Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 17

User:Basketball110/Presidential poll (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Consensus not reached, MfD closed prematurely along with Wikipedia:Presidential poll. Apparently, one contributor acquiesced to speedy; I see nothing on record of the other doing so. Debate is at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Presidential_poll. Comments to closing admin are at User talk:AzaToth#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Presidential poll. Ron Duvall (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Page was a blatant misuse of Wikipedia, even Jimbo said so. MER-C 01:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Unsalvagable. MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No need to go through the unnecessary process of an MFD. Mr.Z-man 03:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I don't get it, why do we bother having speedy criteria if people are allowed to close an MfD after a half hour despite it not meeting any of the criteria for speedy deletion? Why don't we just say, Go ahead and delete, as long as you think that the debate was headed for a deletion decision anyway and that the deletion would get endorsed at WP:DRV? Is this basically an application of WP:SNOW? Ron Duvall (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  I imagine it's an application of ignore all rules, or wikipedia is not a bureacracy, as WP:SNOW is also. Despite debates such as this and deletion debates, wikipedia is not a democracy, there are many things which are unsuitable for wikipedia and outside the purpose for which the wikimedia foundation supply the infrastructure, no amount of votes for make them permissible. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Endorse, per MER-C Nakon 18:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• endorse deletion I would have preferred a full length discussion but this clearly isn't going to stand and there's no chance this is going to be kept at the end of a full length discussion. Wikipedia is about making an encylopedia, not political polling (although I think it might be interesting to see how the general Wikipedia community broke down. No one is stopping an editor from picking a set of users say a random sample of users with more than 10,000 edits or the set of all admins and quietly emailing them). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • For the love of all things good, please keep the WP:BEANS to yourself ;) Nakon 19:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion there really is no need to go through the full bureaucratic process to get rid of blatantly inappropriate pages like these. Hut 8.5 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

List of CEP vendors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unfairly and Incorrectly deleted, Consensus Not Reached, Article Notable and Suitable, Original debate had moved on and suggestions had been made and accepted on how to proceed, difficult to see why other "list of" articles exist just fine while the reasons given to delete this article would also rule out all other "list of" articles Bardcom (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The appropriate process was not followed correctly. An attempt to discuss the speedy deletion with the deleting admin was declined.

  it had in my opinion reached appropriate closure (indeed it had reached that stage some days ago).

• Inserted comment to assist in outlining the accuracy of the facts - Bardcom - Three things at this stage (1) the article was not Speedy Deleted; (2) you have been informed before why part of my return to you stated that closure had been reached some days ago - and that this related only to the fact that the closure was at or beyond the normal time for AfD (these things do not continue ad infinitum) this was also detailed to you by Ronnotel at the point where you opened up the discussion on my talk page and for the sake of clarity has been copied to your talk page; and (3) I have now told you many times that I did not have any personal inclination, interest or other relationship with the article other than it had reached the stage of "old AfD discussions" and I was assisting in the process as the Admin.--VS ^talk 23:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding (1), Apologies for the unfortunate choice of term. I did not mean to imply you used the "Speedy Deletion" process, but rather than you deleted the article too quickly. Deletion Policy states the following: can be deleted by any administrator if, after five days, nobody objects to the proposed deletion - I and others objected, you still deleted after 5 days. Considering that debate was ongoing, I stand by my comment in the context of 'fast'.

