Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 21

Kevin Jonas – Create as redirect. I will leave it protected for the time being but there is no consensus below regarding protection. – Eluchil404 22:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Article was deleted and protected from recreation. While the subject of the page is non-notable on his own, the page should be a redirect to Jonas Brothers (as are the pages of other members of the band - Nick Jonas and Joe Jonas). When this person is linked to, it currently goes to this deleted page, which cannot be re-created or made into a redirect. While the previous content should stay deleted, protection should be removed and the page should be made a redirect to Jonas Brothers. --Scott Alter 19:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The individual has a strong claim of notability, and whether that is only through his band, the Jonas Brothers, or as an individual is the question. On that basis, there is no possible valid reason to delete the article as a speedy delete, nor is there a justification to salt. The proper channel of using the WP:AFD process, where community consensus can be gathered, was ignored (an ignored step that is becoming all too common), and the rather obvious minimum of creating a redirect has also been ignored. Alansohn 20:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually... there was. The article was recreated 6 times when it contained almost no information except for fan-cruft. This was also before he was really notable. Now, I have no problem with their being a redirect or an actual page. Cbrown1023 talk 21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Create as redirect for now. If someone wants to take up the challenge to attempt an actual page on the guy I see no reason why not to allow the chance, and if that's too ugly let it run through an AfD. I see no good reason not to have this as a redirect to a relevant page, though. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Create as redirect. It's true that 'salting the Earth' is a bit harsh here. Let's face it, if a lot of people want the article, then just perhaps he's notable? It seems that a lot of people turn their envy of not being famous into 'deletion' campaigns. If the article was re-created six times, then perhaps consensus should have been to 'keep.'Ryoung122 07:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Create as redirect I don't think any page is needed to be created on any of these brothers at the present time.. it should all go in the Jonas Brothers article. They're not notable on their own, just band members. If one of them got into controversy or arrested, then maybe I could see where a page is warranted. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Create as redirect - I think Kevin Jonas's dad is named Rev. Kevin Jonas, too, with no Jr. or Sr. used after their name. Confusing. Any event, Kevin Jonas (singer) meets WP:N. The problem is that even though the topic meets WP:N, no WP:A article would be produced any time soon and efforts so far have meet WP:Speedy. Redirect without history restore and protect the redirect. -- Jreferee T/C 17:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Parody of Wikipedia – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 19:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This page was created as the result of an RFD nomination, where the consensus was to turn the redirect into a disambiguation page. Jeffrey O. Gustafson decided to delete it as a "collection of external links", without any debate. This was a genuine disambiguation page and should at least go through AFD before deletion. Melsaran (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion did meet the letter of WP:CSD#A3. It was a list of external links someone had slapped a highly questionable {{disambig}} tag on. So... keep deleted, no compelling reason given to bring this back. --W.marsh 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't a list of external links, it was a disambiguation page that listed parodies of Wikipedia which happened to include external links to all sites. Those links can be removed. And this isn't eligible for deletion under WP:CSD#A3, because it clearly says "other than disambiguation pages". Melsaran (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dab pages are not supposed to include external links though. As they just disambiguate between things we have articles on. The point of a dab page isn't to be an external link directory, and a dab page with only one entry might as well be a redirect, or deleted. --W.marsh 20:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
    - Not as a speedy. at least. And this dab was created as the result of an RFD, so turning it into a redirect again would be contrary to consensus. Melsaran (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Consensus can change, especially if an XFD resulted in a decision to create an apparently unworkable article. --W.marsh 13:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For those who can't see the deleted page, there was a list of 5 parodies; 1 was a wikilink to an article (Uncyclopedia). The other 4 were external links. There was also a "see also" link to Wikipedia in culture. I personally am not sure that 1 wikilink makes it a disambiguation page, though a deletion discussion would have been helpful, methinks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify: The first entry was not even an external link, it listed ED and its address, but did not link to it (in keeping with the MONGO ArbCom case regarding attack sites). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, all that was there was one internal link (to Uncyclopedia), and a series of external links to various Wikis, somehow labeled a disambiguation. WP:NOT a collection of external links. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, violated WP:EL and WP:NOT#DIR. No prejudice against the creation of a sourced article, but there probably aren't sufficient sources to carry a broad article. --Dhartung | Talk 02:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion - A disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. The page only contained "See also" links and "External links", none of which would be associated with the title "Parody of Wikipedia" as a 'same title'. It was an article page, not a disambiguation page and adding {{disambig}} to the page does not change that. Also, the claim that it was a disambiguous page is not supported by anything from Wikipedia:Disambiguation. CSD A3 speedy delete due to no content other "See also" links and "External links" valid. Only wikiality.com and Uncyclopedia.org have been noted by reliable sources as being a parody of Wikipedia and the reliable sources do not state much else about the topic. CSD A7 no reasonable assertion of importance/significance applies as well. -- Jreferee T/C 02:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Looks like a routine case of WP:CSD#A3. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Toni Preckwinkle – Deletion endorsed, article remains protected for now unless sources demonstrating notability on a broader scale are presented. – Core desat 01:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

