Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 18

Robots in Futurama (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe the admin miscounted or misinterpreted the support for deletion. The AfD should have resulted in no consensus. Torc2 (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Overturn - There is a prior conversation regarding the interpretation of votes at User talk:Jerry. Depending on how the votes are interpreted, the outcome was either 4-4 tied for whether or not to delete ("delete" or "redirect") or keep the information in some form (either "keep" or "merge"), or at worse, 6-4. Either way says 'no consensus' to me. The closing admin included a comment I made supporting the idea of merger as "delete", even though I had specifically voted "neutral" earlier, which makes the whole outcome kind of sketchy.Torc2 (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Closure (as closing admin). AfD closure is not a vote-count process. The determination of rough concensus requires the closing administrator to read all of the comments and to take into account the arguments made, recommendations made, policies/ guidelines/ and precedents cited. As such, the crux of this issue seems to stem from raw vote counting, and the nominator initially stated to me that there were only 3 delete votes. When I pointed out another two that he/she missed, he/she was upset to see that one of those missed !votes was theirs. What happened, apparently, is this user misinterpeted another user's comment as weak redirect, although the comment actually stated ""As such I'd support deleting this in favor of a redirect to the List of page." So then when they left the comment below it "I'd agree with that", while simultaneously striking-through their previous "Keep" !vote. The user stated to me that their !vote was a clear "Neutral" vote, and should have been counted as such. To which I asked why a neutral voter would have such a strong objection to the outcome of the debate. Their reply was Because I think the outcome was wrong - I don't think I need a reason beyond that? I don't see a compelling reason to delete it, but I don't see a real strong reason to vote keep on it either, and I wasn't sure which way it should be merged. I think it should have been kept by default, but I couldn't just cast a vote for "no consensus", and "neutral" doesn't mean "I don't care". I also think the people voting 'delete' are way too strict in their interpretations of the guidelines and essays they cite, and I'm just not swayed by their arguments. That said, I'm speaking up about it because it seems like a clear no-consensus outcome to me. It seems this user had a lot of ambivalence in the debate, and did not make sufficient effort to make their !vote clear enough to be properly understood, and now they are just hassling me over minutiae of process, versus practicality. I am confident that the correct outcome occurred. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I do object to your characterization of me as being "upset" or "harassing" you, or dismissing this as "minutiae". I clearly voted "neutral" and my vote was counted otherwise' I don't think it's unreasonable to voice concern over that. Torc2 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, minutiae, I knew my previous spelling looked incorrect. My use of the term upset was not intended to offend you. Perhaps a regional variation of english issue is at play here... in my regional variation of English, upset simply means "unhappy or disappointed because of something that has happened", I see in Oxford that in British English it might suggest "a shift of mental state to that of worry or undue concern", this is not what I meant. Thanks. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• overturn I don't have a strong opinion on the vote counting because regardless of that, I don't think the closing admin gave enough weight to the fact that good sourcing was presented after all the delete votes had been cast. As I pointed out in my keep vote there, there is at least one extensive reliable source only on this topic and there are multiple other reliable sources that discuss this topic. Thus, this article should stay and we should write using these good sources. DRV should not generally be AfD2 but the fact that the initial voters were not aware of the additional sources should be enough to make this a "no consensus" or "keep". JoshuaZ (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not deleted for lack of sources, it was deleted for redundancy to a proper list, and the fact that as an article it invited original research, which it was full of at the time. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What articles don't invite OR? All Wikipedia articles are open invitations to add something off the top of your head, and get used that way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't also completely OR so much as having no notability asserted (since it was based simply on the primary source episodes). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus when the vote is sufficiently divided, among responsible WPedians, that seems the way to call it. DGG (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

okay, but 5 deletes, 2 keeps, a merge, and a redirect.

And if you include the merge after closing decision was started: 5 deletes, 2 keeps, 2 merges, and a redirect.

And if you accept that the nominator here actually meant neutral: 4 deletes, 2 keeps, 2 merges, a neutral and a redirect.

And if you apply strength of argument weighting, as I did, you would apply slightly more weight to the deletes.

