also, I don't see why people have nominated this for deletion. How strange. --MacMad (talk · contribs)  17:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you didn't read the discussion. Jay32183 17:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The article was created and speedy deleted under A7 a couple of times, the author provided information to suggest notability, FisherQueen undeleted it, and Jaranda speedied it again as A7. Because the article mentioned that the company won a CODiE Award (and to a lesser extent because it was listed on redherring.com's top 100 private companies in Europe), I think that it did assert notability, might represent a notable company, and should be restored. WODUP 22:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• overturn deletion. A7 used improperly. Awards definitelty assert notability. `'Míkka 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn the A7 delete if the assertation of notability is there, however it still could go to AfD, and I did see one speedy as spam...is that one still applicable? --UsaSatsui 07:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It was speedied under A7 and G11 at different times. The creator has few edits outside this article. Jaranda might have used the wrong deletion summary. This does not worry me. The versions I looked at feel too advertorial to escape CSD G11. Useful for buzzword bingo though: "the visionaries quadrant of the Magic Quadrant" is almost awe inspiring. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Gartner's Magic Quadrant is one of the most referenced research tools in the IT industry. Look up Gartner or Magic Quadrant on Wikipedia and you can see for yourself.--Brittcooper 10:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion under WP:CSD#G11. The article would need to be totally rewritten to be useful. Visionaries quadrant is not that significant; these are the companies/products that are long on ideas and short on ability to execute. Leader's quadrant is the quadrant for companies that are strong on both. The Gartner reports are also poor for satisfying WP:V, as they are not readily available without paying for them. It might be possible to write an article, but since it needs to be done afresh, best to do it that way. The red herring award source [1] is enough to support a stub, but it needs a Wikipedian to write the article. GRBerry 02:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. There is a conflict of interest here with Britt Cooper, and while there could be an acceptable article, someone else should write it. WODUP 06:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The Philosophers' Football Match (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn and delete - I cannot see how the admin could have come to a keep closure by any other means but simple vote-counting. The arguments in favor of keeping were: more worthwhile than anime fancruft; well organized; not a hoax; philosophy students have heard of it; and "clearly notable" with no sources to back up the assertion other than a book which has the words "Monty Python" and "Philosophy" in the title. Meanwhile, the arguments for deletion were violation of WP:N and WP:PLOT, which were not refuted by any of the keepers. This is a clear-cut case of the closing admin's failing to evaluate the arguments and simply totting up the numbers. I asked the admin to explain his/her reasoning further and was pretty much told to stop bugging him/her. Otto4711 20:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And it's also a clear case of an AfD nominator moaning that the community disagreed with him, and wanting it his way, against consensus. And I'm a he, isn't it obvious? Maxim_(talk) 20:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't make assumptions about the sex of anonymous people on the internet. And, the last time I checked, "consensus" on here didn't mean majority rule. It meant that closing admins were supposed to evaluate the quality of the arguments and not just count up the !votes. Are you seriously suggesting that "it's well organized" or "it's not a hoax" is an answer "there are no reliable sources that attest to the notability of the subject"? Are you saying that "it's better than anime fancruft" is more compelling than "it's a plot summary with no real-world context or significance"? Or did you just look at the words in bold before coming to your conclusion? Otto4711 20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse decision to keep article as there was clearly no consensus to delete and reasonable arguments were provided to keep the article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• "It's well-organized" is not a reasonable argument in the face of actual policy and guidelines. Otto4711 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. It received arguably substantial coverage in a book, so keep !votes were reasonable. In any case, it's appropriate to make exceptions to the most general notability guideline, which covers over 2 million articles. The subject is very famous in philosophy culture; ask a random editor in the field and s/he will most likely agree. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Where, specifically, in the book you link to is this particular sketch the subject of substantial coverage? Since when exactly is "a philospoher has heard of it" a substitute for reliable sources? Otto4711 03:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• The feature performance film Live at the Hollywood Bowl (1982) offers a world-class football match ("The Philosophers' Football Match") between famous German and English philosophers, including characteristic quotes (and footwork) from each.[n11] Ben Johnson may have been certain that his audience would be familiar with his historical allusions and included them as accurately as possible; Shakespeare wrote for the public and still referenced the classics throughout his works; and Monty Python created a furious mish-mash of contemporary culture and historical allusion to form a frenetic pastiche for their audience -- the television-viewing public. From the endnote: "The Philosophers' Football Sketch" was a film made for Bavarian TV and shot completely in German. The Pythons made two such films for the German market. See Johnson, 20 Years 161-6, 190. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Two sentences in a book is not substantial coverage. It is trivial. The idea that two sentences in a book establishes notability is ridiculous, and is more or less specifically addressed in the guideline: The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992-01-06. ) is plainly trivial. Otto4711 01:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't make sense to count sentences based on occurrences of some particular string of words. I didn't claim that this was a clear case of substantial coverage (note: "arguably substantial"), but all the same, please don't underexaggerate the coverage that there is. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Arguably" is a weasel word. One can argue anything thus everything is "arguable." Otto4711 12:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• A qualifier is not inherently a weasel word. A weasel word creates a discrepancy between an intended implicit meaning and a less obvious literal meaning. There's nothing wrong with qualifying a contentious premise with a word like "arguably," as long as it's used clearly and reasonably. If I said that "the word is arguably flat," I would be using "arguably" as a weasel word. If I say that "running is arguably a better form of exercise than swimming because the former is a high-impact sport," I'm not using "arguably" as a weasel word. I don't think there was anything deceptive or otherwise misleading about my claim. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm really concerned that the general notability guideline is fallaciously gaining momentum as an end in itself instead of as a means of determining notability through a semi-reliable proxy test. Amazing what stagnation can do -- turns controversial proposals into law. The substantial coverage condition is used because often times, there's no less sucky test, not because it it has some special relation to the meaning of notability. When actual notability becomes relatively apparent, that's when we should start noticing the guideline template on WP:N. Being very widely known within the philosophy community is an indicator of notability. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• And I'm really concerned at the notion that people have heard of it should become a substitute for substantial coverage in reliable sources. Otto4711 01:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Again... caricature is great for presidential debates, but it's really not helpful for DRV discussions. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• endorse I havent the least idea myself if MP sketches are notable, but I see nothing wrong with the close. DGG (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (lengthily; after all, DRV is the last refuge of we PIIers) per Daniel and inasmuch as an ostensible consensus at a given XfD, or the !votes underlying that consensus, is to be disregarded/questioned by a closing admin only where the arguments advanced at the XfD do not purport to apply the relevant policies, guidelines, and practices that enjoy the broad support of the community or apply them plainly (objectively) erroneously, such that one can reasonably conclude that the insular consensus is or would be significantly inconsistent with that that would be borne out in a broader discussion; that standard is not met here, and the close is entirely reasonable (like DGG, I haven't any idea about the notability of individual MP sketches, and I don't know that any other discussions or XfDs of articles about such sketches have been undertaken, and so I don't know that anyone would object to a subsequent nomination [after some non-trivial period of time] on the same grounds in order that input from more editors might be solicited). Joe 04:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. It may not be the most famous Monty Python sketch, but it's the most notable sketch because of it relevance to philosophy students. IOW, the sketch has fans who are not MP fans, and thereby notability apart from MP's notability. But then again, do the sketch and the article truly exist, or are they manifestations of out belief in their existence?  Randall Bart   Talk  16:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete The deletion argument was that there was no significant coverage to show notability and the keep arguments didn't deal with this issue at all. Giving the title of a book with unknown contents is not demonstration of notability. This was vote counting, and a highly inappropriate closure. Jay32183 00:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Concur with Sparing per Maxim, just a case of an AfD nominator moaning that he didn't get things his own way, reasonable arguments be damned. And I agree wholeheartedly with Daniel on this one. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the assumption of good faith there, buddy. You're right, it can't possibly be an honest belief that the closing admin misread the debate. The only possible reason I could have had for the DRV is sour grapes. Good to see this level of analysis on the debate. Keep up the good work. Otto4711 01:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well frankly no, that can't possibly be the case, because I've come to the reasonable view that no one with a neutral point of view in this matter could possibly even COME to the conclusion you have. There's not a single reason that I can see, other than sour grapes, for you bringing this to DRV, and that's not assuming bad faith, that's just simply logic and assessment of facts. And I'm sick of people using "vote-counting" as a reason to disqualify the result of an AFD simply because the keeps outnumbered the deletes and they were on the wrong side. None of the delete arguments had any weight, or at least were not of sufficient weight to outweigh the keep arguments. At the very LEAST, it's no consensus bordering on keep. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 01:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• And which of the keep arguments did you find particularly compelling? It's well-organized? It's not a hoax? It might be mentioned in a book? It's better than anime articles? Otto4711 13:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• probably the only one that really matters... that it is notable to be in wikipedia, and that any counter position can resolved with article improvement. but i'm just speculating.--Buridan 15:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This debate needs to be toned down now. There is no reason either to attack the closing admin or the nominator. The episode is widely known, but currently there are no reliable sources in the article. Thus, both positions are reasonable, and there is no call to insist otherwise. Chick Bowen 23:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - academics have used monty python and douglas adams sketches as serious sources - that in itself - should be sufficient SatuSuro 11:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keeping - It may well be that the article ultimately proves to be unable to meet the general notability guidelines. I honestly don't know, and haven't had the time to check yet. If that is the case, then I believe the content will be either merged or deleted when such is established. There now does seem to be some life in the Monty Python project, and it is a standard action of projects that they themselves will merge articles which have been deemed to be either of short length or dubious notability, and I assume the good faith of the editors of that recently revived project, of which I am one, to be able to handle the articles in their scope in a reasonable manner. John Carter 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional closer's comments: WP:OUTCOMES, to the best of my knowledge, reflects the actual community consensus that the default outcome for an elementary or middle school is to delete. To overcome that, the school should demonstrate some unusual significance or importance. Nobody here even makes that claim, nor is there a consensus here to overturn, and the combined opinions of the AFD and DRV participants have a majority for deletion.

