Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 28

Canadian Royal Family (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Commonwealth realms have raised the issue of reinstating this article which was techically not deleted, but has been locked as a redirect (and the locking admin has not responded to requests to reverse this decision), effectively making the page impossible to restore, as though it were deleted. --G2bambino (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Please take the time to look at the sandbox version!! --Cameron (t/c) 17:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Allow recreation based on the sandbox version the wikiproject has created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Commonwealth realms/Sandbox which seems like a good basis for an article. Davewild (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation per the above. --Haemo (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• That… actually looks really good. Nice job! Based on the sandbox version, I say Allow recreation. It still needs a little copyediting in spots, but it's a well-written and well-sourced article, from what I see. -- Kesh (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Given further comments, I have to retract my previous opinion. Monarchy of Canada already exists and has far more detail than this article, so I support Redirect and Merge any relevant data from this article to Monarchy of Canada. -- Kesh (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• The "article" is a well-written POV essay, full of utterly unencyclopaedic nonsense. "her family is considered Canada's Royal Family" Really? By whom? "Though it would be possible for other members of the Royal Family to be granted distinctly Canadian titles" - would it? Says who?. I could go on. Perhaps an article on Royalty in Canada could outline the theory that there is a concept of a Canadian Royal family - but to have an article that assumes it factually exists in inherently POV. This is royal-cruftiness of the first degree. Keep deleted and redirected--Doc^g 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirecting this to Monarchy of Canada and merging anything remotely encyclopaedic there is precisely the right move.--Doc^g 01:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge whatever is useful in that sandbox to the article on the Monarchy in Canada. When I read it, it felt like a rehash of the article of the British Royal Family (which is the Royal family in Canada to the most part). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation --Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 01:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a redirect and merge anything useful to the target (Monarchy of Canada). The sandbox article still has POV problems , unfortunately, so recreating based on that is not a good idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Do not recreate. Monarchy in Canada contains the material already, there is no need for a separate article to duplicate it. Canadians do not see the Windsor-Mountbattens as a "Canadian Royal Family". Indeed, many Canadians chafe at the fact that the Queen is our Head of State. The existing redirect is the right way to handle this, in fact it should be modified to point directly to Monarchy in Canada#Canadian Royal Family. PKT (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect. I agree wholly with the concerns of Dog^g. There's no reason to have Monarchy of Canada and Canadian Royal Family. They are at best redundant and at worst POV forks. --JayHenry (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation What more could one want? The article has a good size and plenty of reliable sources (department of Canadian heritage!). --Cameron (t/c) 17:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect. Basically exactly the same as British Royal Family (all the same members for one!). An article on it shows POV, and a section on Monarchy in Canada in enough.--UpDown (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect Since what is purported to be the Canadian Royal Family is the British Royal Family there is no need for a separate article. In a Canadian context there are a few names and events which are appropriate to mention. But these are mentioned in a section in Monarchy of Canada. An article on the Canadian Royal Family would be a replication of British Royal Family with these few references added. One of the arguments for reinstating the article is that Monarchy of Canada is too long. If it is felt it is too long (and Wiki advice in the matter is a guideline, not a mandate), the logical thing to do would be to make it more concise, not divide it into multiple articles. But a Canadian Royal Family would in fact defeat the purpose of making treatment of the Canadian Monarchy more concise. For Canadian Royal Family would end up another long article:to place it in context material from MoC would have to be replicated there. And the section on the CRR in MoC would not, I suspect, be deleted, and only marginally truncated. So Monarchy in Canada would not be substantially shorter.--Gazzster (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse redirect - the request does not address the fundamental problem that the article was essentially a POV-fork. In fact, it seems to argue the same POV. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect - if the sandbox version is not identical to the Canadian Royal Family section of Monarchy in Canada then it is jolly close. No argument has been adduced why we should want a further article that duplicates a section of an existing article. Also, the redirect implements the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family. TerriersFan (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Redirect I gotta agree with Doc, JzG, Gazzster & others on this one. The British Royal Family article covers all the necessary details. Eusebeus (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as redirect, with a 60/40 preference for British Royal Family over Monarchy of Canada#Canadian Royal Family. For this to be a standalone article makes about as much sense as having 16 parallel Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom articles. --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to British Royal Family since there is just one family and it is this one. Monarchy is a different topic since, by definition, that is just one person, not a family. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect per Guy. No reason for two separate articles on the same topic with different titles. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The main article version would be shortened and a "see main article" bit added...--Cameron (t/c) 14:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: As I feared, the same old baseless points are being brought up as in the last AfD for this article: this information is covered in the article British Royal Family; this information belongs in Monarchy of Canada; this article is POV. Those who are saying this, it seems, haven't done their homework well before expressing their opinion. For those who are about to make their call after only a cursory glance at the matter in question: take a little more time to look at the facts: this information is not covered in British Royal Family; it is desired that this information be moved (again) out of Monarchy of Canada because that article is already too long at 91KB; this information is well supported by a number of valid citations. --G2bambino (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is too long, make it more concise. In effect what you want to do is lengthen it, not shorten it (see my comment above).--Gazzster (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what you mean. An article can only be truncated so far before it regresses to a state of poor quality. I'm all for removing excess and repetition, but not at the sake of clarity or accuracy, and it is WP policy to break larger articles into smaller ones. --G2bambino (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think the section in Monarchy of Canada is in danger of being unclear or inaccurate. It communicates what it intends to: ie., there is Canadian Royal Family (abstracting from contrary contentions). What you really want to do is retain the present section (even possibly expand it) in MoC and create a separate expanded article.But you have another option. You can extend Canadian Royal Family within Monarchy of Canada; the guidelines about length of articles are precisely that. There are any number of longer articles. You are at liberty to expand. Personally I believe less is more by the KISS principle. But then there is also the POV fork issue which I think you need to address again.--Gazzster (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the section is in danger of being unclear either; I was speaking generally. The guideline (pardon my miscommunication) advises us to split articles over a certain size into smaller ones; thus, there is supported argument for shifting the information out to a sister article. Whether or not there remains a reduced (as the guideline says "summarized") section in Monarchy of Canada is another matter all-together; personally I don't see a need for it, but, that opinion isn't concrete. Thus, one would have to give a convincing argument why a sister article should not be created. None, really, have been offered; you talk of a POV fork, but I don't know what that means. --G2bambino (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC) (A little research does wonders.) This isn't even a case of POV forking as the subject matter, obviously, is not the same. The situation is similar to the articles Monarchy of New Zealand and Monarchy of Canada: the institutions are two separate and different parts of one whole. --G2bambino (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The page you have linked as "WP Policy" (Wikipedia:Summary style) is in fact an "editing guideline" - i.e. not a policy. Guest9999 (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't violentally oppose the recreation. I just don't feel there's any need for it. I don't see how it reduces MoC or makes it more concise (which was one of your stated objectives). As I've said before, it seems to make the treatment of the Canadian monarchy even wordier. For what is the difference between expanding one article and splitting it up into different articles which repeat much of the same material and go into quite unecessary minutiae?--Gazzster (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly hope you wouldn't be violent about it! You could only take it out on your poor computer... Anyway, moving the section(s) to a sister article reduces Monarchy of Canada by simple mass: with Canadian Royal Family there, the article is 91KB long; without Canadian Royal Family there, the article is 78KB long. That's the difference between an automatic suggestion to split the article and no suggestion to split the article. Your claims of repetition are simply red herrings; moving information out does not mean making a double of it. It means deleting it at Monarchy of Canada and placing it in Canadian Royal Family instead. --G2bambino (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

But would you delete it at MoC? At best, wouldn't you truncate it and add a link to the new article? By repetition, I mean repeating material from MoC to place Canadian Royal Family in context.--Gazzster (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I just said I didn't see a need for any condensed version to remain at Monarchy of Canada, Gazzster. The section was originally a separate article; it was built to stand as such, and still does. I see only a direct transfer of the text as it presently is from Monarchy of Canada to Canadian Royal Family. --G2bambino (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. But given that MoC isn't overly long (and if it were, it could be trimmed in other ways) you could just leave it where it is.--Gazzster (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? --G2bambino (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, that's a question for you to answer. I'm done discussing it, I think.--Gazzster (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Allow recreation: The Monarchy of Canada article has become too long. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So perhaps an article on "Royalty in Canada" could be created as a split. But the notion that there exists a concept of a "Canadian Royal Family" is inherently POV.--Doc^g 22:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That claim might be considerable if it wasn't contradicted by valid sources. --G2bambino (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure 'Royalty in Canada' is acceptable - I just want a daughter-article created. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between Monarchy of Canada and Royalty in Canada? --G2bambino (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No differance to me, I'll accept either title. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what? --G2bambino (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the chances of getting the article re-created is better, with the title 'Royalty in Canada'? I'll accept it. It's better then not having the required daughter-article at all. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems an odd title to me. It's a neologism, whereas Canadian Royal Family is not. --G2bambino (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping there'd be a consensus for 'Canadian Royal Family'; but the title doesn't seem to be catching on. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as redirect. There's really not much reason for a separate article since this can never be anything more than a duplicate of other, better articles about the same topic whose only real difference is its title. Bearcat (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Such as? --G2bambino (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as redirect. As many have pointed out already, the "Canadian Royal Family" is nought but the British Royal Family, and we don't need fork articles. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Rename to Allegations of a Canadian Royal Family. -- Naerii 15:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no denying a Canadian Royal Family. Regardless...that is not the question here. The question here is whether it merits its own article or whether if will have to remain in its current existance as a miserable redirect...--Cameron (t|p|c) 15:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

An awful lot of Canadians would disagree with "There is no denying a Canadian Royal Family." Rather, there is a British Royal Family whose head is also the nominal Head of State of Canada. PKT (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Canadian Government state otherwise. --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Queen herself says otherwise too. But, never mind; it seems we don't let facts get in the way of our opinions around here. --G2bambino (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And no one argued with Emperor Norton, so I guess his claim was legitimate too? :) -- Kesh (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Speedy deleted as a CSD A7, but there was a clear assertion of notability on the article, namely, that Lawlor was the captain of GAA club Emo. As the admin who speedied it noted, Emo is hardly a glamour club, but an assertion of notability is an assertion of notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It's distinctly marginal as an A7 deletion but would suggest just redirecting to Emo GAA unless you have some reliable sources for more than what was in the deleted article. There was little in the article that would not be out of place on the Emo GAA article but without some coverage in reliable sources a bio could not be written. Davewild (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, there's this, which implies the guy has a trophy/competition named after him, also the Carlow Nationalist lists him as the captain of Emo in 1972 for their first and only premiership. His career pre-dates the Internet, which makes Googling him difficult, but certainly there appears to be sources available to conclude this is not just a hoax. But it's not the sources that matter, it's the fact that the deletion was done out of process, as User:Hobit notes below, the speedy criteria are there for a reason. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC).

• Endorse own deletion. I'll agree it's not a brightline A7 but with respect to Paddy, there's no point in restoring it and sending it to AFD where it is highly likely to be redeleted. Support a redirect. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• list in AfD The speedy criteria are there for a reason and it wasn't followed. That's all deletion review should be worried about. Hobit (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• list in afd we basically have 3 choices:

1. we can list everything in AfD, and discuss 10 times as many articles a day
2. we can speedy delete whenever an admin thinks its non notable
3. we can have rules, and follow them. Those who want to tweak the rules can propose tweaks at WT:CSD. in the meantime, admins are obliged to follow them as they exist.

True, I would just love to start deleting on my own accord any article suggested to be non notable--I could cut the encyclopedia to half its size very quickly. DGG (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy deletion, list at AfD. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD but something more than the previous substub is really needed; are there some biographical details available? Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and list per policy, but I don't see anything that is going to survive AfD. A four sentence article about a team captain, when the team itself has only ten lines of text? Hard to justify an article, especially with very weak sources. The other articles on individual players in the GAA league look very tenuous also. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Before reposting, the article was re-written and reformatted to meet the criteria. Many things were amended in it to make it suitable. It was no longer presented as a country with a countrybox; instead I put it in the Micronations and Utopias categories. I changed its introduction which was previously written in a non-encyclopedic style. I added to its external links a recent press article published in one of the most serious European weekly magazines. Still, the article was deleted in no time: just minutes! It is extremely frustrating for an editor to see their work deleted so quickly, without warning or debating. I suppose this would only be acceptable for vandalism. What if I had given my article another title like "The Great Empire of Nowheristan" instead of just "Nowheristan". Would the adminsitrator who deleted it have taken more time to read it before deleting it? It would not have appeared to him/her as a repost in the frist place right? I believe this article does belong in Wikipedia after the modifications I brought to it. Please tell me if it requires additional modifications and I will apply them in the best way I can or even ask for help. But please don't treat it as vandalism. Thank you Ttiinnaabauer (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn Article that was speedied now has some reliable sources (only though a coupleone of the links does not work) to