Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 30

The detour (radio) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a community, non-profit radio station that has been in existence for over a year in Johnson City, TN. We are also an affiliate of the Pacifica Radio Network. We have several volunteers that dedicate countless hours to giving the local community and region an independent voice. Thedetour (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• You might find it easier to understand why this article was deleted if you read up on our core principles and polices. Please review our notability policy and advice on sourcing. I'd also suggest you looked at our guidelines on conflicts of interest and neutrality. Are you able to offer us some third party sources to help up establish notability for the subject? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• We have been featured in our local newspaper in this news article, are supported by the local group Democracy Now Tri-Cities. We are also featured in Pacifica Network's directory. What is notable is that a group of people in the community have taken the time to build a radio station. This article was deleted about 3 seconds after it was created. I do not think enough time was taken to review it. Other community radio stations have been featured in Wikipedia. Did we provide to much information for it to be considered "advertising"? Thedetour (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I'm afraid that you probably do not meet our inclusion criteria. The first source reads like a rewritten press release and the other two do not appear to have come from sources that meet our sourcing standards. I'm not personally moved to agree to recreation by these. Endorse Deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The first source was written by the local newspaper (for a town of 60,000...everything they write sounds like a press release). It was featured on the front page. The person that wrote the article has no affiliation with the station. What kind of sources are required for inclusion? We have an established web site, several other sites that link to us. Must we have had several articles written about us, etc. to be included? As I have stated before, other community radio stations have been included in Wikipedia with little to no other "sources". Thedetour (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Additional source: East Tennessean article (official student newspaper for East Tennessee State University Thedetour (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Some questions: Were these sources in the article? Was the article talking -about- the station, or did it promote it? Did the article explain why the station was notable? If not, then of course it would be deleted. What I would suggest you do is to re-write the article in your user-space and address the concerns of the speedy deletion (it was blatant advertising for the station, and it didn't indicate notability), then we can help you with it. Bringing a draft article to DRV helps your chances. If you want the old info to work with, any admin can help you out. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate it if I could get the old content for the original page I wrote and revise it with the new sources included. I would also like to withdraw this review request. How can I go about doing this? Thedetour (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • First off, don't withdraw the request yet. Second, just ask for the content. You can try leaving a message on the deleting admin's talk page (Cobaltbluetony, or just wait here for an admin to do it. When you're done, let people know here, and we can help you out more (or use my talk page). --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help. I will ask the admin that originally deleted my article for the content back. Thanks again Thedetour (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sussex Centre for the Individual and Society (SCIS) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is the beginnings of a fully sourced article about an institution that has received a lot of media interest and is thus clearly notable. What is the exact (detailed) problem here? Put another way, if this is not in full conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, what changes can be made to make it so. I think this is an important and notable topic and needs to be made in a format that it acceptable to all and of encyclopaedic value. This should, in my view, be achieved through editing and discussion, not deletion. Happy to discuss further in detail. SCISInfo (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Moved to proper log page. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Second note: Fix't to proper page. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse as the admin who closed the CSD nomination by deleting it. It's a poorly sourced BLP (a blog is the source confirming an arrest?), and seems to be created as a WP:Coatrack. It was deleted as an attack page (as nominated) and questions of notability were not factors. Would support a rewrite with reliable sources. Toddst1 (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• comment doing a little searching on this, it seems that it is in fact a notable rip-off at the least, and there are newspaper sources to be found, such as the Evening Standard. But we cannot allow re-creation without them. Rewrite first, and place it in user space & let us know. But it will be deleted even from there if not fully sourced to good published sources suitable for the burden of the charges made against the principals of the company, according to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. DGG (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• comment: Nowhere in that article is "fraud" or "arrest" mentioned. Saying it is a "notable fraud" here might be a BLP issue. Toddst1 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the word to a term the paper thinks safe to use. DGG (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion under WP:CSD#G10. If DGG belives a viable article can be written he is probably right, but the deleted article is not viable and not acceptable as a starting workpoint. Start from reliable sources, especially with material that is so negative and about a living person. In fact, I strongly recommend the WP:FORGET process for this one even if there is no conflict of interest. GRBerry 18:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I do not understand why it was closed as No-consensus. The AFD discussion had a lot of comments, and delete opinions showing the subject's non-notability. The "keep" opinions could not refute the main non-notability issues. The new "references" added during the AFDs were either trivial mentions, or non-reliable sources. This had been put as comments in the AFD page, but someone moved the entire [Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association|discussion debunking these references to the talk page]]. AFD is not a number-game, and just counting debunked "keep" opinions to be equal to solid "delete" votes do not count. The article was, and still is about a Non-notable organization. I request a review of this close decision. Reviewers are requested to look into the article, the sources added during AFD, and also the discussion in the AFD talk page debunking the validity of these sources. --Ragib (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In summary, my reasons for listing it for review are as follows:

• The article's notability has not been established before, during, or after the AFD by addition of reliable sources.