This is sufficiently divided?JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Four votes for deleting and four votes for, in some way, retaining the information is certainly "sufficiently divided". The redirect vote was contingent on no sources, and was a merge vote if the article was sourced; JoshuaZ said in the debate that he had sources, so the final vote should have been 3 deletes, 2 keeps, 3 merges, a redirect and a neutral. Torc2 (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, seems a perfectly correct interpretation of the policy basis for the delete and keep opinions. Remember, AfD is not a vote, and discussions are not interpeted by counting numbers. If indeed it is possible to create a well-sourced article on this topic, I recommend doing so, and then bringing it to DRV. --Stormie (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment If AfD is not a vote, why was (and is) so much emphasis given to the vote count as a basis for deleting? Torc2 (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

All of the discussion above about count of !votes was in response to YOUR objection to the closing. You never see such a "X Delete, X keep, X merge" summarization except when in response to somebody objecting who happens to have the actual raw count wrong. Showing the objector how the raw count is actually different than their raw count is often an easier way to amicably close the objection than explaining the exact weighting given to each participant's comment. The latter process is actually what was used to close the discussion, as described at the top of my first comment here. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment upon closing was "The result was Delete; note that two editors did not specifically say in bold print to delete, but did say to delete, with valid rationale for it. So if you do a count to comparre to the determination of rough concensus, please take that into consideration." This clearly indicates some dependence on raw vote counts, which was apparently done incorrectly. Torc2 (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you have also managed to misinterpret my comment on closure. Like most admins, I think, I receive frequent complaints on my talk page after closing AfD's by people who are doing raw !vote counts. In this case, it looked highly likely that this would happen, especially because two of the user comments did not have a bolded recommendation. I NEVER close AFD's by raw !vote count, and I believe that the bolded recommendation is the least important part of a participants comment at AFD. Quite often people say delete, but provide a perfect keep argument, and vice-versa. Please go back and look over my deletion logs, talk page, and previous delrev's (all of which were endorsed)... I have a clear history of using rough consensus and this does result in some users complaining, particularly newer users who do not yet know how consensus is different than !vote counting, an understandable confusion to make. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse AFD isn't a vote - we measure consensus against policy. I toyed with closing this myself and saw it as a delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I have no opinion on this article but notice here, as elsewhere, a strange interpretation of the word consensus. Per the OED, it means Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons.. When opinion is divided, then, by definition, there is no consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the definition you provide, as one official definition of that word. In fact I am a member of an organization that does use this method for many of its decision-making processes. This method of decision making gives the minority opinion infinite power, as nothing can ever be done until unanimous opinion allows it. If your (Oxford's) definition was Wikipedia's XfD closing process, then frankly, nothing would ever get done here.

Instead, in AFD, we use a process called rough consensus. You can read about this in the article Consensus decision-making. Please also read Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough consensus, which provides clear guidance on when administrators must ignore a comment entirely if the basis for the comment is no longer valid, is made in bad faith, made based upon factually incorrect data, contradicts policy/guideline, does not base itself in any policy, or goes against established precedent. It is by no means a head count, and an equal split of the !votes does not necessarily dictate that a no consensus outcome is proper. Certainly there is no requirement for collective unanimous opinion, as this would just plain not work at all. This is also covered in WP:PRACTICAL, which is part of the official wikipedia consensus policy. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and redirect to List of recurring robot characters from Futurama. Almost every delete vote contained a reference to List of recurring robot characters from Futurama implying a merge, and some explicitly voting to merge. Parts of the article would fit very well at the beginning of the list. That cannot be done (a GNU Free Documentation License violation) if the page is deleted. Jon513 (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I just wanted to express my deep and sincere regret that I am unable to close the DRV with "Good news, everyone...the DRV is closed as XXXXXXX!". I presume my deep and abiding love of Futurama might lead some to believe my closure was biased. Pitiful earthling biases. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus per DGG. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Dice Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