establish notability. The article which was deleted at AFD had no reliable secondary sources and none were brought forward at the AFD. It therefore does not meet the G4 speedy criteria as the main reason for deletion is being addressed. Davewild (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I'd like to see a userfied version before making further comment. These micro nations are often hoaxes, but properly sourced it could survive as an article. I'd like to see what changes Ttiinnaabauer made. -- Kesh (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources quoted in the article were 1,2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Davewild (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would gladly show the changes to Kesh, but how can I do that technically? What is the way so long as I have no green light to repost the article? As for the external sources, two of them have indeed expired, namely 3 and 5. I found a new link for 3, but am still unable to fix 5. Will work on it. Any other hints that can help me save the article are warmly welcome. Cheers. Ttiinnaabauer (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a working link for source 5 from Google's cache. Better than nothing. Ttiinnaabauer (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

#1 is the site of the "country" itself, which is not going to work for notability or verfiability, so discounted. I'm afraid my German is ill-equipped for #2, so i had to rely on Google translation, but most of the article is about the founder and not Nowhereistan itself. In fact, it explicitly names it as a "fictional nation." #3 is, again, primarily about the founder; Nowhereistan gets the barest mention. #4 and #5 are much the same. It sounds to me like the founder himself is notable enough for an article, but Nowhereistan is barely a blip on the radar. It's not even a notable Internet fad. Based on this, I Endorse Deletion. Instead, a redirect to Michel Elefteriades#Nowheristan would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesh (talk • contribs) 21:18, March 29, 2008

• overturn and relist if needed. Doesn't meet speedy criteria IMO....Hobit (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Reinstate but only as #redirect Michel Elefteriades#Nowheristan. Presumably Ttiinnaabauer is yet another sock puppet of Bahaab who is Michel Elefteriades or one of his "courtiers". The changes to the text are irrelevant, the question is: what changes have happened in the real world in the five months since the AfD closed to make Nowheristan more notable? I submit that there have been none and so the subject remains of limited notability. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse valid G4. Per RHaworth. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, if it has the same problems, it's a valid G4. That appears to be the case here. No objection to a redirect. --Coredesat 21:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. No reason why an AfD could not take place instead. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • An AFD has taken place, and it had a consensus to delete. --Coredesat 00:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The recently recreated version of this article appears even more promotional than the one deleted by AfD last fall. The AfD appeared valid, and the lack of reliable sources to confirm notability remains. The press articles that do exist would be better used as references for the article on Elefteriades. No objection to a redirect. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the proper steps were followed, and apparently the new version continues to fail WP:RS and WP:SPAM. Biruitorul (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Knights Templar and popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The following “popular culture” article was deleted following an AfD in which now banned editors Burntsauce, Golfcam, and Eyrian as determined by two arbitration cases and check users disruptively participated and therefore unduly clouded the results. They cooperated with each other and multiple other sock accounts in this and other AfDs (Burntsauce and Golfcam, Burntsauce and Eyrian, Golfcam and Eyrian, and again that's not even accounting all the other accounts they had as confirmed by multiple checkusers). To clarify the situation further for those unfamiliar with it, Burntsauce, Golfcam, and Eyrian are part of a large sockfarm that deliberately targetted "popular culture" articles. This article is number 136 on this list that a different banned account associated with these three compiled. Regardless of whether we like or dislike "popular culture" articles, the ends do not justify the means. An extensive sockfarm (some of these accounts are linked to this user; so, given these numbers, who knows just how extensive the problem actually was) went after over two hundred articles and used sockpuppetry, assumptions of bad faith, and incivility to accomplish its goals. This particular article appeared on one of the banned account's list of articles that the sock farm targetted and three members of that farm particiapted in this particular AfD. You'll also notice that the banned account that started the list was even blocked before the checkuser for assumptions of bad faith and incivility. Those of us who dared to support these articles were met with sockpuppet attacks both on and off Wikipedia as they engaged in email activity and posts on banned sites (which explains my frustration in responding to some posts below). Even if you do not like these types of articles and believe in good faith that they do not benefit our project and are happy that they were deleted, you still have to agree that we cannot reward results that were achieved by undeniable (two arbcoms and multiple checkusers determined the connections linking the now banned accounts) and deliberate disruption by one or two sockpuppeteers who operated untold alternate accounts to support deletion in over two hundred AfDs, while launching vicious attacks against any and all who challenged this effort. What you see is deliberate use of their accounts to target specifically lists and "in popular culture" articles. Without their vote fixing and violations of Point, the AfDs might have closed as keep or no consensus, especially as evidenced by the more recent trend of “in popular culture” articles closing as keep since the aforementioned accounts were blocked. As pertains to this particular topic, the Knights Templar's appearances in popular culture have actually increased as they play a notable role in a major game series. Therefore, I respectfully request that the AfD's closure be overturned and the article restored. Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• 'endorse deletion' While I likely would have !voted to keep, I think the discussion was clear. Sorry. Hobit (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • At least two of those advocating delete are accounts that were banned for in part disuprtive AfDs pertaining specifically to "in popular culture" articles. Moreover, the subject of the Knights Templar and their portrayal in popular culture has been covered in academic sources. The article should at least be restored so that we have a real chance to update, reference it, and then if it is nominated again have a discussion not impaired by those banned accounts. Actually, make that three of those who argued to delete the article have been blocked as sockpuppeters. I do not believe we had a fair discussion with three disruptive sock accounts participating in the discussion. Now that those individuals have seem to have given Wikipedia some rest (I hope), why not restore the article and have a more fair discussion? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll abstain given the above and comments made by others. I think the AfD would likely have gone the same way, but given it was tainted, I don't see the harm in relisting. Hobit (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you for keeping an open-mind.  :) As I look over the "endorse" comments below that seem to focus on the article's merits rather than the fact that the process was tainted by THREE banned editor's disruption, maybe in addition to deletion review, which is supposed to focuses on the process of an AfD closure, we should create an Wikipedia:Articles for resurrection or something to that effect that can serve a similar purpose to how AfD is used for multiple renominations to delete articles that are already kept in AfD that focuses on the article in question rather than the process of a closed AfD. The rules, format, would be similar but instead focus on restoring deleted articles. This way, Deletion review would remain and be more clearly about the process of an AfD closure, whereas this new project would focus on whether or not consensu has changed on any given article. If new AfDs can continuously reoccur for articles kept in previously closed AfDs, I see no reason not to also have an Articles for resurrection project. The idea just came to me know, so I'll give it some more thought later. Again, sorry to ramble (I'm getting over the flu and am still a bit light headed) and thanks again for being fair. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And now relist or even keep per Relata refero. Solid arguments about notability tossed in with problems in AfD... That conference cited threw it way over the top. Hobit (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Relist I won't argue now for keep (though I will at the forthcoming Afd), just that the manner of participation of the banned editors and their known use of sockpuppets for editwarring in general, as confirmed for Burntsauce and Eyrian by Arbcom decisions, & Golfcam by a straightforward CheckUser, contaminated the Afd beyond possible validity. Article nominated by Otto4771, who voted with them frequently. Closed without closing summary. But I wouldn't however blame anyone for being misled by the group of eds. who--with considerable skill--joined to attack this article. It's time to start undoing the damage Burntsauce & Eyrian did before the community caught on and ejected them. I hope Sr13 will choose to revert the close himself (GRC has invited him here, of course.) DGG (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No opinion at this time, but I'd just like to go on record that I consider the comment above an unjustifiable slur against Otto4711 (note the correct user name). Deor (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

well, the AfD show she made the nomination. I am just saying that they often have the same views on these articles. It's a fact, not an accusation. I think he'd agree that he does, and in good faith thinks the views justified. If I misrepresented him and he now thinks they're acceptable articles, I apologize. 01:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)DGG (talk)

If I misread the intent of your comment, I apologize. It seemed to me at the time that there was no reason to mention who nominated the article (since it makes no difference in the context of this review) except in an attempt to tar him with the same brush as the banned users. Deor (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote. Whether banned users made points during the discussion or not, the conclusion came down to which arguments the closing admin felt were better. If the !vote had been 100 keeps and one delete, and the delete reason was the only tenable one, then that's the way the close should go. Corvus cornix_talk 02:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

it does matter who made them. We wouldnt count their opinions now if they showed up by sockpuppet. After a Arbcom ban on a sysop like Eyrian, it's usual to revisit what they've been engaged in. DGG (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Plus, myself, and other participants in that discussion had to contend with a good deal of elsewhere harassment by the banned users in question and their alternate accounts elsewhere. There is a reason why in the original AfD, once Eyrian participated, I let the discussion drop and moved on even though I would have greatly liked to participate further and expand on the reasons for keeping, but increasingly my mentor (Chaser) advised me on and off-wiki to disengage from Eyrian as much as possible as he became increasingly hostile against me. Notice Eyrian's vote followed my argument. It would be nice to have a fair discussion this time. Moreover, I agree and have learned over time that AfD is indeed note a vote; however, the banned participants of that discussion and their allies approached all "in popular culture" AfDs as copy and paste votes, as I indicated in my evidence in the one ArbCom. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• relist per DGG and Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's observation that this is a pop culture topic that has been covered in academic sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus to delete was clear, regardless of the banned user's involvement. --Coredesat 03:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Consensus has changed though and we should be given an actually chance to evaluate the article without THREE banned editor's disrupting and fixing the discussion. Let us have a discussion not marred by multiple single-purpose anti-in popular culture bad faith accounts. Such a discussion cannot possibly reflect actual consensus. There is no disadvantage in giving the article another look, maybe a real chance to be improved, and a fair discussion. Why not even in a worst case scenario restore the article so editors' contributions are available to the public and redirect the article to here? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Relist The AfD was contaminated beyond all usability as described and consensus to delete was not clear. Rather than re-argue here, relist per DGG and LGRdC and argue there. That seems the fairest course since a DRV is about process, and process integrity was breached beyond repair in the AfD unless relisted or overturned. LGRdC's comments describe what amounts to jury tampering and should be very troubling to those that believe in fair process. Corvus cornix's endorse argument makes no sense in that context, and Hobit even admits to a keep vote. Relist and discuss the article merits there, or overturn and keep the article. — Becksguy (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Even discounting the opinions of the banned or blocked users named in the nomination above, by my count the !vote was 8 for delete and 2 for keep (with one user advocating a different solution, which involved removing the article to a Talk page). With regard to the assertion that those "illegitimate" opinions somehow influenced the AfD, I demur, noting that the only opinions that specifically referred to the opinion of another participant were two that questioned the "keep" rationale of DGG, neither of which was offered by one of the questionable participants. To assert that the opinions of the eight Wikipedians who thought that the article was worthy of deletion were somehow invalid seems to me disingenuous at best and insulting at worst. There is no evidence that the close of the AfD was faulty in any procedural aspect, so why are we here? Deor (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The keep arguments, however, were much stronger than the delete votes. The evidence is overwhelmingly that the AfD process was disrupted and therefore we must have a do over as it is entirely possible that the banned participants' opinions unduly influenced other participants in the discussion. If you are not here to add anything constructive to this discussion, than I am not sure why you are here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - DRV is not AFD round 2, and nothing has been offered in this DRV to indicate that the consensus reached at this eight-month-old AFD was in error. Otto4711 (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Three "votes" from banned editors, other posts from those editors in the discussion does NOT reflect consensus. If we eliminate their participation, we would have ended up with a no consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Relist The closer did not provide a detailed rationale. Since the presence of multiple socks introduces an element of doubt, we should take another look at this. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Not AfD round 2, and consensus was fairly clear even without the couple of since-banned editors. Having said that, there might be an article which could usefully look at the cultural aspects of the Knights Templar. But this wasn't it. Those voting to restore would be better off rebuilding the article from scratch, using those tiresome things that we don't see in pop culture articles a lot, like "quality control" and "sources". Black Kite 11:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no reason not to allow us a chance to discuss the article without having to contend with three banned editors marring the discussion. Plus, consensus has clearly changed to keep the article. Considering how many renominations we have for articles that are kept, there is no actual reason why we should not have a new discussion over an article in an instance in which we are certain three of the participants did so disruptively. Plus, as I have already stated, myself and others did NOT participate to our full extent BECAUSE of an effort to avoid further confrontation with Eyrian in particular. Had the banned editors NOT voted in the discussion, it indeed would have gone differently. Also, if you check the edits of even some of the non-banned editors who participated in that AfD on that day, notice the rapidity of their edits and all delete votes in AfDs that occurred so fast in such a copy and paste manner that they are indeed votes and that in no realistic way could have adequately covered the articles in question: example a, example b, and example c. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not comfortable enough with my opinions on the closing to !vote to either endorse or overturn it. However, I do believe that an article can exist on the topic. That is, it isn't inherently bad. Might be easier to recreate it first and ask for a history merge. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Relist I don't see why it can't be relisted to solve this this dispute. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion in popular culture. Valid deletion, no reason to overturn, the way to deal with bloated trivia sections is to prune them, not split them out into whole articles comprised of nothing but cruft. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The deletion was invalid however and plenty of good reasons have been given to overturn. "Cruft" is not a serious argument. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Nothing out of process here, nor were the reasons given for deletion invalid. This IPC stuff is more often than not glorified trivia and should be expunged. Eusebeus (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • THREE sock accounts are out of process. Their non-reasons were totally invalid. A personal disdain for IPC "stuff" is not a good reason for deletion, especially when the topic is verfiable and has real world notability. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I have not seen the original article, but reading the AfD, consensus was clear to delete, even when ignoring arguments by the mentioned users. So if the topic is notable enough, I think it's much better to start from scratch than base it off an article of such bad quality that it has been deleted previously. --Minimaki (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Being unable to see the original article makes it difficult to adequately assess whether consensus was valid or not. Three who argued deletion were disruptive sock accounts. Three others were deletion only vote accounts. We should be given a chance to have a real discussion this time based on the article's merits. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Rewrite That some of the participants were later banned is not relevant. That some of them were sockpuppets of users already banned is relevant. Factoring out the pair that are now known to have been sockpuppets, and looking at the remaining arguments, things get close, and no consensus could have been a reasonable close. Looking at the actual deleted article, it was just a list of lots of statements that "the knights templar appear in X" for lots of different X. It may or may not be possible to write an encyclopedia article on how they have been used in popular culture, but the content that was there was not an encyclopedia article. Thus I conclude that an article should be written, as opposed to a bulleted list of appearances. GRBerry 17:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse — even without the banned users the consensus was clear. --Haemo (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The consensus was not clear and it certainly is not clear not. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Relist - for reasons given by nominator. It'll be the usual suspects I am sure but maybe some new ideas for article improvement will emerge (funny, I missed this one first time 'round..) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you have it right. I do not know what will come of a relisting, but it has promise to improve the encyclopedia. Keeping it deleted does not. alternatively, we don't even need to relist if we write a new and better article with additional sources. Substantially improved articles are not subject to G4. DGG (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rewrite In the deleted article, none of the pop culture blurbs are referenced. Had the article been kept, it would have probably stayed that way. More of these blurbs would have been added, and sooner or later, all you would have is a bunch of uncontrollable, unrefed cruft. The best course to take is to just rewrite it from scratch and make sure it doesn't become the dilapidated article it was. Singularity 07:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC) (formerly Sr13)
  • Could the article perhaps be at least temporarily restored and moved to my userspace so I can see if anything can be salvageable? As Phirazo noted, I have recently (i.e. once the three banned editors were banned) been able to find references for a large number of these sorts of articles and many of their AfDs closed in nearly unanimous keeps. This way, we will be able to preserve the editors' who contributed to the original version of the article public contributions while be able to make a "bold" rewrite at the same time. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I guess that's a good compromise. Singularity 17:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Just because they were banned doesn't mean they didn't have good opinions. I am very much against popular culture sections in articles, much less spin-off articles about popular culture. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • But they did have bad opinions. The only arguments in favor of deletion were "I don't like it" in nature. THREE banned editors disrupted a process, scared editors off by harassing them all of the project, and mass nominated these types of articles to intentionally disrupt the project and violate POINT. They used multiple socks and proxies as confirmed by checkusers and were banned for a variety of reasons, including specifically pointed and disruptive edits against these types of articles. The same editors willing to renominate these articles for deletion even after they were kept should be fair enough to allow for a new discussion that prevents the banned editors from participating. Then, in a discussion in which not just admins (as is the case here) can see the article, but the community at large it ends up deleted, then the closure will be much less ambiguous. The PROCESS was compromised and it can only benefit the project to have a new re-examination of the article to see if consensus has changed. The first outcome did not come about fairly. Editors may have been influenced by posts made by banned editors. The deletion review here is NOT the same as a new AfD, because only some of those participating are even able to actually see the article, thus a DRV of a deleted article cannot reasonably reflect consensus on the actual article's merits. Only an at least temporarily restored article and a new AfD can result in a fair situation and make up for a compromised and illegitimate process. We have nothing to lose by doing so and by contrast much to gain. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Geez, you don't need to reply to every single post opposing your opinion; I think you've proven your point... Singularity 23:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Hi! I'm approaching it as a discussion, rather than just a list of "votes." As I have far greater experience with AfD than DrV and so if I am mistaken and DrV, unlike AfD, is just a vote, please let me know and I sincerely apologize, but I thought it also was a discussion. If it is a discussion, then I treat any new opposition to a previous post I made as I would a conversation or dialogue in which one person says something then the other person responds and so on until they come to some sort of agreement. I spent some of today reading our articles on consensus as I was a little confused of the differences between consensus and democracy, such as Consensus decision-making and Wikipedia:Consensus. The sense that I got from those are that we approach these types of pages as interactive discussions rather than votes with the goal of reaching some kind of agreement, i.e. something that is reasonable/acceptable to the participants by the end of the discussion. Thus, if I make a post and someone posts after me and I don't respond to them, then I feel as if I'm being rude to them by not indicating whether they have persuaded me or if I disagree with their stance, i.e. by not indicating if we now have consensus or if the discussion is still undecided. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Have to agree, you are coming across as very pushy and defensive, especially seeing as you are not "discussing" with people who agree with you. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but, Stifle, I'm afraid that "I don't like IPC sections" isn't the best of reasons either, especially at a DRV. Relata refero (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • But for those who agree, it's obviously understood that I would agree with them as well. I suppose I could thank them for agreeing with me. And I did thank Hobit above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: first, the banned editors were in good standing at the time of the AfD; second, their opinions did not particularly "cloud" the debate; third, this is more of a syndicated column than actual research; finally, no convincing arguments for reconsidering a new AfD have been raised. And anyway, the IPC plague is a way of enshrining trivia and ascribing it encyclopedic status, something we should avoid. Biruitorul (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The banned editors were deliberately disrupting these kinds of discussions and they were already beginning to cause problems when the discussion occurred. Their opinions did cloud the debate by being inaccurate and single-purpose. A website written by a professional historian on articles that are published is indeed actual research. No convincing arguments for not reconsidering a new AfD have been raised. In popular culture articles are consistent with encyclopedic standards and should be encouraged. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Relist, most certainly. First: the AfD was most certainly disrupted by external problems. Second:I am by no means fond of IPC sections or articles, but I think that this particular subject would benefit from encyclopaedic coverage. Note that it has already received considerably scholarly attention: The subject of the Annual Conference of the American Culture Association; literary theorists puzzle over Eco's use of the Templars as a symbol of postmodernist rewriting of history ("a satire on the literary theory of deconstructionism in its near paranoid over-interpretation?"- Johannes Bertens); "Mystic Templars are omnipresent in all good conspiracy theories" - Barber's The New Knighthood (Cambridge U Press, 1995) paraphrased by Elaine Graham-Leigh; and so on. Relata refero (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it,

• Day to Day on NPR: "Alex Chadwick discusses the literary fascination with the Knights Templar with Laura Miller, book critic for Salon.com."
• Torun Museum: "The Knights Templar - History and Myth" exhibition "Apart from pieces of "high art," the exhibit will grant equal importance to "popular culture" items (literature, film, Internet content) exploring the subject of the Knights Templar."
• National Post editorial: "the Templars remain a living presence in popular culture. This has happened precisely because the historical record concerning their sudden annihilation in the early-14th century at the hands of Philip IV ("the Fair") of France has been so sparse and ambiguous. Time and revolution have damaged and dispersed the sources, and made the Templars a magnet for speculation and imagination." This is a relevant, encyclopaedic topic, and all the people who say "IPC sections are just so infra dig/unencyclopaedic" should be ignored on this one. Relata refero (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And no one's being hindered from writing an article on the topic, using those sources. This, however, is supposed to be a review of the deletion of a previous article, and I haven't yet seen evidence that there was anything wrong with the decision reached at that time. The main argument put forth by the nominator seems to be that he feels he didn't have a chance to bury that AfD in mountains of verbosity as he has done here, which I would count as a Good Thing. Deor (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean other than the fact that the subject appears notable and so the decision appears to have been wrong? God, this obsessive focus on process-wankery drives me nuts. And the random incivility tucked in, as well. Brilliant. Relata refero (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

After the incivility with which Mr. Apocolocyntosis responded to my opinion above ("If you are not here to add anything constructive to this discussion, than [sic] I am not sure why you are here"), I think I've been remarkably restrained. Deor (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That was in response to a rather direct "why are we here?" question. As I say, whatever. I've made it clear that this is an encyclopaedic topic, several of the responses on that AfD were plain wrong/uninformed, several were by sockpuppets/puppeteers, and yet we go through the rigmarole of discussing whether this is the right location for matters of notability, is there any definitive proof that that AfD was disrupted (can we hever really obtain any?), etc etc... when did we become a big giant bureaucracy? Relata refero (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Deor, please refrain from all of these personal attacks and incivility, as they add nothing to the discussion. The main argument is that at least three sockpuppeteers who were deliberately attempting to hijack all discussions on "in popular culture" articles voted in this particular AfD. The deletion review is not about whether any of us like or dislike the article. The credibility of the AfD process itself is to be considered as the process was compromised by disruptive and incivil accounts. AfD is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, not merely a list of "deletes" and "keeps", but a discussion by which editors come to some kind of compromise or agreement. People should not be afraid of discussion. The decision was wrong because it was based on the participation of multiple disruptive accounts. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Relist; an AfD contaminated by sockpuppets who were driving away other editors, on a subject that has clear scholarly notice, needs to be reëvaluated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Relist - "Just because they were banned doesn't mean they didn't have good opinions" is the wrong way to view a Sockpuppet. They do have a tainted and predisposed view. [1][2] adding undue weight to the percieved consensus. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)