• Several references added during the AFD are not reliable sources, and have been debunked in the AFD talk page. Such discussion has probably been overlooked by the closing admin
• AFD is not decided by number of keep/delete votes, rather the opinions supported by valid arguments are to be considered by the closing admin. Considering the non-notability of the subject, I believe this is in no way a no-consensus AFD.

Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - I was actually reading through the comments and coming to the same conclusions above earlier today, but when I clicked "edit" to close the discussion as delete, I saw that it had already been closed as no consensus. While this is not the conclusion that I had come to, I think the case was close enough that the difference in opinion is merely a product of personal interpretation rather than a misreading of consensus, hence my endorsing of a close that I would not have made. Although I agree that the specific arguments presented by User:Pahari Sahib seemed to lean a little heavily on WP:OTHERSTUFF, I think User:Bearian's comments provide a strong enough argument in favor of keeping that Pigman's close is justified. --jonny-mt 07:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• endorse certainly the sourcing is less than it should be, but policy-based keep arguments were made. No point appealing this, make another try for sources & if you do not find them, nominate again for AfD in another month or two. DGG (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Since I was the closing admin on this one, perhaps I should give my rationale. First, I dislike reaching a "no consensus" close decision. I prefer to read the opinions voiced, apply policy, and reach a firm decision one way or the other: keep or delete. I try not to force an AfD decision into those absolute results but that's my preference and bias. In this case, I thought the argument that there might not be enough English sources but there were likely foreign language sources to be persuasive enough to give doubt. The sources in the article seemed diverse enough to indicate actual notability. I considered a "delete" close but thought arguments were split enough to give doubt to consensus. I applied my best judgment to the AfD discussion but I'm human and admit it could have easily come up delete with a different closer (jonny above for example.) Funnily, I'm generally more of a deletionist in borderline cases. The preceding is hardly a spirited and definitive defence of my closing decision but that's the breaks. Cheers, Pigman☿ 17:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure was within reasonable administrative discretion. GRBerry 18:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Isn't the way we run wikipedia frustrating? I personally would have closed it as delete but the close falls within a reasonable interpretation of admin discretion so there are no procedural grounds to overturn the close. I'd suggest you simply waited a couple of months and if the article hasn't developed renominate it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Three !voters stating "fails WP:N" with little or no explanation, does not a consensus make in the face of four keeps, and this is not AfD round two. MrPrada (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Why was this relisted for deletion? The vote was 5 keep and 3 delete (If you remove Ragib's vote who is putting this up for deletion) and each supported with valid reasoning. Particularly, the Deletion vote by User:Cirt states if the article is expanded, it should be kept and in my opinion the article has expanded and is more informative than other similar articles. The deletion vote by User:Nsk92 is also questionable. He votes for deletion because there were only two references but that has been addressed and article now has eight sources. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is still misleading to claim that the article has 8 "sources". The army.mil ref has nothing to do with the subject, rather is entirely on a tangential topic (that Pakistan/Afghanistan are neighbors with turbulent relationship). Except for the two references from the newspaper Dawn's trivial coverage of the topic, there are no reliable sources. One is from Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, The rest of the refs are self-published or NN sites themselves ... AfghanAct.org, smc.org.ph etc. One is actually from a talk flyer from a Canadian club. Such links/urls are not reliable sources, and claiming their use has made the article well-referenced will be a misstatement. --Ragib (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Don't overturn looking at the AfD I don't see much merit in the the keep opinions which seem to be largely be based on arguments that have been widely rejected by the community. Having said that the article has been developed since the close of the AfD so I don't think the delete opinions are necessarily relevent to the "new" article. Take back to AfD if necessary. Guest9999 (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Notability: My approval of the G5 tag was mistaken (user was blocked, not banned) but I also thought at the time it was an A7 and still do. However, my deletion of the article has been disputed and I believe the notability of this topic can be helpfully talked about here. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I requested this DRV on procedural grounds because User:Finaldrive, the author of the article, was requesting an unblock based on the notability of the article, which seemed odd. I can't see what was there. He needs to support his claims of notability with reliable sources, which he has yet to do. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - article shows no notability whatsoever. Yes, they may have released albums, but there's no indication that they've released them on any major or independent record label. Yes, they were involved in a music competition, but there's no indication that they won the competition, nor that it was a notable competition. _GB^T/C 06:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Although the original {{db-band}} was declined by an uninvolved editor, I think an A7 speedy deletion would be appropriate here. Participating in a reality show is not a claim to notability--winning one is. --jonny-mt 07:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Gb. Hut 8.5 07:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The claim to notability (participation in a TV show) was unsourced, and in any event would not make the band notable enough. If it did we would have to include all the hundreds who were shown during auditions of the various "Idol" programmes. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse 'cuz it makes A7, and I'd like to note that I'm the uninvolved editor mentioned above who declined the A7 speedy. Turns out I was wrong about that. The claim that the band appeared in MTV's Battle for Ozzfest is false, only a single former member of the band actually appeared on the show; this makes a better claim for her notability than the band's itself (perhaps someone can create an article on her; I can't find her full name though). As a side note, Gwen sent me the content through email after the deletion because I thought I could find something to save it, but after some searching I couldn't find a thing to establish the band's notability. Anyway, cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment While the current trend is clear, should it change the closing admin needs to be aware that the 2007 versions of the article were deleted for a copyright violation problem. This issue hasn't been asserted of the 2008 versions. GRBerry 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - fails the tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Actually this didn't meet any speedy criteria as the assertion of notability was sufficient to require an discussion. Gwen, if you need help getting the hang of the CSD criteria you might like to consider joining #wikipedia-en-admins for sanity checks on stuff like this. This clearly isn't going to survive an AFD and we have a pretty clear consensus here that this doesn't pass our basic inclusion threshold. Endorse Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Spartaz, if you mean Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network, the article's reference to the MTV appearance does not assert this, although I understand how the wording could lead some editors to think otherwise but, thank you very much for reminding me about w-e-a! Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to most notably recognized for their involvement on the MTV show. Believe or not but that's enough of an assertion to justify an AFD in some eyes. I don't like getting reversed at DRV so I tend to go with the flow. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see how some would let it go through. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That, as written, would, yes. But it's not actually a true statement. See my comment above for that. Gwen, the CSD are meant to be interpreted pretty tightly. That sorta' thing should tip people off that at least a search should be done, so a slower process is usually better. The end result here would've been the same either way, so it's no biggie, but it's usually better to err on the side of caution. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 05:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

one advantage of a slower process that I like, is that considering the effort involved in these appeals, and the general dissatisfaction that it entails, I find it simpler to say to anyone who objects in good faith to my deletion: Ok, undelete, and will take to Afd and let the community decide. Less trouble in the end. DGG (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I most often do this (or try to help editors who ask get by CSD with rewrites), but there is some history here. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm frankly astounded that the AFD was closed as a keep, especially given that:

1. The creator of the article knew he was forking the content.
2. The creator of the article knew the content was disputed for NPOV violations and UNDUE violations.
3. The closing admin agreed there was a supermajority to delete the article.

I also think the "summary style" argument holds no water, given that the size of the article is approximately the same as the sections "Japan's leaders refused to surrender" and "Inherently immoral" in the article Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and the creator of the article refused to do it for them. I think this is showing preferential treatment to one viewpoint, thus breaking WP:NPOV. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• endorse the "keep - no consensus" decision we do not vote, and the closing admin's thorough analysis shows that those who !voted delete did not provide policy backed reasoning that overrode the reasoning of the !votes for keep.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that you don't provide arguments that can be used against you in the exact same way. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Was that comment really called for? — Becksguy (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If there were actually an argument to be made, one would assume Sceptre would have made it. In cases where there is not policy backed reason to delete, the default is keep. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Uh, yes, there is a policy backed reason. It's a content fork, proven by the author's intent and his refusal to fork off two equally suitable sections into articles. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It's basically saying "really, I could swap the keeps and deletes, and it'd be as good an argument". Sceptre ^(talk) 03:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Cool it. This isn't useful. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Sandstein's usually got a pretty good eye for these things, and he was completely right here. There isn't any reason that the article needs to be deleted. Personally, I'd say consensus is that we don't want the information at that title or at that article, so a move or merge is in order. But a merge means we don't delete, and a move (and possibly rewriting the article to avoid POV) also isn't delete, and my own opinion isn't worth an overturn. I'd suggest working on the article talk page to figure out what to do with it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete or merge - Last time I checked, "The article is a POV fork" is a reason for deletion. We need to remember that policy is descriptive not proscriptive - if that many people say that the article is a POV fork, then consensus says it probably is. Actual consensus always overrides the word of policy. Its not up to one person to discount all their opinions because they aren't exactly inline with the wording of the policy. If that many people see it as a POV fork but the policy, as written says it isn't, perhaps the policy wording needs to be changed to reflect real consensus. Mr.Z-man 04:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? It's a bit of a wikiality issue to want to change the longstanding WP:CFORK and WP:SS guidelines just in order to delete this one article, and all the more so to say that these votes somehow make those guidelines say the opposite of what they currently do. But, be that as it may, at least get the guidelines changed first and then resubmit for deletion. Don't vote "overturn and delete" based on some future version of the guidelines which don't even exist yet. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The guideline may not be rewritten, but it isn't a suicide pact either. If a consensus of editors doesn't think policy needs to be followed strictly to the letter in this case, we don't. That's how consensus works on Wikipedia and the reason we have WP:IAR. Mr.Z-man 06:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That's just where we part ways; WP:IAR says it's ok to ignore rules to improve the encyclopedia, and as an inclusionist (though perhaps I will start calling myself a WP:PRESERVE-ationist) deleting encyclopedic content could never fall under WP:IAR in my view. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
        • quite apart from personal views, IAR is only applicable when the decision is obviously strongly supported by the community and there is no exact way to do it under the existing rules. The discussion here & at the AfD shows that deletion was not clearly strongly supported by the community. IAR is not a way to support a disputed position--it does not mean "Ignore all rules so it comes out the way some of us want." DGG (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
          • No, IAR can apply in any situation. If it only applied when the rules didn't exaclty apply, it would be completely useless. And I don't care how this comes out, I have no vested interest, I've never seen the article before this DRV, so I don't know what your last sentence is supposed to mean. Mr.Z-man 19:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse obviously. That this article was nominated for deletion all of 30 minutes after it's creation took me by surprise; as the content pertained to and was duplicated in two disparate articles, and exactly because there had been complaints of WP:UNDUE, I thought I'd made a reasonable application of WP:SS. I have no objection to a new title, although I thought at the time that my use of the metaphorical construct "as" in the title would have been enough to assuage POV concerns. As for merging it back into one of the two articles it came from, there's no current consensus as to which one in the merge discussion. The merge process and AfD processes should be separate ones, in my opinion. So, until that consensus forms I'm happy with the status quo, and agree that there's no pressing need to delete. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse I personally don't think we should have an article with that title. But I read Sandstein's closure of the AFD, and it's a textbook example of how to handle a difficult case. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse The call was correct, thoughtful, and sound. Its the power of the argument, not the power of the votes that are supposed to count. But even if we care just counting votes, there was obviously no consensus so the default is KEEP. However, when we look at the merits of the arguments to keep vs. delete, there was no contest. Those claiming POV fork, etc. failed to show that was the case. Simply proclaiming this does not make it so. On the other hand, the facts about this article, which is growing larger now as it has its own article, stands unrefuted. Any problems can be fixed via editing it. The title can be improved. Currently there is a discussion about this and related terrorism articles going on, anyway. This well-source information has its place and home on wikipedia no matter how much those with a contrary POV want it deleted. It won't happen. The Terrorism articles are here to stay, per Wikipedia policies. The fact is that minority view points such as this can not be placed in the main articles (debate article) due to WP:UNDUE, but having it link to its own article is perfectly appropriate and consistent with other main/ancillary articles provided NPOV treatment of this discourse.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Burden of evidence is to those wishing to include. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • but the burden for AfD is to show consensus to delete. DGG (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Whether the essay WP:ONUS or the essay WP:NOONUS is correct is a matter of debate in any case, Sceptre. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I was talking more along the lines of WP:BURDEN. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Fair enough, but all this material is "attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" so I don't see why you'd trot that out; no one made a WP:V argument in the AfD. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
