Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 11

1541_ultimate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

My article applied to none of the 12 Criterias that warrants speedy deletion, also even if you dispute the notability it says on that page: "Articles that are about obviously unimportant subjects are still not allowed for quick deletion", so it deserves at least a "Request for Deletion" status. I would like to file a complaint about the admins blanchardb and cobaltbluetony for deleting an article they didn't even appear to have read before marking it for QD - DeeKay64 (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. First of all, I want to make it clear I am not an admin and I have not claimed to be one. Because of COI issues regarding my role in this mess, I will remain neutral. In retrospect, I believe Cobaltbluetony and I went overboard in speedying this article (me tagging, Cobalt deleting, and more often than not Cobalt deleting before I had a chance to see), but I believe this deletion review will probably be better managed than many AfD's I've seen. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• the actual discussion is over the article deleted as 1541ultimate -- the form above is just a redirect to it. DGG (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Restore and optionally list at AfD the article is about a video game cartridge speedy deleted 4 times as non-notable. But articles about such things are specifically excluded from the criterion. cobaltblue, why be bureaucratic--this isnt the place for the discussion--just undelete and send to AfD DGG (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AFD, doesn't seem to be a proper speedy. I'm not sure it will meet the notability criteria, though. -_UsaSatsui (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks, guys. I would just like to add that the 1541 Ultimate is as much a "video game cartridge" as an SD-card is a "photo medium". I plan to use mine for transferring selfmade stuff back and forth between c64 and Mac. And as for notability: Jens Schönfeld, maker of similar cartridges such as this like the MMC64 and Retro Replay even was two times on german Television already. It's not that common to produce hardware in 2008 for a 1982 Computer, and quite a few geeks do show interest in this, having grown up with a Commodore 64. Also, many people want to play old games on a real machine and can't find a way to transfer the .d64 images they find on the net to a real c64, and cartridges like these make this possible. ;-)DeeKay64 (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Status: Cobaltblue does not seem to react. Should I just recreate the article? And put the "hangon" tag in it? Or do we need to wait for him to undelete it? DeeKay64 (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No. If he lives on the West Coast, he's in bed at this moment. I don't think there is so much of a hurry that the article needs to be available right away. Additionally, putting the hangon tag on an article not listed for speedy deletion automatically lists it, and a clear consensus here is that we don't want that. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and list. A7 only applies to online content, not technology in general. Beyond this, the article appears to have asserted importance. Hasty tagging and deletion, but good faith as far as I can tell. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• I don't see much point, since there are no reliable sources and never were for any of the four deletions. Guy (Help!) 07:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

JzG, do you really think that no reliable sources is a grounds for speedy? According to what policy? It's even been rejected as grounds for deletion at AfD. DGG (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, if there are no reliable sources, it won't survive AfD. So overturning is just process wonkery or Wikilawyering. -- Kesh (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I would like the page CareFlash at User:Klostermankl/CareFlash to be reviewed and reconsidered for posting. I also welcome any language/wording advice. Thanks, Klostermankl (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: There is currently an MfD here. I've suggesting waiting for this outcome before going through with that. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Don't allow move to mainspace right now. As well writen as that is, a lot of it reads like advertising. I'd suggest working on that and adding some inline citations using <ref></ref> tags. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Don't allow move to mainspace The editor who created the page is attempting to Spam it by posting on different articles that he would like to add a link to his article. The editor is SPA account just set up to include this article in Wikipedia. I recommend to the editor a few month ago to make the article notable per policy, but in these few months he did nothing more than go around the project and solicit for this article to be linked to. Wrong way to go! Igor Berger (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - the user page version certainly needs work (deleting the section Alliance Partners, or item by item sourcing, would be a good start) and the references need to be moved in-article. However, sources such as this and this show at least nascent notability. I also agree with Igor Berger that this page now needs to be brought to a resolution. There are four days left in this DRV and my suggestion is that the nominator puts that time to good effect and brings the article up to a standard that is fit for a move to mainspace (no doubt with an attached AFD). BlueValour (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• No thanks. No evidence of notability, article is basically not improved. Same problem as with the last deletion review, really: a spammy article written by a single-purpose account whose name matches the CEO of the company. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - there has been no attempt to address the concerns, during this DRV. BlueValour (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Properly addressed issues from previous AfD in recreation. It is an appropriate article for a notable camp and is in line with other local council camps. Sourced and well-written. Minsi (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• The deleted article is certainly less of a problem than the prior version, which is userfied at User:Evrik/Camp Minsi. I don't see evidence in the deleted article of notability; which sources were independent and contained substantial documentation of the camp? I don't see any in my review. Without those sources, the most important issue highlighted in the AFD, notability, has not been addressed. GRBerry 21:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse The main issue at AFD was the notability of Camp Minsi, which was not addressed in the article when I nominated it for a speedy deletion. While it did improve from the version deleted at AFD it did bot address the notability issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn delete The article appears significantly different than the one that was deleted in AfD and so I don't think qualifies under G4. Further, http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070817/NEWS13/708170312/-1/rss19 would seem to be a wonderful source (if local which I don't think is a problem per WP:N) and the other sources are by-and-large RS, though a few are only trivial mentions. I'd have no objections to bumping it to AfD, but it I think this is well above the bar. Also, the article seems very well written and reasonably sourced. Hobit (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That source was present in the article that was deleted at AFD and does little to establish notability; yes this article has been cleaned up since the AFD, but the main issue at AFD was the notability which has not been addressed, no new sources have been added that would establish notability (some sources have been removed but nothing has been added.) As such this qualifies for a g4 speedy because the changes made "do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." TonyBallioni (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm having problems seeing the old version via cache at the moment. But my recolection is that the articles were significantly different (could be wrong). So:

"Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted."

Would seem to indicate that if the copy isn't substantially identical it isn't a G4 candidate even if the issues from the AfD were not addressed. If the articles are substantially the same, the that's fine (like I said, I can't tell at the moment). Hobit (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Article does not fix the issues addressed at AfD. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn delete: The article was significantly different than the one that was deleted in the AfD -- it was not a recreation of the deleted material. As such it does not qualify for deletion under G4 ("Recreation of deleted material") as it was not a substantially identical copy of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. Reguardless of if the notablity issue of the AfD was adequetly addressed or not (although I feel it was), the article should not have been a speedy deletion per G4. If the article does not assert nobility that can be addressed, but deleting it speedily per G4 was not the appropriate action. Minsi (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Camp x-ray detainees.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image was ported to the commons, but the source information points to now deleted wikipedia version, not to the DoD version. A cropped version also points at the now deleted wikipedia version, not to the DoD version. Image:Camp x-ray detainees cropped.jpg This image was probably part of the same roll of film as this low resolution image from January 11th 2002... Image:First 20 Guantanamo captives.jpg Geo Swan (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• The sourcing text that was on the en.Wikipedia image page is on the Commons description page now. No link was ever present on the en.Wikipedia image page. I can't see anything to do here. GRBerry 18:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• The image was from a DoD handout to the media of January 11, 2002. I can't find it in the DoD picture library, but that's where it came from originally. It's by Petty Officer 2nd Class Shane McCoy, US Navy. You can see an uncropped version of it at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11381321/ . -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I wish to object to the deletion of the subject "American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonography." I do not understand why an article describing a non-profit credentialing agency, which is the largest on Earth for Diagnostic Sonographers is considered an advertisement.

How do I call for a review of this deletion?

Terry J. DuBose, M.S, RDMS, FSDMS, FAIUM DuBose 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No such article. Never was such an article. An article without the quotes was nothing but a redirect to a page which was deleted in 2007 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography. You can create an article in your own User space, such as User:DuBose/American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography, then come back here for a review as to its neutraility and whether it provides reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 02:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close. There's another DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 12 that's receiving more attention. I've notified Corvus as well. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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