AFD discussion had no consensus, closing admin believes offline magazine citation is not verified -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn; I agree consensus had not been reached, and the AFD discussion was still ongoing. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It was started on December 31 and closed on January 17. Compared with the usual 5 day period for AfD's, I think it is safe to say that discussion had lasted long enough. Fram (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from closing admin: (slightly modified copy from my talk page): For starters, consensus is not a votecount, it is based on the strength of the arguments. The only reliable independent source just referenced that it is "one of the most popular podcasts about board games". That's not really a lot to go by. The Keep from Percy Snoodle was not really correct (wrt policy), and the Keep from Colonel Warden was not supported either. You can't judge notability by listening to the subject of the article, only quality, which is irelevant for an AfD. This leaves us with two keeps, from Applejuicefool and JHunterJ, which were mostly based on the popularity and longevity of the podcast (which is admirable, but again not relevant), and the one reliable source. One reliable source isn't sufficient anyway, and it is unclear how thorough it is on the podcast (is it a mention, a full page article, ... ?: the strength and depth of this source are unverified), so the stronger arguments were clearly with those arguing for deletion. Please check Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus: the first paragraph is not relevant here (all arguments were made in good faith by respected editors), but the next line is: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." The strongest arguments were IMO clearly with those supporting deletion. Fram (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  As I pointed out on your talk page, my keep was not based on popularity or longevity, but on the citation that I added to it. The citation is easily verified in the U.S. -- Knucklebones is nationally distributed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• FYI: the article as it was at the time of the deletion can be seen at User:Percy Snoodle/The Dice Tower. Fram (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse I agree with the closing admin. Consensus is not a vote count, and the narrow consensus of an article can't override the greater consensus of policies and guidelines created on wikipedia. Its nice to see closing admin who acknowledge this and can close tight discussions properly. If consensus were just a vote count, it would be almost impossible to delete an article as most AfDs are low traffic and it wouldn't take many interested parties to keep an inappropriate article. There was a nice analysis of the sources on the AfD which clearly demonstrated that at best we had one source which we couldn't read that might speak to notability. The rest were not independent of the subject. I don't oppose recreation in the future if compliance with WP:WEB can be demonstrated.--Crossmr (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  "which we couldn't read"? There is nothing in WP:RS that questions the reliability of offline sources, although I have seen this bias against things that aren't on the net before. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Admin closed on the argument that the topic was not adequately sourced. That argument and the simple majority of 5 Delete to 4 Keep pushes toward consensus for deletion. The counter argument from Colonel Warden doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and Breno's analysis and breaking down of Percy Snoodle's WP:WEB argument appears to be sound. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 15:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  Only 4 delete. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse per the others here, but I'd like to encourage the DRV noms to work on this article while it's in userspace. Remember, if the sourcing issues can be fixed enough to establish the notability of the subject, it can be restored the mainspace. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn The closer failed to observe the emphatic statement of WP:DGFA: When in doubt, don't delete. Since the quality of sources was contested and sources were added in the course of discussion, it seems clear that there was a reasonable doubt and so the result should have been No consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think there was any doubt. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  I can't see how you can honestly say those sources met WP:WEB. It was very clearly and well demonstrated that all the sources but one were not independent of the subject. You are assuming the closer was in doubt. If they weren't in doubt they weren't ignoring WP:DGFA. From their description above it doesn't sound like they were in doubt. This is a moot argument if another piece of significant reliable coverage is provided. If it can't be found, wait until one is written and then recreate the article. AfD isn't a vote and if an argument doesn't hold water, there is no reason to declare a draw. otherwise we could have several users show up make a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT comments and never be able to delete anything.