)

Overturn (or allow recreation). In Chicago a city councilman is a relatively notable role as most decisions that affect communities start with your local aldeman. No building gets built (even the numerous ones notable enough to be listed at Category:Buildings and structures in Chicago and its numerous subcategories) without an alderman's approval. Thus, the numerous persons listed at Category:Chicago aldermen. Are considered notable. They are often quoted in the press. In this case, we have the alderman who will be responsible for all buildings in the Olympic Village and the Olympic Stadium, if Chicago wins the bid, getting deleted. There are numerous articles in the press on her role in several important decisions. See deleted page at Google. She is also mentioned in several books. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - The lack of an importance/significance assertion is a reason to speedy delete an article. The lack of importance/significance has not yet make its way into policy/guideline as a reason to delete an article at AfD. How can it when we have an original research policy? Toni Preckwinkle has been mentioned in at least 500 news articles and numerous books such that there no doubt is enough reliable source material independent of Toni Preckwinkle to develop an attributable article on Mrs. Preckwinkle. Restore the article and make it available for those wanting to improve it with relaible sources. Note After reviewing TTT's request at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review, I suggested that he post here at DRV. -- Jreferee T/C 15:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but allow recreation. The closing admins in both AfDs correctly determined consensus; however, consensus can change, and it may be appropriate to re-create a version of the article which fully explains her notability, backed up by sufficient sources (per WP:BLP). My understanding is that local politicians in general are not notable; however, city councillors in a city the size of Chicago are probably as notable, if not more so, than state-level legislators, and there should be enough mainstream press coverage to write a decent article. Walton^One 16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AFD results were clear, in light of the general consensus (see WP:BIO) that local politicians are not notable unless there is significant press coverage of them. Quoting: "A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." The article and AFD gave no evidence that she meets those standards, and they are the standards to demonstrate meeting when recreating the article. GRBerry 16:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but permit re-creation if there are sources. City council members can be notable if a large enough city, but there has to be some sort of 3rd party source for the material--and there was nothing at all besides her page at the city council site. Surely the chicago newspapers had stories. Do it right, and then ask for re-creation. DGG (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentHere are some sources (more forthcoming) in which she is prominent:
  - Sun-Times
  - Chicago Reader--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Government accountability--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Olympic Village in her ward
  - Olympic Stadium thoughts--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - An affordable housing story].--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except that those are all local news sources/stories, and given that the issue is the purely local nature of her notability, those don't address that at all.
Endorse previous deletions but allow for re-creation assuming a sourced version can be written. If the sources exist there is no reason not to have an article, although I disagree with the nominator's assertion that Chicago city councilmen should get a "free pass". The article must be judged per WP:BIO like any other potentially notable person. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, pending evidence of reliables sources outside Chicagoland who've taken note of her. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I closed based on my reading of th consensus at the AfD and the broader consensus (embodied in WP:BIO) that local politicians are not notable ex officio. I have no personal objections to articles like this as long as they can be properly sourced. While finding references is relatively easy, finding non-trivial ones will be difficult in many cases. If they exist for Ms. Preckwinkle, that's fine, but it wasn't clearly established at the AfD. Eluchil404 06:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. A true test of 'notability' is whether someone is well-known AWAY from their local area. Being a 'local celebrity' is different from being a world notable.Ryoung122 07:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am aware I am going to have to recreate in accordance with WP:RS, WP:ATT, & WP:V. I have never heard of any clause that an article has to have sources from outside its region. As an example, I put forth my most recent WP:GA creation (Hyde Park Township, Cook County, Illinois). The Encyclopedia of Chicago sources abound and get a review of this article being well-referenced. Many notable Chicago articles might not pass WP:RS, WP:ATT, & WP:V without the Encyclopedia of Chicago, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times and Local ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC news affiliates. I am quite certain I can recreate a Toni Preckwinkle page that passes WP:RS, WP:ATT, & WP:V standards based largely on Chicagoland sources. If these sources are considered WP:RS that should be fine. If you required sports bios to use non-sports sources, science articles to use non-science sources, etc. it would detract from the project, IMO. In fact, I would guess, I can create a Preckwinkle article that stands a good shot at WP:GA from my experience as the main editor of 28 GAs and 4 current WP:GACs. I find it hard to believe that an article that is likely to meet WP:WIAGA standards would not suffice at WP:AFD and pass WP:BIO. In short, I have never heard of this local source theory.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Volcano Vaporizer – Undeleted and listed on AFD by deleting admin. – A ecis^Brievenbus 11:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Not notable. An article about a german vaporizer which is used in medical research was deleted. I do not agree with the argument "read like advertising" and "is not very notable" as I found the information useful. "Not very notable" sounds like subjective censorship to me. 87.139.78.32 10:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 pages relevant here:

Volcano vaporizer

03:58, 29 June 2006 created by User:Sonjaaa as redirect to Volcano Vaporizer
05:59, 9 September 2007 User:Jjamison nominated it for speedy deletion: redirect to deleted page
07:13, 9 September 2007 User:Caknuck deleted it

Volcano Vaporizer

Has had 272 edits.
09:22, 22 October 2005 created by User:24.19.152.65
05:31, 5 November 2005 User:RedWolf deleted it as copyvio of [1] and replaced it by a stub
07:53, 1 December 2005 User:Karl Dickman deleted it as copyvio of [2]
08:19, 1 December 2005 User:Jackk replaced it by moving Volcano Vaporizer/Temp
19:55, 3 September 2007 User:Btipling tagged it as {{db-spam}}
20:17, 3 September 2007 User:Anthony Appleyard deleted it.

The last version still reads rather like an advertisement. Perhaps undelete it and AfD it? Anthony Appleyard 11:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the links in the nom again. The wrong links were presumably restored after an edit conflict. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, was a blatant ad (G11 applied) and the nom provides no valid reason for undeletion. --Core desat 11:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volcano Vaporizer. Anthony Appleyard 11:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Pirate's Dinner Adventure – Deletion endorsed. Closer clearly interpreted the AFD correctly and no substantial grounds for deletion review have been advanced – Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

)