          • The spirit of the ruling, not the letter. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse – of the three reasons given for this review, I find the first inaccurate and the other two irrelevant to the call. To the extent I'm familiar with the procedures for closing an AFD, they were followed. — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse the no-consensus closure as appropriate. I personally would have argued to delete this article, as well, but from a procedural standpoint there is nothing incorrect with the way that the discussion was closed. Considering the article itself is very new, perhaps it is better to let the dust settle, anyway, before launching it straightway into AfD. In any case, the no-consensus keep means that it can always be renominated without prejudice. Arkyan 13:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and kudos to Sandstein for an exceptionally well-explained closure. Note that this closure does not prevent the article from being redirected back to the page from which it was forked. That's an ordinary-editor action which anyone can boldly make and for which consensus should be worked out on the respective article Talk pages (not in AFD). Nor does this closure prevent renomination if attempts to improve the article prove unsuccessful. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - The AfD was not closed as "Keep", it was closed as "No consensus", which defaults to Keep, and that's not the same thing at all. The closer notes that the consensus to delete was not persuasive enough. The closer also notes that there were no core policy based violations that required deletion. The problems, if any, with the articles can and should be dealt with consensus based editing, per WP:DEL. I find that the closing rationale was carefully thought out, well articulated, and did not favor one side over the other. It was, as Shalom said, a classic example of how to close a difficult case. Sandstein did this one very well, as he has done others. Summary style sections refer to the sections that are left when this content was forked, and those are appropriate per WP:SS. The article has references from both sides, and it was not clear what POV the article was pushing which is an excellent validation of NPOV, textbook classic even. In other words, it's very clear that this was not a WP:POVFORK. I don't see a supermajority of at least 24 votes to delete (based on the closer's counts), so that rationale also fails. Since this is not AfD round 2, and I don't see any process violations, the close was correct. — Becksguy (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Sandstein gave cogent reasons based on policy. And I was one of the "delete" editors. We need to stick to deletion policy, such as it is, because AfD shouldn't be a popularity contest. The WP:FORK argument clearly didn't apply here, as was pointed out in the discussion. My own reasons for wanting to delete are really arguments for the current merge discussion, which is a better vehicle for this effort. I wish that whenever a closing admin decides against a majority, a detailed closing statement is written up. This was a model. Noroton (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. There was no consensus, even to merge and redirect. I could not decide either way, I commented and hoped one side would persuade me. I couldn't agree with any of them, hence, the "no consensus" call definitely applies. MrPrada (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete or merge content if necessary. Both sides make valid policy based arguments but the fact that (by my count) the users who interpreted policy in a way that meant the article should be deleted outnumbered those who interpreted it in a way that thought it should be kept by slightly more than two to one shows clear preference for one interpretation among the community as a whole. Consensus on Wikipedia is not always finding a result that everyone will be happy with but finding the result that the most people are willing to accept; looking at the discussion with that in mind I think the article should be deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Change to endorse, rereading the discussion the reasons given for deletion are not as strong as I previously thought and the closing is adequately persuasive as to why there is no consensus on the issue. Guest9999 (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with the outcome of the article being kept as is. In my view, the argument that the bombings were state terrorism are an opposition viewpoint like any other, and not one so greatly held that it a separate article for that viewpoint only is needed. Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should cover this. The term "terrorism" is also loaded, and furthers my concerns over this article. However, I can no fault in Sandstein's close and rationale, and share the viewpoint of the ever wise Rossami that this "no consensus" close is not the final word in the matter. It is not the job of the closer to enforce his view, or my view. The job is to gauge consensus and if necessary, balance it against core policy requirements, and in that respect, the job was done correctly. Hence I will endorse closure. My disagreement is with the people who wanted the article kept (and even these people were reasonable and rational in their arguments), not the one who evaluated the debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comments: The closing administrator's rationale was exceptionally well-written. Also, the absence of consensus is clear. However, that doesn't mean the article cannot be relisted. By the way, whether one sees the article itself as a POV fork or a legitimate spin-out seems to depend on whether you compare it with Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or with Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. It clearly has a different point of view than that of the former article, but I was not able to discern whether it is a POV fork of the second article or not. In conclusion, I think that it should be merged into Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The "no consensus" close leaves this possibility still open. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)