• Actually the deletion policy your are quoting in this point is related to WP:PROD and not WP:AfD - I appreciate that you have a view about the consensus being reached but still if you could be accurate in providing wording and links to the correct process that is not Speedy, nor Prod but only AfD then that would be helpful.--VS ^talk 03:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I was looking at WP:DP all along. Is this not appropriate? My quotes come from this page only - It's pretty confusing as there's no mention to AfD on this page, but this is the page I'm referencing (as per the advice on my talk page) to understand the process. Now that I see the AfD page, I can understand better the points you are making. The key point remains though - I believe this article should not have been deleted as there was no rough consensus, and appropriate editting of the article was ongoing to fix it. The editors were acting in good faith, and the original nominator had agreed to edits that would make the article acceptable. Bardcom (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Regarding (2), Deletion policy states The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate . Since there was no consensus, or even a rough consensus, I believe my comment is accurate.
  • Regarding (3), I am not familiar with admin processes, but I find it strange that you could analyse a debate and reach your conclusion that the was OK to delete the article when it was obvious that an objection was made, and that no rough consensus was reached. The deletion policy states that when an admin is deciding whether to delete, they should 2. Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. and 4. When in doubt, don't delete.. These comments are not personal and apologies if I am incorrect in any interpretation. But I am genuinely trying to understand why this article was deleted. Bardcom (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The comment above by the deleting admin could be interpreted to show no regard for the decision debate and/or had made their decision regardless of the outcome of the debate. This demonstrates a lack of NPOV and is unfair. No consensus had been reached as there was an active and ongoing debate, and a way forward had been suggested by the original nominator, and had been accepted by the original article editor. This way forward should be allowed to continue. Per WP:JUSTAVOTE, simple 'per nom' comments added nothing to the debate but the deleting admin gave inappropriate weight to these comments which were aligned to their own inclination to delete. Bardcom (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment While WP:ALLORNOTHING is relevent to this debate, I'd like to understand which specific part of the policy is appropriate as a reason supporting this articles deletion. The reason behind this policy must be respected and not blindly quoted as a reason to justify a deletion - for example an article on Cat might exist, but an article on Dog might get deleted as not being notable - and in this case is fine if it's true that it isn't notable, and that the mere existence of the Cat article is irrelevant. But if the article Dog is deleted because someone believes it isn't appropriate to have articles on Housepets, then it is a little more appropriate to look at the Cat article...and perhaps also clean-up or delete Cat also. With regards to this article, if it's a case this this article is genuinely not valid, perhaps an advocate can be found to also examine similar articles, purely in the interests of making Wikipedia better. Bardcom (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Delete The consensus was reached that the article should be deleted. I can't see the original article anymore, but I remember agreeing with the AFD nominator because to me it violated WP:NOT. TJ Spyke 23:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please explain why you believe that the consensus was reached in that it violated WP:NOT - the article listed CEP vendors, and listed basic attributes about their product capabilities and licensing models. It was also going to be expanded and enhanced with more information. The article is notable and does not violate any of WP:NOT - please be more precise and descibe which part of WP:NOT you believe it violates. Bardcom (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse delete per WP:NOT#INTERNET, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. This AFD was not a result of a speedy delete. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't understand. Are you endorsing the delete because of the arguments made for deletion? If so, please elaborate. If not, your endorsement doesn't make sense. Please explain. Bardcom (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Article was not speedily deleted, indeed AfD was opened on January 28 and was closed February 5 which indicated three days of overtime. As to consensus, there were only two editors endorsing Keep, one of which, Isvana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), clearly fits the definition of a single purpose account. The Keep argument boiled down a subjective comparison between this list and other lists that were kept (such as List of ERP vendors, Comparison of object-relational database management systems, and List of IT Service Management vendors), and the Delete argument was based on the contention that the page violated WP:NOT as an internet guide, or a repository of links. Granted, many of the delete arguments were vague waves at policy without specific complaints, but the Keep editors failed to make the case that this page met policy requirements on its own, without having to resort to comparisons to other articles. The only fault I find in the closing admin was a lack of a detailed closure statement. -- RoninBK _{T C} 01:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment With respect, just about all the deletion arguments were vague, making it practically impossible to debate the arguments. Even so, the Keep editors editted the article in line with comments, and were continuing to do so. The article did not violate WP:NOT, and the Keep editors have continually asked for a precise quote and an explanation and a debate on these matters - so far, not a lot has been forthcoming. It could be also argued by some that you are equally guilty of vague waves in quoting WP:NOT in this way. Finally, the Keep editors argued that the page met requirements for inclusion. (Sidenote: You appear to still have access to the original pages - is it possible for me to access them too?) Bardcom (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I do not have access to the article, I am merely summarizing the AfD debate, linked above. I acknowledged the vague waves on both sides in my comment. Some objections were not vague waves, my own argument was that the article as written as a potential link farm, but that accusation was never properly refuted. -- RoninBK _{T C} 05:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment If memory serves correctly, your argument about link farm was noted at the time, and appropriate editting was suggested to ensure that this was not the case. My memory isn't good enough to remember if you acknowledged our attempts to make the article compliant or if you continued to participate in the debate beyond leaving your comment. Bardcom (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Delete- per above comments of Roninbk, clear deletion, and very shady notification process to not tell people in favour of delete, but to support people who were.JJJ999 (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Apologies - until this moment I did not think that I could access the older AfD pages and if I had known this, I would have certainly informed everybody else - in fact, I will do so now. But I am dismayed at your implication that it was on purpose and that I only notified people in favour of keeping the article. This is untrue. I notified everybody who took part in CEP related debates sourcing my own talk page and everyone elses from there. If your name wasn't on this list, perhaps it's because your contribution to the debate was a single line in the AfD, which didn't quote policy and didn't respond subsequently even when asked to elaborate. Bardcom (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • People don't always feel compelled to give long reasons when the AfD reasons have been thoroughly expounded, and the outcome is clear, which is why I'm not going to go into detail here again. You're not going to agree, but I don't care. It's a clear closure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.218.27 (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Interesting story here - WP:INSPECTOR I feel it's appropriate for this debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardcom (talk • contribs) 17:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Nakon 18:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. valid Afd, valid closure, process was followed correctly and appropriate consensus was reached through debate that the article should be deleted.--Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I appear to be a lone editor arguing this case. The support for deletion by Hu12 is a blow as I believed that he had made suggestions to the article, which myself and Isvana tried to implement. I withdraw any of my objections and support this deletion - but I would like to understand the reasons more fully, if anybody would be kind enough to take the time to explain things to me. Although I believed at the time that it was also questionable over whether consensus had been reached, I accept that the experience of the admins that have taken time to comment far outweighs my own, so I accept that the deleting admin acted properly in deciding that the arguments. Apologies if any of my comments were taken outside of the spirit in which they were made - I am genuinely trying to understand this process, and the myriad of appropriate policies. In summary, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the main reason for deletion is that an article that is mostly a list of vendors and their products is against policy, namely WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Question: Is there any circumstances in which the original article could have been editted in order to be acceptable? Thank you for all your help so far, especially those who took the time to try to explain things to a new editor (who now feels *much* more experienced :-). Especial thanks to VirtualSteve, Hu12, and Robinbk for your help and comments. Peace. Bardcom (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for kindness Bardcom. As I detailed on your talk page I admire your interest in this article. I offer you not only a return "peace" but also the suggestion that you keep editing - as from my perspective editors with your interest over time become very valued contributors to this project.--VS ^talk 23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse, process seems to have been followed, close follows balance of argument in the debate and the rationale for undeletion does not really address that. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This was apparently a daughter article from a strange and vacuous article called Complex Event Processing, which is defined in it's lead paragraph as primarily an event processing concept that deals with the task of processing multiple events from an event cloud with the goal of identifying the meaningful events within the event cloud. Did you get that? An event processing concept that processes events from a cloud of events, and decides which events in the cloud are meaningful. Since I suspect that the gibberish of the parent article is stealth spam designed to make a newly coined three letter acronym more visible, I do not think that we need a list of vendors seeking to market commercial products related to it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• What a laugh Smerdis, that's pretty funny. I'm still laughing. You remind me of a friend of mine that describes soccer as 'a game where 22 men chase a bag of air around a pitch followed by a nanny'. You obviously haven't a clue about this subject, and while most poeple who are ignorant on a subject tend to not tell the world about it, you've strangely chosen to proclaim your ignorance to the audience of Wikipedia. Oh dear. Bardcom (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'll cheerfully admit that I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer. But if that article's vague generalities failed to shed insight on the subject, or whether there even is a subject to support an article, my ignorance is not entirely my fault. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