A standard of having verifiability be sufficient was rejected, see Wikipedia:Schools/Defunct. Wikipedia:Schools/Old proposal and Wikipedia:Schools/March 2007 reflect two more recent attempts to establish a schools guideline, and could help with what would be considered such significance or importance. These two were rejected in part because they were conflicting proposals. Although they were both somewhat edited with the intent of reaching a consensus and compromise, the school inclusionists and school deletionists were unable to form a consensus.

If anyone wants to follow the guidance in WP:LOCAL, the content could be merged to Fargo Public Schools or Fargo, North Dakota and the article moved back to main space and turned into a redirect. GRBerry 02:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Article and history currently at User:Thmoore/Bennett Elementary School

Part of Wikischools Project Thmoore 17:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised and disappointed that the article on Bennett Elementary School, in Fargo, N.D., was deleted from the Wikipedia. It was written to hew as closely as possible to the Wikischools initiative guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools). In fact, it was written using a template from that project, and marked as being part of the project as best I could.

I should also mention that the article itself was created as part of a months-long class project by a group of talented third graders at Bennett (details here: http://fargoing.blogspot.com/2007/06/leaving-our-mark.html). The project not only added to the knowledgebase of the Wikipedia, it also demonstrated Wikipedia's power to a group of future editors. I fear that unless this decision is reversed, it will teach them that their efforts are better spent elsewhere.

The Wikischools initiative aims to "write quality articles about schools around the world," and the Bennett article was the result of many hours of work of many people to do just that. The Bennett Elementary article was the only entry for an elementary school anywhere in North Dakota. If the standards for Wikipedia are so high that not a single elementary school in an entire U.S. state is worthy of inclusion, the Wikipedia community might want to reassess its standards.

I know that for me, personally, I'll be damned if I spend one more second editing or improving a Wikipedia article if this is the way quality information is treated by the community (after the article was *solicited* by the community through the Wikischools project). My time is worth more than this. There seems to be almost as great a fervor to remove information from the Wikipedia as there is to add it, regardless of the quality of the information, and that is sad.

I will further note that the administrator who made the decision to delete the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jaranda) is no longer a Wikipedia contributor.