I was bold (what we are told to do on Wikipedia) and I tried to give life to an article that had died several times. This time I thought there was enough background information to verify it as notable, but I started with a skimpy stub. I got smashed with a furry of "delete this" votes based on the fact that it had been deleted before and that I had no sources in this version either. I followed the guidelines that said that articles can be edited while being reviewed. I added many sources (newspaper, journals, etc) but by then the majority of people had moved on to other things. A few hanger on people changed their votes to keep because they were still around, but most people were gone. I put a note on the page that it was not the same page as the original delete furry, but the very next day an administrator deleted with the very odd unconnected reason (something about google?) and moved on. I went to the admin page and lodged a complaint. Today I go back to that page and see my comment (and others) have been erased from said admin's page. Is this a conspiracy? Very odd. I researched and got quite a substantial amount of sources and whatnot. I think I did my best to follow Wikipedia guidelines and the feedback of the commenters who said the page didn't have enough sources to establish notability. Wikipedia has become a closed system if it wipes out articles based on the fact they have been deleted before and won't let sourced articles have a chance to grow. Nesnad 09:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Although you made a good effort to try to find sources, most of them were trivial (a passing mention in a newspaper) or unreliable (blogs and YouTube videos), which makes the AFD closure valid. --Core desat 11:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's up with this conspiracy?? Please look at my sources carefully. Yes I use blogs. But I also had a book, TV, and several newspaper articles only about the place. Come on. This is madness. Nesnad 02:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll spare you the 300 reference, but assume good faith. There are no agendas here. --Core desat 02:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion since closer interpreted the AfD#4 discussion correctly. Comment I've never seen such a well reference article come so close to meeting the speedy delete requirements of CSD A7 - no reasonable assertion of importance/significance. Despite there being sufficient references for the topic going back to August 1995, they really weren't used. Every business has a beginning - this one was in January 1996. That basic fact wasn't even in the article. To be honest, the article read like an assignment where each high school student was given a task to create a Wikipedia article. Consensus at AfD#4 was that this article did not receive a passing grade. Put yourself in Pirate's Dinner Adventure's position. Would you want that as your Wikipedia article? -- Jreferee T/C 03:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Closer interpreted her/his own agenda. Closer got in a huge argument with Jimbo and Wikipedia about deleting articles like mine. Closer is a deleter and so are the people rushing to delete this. Why not help me make an article instead of rushing to delete everything?? So annoying. This is not an ad. This is an article that I will try to establish. Help me create instead of destroying. Nesnad 04:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was clearly a different situation where the Admin was bothered by the fact that Jimbo was getting preferential treatment and keep arguments on an article that when it was created made no assertion of notability and Jimbo had even left a note that he couldn't find sources. Please assume good faith. Smashville 16:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does say 1996 in the article, at least the version I wrote. Not sure what version it was like when it was deleted. I can't say this strong enough, if you think it's childish help me edit it and elaborate on it! Wikipedia isn't about deleting information, it's about sharing it. There is so much information about this place. Journals, newspapers, several full articles. Can someone explain why everyone is so hellbent against it? Nesnad 04:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nesnad, you complain about the process but don't explain what 'Pirate's Dinner Adventure' is or why it is notable.Ryoung122 08:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the thoughts. It is notable, as I thought I already said on here I guess I got mixed up, because it can be found in a book, several newspaper articles, the vice president was quickly interviewed by CNN, and the owners had an extensive interview in a Spanish language article. Even some business journals. Those that are dismissing have some weird double standard. I am told that I must have references and sources. So I find them and I am told I don't have them or they aren't "important enough" which is quite POV. Help me add to this article, lets grow an article instead of smashing all the new wikipedia articles. I'm just pushing hard on this because it's really annoying how it seems like there are so many delete-mad people these days. Nesnad 10:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse — admin interpreted the discussion properly, which was a clear consensus to delete. --Haemo 00:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's why I brought this here. The votes were before I added details to the article, its unfair to judge the discussion because following Wikipedia policy and user feedback, I added a lot of sources in order to establish notability. The "consensus" was referring to the discussion to the stub article I wrote, not the final version and when the admin closed the discussion he ignored my note that it should stay open until people discussed the newly flushed out version. Why is there such a push to ignore my effort put into this article? I clearly established notability in the article. Nesnad 09:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Tom_Stearns – Spartaz's addendum to Goodwin's Law. The liklihood of a nomination that invokes Nazi references being closed early tends towards 1 – Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

In writing on the talk page for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DrKiernan I requested this page be undeleted. He refused. This is the same guy who deleted the original page. I explained the legitimacy of the original Tom Stearns and High Mowing Organic Seeds pages in the Tom Stearns talk page and in different words on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CJLL_Wright. Here it is again:

How about you people do a web search for "Tom Stearns organic" or "Tom Stearns seeds" - this field isn't as full of computer-geeks as the field of another person who has a legitimate wikipedia page, Seth Schoen.

CLEAR ASSERTION OF NOTABILITY, IMPORTANCE, AND SIGNIFICANCE. (Like Seth Schoen,) Tom Stearns is a young graduates of NMH; both are experts in their field and have made significant contributions and have widespread name recognition and some independent biography. Tom Stearns has breeded new plant varieties & introduced them; reintroduced other plant varieties; he regularly gives presentations at regional & national conferences in his field. His person & company are widely known by gardners throughout the USA & beyond.