--Crossmr (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• It is official policy that we should tolerate imperfection. The idea is that imperfect articles are kept where editors can work on them and make them better. Deleting work-in-progress articles is quite wrong and should only be done when it is clear that they are not capable of improvement. This is why the guideline tells admins to give articles the benefit of any doubt. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• You're wikilawyering. No, perfection is not required, however there is still a minimum standard to have an article, and for an article to avoid deletion, it needs to meet that standard. This article did not. Is this article truly capable of improvement? Then do it. There's no harm in it staying in userspace until it is. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have cited both policy and guideline which clearly state that in borderline cases, such as this, the recommendation is to retain rather than delete. This seems very much to the point of this review. Your accusation of wikilawyering is therefore just an insult. As for improving the article, I can no longer do this because it has been deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• This was not "borderline". This was pretty clear-cut. As I pointed out above. And if someone is quacking like a wikilawyer, I'm going to call them one. Don't like it? Don't do it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Its right here User:Percy_Snoodle/The_Dice_Tower as pointed out above.--Crossmr (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's no good because it seems to be hidden from a search. That's the point of deletion: to make an article go away so that we can't find it. You can't have it both ways. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think his intention was that you could, if you were willing and able, improve it in userspace in order to correct the issues which led to the deletion (i.e. lack of reliable sources) so that it could then be moved back into main article space. --Stormie (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, that was my intention. That is the normal course of action in cases like this. Put the article into a user subpage while it's being worked on, then put it back in when it's ready. No reasonable person would have an objection to this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have already made a reasonable objection, viz that you can't then search for the article. Rather than address this, you insult me again. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• ...why am I trying? I don't see what's so difficult about this. It's kind of what userspace is used for, to create drafts for articles. Okay, one last try: It's a temporary copy of the article created for the convenience of those working on it. It's not supposed to show up in a search (and for the record if you search in the right way, it can). Nobody needs to be able to search for it. User:Percy_Snoodle/The_Dice_Tower is not intended to be a permanent location for the article. It's only there so people can work on it. Once it's ready to go in, if it is ever ready to go in, it will be moved back to it's old name. If it never is brought up to snuff, then it can be easily removed again. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article was under the gun and still couldn't be improved to meet the guideline. How well would it be improved when there is no urgency? Using your argument, nothing should ever be deleted. Unfortunately we know that's not true since there are a number of things wikipedia is not. A further expansion on NOT are the inclusion guidelines like notability.--Crossmr (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. There's nothing radically wrong with the AfD. The close was perfectly reasonable from what I can see. I agree with above endorse comments. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, reliable sources are still yet to be forthcoming. The AfD had considerably more time than most AfDs get, it wasn't "under the gun". Corvus cornix_talk 03:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, Whether this article meets the letter of WP:WEB or not, The Dice Tower is still a highly notable podcast in the world of boardgaming hobbyists. This should be obvious from the MOUNTAIN of independent, original web content about the show. True, none of these sources might individually be considered notable, but collectively they indicate an ongoing awareness and conversation about the Dice Tower within the hobby. It's a little bit elitist to disallow an article because people are using technology to discuss it informally rather than formally. The facts of the article can be verified from the podcast website; the notability of the article is determined by the amount of buzz about it. Earlier in this discussion, someone accused an "Overturn" opinion of "wikilawyering"...it seems that those wanting this article to remain deleted are wikilawyering themselves - adhering to the letter rather than the spirit of the rule. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Look around Wikipedia, there are plenty of articles that rely on web sources to prove notability. But none of the sources in this article are valid ones for proving notability. Let me go through them:
    • Source 1 is the closest one to doing so. While I can't check it, I can tell you that on the magazine's website, they're showing the current issue as January when the article in question says it's featured in the March issue. Hardly verifiable if it's not out yet.
    • Source 2 doesn't appear to be independent of the subject.
    • Source 3 is the distributor's page, not independent.
    • Source 4 is a forum. Trust me, a forum doesn't make one notable.
    • Sources 5 and 6 have nothing to do with the subject of the article.