He was on Jimmy Kimmel Live and Chris Kidd Show as well as American Idol. [1] ۝ ۞ ░ 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse delete: Guest appearances on two television shows (one for a guest appearance) does not assert notability. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse delete, article made no assertion of notability and thus was a valid CSD A7. --Stormie (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, valid A7. Article did not make an assertion of notability at the time it was deleted. Nakon 18:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The debate was procedurally closed as keep citing reasons of the injunction. However the precedent that is in place is to insert Template:FICTWARN on the AFD and relist it until the injunction is lifted or modified. The closing admin, when asked to modify the closing, said he does not agree with the template, and seems to prefer to dispose of a consensus-forming process in favor of preventing a backlog at AfD. The backlog concern seems unwarranted, as the articles are in a tracking category and can be quickly dealt with when the injunction is over. To ignore consensus-forming input by summarily closing these debates makes the problem worse as it prevents editors from exchanging ideas about these articles and will likley result is a rash of new AFD's that have no particpation in them yet, the moment the injunction is lifted. That will create the same backlog. So I say overturn and add template. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment We have no established way of handling these, and every admin dealing with this situation is trying to improvise as best he can. Jerry's way of doing it is one good way, and Phil's is another. We shall really have to collectively figure out how to deal with this when the injunction expires, in the (in my opinion very likely) case arb com does not provide us with useful practical guidance.DGG (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• My feeling is that the arbcom injunction was meant to stop destructive and ill-tempered process wars over this, and that the correct way to uphold it is to simply not deal with deletion on these for the time being. Certainly "Go through a bunch of AfDs but don't hit delete" seems outside what the case is looking for. And I think a DRV in this case is far outside the spirit of what the injunction seeks, and downright foolish. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Foolish, Phil? I'm a fool? I am trying to get community consensus to determine if disposing of a consensus-forming process in favor of the convenience of a smaller backlog at AfD is the way forward. I don't think name-calling is the kind of behavior that I find is easy to assume to be in good faith. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

