Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 August 30
2007 September 1 >

31 August 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Image:Bleach 01 - The Substitute.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image was previously used on the Featured List List of Bleach The Substitute arc episodes, where it not only served to identify the subject of the article but was specifically discussed in the article text, since it was an award-nominated package design. It bore a rationale reflecting this.

However, it was later replaced with another image that was used solely for identification and had no commentary (ergo no strong rationale), with the consequence that both were deleted, the original due to its replacement by the newer image and the newer image due to being "unnecessary". I would like the original image to be brought back so that it can be used in the article. --tjstrf talk 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not seeing an edit summary to explain the deletion in the logs. Did the deleted image that you want restored have a fair use rationale? Do you know why it was deleted/have you attempted to contact the deleting admin? At the very least, there seems to be some rationale provided in the edit summary of the upload. I'm leaning towards wanting to restore this. Heather 16:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Yes, it had a rationale. It was deleted due to being orphaned, which is normally a legitimate reason for deletion, but the image which replaced it on the list was then itself deleted without the original being put back on the page. --tjstrf talk 01:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a DVD cover, so yes, I could. However I would prefer to avoid having to mentally reconstruct what I wrote as the image description, and by using the formal process I gain a defense against accusations of reposting deleted content. --tjstrf talk 03:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • List of Akatsuki members – Deletion endorsed. This DRV closure is influenced by the current status quo, where redirection and merger have accommodated much of the list's information elsewhere. Some of these merges necessitate the history undeletion of the content for GFDL purposes. – Xoloz 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Akatsuki members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The AfD log for this article has an overwhelming amount of Keeps, but a lot of them are WP:ILIKEIT which is what the Admin wrote as a main reason for deletion. He seemed to completely skip over the good amount of unbiased Keeps and Comments though citing good reasons, precedents and sources though, which alone outnumbed the amount of Delete votes. The article is a sub-page of a notable subject relating to Naruto, one of Wikipedia's most visitited articles and branched off its main page for formatting and length concerns. The Norse 17:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - Votestacking is sending mass talk messages only to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion and informing them of a current or upcoming vote. Thirty+ editors who are on the record with a specific opinion about List of Akatsuki members were informed about this current !Vote on their talk page. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
xDanielx notified every participant in that debate equally, including yourself, the one who nominated it for deletion in the first place. --tjstrf talk 17:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Noted characters are the main villains of one of the most popular and longest-running anime/manga series of the last decade. I believe someone in the AfD cited a magazine directly pertaining to the characters too. - The Norse 03:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn - in all fairness, this is the most exorbitant stretch of WP:PNSD I have seen. 32 genuine keep !votes against 3 delete !votes should make it fairly obvious that absent sockpuppetry/libel/etc., the article should be snowball kept. In this case, content guidelines which are designed to assist in resolving contentious content disputes were applied to completely trivial and uncontroversial information. Follow the spirit; ignore the letter as appropriate. — xDanielx T/C 19:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, this was a good close, not that it makes any difference as 80% of the deleted page has been merged and redirected into the main article anyway. ELIMINATORJR 20:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at that discussion, it seems like most of delete opinions really didn't understand what they were !voting for: The end result was the content being merged, but then parts of it seem to have been split out into an even larger number of individual character articles, so in the end we have just as much fictional content if not more, worse formatting, and nobody's happy.
    As for the closure, overturn as a massive violation of the deletion guidelines. Admins are not permitted to discount informed opinions because they disagree with their personal interpretation of a nebulous area of policy, but rather only in cases of bad faith. Can ^demon honestly claim that 18+ of those keep opinions were written in bad faith, i.e. by vandals, trolls, and sockpuppets? --tjstrf talk 09:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Excellent close. I wish more admins paid attention to the arguments of the nominator, and those who participate instead of counting votes. At no point did any of the opposition to deletion provide an independent reliable source for the information in the article, and the nominator was not refuted in his claim that it did not meet WP:V. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, "didn't meet WP:V"? The only time fiction articles have trouble with verifiability is when they include speculation or fanwankery. Can you find one single statement on the page that wasn't sourceable to the series canon? --tjstrf talk 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Series canon is a reliable third party source for information on elements from within it. Actually, it's beyond even that: it's The Truth. --tjstrf talk 22:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eliminator, I think you are applying WP:V in a way that is very inconsistent with the spirit, and probably the letter (though the latter is debatable), of the policy. "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." If the publishers of Naruto assert that Kisame Hoshigaki is age 29 in Part I, then that material is not likely to be challenged. Just as "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", trivial and indisputable bits of information should be allowed leniency when their truth is plainly