    • Source 7 is a forum post
  • In short, none of these sources prove that the subject is notable. An article in Knucklebones Magazine will start the process (usually two sources are needed to establish notability), but that can't be verified because according to my own research, the magazine isn't even out yet (and a little quarter-column blurb doesn't do much). If this podcast really is notable, sources will develop, and it will get an article when one can be supported...deletion once isn't an absolute bar from inclusion. More than one subject has clawed their way up after several deletions and eventually proven notability (this article is a good example). And by the way, don't run around accusing me of conspiring to see the article wiped out...honestly, I don't like seeing anything be deleted, and if I truly wanted to see it gone, I certainly wouldn't be making this post. But articles that can't establish and prove notability get deleted, and that is the letter and spirit of the rules. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Knucklebones issue containing the relevant article is out, Knucklebones just hasn't updated their website yet. This is easily verified by obtaining a copy of the current issue. The Dice Tower is notable. It is easily recognized and often discussed among gaming hobbyists. Wikipedia would be enhanced with a Dice Tower article, despite the lack of notable sources. Check out WP:IAR. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• And you should check out WP:IAR?. Anyways, I'm trying to work with you here, and you're demanding an article by absolute fiat. That's not going to work. Unfortunately, I can't verify the source because I have never heard of this magazine and don't know where to pick it up. It's not at my local library. So what is the article about? The podcast? The person, who is apparently notable for other reasons? A short blurb about "what's cool" this month? What does the article say, and how much of that can be used to write the article? --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Willow Creek Pass (Montana) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The discussion in this AfD centred on the notion of consensus v existing guidelines regarding geological features on maps. Those looking to Keep felt that all features on maps should have a stand alone article, and that there was consensus for such a view. Those looking to Delete felt that there were no guidelines or policies directly supporting such a view, and that indeed existing guidelines explicitly guided against keeping articles which could not prove notability. There was a majority view to Keep which then brings into question: which consensus should be followed, the wider, established community view as detailed on multiple guidelines and policies, or - bearing in mind that consensus can change - the majority vote on an AfD? The results of this review could form the basis for a note to be inserted in the most appropriate guideline that Wikipedia is NOT a map, and should not simply list geographical features which are found on other maps. or All geographical features on a map are notable and need no further verification. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 08:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would suggest that would be going far beyond WP:DRVs remit and in considering this no one should believe they are "voting" on changes to policy pages. Re the concept that consensus can change, again not really for AFD to directly drive change to policy in such a way either. Though a consistent view represented across several AFDs etc. DRVs maybe used as a starting point to move forward such a change, a single event shouldn't. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse the outcome of the AFD. That's about all we can decide here, whether the close was proper. For the record, I don't see anything wrong with the article, and in general, if a geographical feature is significant enough to be put on a map in the first place, it's probably notable enough for inclusion (the atlas itself is a source)--UsaSatsui (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Besides this AfD being overwhelmingly "keep" (15 "keeps", 5 "deletes"), WP:CONSENSUS has long found that geographical features such as this are notable provided they are verifiable and there is no evidence that consensus has changed prior to this AfD. If there is to be a DRV on this closure it should be to change the outcome from "no consensus" to "keep". --Oakshade (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - I agree 100% with the sentiments expressed by Oakshade. y'amer'can (wtf?) 20:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. DRV is not AfD round 2. The AfD was closed properly with a valid reading of consensus. The purview of DRV is not to change policy, suggesting policy is for that. IMO the nom should suggest Wikipedia:Notability (geographical features) or some such. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Outcome was correct. Also, just because a practice is not written down doesn't mean it's not policy. There is a long standing consensus that verifiable geographic features should be kept in most circumstances. It would take a clear consensus (and not at DRV) to change that. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. In order to ignore consensus, there had better be some core policy being violated, a clear and unambiguous breach of WP:V or WP:NOR for example. Disagreements on what is "notable" is not a good reason to ignore consensus. As a side note (and why I would vote "keep" had i participated), geographical features are subjects which are traditionally covered in encyclopedias, and my paper encyclopedia has hundreds of articles on geographic features (of "stub" quality) which do little more than say what and where the feature is, with no information written about why it is important. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Rocking Out Against Voldemedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The creator of this article self-nominated thinking the album wasn't notable. However, the album has actually received a fair amount of press, such as here and here. --Torc2 (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Recreate. Not much to review in a G7. Go ahead and make the article yourself. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Does G7 mean it can't be restored and has to be recreated? I only ask because I'm being exceptionally lazy. Torc2 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Unless the original creator of the first version wants it restored, I think you'll have to start it from scratch. But there's nothing stopping you from creating it right now. I suggest a speedy close here since there's nothing to review, and you might want to ask the deleting admin (or the admin who closes this) to restore it for you. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy to Torc2 and close. BlueValour (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Seoulsubway.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This was a stealth nomination. No notice was given on the article talk page and the uploader of the image wasn't notified. Nor was evidence to where this was a copyvio shown. Crossmr (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(From closing admin) Deleting the image was a mistake on my part as the IFD process was not followed correctly as pointed out by Crossmr. I have restored the image and placed it back in the article it was removed from. I renominated the image as a copyvio only at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Sorry for the error. -Nv8200p talk 16:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, now that I know where this came from I'll dig in to the copyright there and see if there is any legitimate case made for fair use here.--Crossmr (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-deleted per WP:CSD#I9. The uploader clearly doesn't own the copyright to this image and has no right to release it in the public domain. It also fails the first fair use criterion for Wikipedia use since a free map may be created using satellite imagery and the available SMRTC data. (See also this discussion of a free license subway map) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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

This article on the central figure in a major national news story, was deleted citing WP:BLP1E as a justification for overriding consensus. However, BLP1E does not call for summary deletion of articles like this; it merely asks for "consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person." The overall consideration of editors, as stated in the original AfD, is that the original article is the most appropriate location for the numerous details of this case that's received daily coverage in the U.S. news media for over two weeks. No concerns about accuracy or verifiability have been raised, so there doesn't seem to be a case to delete on BLP grounds. If there's concern that the individual isn't notable enough on her own, the article should be refactored into Maria Lauterbach murder or a similar title, not deleted entirely. I've been turning to this article frequently to get a synthesis of the whole story, beyond just the "breaking news" headline of the day, and I think it serves a very useful purpose. - Sethant (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think that this DRV is the way to go. Whatever the BLP ramifications, this is a clear case where it is the event that is notable not the person. There is, BTW, no definitive evidence of her death, at least in the article, and we must not assume it until it has been officially confirmed. I suggest that nominator creates a new page Disappearance of Maria Lauterbach which entails restructuring the article on the event, removing things like the bio box and bio cats, and restricting any bio details to those that are germane to her disappearance. This can be done outside this DRV since it would not be a substantial recreation and would address the deletion grounds. BlueValour (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • But since most of the information in the article may be properly included in a new article (as, e.g., Disappearance of Maria Lauterbach, it would, one imagines, be better simply for us to undelete and then to move the article to a new title (should, that is, a consensus exist for the adoption of a new title consistent with "cover the event, not the person"). Joe 04:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There are no BLP concerns - the death was officially confirmed the day that the AfD was opened. --Smashville^BONK! 16:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• overturn, speedily if possible The closer really needs to read User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP. Everything was well-sourced so there's no issue with classic BLP problems. When there are other forms of BLP issues (concern about notability for a specific event, or being a criminal victim or something similar) we need to let the community decide because decisions about how precisely notable someone needs to be to override BLP is a complicated issue. The community consensus in this AfD was clear; the large continuing coverage in international press was sufficient to be more important than any weak BLP-penumbra concerns. That should be sufficient to overturn by itself. Furthermore, doing this sort of thing is essentially Wikipedia trying as hard as possible to shoot ourselves in the foot. We've been repeatedly commended for our coverage of major breaking news stories, such as the Virginia Tech massacre (indeed, there were multiple news stories including one in the New York Times just devoted to our coverage). We do this very well. Obviously there's a point where NOTNEWS applies, but to delete an article against clear community consensus when it is still ongoing is counter-productive in the extreme. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, to be sure, per JoshuaZ (whatever analysis I might offer would be similar in substance to that which he provides, only, of course, unnecessarily longer and less cogent). Joe 04:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This article should be restored under the title "Maria Lauterbach." It makes no sense to delete this article when you have so many more that would be deleted for the same reason. Please reinstate the article. Where was the consensus???BaliPearl (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The following user appears to be violating protocol with the deletion. Please comment: User_talk:Gaillimh#Maria_Lauterbach. Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't attempt to encourage other Wikipedia editors to harass a Wiki editor. --Smashville^BONK! 21:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The closing admin correctly enforced WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. AfD's are not meant to be democratic and Gaillimh went with what was right over what was popular. y'amer'can (wtf?) 13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, speedily if possible. I think it is fairly clear that the closer didn't consider the obvious, easy solution here, which was a move to Murder of Maria Lauterbach. The lady (who is sadly deceased, btw -- authorities have found her remains) was not notable in life, but her murder is notable, and her assailant will have an article, as do many infamous (accused) murders. This clearly belongs in Wikipedia; although it is presently "news", the trial will stretch on for years, and the discussion of military justice regarding sexual harassment inspired by this murder has already had implications in national policy debates. Xoloz (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, speedily if possible Concur with Xoloz. Also want to re-iterate that there are no BLP concerns, since her and her unborn child were confirmed dead. [1] Angrymansr (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. The deletion rationale was that there was a BLP violation. The subject was confirmed dead on the same day the AfD was opened. BLP never should have been a concern and all arguments as such (especially considering the death was already widely reported) are invalid. --Smashville^BONK! 16:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and rename Murder of Maria Lauterbach The closer cited that policy must prevail, but in this case, policy didn't make much sense, and it would have been right to ignore it (WP:IAR). Besides, the WP:BLP1E rule is broken in many other articles concerning murders, why was this one put up for AfD and not the dozens of others? Hate add WP:WAX into the mix, but it makes sense in this case. Undeleting and renaming however, settles both the bad delete and notability conflicts and will satisfy the deletionists who cited WP:BLP1E. bahamut0013♠♣ 16:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not to mention that WP:BLP1E is part of the notability guideline, not the BLP policy. It's not a policy. So it can't "prevail". --Smashville^BONK! 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Was she murdered? Do you know for certain? Perhaps we should simply state only that which we know to be true, which is that she is dead. --MC (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that you would want an article of such interest at Wikipedia. This deletion is disturbing especially when there are other articles like it that are kept...like Laci Peterson. One person decided to delete it when those of us were adding news to it. We need to get it back as soon as possible. It was a great way to update the story from the sources that we see. BaliPearl (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NPA & WP:AGF, criticize the action, not the user. y'amer'can (wtf?) 18:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. While I still think that this was a sound closure, the idea of moving the deleted edits to Murder of Maria Lauterbach sure beats an undelete here. y'amer'can (wtf?) 18:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment So what do we do if User:Gaillimh never shows up? This editor only has one edit this whole week. Angrymansr (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The closing admin need not neccesarily participate. That being said, it has only been one day and they still have plenty of time to drop by. y'amer'can (wtf?) 22:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn BLP means what it says. Living. Giving the reason for the close as BLP was inappropriate. DGG (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. I argued in the AFD for the content to be kept and moved to a different name, so obviously I support overturning deletion here. A 'Keep' was supported by the vast majority of AFD participants (what I'd call a consensus), and it's far from obvious that BLP policy was violated here; even if it was, a simple move to Murder of Maria Lauterbach would be the right action to take rather than deleting the article altogether. Terraxos (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• comment Can we end this now and restore this already please? There are a lot of things happening here. this is one of many examples]. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn I prefer the Terraxos solution (restoring then immediately moving to "Death of..." or something similar—Murder of... presupposes the outcome so is probably undesirable), consensus was unclear at AfD so this avenue is open to DRV. Closer did not err in reading consensus but there was more than one way to do it in this case. Orderinchaos 05:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn first and worry about the article name later. The event is notable. --MC (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Whether Lauterbach is alive or dead isn't the issue; WP:BIO now applies regardless of whether the person is currently living. However, WP:BIO specifically says that this notability guideline for biographies is not policy. The closing editor cited it as policy, indicating a good-faith misunderstanding of the guideline. --SSBohio 16:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dance Dance Revolution SuperNOVA 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This, and several other DDR related articles all got G11'd, although they did not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria and have existed on this site for a very long time. Also, on the Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME article, think you could do that thing you do to restore the page history while we're here? I think I didn't restore it the right way come to think of it ViperSnake151 00:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_15#Dance_Dance_Revolution_games for the relevant discussion. - hahnchen 01:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)