Further case study in light of an existing wikipedia article. See page Seth Schoen. According to wikipedia criteria, the notability of both is within the guidelines to warrant a wikipedia page. However, in addition, Mr. Stearns has succeeded as a businessman in a field much more known for being a field for losing one's fortune rather than gaining one (agriculture). Mr Schoen works for a 501c3 that is funded by someone independently wealthy; that makes Tom Stearns *more* notable in my opinion. Here are some typical links about Mr. Stearns and the seed company: http://www.ruralvermont.org/archives/003337.html http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Stearns_Tom_15179146.aspx

The best thing would be for you administrators to undelete Tom Stearns, undelete High Mowing Organic Seeds, and undelete Tom Steans (talk). Put up a "stub" link if you want. As for your process of deleting without allowing time for discussion, I think it's stupid. As for DrKiernan, who says it's "permitted" to delete talk pages when there's no associated page, what a nazi. What's permitted by law isn't necessarily what's correct, dude. Has this site been taken over by a bunch of brown-nosing academics who don't know how to think for themselves? All you can do is verify someone else's research and apply the law of what's "permitted"? You guys have lost the point. Please fix the problems you created; or if not, take a vacation from creating problems (duh!). Peterchristopher 05:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article links fixed, Gnan garra 05:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse WP:CSD#A7, no assertain of notability, importance or significance Gnan garra 05:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get Godwin over here already. "Nazi", indeed. Oh, and endorse deletion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Accumulate and fire – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 19:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The grounds on which the deletion was made were improper. The reasons supplied are as follows: "Speedy deleted per (CSD g6), deleting page per result of AfD discussion." and "lacks 3rd party source to establish notability. If you want to request a user copy so you can properly source tis article, just request one." by Haemo. There are several implications that are incorrect there. Firstly, CSD g6 is reserved for non-controversial deletes. Considering the strong debate between Piet Delport and myself, this criterion has been misapplied. Secondly, this has been a deletion on notability grounds rather than simple "housekeeping," so this again seems misapplied. Thirdly, nowhere in the AfD discussion was there a request for a speedy delete. Fourthly, consensus by majority rule was 4 votes for deletion and 5 votes for keeping the article, suggesting preference to keeping the article. Consensus by argumentative and otherwise discoursive value has been dominated essentially by Piet Delport and myself, as all others have seemingly silently withdrawn from the discussion we have maintained. In the end, my comment was left standing as the last comment, and I feel that a number of my points had been neglected within the discussion. For reference see here for an archived copy of the discussion page. I maintain that the points are of importance, and I recommend evaluating them in full extent, mine and Piet Delport's, going back to the initial talkpage discussion, whereas Haemo apparently side-stepped this, which left me at a point somewhere between surprise, dismay, and amazement. (I would say I was at a loss for words, but apparently I can still be wordy so...) If one does not wish to rule until these differences of opinion have been resolved, perhaps we should move to the mediation cabal or the mediation committee to resolve these disputes before making a ruling. Thus, I would venture that the administrator introduced and evaluated his own opinion on the matter, which is perfectly acceptable, but in doing so gave it undue weight as an administrator, which is less acceptable. Fifthly, I have extensively commented on how we should except this article on that requirement, which hasn't been responded to at all by the administrator when the decision was made. (It has been responded to by Piet Delport, albeit rather limitedly, however.) Sixthly, I provided 3rd party sources within the google links, which have apparently seen some neglect, including [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8], which have been on front pages of the google searches alone. -Caudax 02:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This is a review of the 11 September 2007 AfD closed by Haemo on 21 September 2007 as "The result was Delete — lacks 3rd party source to establish notability. If you want to request a user copy so you can properly source tis article, just request one." -- Jreferee T/C 08:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse — my deletion. I used Twinkle's deletion function to delete