obvious. — xDanielx T/C 02:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. WP:V is quite clear about this - using primary sources is fine, but using only primary sources isn't. ELIMINATORJR 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're referring to the sentence "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This is simply a restatement of WP:N. In this case such sources are all over the place. It is a mistake to suppose that an article of this nature requires sources discussing the subject of lists of Akatsuki members; by that logic we would have to delete list of bridges, and so on -- almost every list and category on Wikipedia. — xDanielx T/C 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was just a list, that would not be a problem - but it isn't just a list, there's a whopping great piece of what is effectively plot summary for each character. ELIMINATORJR 21:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and kudos to ^demon for reading the unbolded words instead of counting the bolded ones. AfD is not a vote, and substantial secondary sources are required, not a nicety. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No outside sources means we cannot determine the notability of this subject. The closing admin made the correct decision in the face of a lot of bad arguments. This "information" does not belong in it's own article or in the Akatsuki (Naruto) article, it needs to go away until secondary sources on these characters are found. --Phirazo 20:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn - I specifically gave a verifiable, third-party source that could be used for this info. I believe I am the user referred to by The Norse, above. This also shows up on a Google-News search of "Akatsuki", thus verifying notability. While not meaning to be personal-attacky, it seems that many of those who claim "no verifiable sources" didn't actually search to verify that. Que Irony.KrytenKoro 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also gave a magazine that focuses much more substantially on the Akatsuki. However, I thought the dispute was to establish that there were third party sources, not that the article could be written from only that info - articles on fiction are allowed to use the primary source a substantial amount, so long as they can verify that there are third party sources, yes? So, we know that there are independent, verifiable, reliable third-party sources. What else is the problem?KrytenKoro 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A lot of objections seem to center around the lack of third-party sources. A number of past disputes have centered on the same issues - Spells in Harry Potter for instance. The bottom line is that the general test outlined in WP:N, and restated briefly in WP:V and elsewhere, is not meant to apply to lists just as it is not meant to apply to, say, categories. Per WP:Summary style, it is necessary and proper to fork large sections like these. Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, which is much more specific/pertinent to topic than the core policies, says very clearly that minor characters should be forked out, and major characters should be forked out if they would otherwise make the main article too long/messy, which they are doing in this caes. Technically a forked section is being given its own article, but for most practical purposes it can be considered a section of the parent article. Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, WP:SS, and WP:IAR were all noted as reasons to preserve the article in the AfD; let's not forgot that we have the option to ignore the letter of policies, especially when they are in borderline conflict with subject-specific style guidelines. — xDanielx T/C 22:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again - it's not a list. There is so much spurious information that it's effectively an article for each character - articles which fail WP:V. If the article merely gave a list of the character's names and perhaps a very small amount of relevant information, then fine (and to be honest, secondary sources could easily be found for that anyway). But read the talk page - no-one is interested in sourcing this article, the topic for today is "whether Zetsu has a jutsu" for example. ELIMINATORJR 22:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing in it fails WP:V by any stretch of the imagination. Fail WP:WAF, sure, but not WP:V. Verifiability and reliability is about having your information sourced to accurate publications, there is no source in existence more accurate than the original work for information about the fiction it contains. As regards in universe information, the use of third party sources is not only nonsensical but harmful, as it will lead to the inclusion of information sourced to things like inaccurate third-party reviews. --tjstrf talk 22:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it is appropriate -- I would go as far as to say best -- to allow self-published sources to back the content of the article in cases like this. Consider company reports as a similar example: a company reports on its website that it has 645 employees, and some third-party site, say BusinessWeek, sees this and puts on its site that the company has 600+ employees. I think this case is even clearer since the authors of the story have the exclusive ability to dictate who the characters are. If the story writers say that Tobi wears a mask, then he does. — xDanielx T/C 23:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that it isn't purely a list per se in the sense that it does provide commentary on the listed items, but I think my comments still apply. For practical purposes, it can be considered part of the Akatsuki (Naruto) article, split off because of a technicality. This is a case where I feel we should grant the article spillover notability -- if there are no reliable third-party sources giving substantial independent coverage to the forked topic (maybe there are, m I don't know), then that is only due to the nature of how information is organized on Wikipedia and how it is organized on the rest of the internet - it is incredibly rare for reliable sources to write articles which provide substantial commentary on different organizations of information within a narrow topic such as Naruto characters. This discrepancy is precisely the reason we don't require that categories pass WP:N, and that reasoning is why we are able to have a list of bridges article. The precedents aren't as obvious in these less clear-cut cases, but they do exist: WP:SS, Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, and so on. Spells in Harry Potter is a case in point. — xDanielx T/C 23:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then redo the AfD on those grounds, and throw the Akatsuki (Naruto) article in while you're at it. I'm not claiming the article was perfect; the issue here is that the article was deleted against process and on completely inapplicable verifiability grounds. --tjstrf talk 00:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I'm split on this but after looking at the whole AFD and this I think the admins blocked out all attempts at disscussion and simply deleted the page because they didn't like it and didn't read all the comments and just paid attention to IP's and new users. And I don't feel like repeating what everyone else said so their posts are mine as well.