This article was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 after a short (less than 4 hour) AfD, for not asserting notability. However a simple Google News Archive reveales plenty of references, including being featured as a "top 40" individual in both Billboard Radio Monitor and Crain's New York Business. I've recreated and expanded the article with references at User:DHowell/Tom Poleman and brought it here to DRV, as the deleting admin indicated I should do. DHowell (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Allow recreation. The version DHowell has made clearly asserts notability and is in all likelihood a clear WP:BIO passer as well due to the accolades in various publications. The original deletion seems to have been partially based on the lack of sources cited in the article, and for a BLP that is a fair concern, even if it's not an A7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Ah, that's refreshing. Much better version. Sorry for the trouble here, I did close the AfD after I deleted the article that was, as well as being AfD tagged, was speedy tagged A7. (BIO) I deleted it while clearing out speedies, then went and closed the AfD. Happens all the time. Allow recreation of DHowell's version, very clear assertion of notability;excellent sourcing. No need for new AfD, IMO. (And to DHowell, You had me at Haiku.  :-). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Keilana/Deleted cabals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The list of deleted cabals can be found on the listed page, that page is not under deletion review. There has been a lot of discussion about these deletions recently, and it seems that the issue should be settled properly. I know it's odd to review one's own deletion, but I feel this is the right course of action to properly gauge community consensus. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion I'm not seeing any cabals there that shouldn't have been, and should therefore remain, deleted. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• I endorse Keilana's deletion. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Restore and take each to MfD. People keep forgetting that 'cabals' were not deleted, pages were. Untagged pages. Regardless of content, they were haphazardly deleted, with no speedy criteria, and no AfD consensus. These pages were deleted arbitrarily under IAR and each page should get its day in court. the_undertow ^talk 03:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Restore and list at MfD, at least multiple listings by user. Deleted against consensus and out of policy citing IAR is not appropriate. Lara❤Love 03:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion (if one likes, of course, list at AfD) per the The undertow, both supra and here, where he happens recently to have, relative to this issue, properly observed, at greater length than he does here, that summary/speedy/IAR-inspired deletion is almost always to be disfavored in situations like this. Joe 04:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I believe Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cabals shows consensus, and I thus think that going to MfD would be WP:BURO-ish. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The RfC seems to have obtained a wide consensus that the deletion was in order as they served no encyclopaedic purpose. Bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake helps no-one. Am also in agreement with Mbisanz's and DHMO's comments. Orderinchaos 08:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion to end the drama and reinforce the "not MySpace" message, which seems to me to need doing at the moment. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Guy, let's end this now. George The Dragon (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Restore and send each to MfD per the_undertow and LaraLove. Walton^One 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• restore and list at MfD per Undertow, Lara and nom. I really don't care about these much, but in general essentially harmless pages should get their chance to make a case for inclusion. Furthermore, as long as editors are being productive encyclopedia editors I don't see any compelling reason not to let them have a little fun. Reducing drama is not a compelling argument; the solution to that is for people to stay civil during discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem here is that the editors concerned were, for the most part, only editing these "cabals", and having nothing to do with the encyclopedia. That is a major part of my concern. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The merit of editors is not part of any deletion criteria that I know of. Furthermore, it's about the userpages that were deleted, not about your opinion of the contributors. the_undertow ^talk 17:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion criteria were never designed to handle this situation. In this case, and in these circumstances, it's a fair consideration. Orderinchaos 17:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Userpages are handled at MfD. This is not a unique situation. the_undertow ^talk 18:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn There has already been a MfD [1] on most of them, and the result was speedy keep. I do not see a consensus to delete at either of the AN/I discussions, or any consensus at all at RfC--certainly not enough to justify proceeding via IAR. Personally, I would very much like to see them go, and some other cabals also, but there needs to be actual demonstrated consensus. If some eds. think the consensus has changed in the last month, start individual MfDs. There was considerable support in many places that they should be considered individually. Trying to shortcut process in the presence of dissent in the name of avoiding BURO is counterproductive--it produces more complicated debates than ordinary proceedings would have. DGG (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As has been discussed many times already, the MfD took place without the information necessary to make a decision, and in an atmosphere incredibly hostile to non-groupthink opinions - and in addition was speedy closed after just 2 hours, so in no way demonstrated either the letter or spirit of consensus. Pretty much every rule was ignored in the MfD. Also, doesn't the multiply-endorsed views at RfC (in some cases well over 20) represent a much more constructive consensus than a !voting process on what is quite a complex situation? Orderinchaos 17:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