One does not have to be a fool to do something foolish. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Much like one does not have to be a child to behave childishly, but the insult is still implied, nonetheless. JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy close, the wording of the injunction - "no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article" (emphasis mine) makes it pretty clear that people should not be nominating articles on television characters for deletion on the grounds that they are non-notable. "Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight," so it was entirely correct to close the AfD and un-tag the article. --Stormie (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree if this happened before significant discussion had occurred. But once DAYS went by, I then disagree. JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it's unfortunate that it wasn't closed earlier, but User:Colonel Warden did point out a mere three hours after listing that it was in violation of the injunction. --Stormie (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, since the arbcom clearly doesn't want to bother to clarify this injunction (there are unanswered concerns about it since before it was even passed), we need to decide how to interpret it. I don't think DRV or AfD are the best fora in which to do so. But until then, I think the best option is to close the AfDs after 5 days, and if the result would violate the injunction,wait until the injunction has passed, and then use the category that {{FICTWARN}} puts AfDs in to find ones that need the delete button or redirect action. I suggest we do this for this AfD as well. seresin | wasn't he just...? 06:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but if action is not going to be taken as a result of the discussion, there is no need to stop the discussion. Keeping the discussion listed and open seems the best course, as it does not violate the injunction, AND it allows the consensus forming process to continue. The perceived emergency of some huge backlog that these dozen or so discussions are going to cause is really Mount Molehill, IMHO. For the editors who participate in the discussion and make a sound recommendation one way or the other, for the discussion to be closed summarily equates to their input being ignored. JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see a reason to make these AfDs special and keep them open indefinitely. But we shouldn't be closing them blindly based on this injunction, which, depending on how it is read, does not prohibit AfDs. seresin | wasn't he just...? 06:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment on it's face I'd agree with the closing of the AFD, it seems pointless going through a discussion which is going to have no result, by the time any arb case has been resolved the article may have been modified sufficiently that any consensus formed may not longer be valid, and so would be inactionable at that time. Has anyone actually asked arbcom for clarification on this? Rather than trying to argue about if specific wording means/implies. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the reason to keep the discussion open; whomever goes to close it will look at the most recent comments first, and if these comments describe a large change in the article content or if these comments form a different sub-sonsensus than the earlier ones, the administrator will look at the article history and will discard comments that are no longer factually applicable. This is not a special process, it is how we handle ALL afd's. For example if the first 10 responses on an AfD say "delete, no sources cited" and then 4 comments follow that and say "keep - has 12 verifiable reliable sources" then I look at the article and the sources. If I notice the sources are good and were added after the initial comments were left, I would close as keep. There is nothing different with these. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well given some are currently not commenting on the deletion, but noting the injunction and that the outcome of the arbitration may change the approach taken by people on either side of the debate, it would seem you either leave them open for 5 days after the arbitration is finished to give people fair opportunity to comment or you close them and let the debate work from the start. From my perspective it is "cleaner" to just close these and let those which people still believe are unsuitable to relist after the injunction is lifted. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I've made a note of it at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop, no one has commented directly as I have seen, however there's some pretty deep water to wade thru there... -- RoninBK _{T C} 13:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • And I've gone ahead and broken it out into a separate question. -- RoninBK _{T C} 13:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Arbcom seem to want a cooling-off period. Jerry seems to be trying to facilitate a business-as-usual workround and this is contrary to the spirit of their ruling. In any case, Jerry has no power over other admins who have a different opinion, right? Colonel Warden (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WOW. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume that's why he bought it here for discussion. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse close. My approach has been to speedy close these. The ArbCom case could go on for a long time, and constantly relisting these debates will create more work for AfD closers. Many of these discussions have commentators refering to the injunction, not the merits of the article, so its hard to say much of a consensus is forming. To me the approach of closing the debate and allowing a new one to start once the injunction is lifted makes more sense than keeping an ever increasing number of discussions continuing. WjBscribe 20:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• This issue is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Request for Comment. Davewild (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and add template. There's no reason this should not be discussed. Discussion is just that: discussion. Discussion does not have to equal deletion. If we don't like to relist, we should complain to Arbcom, preferably through the RFC I have set up. Redfarmer (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• I've commented there--I am not sure how much help in settling these we will get from arb com, and I think that by the time they've finished, the appropriate thing to do will to think a bit, and then start over. It may happen that some of the less temperate may not longer be participating by then,which will considerably simplify matters. As we are all experimenting here, I think that either a freeze and relist, or a close and leaving the possibility of relisting, are equally good options. There is no need to overthrow either. DGG (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I support keeping the article regardless of the method achieved, so whether this is open to debate or not for procedural reasons, I support the keep. It seems noteworthy, and I don't see the harm in debate. Locks should only be for edit wars, etc.JJJ999 (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)