Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 June 16
2007 June 18 >

17 June 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
James_M._Branum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted after a very short period of discussion and with very little discussion. As for the issue of notability, it is worth noting that other Green candidates with similiar electoral results are still listed in wikipedia. (Also in the interest of fairness, I need to admit that I am James M. Branum, so you will be aware of the COI.) I am requesting an overturn and undelete. --Jmbranum 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Endorse Deletion. Nothing out of the ordinary here. AfD ran six days, only keep !vote was contrary to WP:BIO. Sure, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that's hardly a reason to overturn a perfectly good AfD. It's been almost a month and apparently nobody else has complained. But for one COI editor, we're not even having this conversation. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Personally, if I had been closing the AfD, I would have relisted, the debate was very thin. However, given that Mr. Branum's actual political achievements don't include being a real contender in any race, I have to say that the result was correct. Mangojuicetalk 00:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion There is no quorum at AfD and the weight of arguments is taken into account. When that is realized, the closure was clearly correct. Eluchil404 02:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Sorry Mr. Branum, but the Afd was done properly and I think deleting admin made a good read of the sitution based on the weight of the points made in the discussion. FloNight 13:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion per Mangojuice and Eluchic. JoshuaZ 15:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist except for the nom and the closer, there were only two people there, one each way.Theresult would probably have been delete, but we cant know what would have been said if more people had come--other discussions of Green politicians have usually had more people, and sometime been keep. We need a firm rule that a minimum number of people express an opinion before closing. DGG 17:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in mind that AfD is not a vote. The only contesting vote was from an account created entirely for this purpose, and was based on patently false premises. As far as I can see there was nothing wrong with considering the nomination uncontested. EldKatt (Talk) 10:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, if... the AfD discussion period was not close to 5 days as mentioned in WP:DELETE. Antonrojo 00:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the history, it was opened 16:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC) and closed 19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC). (I checked the history instead of relying on the signatures just to be sure.) Looks like six days, two hours and twenty-eight minutes to me. :) Xtifr tälk 01:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse vote was thin, but article has no chance of retention anyway. Eusebeus 16:00, 19 June 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.
DKP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

After a very short period of time from the second AfD, and without notice to anyone who had participated in previous AfD discussions on the article, the DKP article was deleted. I won't rehash the AfD discussion itself here, as that can wait for the next time around. I don't feel it is appropriate for an editor to constantly relist the same article for deletion until they get a "win" simply because they don't personally feel the subject's category (gaming) is of interest to Wikipedia. After the second AfD, the article was improved considerably and yet an AfD was created in less than a month's time. Furthermore, there was no clear consensus, and the majority of deletion-voters merely stated non-arguments such as an opinion that it was "not notable" without any reason or context.

I am requesting an overturn and undelete. If the DRV consensus is that the article is questionable, then by all means: relist the AfD and at least allow those who worked on it the last time around to actually participate. Tarinth 21:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn the deletion I too am concerned about AfD venue shopping by those opposing articles. Perhaps what we need is a standard of one AfD per topic per year, unless a panel can be convinced otherwise. --Kevin Murray 21:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own close. First, this debate was not listed by Arkyan, who had listed the previous two debates. Second, there is no requirement to notify previous participants. Third, the keep arguments were amazingly weak, even agreeing that it may be impossible to find significant information on this subject in independent sources. As I looked over the previous debates, it was clear this was a problem there too. I strongly reject Kevin's idea that previous debates make a new debate inappropriate: note that the 2nd AfD was a "no consensus" and the 1st was mainly populated with SPAs. In any case, the delete argument was very strong and not refuted at all. I would agree there isn't consensus on whether this type of topic is appropriate for Wikipedia, but there is unquestionable consensus that sourcing is required, and if this topic can't meet that burden, it can't be covered. Mangojuicetalk 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This was a perfectly valid AfD with a reasonable decision by the closing admin that took the previous no-consensus AfDs into account. Frequency of re-nomination is irrelevant; consensus can change, and making the bad-faith assumption that gaming the system and "venue shopping" is going on is inappropriate. All past proposals to time-limit AfDs have crashed and burned with good reason. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 05:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Venue shopping? Bollocks. A perfectly normal AfD in the usual place. Whether or not this is resurrected the current dab article belongs at DKP, but there did not look to be anything wrong with the AfD, and its conclusion - that this is essentially GameGuides stuff - is reasonable. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see how a subject of economics and game design that has received scholarly attention from researchers qualified as "GameGuide stuff," and I believe this simply implies either (a) systemic bias or (b) the inadequacy of the third AfD. Tarinth 10:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse. As Mangojuice pointed out, I was the one who nominated it previously but not this time around, so arguments that one editor is continually renominating the article isn't quite true. Anyway, I'm a little torn on this one, as I mentioned in the most recent AfD there was little in the way of consensus, one way or another. I made a real effort to clean up and improve the article per the discussion on the second AfD. In spite of my best effort to do so, the arguments that it is still game-guide material and still lacking in proper sourcing to establish notability are still strong. While I concede that in the long run there exists no clear consensus to delete, I must also agree with the closer that in the long run, the arguments to delete were stronger, based on policy, and consistent, and can't really oppose the closure. Arkyan • (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The !votes were balanced, and each side had support in policy. Thats a noconsensus. There certainly ought to be a rule that previous participants be notified, and usually they are. I'd think anyone who wants a discussion rather than to kill an article regardless would notify. DGG 17:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When there is no argument countering the concern that the sources are insufficient, and several people agree (including some non-delete !votes), I think we can take there to be consensus about that, which is sufficient reason for deletion. Mangojuicetalk 20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with your assertion that they are insufficient, and I'd have argued for this in the AfD had I become aware that it was listed for AfD again by the editor who argued most vehemently for its deletion last time around (User:Phony Saint). 72.93.86.47 10:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, articles must be adequately sourceable, end of story. AfD is not a vote, if sourcing concerns are not addressed, as they were not here, the article must be deleted regardless of head count. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the precise problem here. In the previous AfD, people argued strongly that the sources were proper (a scholarly source and at least a couple journalistic ones). Continuing that line here would probably result in a rehash of AfD #2, so I'd suggest avoiding it--instead, I'd point out that there simply wasn't adequate discussion in AfD #3 to address this issue. Tarinth
  • Endorse deletion. Articles can be improved (or re-created) so they satisfy WP:V at any time (to the extent there are sources), so why shouldn't they be subject to deletion at any time if they don't satisfy WP:V? The determination at AfD, as I understand it, is that the article fails WP:N, not the subject. Thus, if someone can write an article on this subject that asserts WP:N, he or she is free to do so. Looking at the AfD itself, it appears to have been properly closed. One keep !voter's position was supported by the statement that it is a challenge to find independent sources on the subject. To me, that indicates that the subject may not satisfy WP:N. Another who suggested 'weak keep' did so because the current version of the article was better than a prior version that was not deleted (res judicata?) but also agreed with the WP:N concern. Another keep !voter did so because the subject is 'ubiquitous'. None of these justifications for keep satisfy WP:N or WP:V, so they were properly afforded little weight in the AfD. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No new arguments were presented in favor of deletion in AfD #3; the only difference from #2 is that because less people became aware of it, the arguments made in favor of keeping were less knowledgeable. That alone shouldn't be adequate for deletion. As with AfD #2, I'd have argued that WP:N and WP:V were both satisfied, yet I didn't even learn about it until after AdD #3 had already passed. (Silly me, I didn't think to check that another AfD had been created by User:Phony Saint less than a month after AfD #2 ended...) Tarinth 10:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nothing out of process. Closed properly. Nuff said. Eusebeus 15:57, 19 June 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.
Süleyman Başak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Nominator withdrew AfD for some reason. However, consensus was to delete and I would like to now renominate the article for deletion. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it reasonable to relist. I had commented "weak keep" meaning I thought on balance it should stay, but that I wouldn't strongly defend the article, for i thought the opposite view tenable. the nom. withdrew citing my advice, but I hadn't intended that--just a misunderstanding, and the discussion should in my opinion continue. I ask for a Speedy close and relist.DGG 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AFD If the only dissenting voice at AFD believes it should go back for further discussion, why not? Spartaz Humbug! 17:59, 17 June 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.