Thmoore 17:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse There was clear consensus to delete. It might have been better to relist it so there was more than two comments, but there was still consensus to delete. As to the nominator, WikiProjects have no authority. The polices and guidlines do. In this instance, WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NN apply. I suggest you read up on the criteria for inclusion. — i ^said 18:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn there was non-directory style information, and multiple sources cited and others seem to exist [2]... okay it's about an elementary school, that doesn't mean any claim about faling WP:NOT or WP:N is automatically true. Seems like the AFD didn't get adequate participation and just got it wrong... it happens. This isn't a paper encyclopedia... we don't need to run around trying to delete verifiable articles that pass WP:NOT just to save a few bytes, that's ineffective anyway. --W.marsh 18:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, no valid reason for overturning deletion given. Valid AFD with no arguments for keeping. The existence of a WikiProject means nothing for articles that would be covered by it. Blogs aren't reliable sources. --Coredesat 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • An AFD with 3 participants... different arguments for keeping are being made now. It just seems highly bureaucratic to say an article must remained forever deleted because 3 people agreed to delete it, even if new arguments are made later once more people in the community see it. --W.marsh 20:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. First, it is irrelevant that the closing admin has left Wikipedia for unrelated reasons. There was no sanction requiring us to review this action. Second, it is touching that students worked hard on this article, but that is also irrelevant. Third, it is laudable that a WikiProject has developed guidelines for articles, and that this article followed them, but WikiProject guidelines do not trump Wikipedia-wide policies or guidelines. Finally, elementary schools are widely understood to be considered unnotable by default, and should not simply be well-referenced, but should demonstrate notability. I cannot see the history myself, but no argument was made in the AFD for any claim of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn altogether, not just permit re-creation. Actually, if the admin has left, any admin could have undeleted without coming here. But since its been questioned, we should continue the Deletion Review. Closing an afd with only nonspecific comments was not correct, and it should have been continued. In this case, I think the article would possibly have made it. To permit discussion, and possible re-creation, I have moved it to user space as User:Thmoore/Bennett Elementary School. DGG (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Very reluctant endorse. A good article, but ultimately I have to agree with WP:EFFORT. The trend generally favors deleting elementary schools, and I couldn't find any sources which I think warrant an exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XDanielx (talk • contribs) 00:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm the nominator, so no recommendation, just a note. My main point was not that people worked hard on the Bennett article, or that the admin who whacked it has left in a huff. So please don't misstate my argument by focusing on those items. (Also, respectfully, I would suggest that anyone who characterizes it as falling afoul of WP:NOT#DIR has not read the article.) Make no mistake: My main point was that this is information that is worthy of being in the Wikipedia. I reviewed the notability guidelines, and find that they have no provision for entities that play a vital role in a community, but fail to be mentioned regularly in external press reports. This is a failure of the notability guidelines. In the real world, outside the WP notability guidelines, it's hard to argue that elementary schools are per se non-notable; they are the focus of a great deal of effort on the part of parents, school administrators, school boards, national politicians, and so forth. They employ a tremendous number of people nationally and, of course, millions of students attend them. Enormous amounts of money are spent on them locally, and billions of federal dollars are devoted to them as well. They are the centers of the communities in which they sit. But unless a teacher seduces a student or, God forbid, there's a shooting there, they are unlikely to have external press coverage individually. But if something newsworthy does happen at an elementary school you know as well as I that many folks, including reporters, would first go searching for information about the school in the Wikipedia. Thmoore 01:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This may all be true, but if it's impossible to write something without resorting to original research, it's very hard for Wikipedia to keep it. It's not enough for Wikipedia to have something that's true - someone has to be able to verify it. Otherwise, people could put up anything and say, "well, it's true!". ColourBurst 16:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn -- Other than under WP:Speedy, importance/significance is not a basis to delete. None of the delete discussion sought speedy delete under CSD A7 and the closer did not speedy delete. The article itself was not a directory. The references in the article at the time of the AfD were never discussed or even mentioned in the AfD. There was nothing left of the discussion other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Jreferee T/C 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn no valid justification for deletion has been provided. Alansohn 21:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak overturn. The article was verifiable and not a directory entry by my understanding of the term as it appears to include material which a directory entry would not. I'm ambivalent on the topic of notability. ColourBurst's NOR line doesn't really apply to this - no novel synthesis in sight. Absent the references, I might have endorsed as the non-directory material would not have been verifiable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Hmmm, looking at the article NOR doesn't really apply, you're right (but only because of the two offline sources, and I have no idea as to the content of those sources). Given that, I think that an article on an elementary school (or high school, or small town) would look like this, so that only leaves notability, so I'd have to say relist it. On the other hand, Thmoore, Wikiprojects are great, but they don't own sections of the encyclopedia so a site-wide consensus still has to be reached, and every time the schools notability criteria has been raised it's deadlocked. Maybe WP:LOCAL applies here? ColourBurst 03:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Nothing out of process and no clear indication that the article satisfied notability guidelines. Eusebeus 22:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This article was deleted by an admin questioning the validity of this breed. A simple google search on "pyrapoo" will result in numerous listings of poodle hybrids, of which pyrapoo is commonly listed, including the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poodle_hybrid) on poodle hybrids. Jjnero 14:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Are any of these reliable sources, though? A wikipedia article isn't, and I get no results for "pyraboo" in books or news stories. As a contested PROD, this should probably be undeleted and sent to AFD... but I am not convinced this has any chance at AFD. --W.marsh 16:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This article was deleted due to a concern of its credibility. The website on which the topic discusses has since been referenced in further publications which are now included in the Wikipedia article. Saracity123 23:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as valid deletion under speedy criterion G11 (blatant advertising). Eluchil404 06:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - CSD G11 Blatant advertisement masquerading as an article. See WikiSpam. Comment - Artists Robert Watts created "Flugpost" and "Yamflug" stamps with a denomination in the lower corner in the 1960s. Flugpost also is a German newsletter dealing with German airlines. There also is Flugposition, Flugpoker, Flugpools, Flugpolitische, Flugpolitik, Flugportal, Flugportale, Flugpotenzial, and Flugpostmarke. However, there is nothing about Flugpo or Flugpo.com. The topic would not meet the general notability guideline. -- Jreferee T/C 19:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)