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 01:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn, ^demon's closure result and his attitude towards keep votes had shown a severe lack of respect for fellows' opinion, ignoring all the relevant arguments and bad-faith regarding all of them as WP:ILIKEIT while he himself did with IDONTLIKEIT odor, blatantly going against consensus. I agree with tjstrf that this article fails WP:WAF, as many articles about fiction on Wikipedia encounter. "The primary argument for deletion was the lack of sources" was one of the lamest reason applied to this type of content. This bad rationale, in negative perspective, can generate a new wave of massive nominations for deleting articles about fiction. The system of characters' bio in Category:Characters in The Lord of the Rings, for instance, many in there are insufficient with sources, but simply "lack of sources" is NOT the reason to delete. @pple complain 02:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The rational the closing admin used was "The primary argument for deletion was the lack of sources". However, it is clearly evident that there were plenty of sources for the article. They just happen to be primary sources. At no point in the closing admin's comments did he cite any of the notability guidelines. This indicates that he did not consider notability a factor in deleting the article. Also, Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters is still an active deletion policy. It appears that the closing admin did not take this standing deletion policy into consideration or explain why it was not relevant. Also WP:FICT has recently undergone a major rewrite. The intent of the rewrite was to clarify the guidelines, which encourages mergers over deletions, and avoid making distinctions between major and minor characters and concepts. Unfortunately, the unintended consequence has been that editors sending previously acceptable list of fiction articles to AfD. Discussion is currently underway to rectify that problem. In the end, I have to agree with @pple that the closing admin's verdict comes off as one big WP:IDONTLIKEIT and was not based on policy or consensus. --Farix (Talk) 02:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment From WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (emphasis added) Primary sources only is a perfectly valid reason to delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Third party sources" is only used there because in the vast majority of articles those are the most authoritative type. In the case of fiction however, that is an absurd and contradictory standard: If I have a professionally published book which quotes a line in a play as saying one thing, and I have a copy of the original play script that says another, which source is the more reliable? Clearly the play script. (For a great example of this, think of how many times you have heard what should be reliable third party sources misquote Juliet as saying "Where art thou Romeo?" instead of "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" in her famous balcony speech.)
        There is no verifiability issue with this article. --tjstrf talk 05:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it's not. Encyclopaedias are tertiary sources, if the secondary sources do not discuss something in detail then neither should we. Documenting vast swathes of fictional universes from the primary sources is not at all what an encyclopaedia should be doing. Do the fans not have their own wiki? It looks as if they're using Wikipedia to fulfil a role which is rightly that of a fan site. Maybe someone can help them set one up. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • List of Norwegian Americans – Deletion closure endorsed. The continuing debate over lists vs. categories sees yet another incarnation. The relevant question seems to be whether the AfD closer abused his discretion. After discounting the needlessly inflammatory comments of one particular editor, there is a narrow consensus that the closer did not. The DRV nominator's suggestion -- that these matters be considered en masse (perhaps at centralized discussion... again) -- is a sound one, but inconsistent treatment of various nationalities at various AfDs is not, in itself, a reason to overturn. As Carlos points out below, structural problems with the nature of AfD make it impossible to render a complete judgment over such a large group of articles at one time. By strength of argument, and numbers, the original decision stands. – Xoloz 07:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Norwegian Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
List of Swedish Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
List of Finnish Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian Americans for all the lists deleted. There needs to be a discussion on the Portal level on these lists, and not deleting or saving them one by one. Compare to:

The categories exist for the same information, but if you are looking for that Norwegian American scientist, your not going to find him. Having a category is no reason to delete a list that is sorted differently. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted despite non consensus for deletion Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, well-reasoned close. WP:LIST is not a reason to keep anything as it is just a set of standards for list articles, and other keep arguments are based on WP:ILIKEIT throwing WP:IDONTLIKEIT at the delete arguments, which are grounded in policies and guidelines that actually are reasons to keep or delete things. --Coredesat 16:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Well-argued close - these unmaintainable lists are unencyclopedic and a mess. Eusebeus 17:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the google cache of List of Norwegian Americans, it doesn't look to me to be an unencylopedic mess. Kappa 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which established "policies and guidelines" did the closing editor and the "Delete" supporters actually refer to? Please list. In the comment to my keep vote, the editor referred to an essay called WP:ITSUSEFUL. Another such “policy” referred to was the one yet to be created called “Categories are better than lists”, used by Dark_Tea -“This is what categories are for”, Burntsauce-“this is why we have categories”, Corpx -“Replace with category”, JForget - “should all be in categories only“, and pearls of wisdom like: “We don't even list distant family members in this way. Categories completely suffice”. Another “list deletion policy” quoted was one valid for categories, namely “overcategorization” (which is a deletion criteria for categories, not lists, yet at least): “Over categorization. Most are blue links,”. “Far too loose a connection between listees, overcategorization”. None of the other arguments touched on "policies and guidelines" as far as I can determine, but were concerned with ideas such as : “practically trivial” and “WP should not be categorizing on race/ethnicity”. However, Norwegian American etc are not race categories, but a category based on the national origin of the immigrants. As stated by Steve Hart -“I don't think there is consensus to kill lists based on nationalities”. Pia 22:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and one-month block for the admin who deleted this article blatantly against consensus. The numerous "keep" votes were well-reasoned and "delete" votes consisted of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Above "overturn" votes show the corruption that is typical of DR (i.e. editors covering for one another regardless of the severity of the abuse that may have taken place). Badagnani 00:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
agree with Corpx, excessive for a single decision, no matter how poorly thought out. We don't punish people for making mistakes. The implied reprimand of an overturn is sufficient. DGG (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - I don't think Neil's summary was a fair representation of arguments by any means, but blocking editors for a small number of (probably) good faith closures seems very extreme. — xDanielx T/C 21:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - These people being of <descent> had very little to do with them attaining notability in their fields, so I fail to see why a blanket list is appropriate Corpx 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A rather idiosyncratic (but unfortunately not very novel) re-interpretation of policy a justification to discount votes on a flimsy basis. older ≠ wiser 02:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Closer shows evidence of prejudice against the keep arguments; the nomination for deletion did not even bother to state a reason for deletion. There was NO CONSENSUS--a fact the closer chose to ignore. Hmains 02:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • further info Closer Niel's main page says: "I also think Wikipedia has around 800,000 articles more than it need have, therefore I am a founder member of the Association of Redirectionist Wikipedians"==further indicating Niel's POV pushing attitude toward WP Admin work. Hmains 01:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn it is not the role of the closing administrator to decide on notability; but to formulate the community decision. The discretion that is required is to distinguish those arguments that were based on policy and consider only those. As I said during my RfA, about how I would decide if I altogether disagreed with the apparent consensus on what the policy is, the proper course is instead to join the discussion, advocate one's view, and let somebody else close. There are over one thousand admins available for the purpose. Clearly there were no solid arguments for deletion--almost all sad merely that a category was better. The closer therefore discarded without explanation all the ones for keep, saying baldly that they were invalid. To enter an AfD in order to close in opposition to the community's interpretation of policy is to mistake one's role. I would equally call for an overturn here whether I agreed or did not agree with the actual decision. DGG (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - this just looks like another attempt at re-doing the AfD, with most of the same people replacing "keep" with "overturn" for the same reason. Admin discretion was fine, and that's what should be judged here. Most of the keeps did justify Norwegian Americans and not list of Norwegian Americans and a lot of others were just false accusations that the delete arguments were WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So, seems fair, even if I will be accused for being biased. Bulldog123 05:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not true. The "non-existent" rationales included: “Valid per WP:LIST", as well as rational explanations as to why categorization is a inferior tool in these cases (example: Drieakko-“there is no way referencing article's inclusion in a category. Whenever you need to source that, you also need to start making lists”, Mandsford-“they're all well-sourced, something that is to be encouraged in Wikipedia, with an attempt to explain the connection). Other ignored explanations were references to the inflexibility of categories (“Keep until the software provides category intersections”, “Categories will never be flexible enough to do this”), and arguemnts that the lists in question are not "indiscriminate" and "limitless" (strict criteria is used for inclusion on the list, such as the person's fame/notability, in combination with verifiability/news coverage focusing on his/her ethnicity, and also self-identification by the subject with the population group). In addition, list such as these can easily be further reduced by the introduction of stricter criteria for inclusion. Concerning the claim of "overcategorization", several editors pointed out that this is not a policy applicable to lists. I also want to stress that Scandinavian immigrants, as well as other groups listed for deletion here, are not “loosely associated items”-Identity based on heritage or roots is not considered a “loose association” by a lot of people, as evident by the majority vote "Keep" in this instance. Pia 22:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • On a similar level, for articles about individual cities or towns, we include a "Notable residents" section, as we should. When this section grows too large for the city article, this data often gets moved to a separate article, often broken down by occupation. Notable Americans of various national origins (Vietnamese Americans or whatever) are a similar case. When there are too many to list in the Vietnamese Americans article we move to a List of Vietnamese Americans, of course meaning "List of notable