Mandrake of Oxford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD 2nd)

nominated by Coldmachine, shown to be a sockpuppet of Emnx by checkuser, who also (non)voted as Arthana, biasing the AfD with various allegations asking that the AfD be suspended. Both users were blocked just as the AfD ended. The first AfD was started by the same blocked user and was voided when he was blocked. This AfD should also be voided based on the fact that all edits by a blocked user should be reverted. IPSOS (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overthrow and relist I see the close as premature. The !votes were 4-4, and if it had not been for sockpuppets the balance would have been unambiguously a keep. The AfD needs to be redone properly. DGG 18:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overthrow and relist per DGG --Kevin Murray 19:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I'm not quite sure how to "overthrow" a close, but I think overturning is clearly justified.  :) I also think relisting is clearly justified, due to what appear to be some strong concerns about the sourcing expressed by (among others) the closer. (Although I'm not sure I agree that the sole cited source is not independent.) Xtifr tälk 21:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. This was indeed a bit of an odd debate with sockpuppetry and possible COI issues, but thankfully Akhilleus was able to see through the sound and fury and realize that this article was trying to derive its notability from this self-published interview of an occult publisher by an occult bookstore, apparently relying on the fact that the interviewer has a PhD to establish reliability. There are no other even vaguely independent sources. The result was correct, and this issue was clearly at the heart of the debate, regardless of other possible irregularities. Mangojuicetalk 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per DGG. John Vandenberg 04:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overthrow and relist per DGG --Jmbranum 19:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Though I think the result was correct, the process was clearly flawed by the socks because a decision turning on a single source is more of a judgment call than a cut-and-dry case. It deserves another AFD to render a clean decision.--Chaser - T 20:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The sockpuppetry clearly affected the outcome. Needs to be redone. - Mgm|(talk) 08:14, 20 June 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.
Joel Hayward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Clearly notable figure for receiving substantial press coverage surrounding an issue of enormous public interest. Outrageous that this article was speedy deleted, at the very least it should have been AfD'd. Feshbach Fan 12:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete or userfy so some of these sources can be cited. The sources exist here... the article wasn't really citing them though, most of the links were to various webpages. To avoid drive-by BLP deletions this days you need inline citations to news sources, and even then... but this is one that at least can be properly sourced. --W.marsh 12:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the deletion review? The article was not salted. What was deleted by a pretty awful, dubiously referenced biography of a living person: the subject has complained about this article, both here on-wiki and on OTRS. Please just rewrite properly referencing reliable sources in an appropriate way. This person may well be notable, but what was deleted was not the way to write the article. Moreschi Talk 12:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hoo boy. Sorry to see that this can of worms has been re-opened. Thought I could leave this one for dead. What exactly was posted? How did it compare to the article I edited last week? Groupthink 12:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your version looks a lot better than the version Moreschi deleted. At least the sourcing was better in that version. The version Moreschi deleted just had a bunch of URLs of various webpages, not news sources, that were at a glance questionable. --W.marsh 13:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the subject matter at hand, I was worried that axe-grinders were going to show up. Based on W.marsh's description, I'll support deletion, invoke the ostrich algorithm for now, and hope that this blows over. If it doesn't, depending upon what consensus dictates, I'll either support salting or revamp my version of the page (although I'll need an admin to provide me with the contents) and repost it myself. Groupthink 13:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly agree with Groupthink - this is a borderline notable individual, where the vast majority of sources relate to an error of judgement he committed several years ago. In these cases, I'm inclined to courtesy blank, especially considering the subject has requested. Addhoc 17:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hell, after reading some of the other comments here and seeing what's going on over there, I have no choice but to change my recommendation. It just doesn't sit right with me that the author of a book could be deemed trivial but his book could be deemed noteworthy. Seems to me like you can't have the one without the other, and yes, I am aware of WP:NOTINHERITED, but I still feel the same way. Overturn and restore to fairest version possible from prior versions. Groupthink 08:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overthrow, rewrite, and probably list directly at Afd. Even borderline notable is not suitable for a speedy & A7 is not specified for BLP. But this isn't borderline notable, he's author of important books, the latest of which, Stopped at Stalingrad, has attracted a great deal of mainly critical attention.