an article under WP:CSD#G6. It is uncontroversial to delete articles which have been closed as the result of a discussion which was determined to be a "delete". The objection over this is extremely silly, especially given that the tool is specifically designed to facilitate this task. With respect to accusations that I "inserted my own POV" and gave it "undue weight" I think that's clearly not bourne out by the discussion. The crux of the relevant debate was a lack of reliable sources to back up notability. The discussion did not endorse the sources provided both above and in the debate, and I notice they have not been used to improve the article. At no point did I opine on anything, beyond assessing the state of the discussion. The concept that we need WP:MEDCAB approval before we can determine a consensus for deletion over a single vociferous editor is more than a little ridiculous. --Haemo 03:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Properly closed as delete for having no sources to show notability. It did in fact have no sources. . DGG (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse since closer interpreted the AfD debate correctly. I fixed the deletion reason so that CSD G4 is not overlooked in the future as an additional reason to speedy delete this topic. Thanks for pointing out the potential of missing a reason to keep this article deleted. -- Jreferee T/C 09:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just want to add that the crux of this disagreement is over whether the article is supposed to be about the accumulate and fire coinage from Perl Design Patterns, or about global shared state in general; my understanding is that Caudax is arguing for keeping the latter. I believe it's a moot point—a discussion of the latter should not be called by the former's name, anyway, and rather belongs in the context of articles such as Global variable.
(I'd also like to point out that the amount of discussion expended on this article dramatically overshadows the paragraph or two of content it contained. :) —Piet Delport 2007-09-21 10:06
Response: Alright, my first point: "con·tro·ver·sy (kŏn'trə-vûr'sē) n. pl. con·tro·ver·sies 1. A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." I believe that the dispute between Piet Delport and myself, given that we were holding opposing views, qualify. My second is point is that the result of the discussion was not delete. I listed both consensus by numbers and consensus by discoursive and argumentative impact. This is why I commented about inserting your own opinion. Second, I did provide sources both within the discussion and on this very discussion page. These sources could have been used to improve the article, had the article not been deleted. Third, when you refer to an outcome of "the discussion," you are referring to Piet Delport's specific outlook, not the discussion on the whole. Fourth, the statement concerning medcab was deliberately qualified with the preceding if condition and is mostly there to explain away whatever reluctance (and apparently there was none, so admittedly this point is moot - I'm just pointing this out because I reject the derision with which you regarded it.) there may be at a discussion (the one between Piet Delport and myself) that hasn't reached consensus, since evidently we disagreed. Fifth, doesn't CSD#G6 cause CSD#G4 to become inapplicable? Sixth, I am commenting about the global shared state in general of course, as is the article, as is the PDP accumulate and fire. The naming convention can be seen discussed several times over as a tentative title. (The first mention of this can be found on the the initial talkpage by Taku, several years prior this discussion.) If the naming convention is somehow at fault, the proper course of action would be to rename the article, not to delete it outright. Lastly, yes I do realize with some wry irony that this discussion has spanned many times the length of the article itself. I think I mentioned that myself in the initial talkpage. The article nevertheless deserves to stand, however, so I persist. -Caudax 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the way to get an article on this is to write a good sourced article showing notability, and then ask for reinsertion. That's much more useful than this discussion--and might be easier.DGG (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Pallywood – an overturn of the AFD decision is not requested, so there is nothing for DRV in this nomination. Naming disputes are best settled via a RFC or WP:RM - but even better by the originally concerned editors reaching a consensus on the article's talk page. – GRBerry 16:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Additional closers notes: WP:NEO is a guideline, not a policy, which would weaken any case for overturning to deletion, should one later be requested. GRBerry 16:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was closed as "keep but rename" on 17 September by Gnangarra, with the following comment:

The conclusion is the content should be kept, the term Pallywood should also be addressed within the article, the film/video should also be covered but neither has enough to be the focus of a stand-alone article even when combined. This was the solution that was building as the discussion progressed a number of possible article names were suggested, Alleged Palestinian media manipulation is the most concise suggestion. This does have a POV outlook as such I've moved the article to a more neutral Alleged media manipulation in Palestine, ultimately its naming is up to article editors to discuss on the article talk page.

Gnangarra explained his reasoning further on his talk page:

Yes the name change is problematic, but at the moment there isnt sufficient sources within policy and guidelines to sustain an article called Pallywood which was clearly demonstrated within the afd. Where as there is enough to warrant discussion within a larger subject, to which one didnt exist. The naming of the article should be discussed and decide between the editors at which time further information can be added and the article focused onto the subject matter. IMHO Ultimately either the neologism or the film will have sourcing to support a stand-alone article at which time the redirect will be replaced ...

Hi everybody for the closure I took almost two hours to read and review all the discussions, I knew the final result of this afd was always going to be discussed long after the fact. On a pure policy basis the concerns raised should have result in a deletion as Pallywood failed to meet policy/guideline requirements, to do this would have ignored the pure numbers(even with discounted !votes). What I read was that over time the discussion was begining to identify that an alternative naming where Pallywood would be a definate subsection was becoming a agreed compromise, unfortunately the AfD needed to be closed with some form of decision a no consensus would only have everybody back there in a couple of weeks/months. Realising that not everybody would agree the name choice I intentionally closed off the explanation of my deliberation saying ultimately its naming is up to article editors to discuss on the article talk page.Which where I leave this discussion, I'm quite happy to answer further questions but the naming, the current merge proposal and article direction should be the result of discussion on the talk page.

After closing the AfD Gnangarra moved the article to the more neutral title Alleged media manipulation in the Palestinian territories. Gnangarra's decision has been strongly criticised by some of the editors who !voted to keep the article (though it has not been opposed by any of the editors who !voted to delete) - see Talk:Alleged media manipulation in the Palestinian territories#Oppose unilateral move. The move has twice been unilaterally reverted - in effect overturning the outcome of the AfD and restoring the status quo - by Jossi, who voted to keep the article, on the grounds that that Gnangarra had acted without consensus. Regrettably, Jossi has declined to take the matter to DRV despite recommendations to do so from myself and Gnangarra. As this is clearly a "disputed decision made in [a] deletion-related discussion" (per para 2 of WP:DRV), I've therefore brought the matter here for review by the wider community.

I believe that Gnangarra's decision was a reasonable, carefully-crafted compromise between the delete and keep positions. He plainly put a good deal of thought into the matter and reviewed the arguments pro and con. As his own statement indicates, he took care to apply policy in closing the AfD as a "keep and rename". AfD is not a vote; the closing administrator must review the arguments that have been made and deliver an outcome that is consistent with policy. A consensus isn't required for policy to be applied - policy trumps consensus. Gnangarra's decision was a commendable example of an admin taking the time to think about the issues being raised in the AfD discussion and producing an appropriate policy-based remedy. The decision was well within his discretion and should be respected. -- ChrisO 23:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the above contains a small error. The original rename was Alleged media manipulation in Palestine, which some would actually consider NPOV. Bigglove^talk 01:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This DRV is bogus. The article was kept, and it is up to editors to decide about article names, merging, etc. As well said by the closing admin in the AfD: This does have a POV outlook as such I've moved the article to a more neutral Alleged media manipulation in Palestine, ultimately its naming is up to article editors to discuss on the article talk page. There is nothing to discuss in DRV. Discussions about naming and merging should be held at Talk:Pallywood#Proposals_for_renaming. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issues to discuss - some of which you yourself have discussed on the article's talk page and Gnangarra's user talk page - include:

Was the closure a reasonable interpretation of policy?
Was the decision to keep and rename within Gnangarra's discretion?
Was it proper for you - as someone who voted in the AfD - to unilaterally overturn the closure?

To quote WP:DRV, "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look." You discussed the matter with Gnangarra and invited him to take a second look, and he told you that he was unwilling to overturn [9]. And then you went ahead and overturned it unilaterally anyway. If you disagree with the outcome of an AfD, you take it to DRV - you don't unilaterally overturn it because you disagree with it. This really isn't rocket science. -- ChrisO 00:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gangarra did not ask for a DRV as claimed by ChrisO. At least not in talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary. -- ChrisO 00:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? What that has to do with this? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the edit summary. He recommended you to take it to DRV. -- ChrisO 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that... The argument he placed on his talk page spoke of something different. In any case, it does not change anything. An editor closing an AfD cannot trump the need for consensus of editors about naming an article if the article was closed keep. Restoring to status quo is presuming consensus until proven otherwise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another important point: Notwithstanding the courage demonstrated by Gangarra to close an AfD that was so vigorously debated, an editor closing an AfD cannot assert his opinion about the future of an article if kept. He/she can make recommendations to editors based on the consensus expressed in the AfD discussion, but ultimately it is the responsibility of editors to decide on article's names, mergers, etc. This point has been expressed by several editors in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Jossi is correct in this matter. AfD is about deleting articles. We have other mechanisms for dealing with renaming articles. The closing admin specifically left it to the editors on the article talk page to decide the best name. Pending that consensus, retaining the original name seems the most neutral course. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Will Beback's comment above. (Disclaimer: I am an involved party since I voted in the AFD to keep, as is ChrisO since he actually brought a previous AFD which did not succeed on this article). Bigglove^talk 01:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close DRV, which should not be used as a substitute for RfC. Resolve naming issues on article talk page.