Vietnamese Americans." The fact that some of these lists have been deleted on flimsy grounds ("I don't think people should identify with their nations of ori0gin because everyone should just be *American*!"), and that the data was not merged into the "[X]-Americans" article, but simply deleted forever, shows bad faith on the part of both the AFD nominators and closers, as it robs researchers who rely on this valuable data. The fact that one can now go to the Norwegian Americans article and find nothing about the many notable Norwegian Americans throughout the United States' history shows that the deletion proposal, as well as the against-consensus "delete" close, had a punitive motivation, blanking the data forever (rather than merging) in order to "teach a lesson" to the editors that would even deign to maintain that such information has an encyclopedic value for our users. Badagnani 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Admins personal view should not be the deciding factor in AfD.Inge 10:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, agree with Bulldog123. ugen64 19:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per AfD consensus. Neil's interpretation of the discussion seems very idiosyncratic to me; he certainly didn't do any justice to the Keep !votes that were voiced, and while a couple of editors who favored deletion voiced reasonable concerns, they were not based on any policy and the majority of editors found them uncompelling. There are perfectly valid reasons to prefer lists over categories in cases like these (organization, description, etc.); I see no reason to ignore the consensus which supported retaining the list. — xDanielx T/C 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to all - Please stop the attacks on Neil's judgment. Everyone has opinions on Wikipedia issues. Just because he chooses to express his opinions elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't mean that he is "POV pushing". Is any admin that has opinions about the general direction of Wikipedia not allowed to close an AFD? Should someone who says that they are an inclusionist not be able to close an AFD as a "keep"? Accusations of "prejudice" and the like should be ignored with regard to this DRV: argue the AFD and the closure - not the editor! Wickethewok 04:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - More admins covering for one another regardless of the severity of the abuse that may have taken place (which in this case was truly egregious)--not to be tolerated! Badagnani 07:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could have chosen not to participate at all in the popular culture AfD debates, and instead close borderline ones in accordance with my opinion, an opinion which I truly think soundly based in policy. I've never even considered doing that--I think it would have been clear misuse of my position. I do not have the right to decide for the community, just to interpret what the community decides. DGG (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid close, list is potentially vast and undoubtedly indiscriminate - a collection of loosely associated information. And trout-slap Badagnani for the comment above. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Valid close. The keep votes did not address the key concerns, nor did the majority of them provide justification. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (my) deletion. I note Mr Norton did not inform me of this discussion. Some (not all) of the "keep" arguments failed to address Wikipedia policy on any level. With those mainly discounted, the consensus, rooted in policy, was to delete. If Badagnani has any issues with my conduct as an administrator, he is welcome to pursue those via WP:RFC. Neil ム 10:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment So we just get more of the same from this closer: accepting the 'delete' article comments without question while critiqueing the 'keep' comments and dismissing them (not enough good ones--counting the votes). How can we get a neutral party who will critique the delete arguments and see whether they fail in most instances to go beyond Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? Hmains 20:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, that is what a closing administrator is - a neutral party. I closed a deletion discussion as best I saw fit, using that very link you provide to reinforce my judgement. You may like to note I have closed similar discussions as "keep". administrators judge each discussion on its merits. There is no nefarious scheme afoot here. Neil ム 12:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Isn't this the editor who says, on his own user page, "I also think Wikipedia has around 800,000 articles more than it need have, therefore I am a founder member of the Association of Redirectionist Wikipedians"? The close decision was unarguably against consensus and the closing editor was/is not neutral. Editor's failure to address these issues calls for one-month block for abuse of admin powers to be raised to two months. Badagnani 20:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Badagnani, I have already told you on your talk page to file an RFC if you have a concern with my capability or my "abuse of admin powers". I am unsure what bearing my views on my talk page about redirects have to this discussion. Please try and focus oin the issue at hand, as your ludicrous over-reaction is unhelpful, and probably not winning many people to your cause. Neil ム 12:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion so this is a damned if you do (more than one nominated together) that actually had consensus to delete, but also a damned if you don't review (all the lists weren't listed together) so maybe an inconsistent result is achieved, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a weak argument to keep this. The confusion of keep votes was that many couldn't articulate what was being kept: ethnicity lists? nationality lists? how Norwegian, Swedish, etc. must one be to qualify. So counting votes as some would have done makes no sense at all. These lists are fundamentally flawed and until someone can figure out an encyclopedic, NPOV, NOR, and BLP-compliant way to make these work out they should go. Carlossuarez46 21:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. No justification offered by the closing editor and no consideration/courtesy extended to the extensive rationales offered in the majority of the keep votes. It is very discouraging to see the policy adhered to by most closing editors so blatantly ignored (i.e. at 'no consensus', with no evidence of policy violations--as in this case, no violation of WP:LIST---the article is usually kept by default), in this random