you speak as if the view to delete them all had 20 endorsers, and nobody endorsed anything else. That was not the case. I see 27 editors endorsing the opposite view that these should all be kept. [2]. adding all the endorsements, I see 83 endorsements saying essentially that they should be all kept, 68 all deleted, 64 something else, usually delete some and keep others.--of course this doesnt mean much since many people endorsed more than one view. But just by a count, it looks like the view for deleting them all was in the minority. DGG (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Maybe it's just from having been on Wikipedia, or maybe just from having been around the internet for awhile, but these days, whenever I hear the word "cabal", even in jest, it sets me on edge. It makes me feel the need to research deeper, and examine more thoroughly the "something". I just think that even if it's a subtle sociological "knock" of elitism, group therapy, or whatever, these are little different than what ended up with Wikipedia:Esperanza. Esperanza was something I was strongly in favour of, at first and even second blush. But when you started to look "deeper", it had distinct sociological issues. Maybe I'm looking deeper at something that isn't necessarily there. But when I consider the smile campaign started by User:Pedia-I, only to discover a sleeper sock account... Well it makes one wonder. And the use of the word "cabal" doesn't help. I'm a big fan of community in Wikipedia. I strongly believe that the strength of our community, inevitably, is a large part of the strength of the growth and development of the encyclopedia. I think humour pages, for the most part, (and presuming that they actually are intended as humour), are usually fine. But "feel good" lists of users... I don't think that that's a good idea. And I'll note that I was aware of one of these, and even allowed myself to be placed as an "observer". To me it seemed to be a place that was socially connecting Wikipedians with an interest in the works of Douglas Adams; a rudimentary beginning which may have developed to a point where they "might" eventually collaborate on such articles. Almost a begining "Work group". People were actively contributing to the page, and so on. But so many of these just aren't. And if one borderline case needs to go because the rest really need to go, so be it. Besides... It's not as if there aren't WikiProjects out there desperately almost begging for Wikipedians to help out... (WP:HHGTTG, for one example.) - jc37 00:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if this set of lengthy comments conveyed what I wished to. So please, feel free to ask for clarification. - jc37 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Undeleting all these pages and bring them to mfd seems overly bureaucratic to me. I'm not even sure that the participants in these cabals want to rebuild them. The rfc has, independently of his main purpose, confirmed that the consensus is for deletion. What is the point to relist them ? That would be a loose of time. WP:IAR has a purpose among others: don't loose your time with useless bureaucracy, it still applies now. If it had been done "in the rules", we may have gain more time in the end, though I'm not even sure about that, but now let's go ahead. Cenarium^Talk 02:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If a user wants to review the deletion of a particular cabal, ok, but massive undeletions doesn't seem to be the right course of action here, it's purely for the sake of procedure. And I've the feeling that the majority of the involved users no longer care for these cabals. Cenarium^Talk 23:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• But we have a process for these things. Is there a good reason not to follow it in this case? The only argument I've seen is that the RfC replaces an MfD. But I don't believe notification happened correctly nor that the RfC showed consensus. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was out of normal process, but I'm sure that mass undeletions will accomplish nothing. RyRy5 feels that stuff like that doesn't or shouldn't belong here at Wikipedia., Basketball110 requested deletion of User:Basketball110/UserSpace. What's the purpose to undelete these ? Where is the benefit for the encyclopedia, the people involved ? Cenarium^Talk 14:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn
  1. out-of-processWhen it comes to policy IAR is a great thing, but ignoring process seems like a bad idea unless everyone is on board.
  2. I don't see consensus in the RfC.
  3. Were all the editors user-space pages were deleted notified of the RfC?
  4. Were editors of those deleted pages notified of this review?.
  5. While I have no doubt it's in good faith, bringing something a group of articles that you've already speedied in a way non-admins can't see them (as far as I know) seems like a poor idea at best.
  6. Per DGG(above), there was just a MfD on some of these less than 3 weeks ago. SNOW keep. Hobit (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thus, barring a good reason to avoid process (and avoiding drama isn't a reason per anything other than perhaps IAR) I'd say bring them to MfD. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Also, I randomly looked into two of the editors who had userspace pages deleted. Both seemed to be quite active in WP and one felt his cabal would easily fit the new guidelines. He said:

  "Looks good to me, I would have to change maybe one line in the cabal I made to fit this perfectly. When is this debate suppose to end?--Pewwer42" Hobit (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  Note that this user's page (42) was what I was referring to above. - jc37 21:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment to nominator - Would you be opposed to the 42 "cabal" being split into a separate nomination? Not that I'm necessarily supporting it being kept (at least under that name), but the rest of these seem rather clear, while that one would seem to be somewhat different. And I'd like the community's thoughts on it separately. - jc37 21:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I for one wouldn't have a problem with it being considered separately or even restored. It did fall into a different category to the others, and the user who created it wasn't part of the behaviour management issue which existed with the others. Orderinchaos 17:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - As with "secret pages", an out-of-process deletion would've been successful, but taking the matter to MfD showed no consensus. I believe the same would be true here. IAR is for non-controversial decisions -- cases where policies seem to disallow the course of action that everyone agrees is correct. That's not this. It's not right to do something just because you're sure that you're right and that other people are wrong. That's not what IAR means. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:26, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)
  • Hear, hear. (A fairly large percentage of Wikipedia's administrator corps could do with learning that message, IMO.) Walton^One 12:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Restore - Per Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Cabals. The community said that the Cabals would be safe, but they were deleted and the administrator who did so ignored the decision. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 23:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Ignoring the method by which they were deleted, which is and should be irrelevant, I feel that these should be deleted. (for those who say that consensus should be reached to delete, consensus is being gathered here, is it not?) The members of the useless barrage of so-called "cabals" were all completely identical in nature and having the same members. One might argue that some, such as the "Giant Panda Cabal" and the "Doggy Cabal" worked to improve mainspace. I say, prove it. How much did these cabals actually improve the articles? Look at this. This is the sum of their total contributions to the giant panda article. The dog article was even less contributed-to. The others, such as the "42 cabal," were inherently useless except for perhaps a fun break from mainspace contribution. However, as has been said countless times before, the creators and members were not at all strong content contributors, which is what differentiates this from things like WP:BRC. However, my rationale depends somewhat on the "clones" issue, and so I make a concession: One cabal can be restored, the others, which, as I have said, are practically identical, can not be. One last thing: Look at this. These have found a new home, have they not? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Also, why do I care? If that essay was cited here, a destroying of the spirit of the essay itself would ensue: "There are a lot of busybodies on Wikipedia, but before you become one of them, consider this: If a user is contributing well to articles, why do you care how good or bad their userspace pages look?" Are the cabal members strong content contributors? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• The method is actually all that should be relevant. This isn't MfD, it's deletion review, to explore the possibility of an improper deletion. Improper deletions, which we are here to designate, get sent back to MfD, where the merit of the pages themselves are discussed. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:44, 17 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Restore & send to MfD Some of these pages weren't even tagged and, therefore, a full discussion did not ensue. WP:IAR should rarely (if ever) be used to justify a deletion of a user page/subpage. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion, and if Keilani feels that the pages should be deleted, let her MFD them. IAR shouldn't be used like that. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Lets not overdose on process, I think the RfC is a pretty firm consensus for these pages being deleted and yet another discussion at MfD seems pretty pointless. Can't see that any content beneficial to the encyclopedia has been lost here. WjBscribe 14:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Footballers who served in the British Army - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Footballers who served in the RAF - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I would like to appeal the decision to delete both of the above categories. The discussion was on going and no clear consensus had been reached. The arguments for deletion were extremely poor. This was a very poor decision and I think this reflects Wiki in a poor light. The the info was not even preserved in list form and the articles were not even added into other relevant armed forces categories. Can you also explain why these categories were deemed to be trivial intersections but :Category:Politicians with physical disabilities was not. This seems to be a double standard. Djln--Djln (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse as closer. Consensus was clear. --Kbdank71 19:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - consensus was clear and the fact that another category survived when these didn't is irrelevant. Otto4711 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant! Rules and policy on deletion should be consistent. If one category is kept then all should have been kept. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• CFD rules and policy were consistent. Kbdank correctly interpreted the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_26#Category:Politicians_with_physical_disabilities and closed it as keep. He also correctly interpreted the consensus for these categories and closed them as delete. Same rules, same policies, same closer. Otto4711 (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - consensus was clear. However I agree with Djln that the articles should have been upmerged to suitable parent categories. (X in Category:Footballers who served in the RAF has to go upwards into both parents - 'footballers' and 'RAF' categories.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I had checked a good cross-section of the articles, and they are already in a multitude of footballer and military personnel categories. --Kbdank71 21:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• In which case I withdraw my reservations, with effusive apologies. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Articles in category should have been listfied to preserve info which is now lost. Djln --Djln (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• The info is not permanently lost, and it would not be too difficult to find a complete list of the affected articles. However, I must wonder whether such a list would be justified per this guideline. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - the consensus, whether evaluated from the meaningful perspective of strength of arguments or the more superficial perspective of a count of votes (9 to 3), was to delete. The nominator's argument that the intersection of "footballer" and "military service" is a trivial one was never adequately rebutted (as one example, consider the case of countries that have conscription ... virtually every male footballer in those countries has served in the military). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per valid reasoning given above. (IOW, it's been said) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - For the reasons already stated, and for the additional prior precedent - See: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Trivial intersection. In looking over both the original CfD, and this DRV, I haven't seen anywhere where anyone linked to the explanation of "trivial intersection" at WP:OC. Perhaps if the DRV nominator were to read over that page, they may come to see that this closure is actually fairly consistant with previous closures (only a few of which are actually listed at WP:OC). - jc37 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)