Just because a closing admin makes an editorial decision around the time of closing and mentions it in the closing rationale does not mean that that editorial decision is bound to the DRV and can only be challenged in DRV. Only 2-3 participants in the AfD expressed opinions on the naming issues, and of those there was no consensus. It is perfectly reasonable and proper for closing administrators to suggest editorial actions proceeding the closure. Gangarra decided to be bold and execute his suggested action himself, while explicitly stating that his action could be reversed at the discretion of editors. This is really no different from an admin closing an AfD for an article, adding bits of information to article, and mentioning those additions in the closing rationale.
As our deletion policy says: Pages with an incorrect name [sic] can simply be renamed via page movement procedure. Disputes over the name are discussed on the talk page, or listed at requested moves.
By the closing admin's words, "ultimately its naming is up to article editors to discuss on the article talk page." It seems rather silly to tell an administrator that he can't allow his own decision to be reviewed where he chooses, and that he can only hear objections to his action in some alternative forum not of his choosing.
Let's use common sense and keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The appropriate venue for discussing naming issues is an article's talk page. That is where editors who know something about the subject of the article, and the history of its presence on Wikipedia, are to be found.

In brief: this DRV plainly violates the spirit of our deletion policies and should not have been created in the first place. A section for discussing naming issues has already been created in the Pallywood talk page. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as closing Admin, I've seen a lot various interpretations of my wording since closing. What I said is that based on policy adhering strictly to that policy as discussed in the AfD the result is Delete, there is not the soucing to sustain notability. Now to do that would ignore the !vote numbers, and that would have just started a recreation war. My solution was that some of the editors arguing deletion had mentioned the possibilty of renaming/merging into a wider article. This discussion started to build momentum late in the AfD so not everybody had commented thus I said that the name of this article should be the choice of the editors. In a wider context article both the neologism and the film would warrant specific sections, thus I kept the content and move it to a wider scope article. Since that compromise failed and the AfD established that Pallywood fails to meet WP:N, WP:RS as prescribed in the guidelines WP:NOTFILM, WP:NEO, I support my decision being overturned and the article being deleted. Gnan garra 04:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That does not work, Gnangarra. If you had decided that the discussion result was delete, why didn't you? We would have had a vigorous debate in DRV if that was the case, I am sure. Your argument about a "recreating war" does not work either, preempting a recreation can only be done by salting when there is consensus for such extreme action. Let the process unfold, this is a wiki. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum (ChrisO) or endorse keep (Gnangarra). Generally, the only thing an AfD authoritatively decides is whether content is being kept or deleted. Everything else, especially if labeled as not being part of the consensus determined in the discussion, is an editorial matter to be decided through the normal editing process. Since the outcome was "keep", and since ChrisO does not request deletion, DRV has nothing to decide. — Another matter altogether would be whether the closing admin may unilaterally overturn his decision. However, Gnangarra has not done this, but instead argues in this DRV that his own decision should be overturned. To do this, under the rules of DRV, he would need to show that his own AfD "keep" closure was in violation of process, and he has not done this. A brief review indicates a "no consensus" outcome, equivalent to "keep", and since the article does have sources, WP:V does not override consensus and mandate deletion. Sandstein 05:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is for discussion about the admins closure, as I closed it as keep therefore to overturn would be delete, as I said deletion based on policy is justifed so I dont mind my decision being overturn. Gnan garra 06:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The closing admin, Gnangarra, has not said why he feels notability criteria have not been met. He states this as fact. Many argued on the AFD that they HAD been met. This difference of opinion was not addressed in the closing statement. This whole discussion is a mess and not a credit to Wikipedia Bigglove^talk 14:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.