fashion, with no rational offered. It would have been better to take the discussion to at the Portal level (as suggested by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), instead of attempting to muscle through a non-community approved precedence here for the proposal Wikipedia:Overlistification and to justify blanket deletions of all "Lists of XXX Americans". Pia 22:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should a discussion on whether or not to delete an article not be carried out on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? Neil ム 12:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The arguments for deletion were no better based in policy than those based in keeping. Admins who are closing discussions need to weigh both sets of arguments against policy, not just one. This close is outside the range of reasonable administrative discretion. There was no consensus for deletion, and the discussion should have been closed that way. GRBerry 17:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with GRBerry. I was very surprised at the Neil's deletion conclusion when he just ignored all opposing votes by established editors as not having "any justification". And that's it, no more reasoning. That kind of summary is unprofessional and ignorant. Whatever discussion can be played down by saying it has "no justification". People in administrator positions need to do better than that, or concentrate on other issues. --Drieakko 17:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Smaller nations make a significant public showcase on the heritage of notable Americans if they can trace any part of it to their own ethnicity. Usually their national media offers tremendous amount of attention to these people. That ALONE is enough to justify the notability of the article and its contents, whatever OPINIONS there exists whether that kind of attention is important or not. We can take Pamela Anderson as an example. Her great-grandfather was a Finn. Just for that fact, she was paid over 100 000 USD to visit her distant relatives in Finland this summer, which caused a media frenzy in Finland, all following what she was doing and whom she was meeting. IMHO, as the deleted articles provide good references how the ethnic background, even partial, of notable Americans becomes a notable fact in the media by itself, that is sufficient to justify the existence of the article. --Drieakko 17:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously Overturn I hesitate to invest any more energy on this since the explanation for deleting was so dismissive of the plain consensus that the process comes off as just a pro forma pretense. As others have accurately stated, the votes to delete barely bothered to write a coherent subject-verb sentence, let alone form an argument or address the merits of these particular lists, as opposed to just being generically anti-list. And the admin's explanation accordingly stated no reason at all for deleting. Literally, no reason whatsoever. It couldn't be more obvious that there was no decision to make, just opposition to dispose of. Whatever the merits of deletion, the process stinks. And in further putting people off of the project, it is destructive of more than just these three articles. At a bare minimum, somebody other than the existing admin should go back and do a less amateurish job of reviewing the deletion discussion and extend the courtesy of actually addressing those of us who took the time to weigh in. -Langrel 20:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "amateurish" job? If you want to see an amateurish job look at 90% of closes by admins. Neil actually went into great detail with his close, even if it didn't suit your opinion, it tried to find consensus for the list when there was just consensus for an article. This DRV isn't a second AfD but an analysis of Neil's close. Bulldog123 05:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kindly note that: a) vague references to admins' actions elsewhere have no relation to this case; b) Neil did not went into any detail at all; c) Neil did not try to find any consensus. --Drieakko 06:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
HAL_9000_in_popular_culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A long list of references to HAL in popular culture was moved from the HAL main page to a page of its own and then deleted, apparently because the references were uncited. This seems ridiculous, as each reference clearly has its own citation (e.g., a reference that HAL was seen on a particular episode of the Simpsons can be verified by watching the cited episode of the Simpsons--if only all Wikipedia data points were so easily researchable!). I believe a close reading of the history of the main HAL page and the HAL in popular culture page reveals a large bias against this sort of "trivial" data. As a student of popular culture and how information can take a life of its own, I actually found the bulleted list to be fascinating. Trivia or not, since the content doesn't violate any of the three primary rules, I believe the article, either as a stand-alone page or as a section on the HAL page, should be restored. If not, please do a search on "in popular culture" and decide what the difference is between this article and the many, many articles of the same ilk. As it is, I believe deleting data that can be clearly used to create information/knowledge/wisdom shows an odd, non-objective bias on the part of Wikipedia editors. I'm referring to these deleted pages:[1], [2] (Note: I personally don't care if the article is spun on its own page or not.) Here's an example of a Wikipedia page devoted to the same kind of content that got deleted: Wikipedia_in_culture. 71.198.224.245 15:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Consensus on the AfD was unquestionable here, and there is no basis upon which to overturn the deletion. You may disagree with the rationale provided by those who participated in the debate, but in the end community consensus said "delete" and it's the community that makes the decision. I've also fixed this nomination to reflect the deleted article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, consensus was clear, nomination is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and is not a valid reason for undeletion. --Coredesat 16:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Telling somebody to go watch a TV show or movie to prove a contention is the epitome of original research. Corvus cornix 17:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The AfD closure was not decided because of a lack of references. This article was deleted because it wasn't really an article, it was a trivia dump masquerading as coherent content. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I was going to make the same point as Corvus cornix, but Corvus cornix already did it for me. Heather 22:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus was clearly achieved and close was correct. The purpose of DRV is not to re-argue the merits of a page once it is closed, but to review potential improper AfDs. This one was completely proper and the concensus was unquestionable. Smashville 22:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let's put it this way...AfDs are not a vote. However, of the responses: 11 were for delete or merge, 2 were for a "weak keep" because there was no place to transwiki it to. No one gave the article a full endorsement or anything stronger than a weak keep. Smashville 23:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (reluctantly) The close was reasonably based on the arguments presented. I personally think the article could [possibly be defended, but it was not adequately defended, nor was it improved during the discussion. (The Afd was in April, and few had yet come to understand the importance of such articles and join in the discussions). The appropriate course is to rewrite a sound, sourced article--the deleted article was not really sourced adequately, and the subsequent debates have clarified what is needed.DGG (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid we can't do that. The way to deal with bloated "in popular culture" sections is to prune them to a few notable examples, not split them out into a whole new article which thus becomes a list or repositories of loosely associated topics. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little puzzled--i didn't ask that DRV do that now. (As for the future, we'll see about that.)DGG (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm puzzled. Did you think Dave meant you? It doesn't. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Right. I really prefer being called David, in any case. :) DGG (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Kerry Marie – Deletion endorsed. Keep arguments in the AfD at issue were based entirely on the claim of subject having won a notable award within a sub-genre. Besides that basic claim, keep arguments were spare, without elaboration. In closing, the administrator investigated the question, and found evidence (presented hereinbelow) that the award was non-notable. This is something administrators ideally wouldn't be asked to do, because it is hoped that keep commenters will support claims with arguments of some kind. Where that argumentation is absent, however, as it was in this instance, it is difficult to call such an investigation an "abuse of discretion." The case made by Fram is so compelling that -- had the AfD been closed as a "keep" -- I would expect Fram's argument, made at DRV, to have resulted in an overturning. By strength of argument, and of numbers, the decision stands. This is without prejudice, as always, to a newly written, reliably-sourced draft with clear evidence of notability. – Xoloz 07:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kerry Marie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2|AFD3)

No consensus to delete at the AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerry Marie (3rd nomination) Epbr123 13:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's rationale: Indeed, but I disregarded "keep" opinions genre "Keep: plumper of the year!" and deletes like "complete nobody" (since that's the one thing that can hardly be said about her :-) ). The award is not notable, and since that is her only claim to fame, she isn't notable either. "Plumper of the year" and "Kerry Marie" gives 26 Google hits[3], many of them about winners of other "plumper of the year" awards, and just mentioning her in passing. "Plumper of the year" plus "xl magazine" gives a whopping 9 Google hits [4]. How is this award notable? It's not like she's won a Hot d'Or or something similar. WP:PORNBIO clearly states that it has to be a well-known award, and this one isn't. Policy (well, in this case, the notability guidelines) trumps consensus, and so I ignored the consensus and followed the few reasoned comments. Fram 13:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 3 states, "Performer has been prolific or innovative within a specific genre niche". Plumper of the Year may not be well-known compared to AVN, but it is still probably a top award within the bbw genre. Epbr123 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you draw the boundaries narrowly, you can argue pretty much any award is a "top award". And, anyways, that's immaterial, since I'm not seeing any evidence that it IS a "top award within the bbw genre". --Calton | Talk 15:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If you draw the boundaries narrowly, you can argue pretty much any award is a "top award"." Explain, please? And where's the evidence that it isn't a top award in the genre. How many google hits come up for the other bbw awards? Epbr123 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but did you seriously ask me "And where's the evidence that it isn't a top award in the genre?" You might as well have asked me, "Where's the evidence it isn't obsequious, clairvoyant, or purple?" Hint: Evidence? Not the job of MY side of the argument. I prefer my own arguments to be fact-based, not faith-based. --Calton | Talk 17:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Plumper of the Year has 734 google hits, and I can't find any other bbw awards on google. There's the evidence. Epbr123 18:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits aren't a reliable source. --Coredesat 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking to Fram or me? He insists the award isn't notable due to google hits. Or does that rule depend on which side of the argument you're on? Epbr123 19:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the reasons why I deleted it instead of just following the consensus. "Plumper of the Year" indeed has 734 google hits, but there are different magazines and websites who award the title to different people. (warning: following links may not be suitable for work or minors!): the second hit is from the IMO much better known bbw magazines "Voluptuous" and "Score"[5], just like e.g. the ninth one[6], the fourteenth (an IMDb link)[7], etcetera. In fact, there are 553 hits for "Plumper of the Year" and "Voluptuous", and only 13 for "Plumper of the Year" and "XL magazine". So it looks to me that while there is a little known award called "Plumper of the Year" from Voluptuous; there is also another little known award from XL magazine with the same name. And even more damning, there are only 40 distinct Google hits for both awards combined[8], making it still clearer that this is not a "well known award" as defined in WP:PORNBIO. Fram 19:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are just 41 google hits for "plumper of the year" when you exclude the repeated entries. Corpx 20:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She wasn't eligible for a Voluptuous Plumper of the Year Award because she was working for Score's BBW magazine, XL Magazine. To add to her notability, she came 3rd in the 2003 Voluptuous Model of the Year Award [9]. Epbr123 20:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This debate has become rather risible. Eusebeus 23:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I would have argued for deletion, but based on that discussion, it should have been closed as a keep. It is the judgement of the discussion participants as to whether or not the award Marie won is a notable one per WP:PORNBIO. The consensus numerically was to keep, and policy wasn't particularly strong either way as to justify reading it as a "delete". Neil ム 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no keep arguments provided any reliable sources showing that she met WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO. The only sources provided were her website and a non-notable porn magazine, which could only support the argument that the award itself was not notable. --Coredesat 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I might have argued for deletion here, myself, but the consensus of the !voters was that the awards she won do indeed satisfy WP:PORNBIO. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I think the closer exercised good judgment on this. AfD is not a headcount! A host of Ilikeit votes were gussied up with claims that the subject passes the standard at pornbio, even though that is clearly not the case given the evidence provided. Policy - the result of consensus at a global scale - trumps the consensus of a handful of votes that disregard those standards. Eusebeus 15:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Good closer judgment. --Calton | Talk 15:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Even though I voted keep in the AFD, the Plumper of the Year award does not look very notable and not many reliable sources provide coverage to the winners, so I think this was a good call Corpx 19:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn - I think notability is borderline per WP:PORNBIO, but in all tree AfDs there was a strong consensus for keeping. — xDanielx T/C 20:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Even if the supposed award was significant (which it isn't), there are insufficient substantial reliable sources from which to write a proper, verifiably neutral article. The AfD was closed well within the normal limits of discretion. I think this article belongs on Boobpedia (note to self: check for new spam to that site). Guy (Help!) 22:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per the lack of a consensus to delete within the AFD. Balancer 05:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and get rid of PORNBIO in general. This is the exact type of lawyering those subguidelines cause. "But she won an AWARD, so she has to be notable!" The sub-guidelines indicate when it's likely substantial independent sourcing exists. If in reality it still doesn't, in reality it's still got to go. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's independant sourcing here: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Epbr123 20:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Warning Above links are most certainly NSFW for anyone considering reviewing them. However, I see no real indication that any of these sources is reliable (or really unaffiliated for that matter, they seem to be selling her stuff). Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which ones are selling her stuff. Why are they all unreliable in your opinion? What would be reliable, a tabloid newspaper? Epbr123 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Almost all of them are selling her stuff, or are there to push links to sites that are, with the possible exception of IAFD. None of them have any type of provenance (non-pseudonymous identification of the author of the piece), so none of them are reliable—we don't even know who wrote it! Knowing who the author is is a very basic gauge of reliability. With regular adult magazines, say Playboy or Penthouse, I imagine there are byline credits to articles. We know who the author is, we know it's been fact-checked (at least insofar as such publications do), and a real, named person whose credentials can be checked is taking responsibility for any errors or problems with the piece. None of that is present here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I fail to see any of them selling her stuff. Having a named author isn't a reliable way of judging whether a source is notable. www.bbc.co.uk doesn't give the author of any of its articles. Epbr123 00:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please tell me you realize the difference in reliability between the BBC and porn sites. As to selling stuff, the first "source" has a link at the bottom labeled "And even more...Kerry Marie!" which leads to a paid website, second one has a "best sites" link (so theoretically they're not selling her stuff, but certainly selling something), third actually doesn't seem to be but provides very thin information (though it does list several videos complete with "Buy now" links), fourth has a referral link to her site, as does the fifth, sixth has a link to her site with, even, the price, and the seventh has a ton of affiliate links. They're not there as neutral, unbiased parties, they're selling stuff. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This is a review of the closing decision, not an AfD discussion. The overwhelming consensus at the actual AfD discussion, for the third time, and in opposition to the closing decision, was Keep. Indeed, no coherent Delete arguments were presented at the AfD. This looks like a case of "keep nominating for deletion until you get a Delete decision, and if you can't get that, then a sympathetic closing admin." Dekkappai 23:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Image:Zombie Powder Vol. 01 cover.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image was deleted in process due to being replaced by another copy of it, however the new one is of no better utility and lacks a fair use rationale, which I believe the old one possessed. I was inactive for a while, so I did not catch this deletion being announced on my user talk. I would like the image and its description page to be restored if that is at all possible. tjstrf talk 05:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_31&oldid=1140155614"