This is where the interpretation of BLP at Brandt has led us to: a subject publishing a controversial book & who isn't satisfied with the editing, asking for it to be deleted. The version at [1] (June 17) needs some improvement, particularly the first sentence. Any statement violating true BLP concerns should be removed, not the article deleted. He has published a thesis used by holocaust deniers, and he would prefer not to have it known. But that is not part of his private life, this is his public work. He has then continued with a very notable book, almost as controversial and much more widely known. He intends to write controversial books, and he shouldn't be surprised that they generate controversy. DGG 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, possible recreate / rewrite. The deleted article was about the controversy stirred up by an inadequately supervised Masters' dissertation (not a book), some of which controversy is well-founded, some is not. The report into it is pretty comprehensive, and leaves little doubt that it was an error of judgement on several people's part. It seems that some people are intent on misusing this report, or misusing the controversy, for their own ends. Not good. Needless to say there was a complaint. The case raises complex issues which were handled grossly simplistically and with no proper context in the article, and frankly there is nothing much to say other than was said int he conclusions of the report from the university, which was a great deal more thoughtful than most revisions of this article were. If recreated it needs to be titled after the incident, and it also needs to point out that most of the dissertation was a very thorough analysis of the development of holocaust revisionism, but that the writer made the error of assuming that revisionism was a valid field of study, something which his supervisors should have corrected, and should also have prevented him from drawing conclusions beyond the evidence and his competence to weigh it. A paragraph or two in holocaust revisionism may well be justified. But an article on the man based on his masters' thesis of 14 years ago? WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT tabloid journalism. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wait a second, isn't WP supposed to lay out the facts and let the reader decide whether or not the controversy was well-founded? The report to which you're referring is certainly an important primary source, but it doesn't provide the only say on the matter. There's plenty of other primary and secondary sources (and I'm NOT talking about the ones in the deleted version, I'm talking about the ones in revisions before the OTRS ticket was filed) which support the view that the inquiry was perfectly appropriate. I'm sorry, but your endorsement smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Groupthink 12:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it was improperly titled or improperly focused. The controversy will have to stain the article, as far as the author is concerned, but the article should be about the author, the controversy a part of it, expanded to a separate article if sufficiently worthy. However, the author himself merits an article that is about him, and he is actually about more than the master's thesis. KP Botany 21:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, whatever you do do, please do not recreate what I deleted. If you want to recreate something else, that's fine, but not what I deleted, which was not a good BLP in the slightest. Moreschi Talk 11:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An admin has kindly provided me with the last three major revisions of this article. I can assure you that I will most definitely not repost what was deleted. However, before I attempt to craft a compromise article, I'd like some assurances that I wouldn't be wasting my time. I was the last person to work on this article before it was whacked based on the OTRS ticket. I was willing to let it go, but apparently somebody (or somebodys) out there want it back. If I'm going to recreate the article, I don't want my work to fall prey to rampant deletionism. Now according to the logs, Moreschi, the article has been deleted a number of times, most recently by you, based on CSD A7. I want to know if that's the real justification. As DGG pointed out, there seems to be an unofficial, unelucidated top-down fiat creeping in that any BLP that draws complaints from its subject, even if that BLP conforms to WP policy, will be summarily eliminated. Is this the case? More to the point, is this policy no longer in effect? Groupthink 12:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not censored refers to the fact that we do not exclude sexually explicit content. It has no relevance to biographies of living persons, which is the policy that applies here. See also what Wikipedia is not, the section on tabloid journalism, and pay particular attention to the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. If there is not much to say about this person beyond the controversy stirred up by his dissertation, then I would say a redirect to a paragraph in holocaust revisionism is the way to go. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused, then why does "Wikipedia is not censored" link to "Wikipedia:Content disclaimer" which states "Many articles contain frank discussion of controversial topics"? Wouldn't that pertain to blp's in the vein of Fred Phelps, Anton LaVey or Hugo Chávez? Groupthink 13:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it refers to the fact that you might well see a picture of a penis in penis. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Stick to his publishing career and you're probably okay. --Tony Sidaway 13:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not. I would sooner see "Joel Hayward" salted than exclude relevant material that contributes significantly to his notability quotient. If any article mentioning the Holocaust denial aspects of his biography will automatically get deleted, then I will have no part of that article, and I will have to seriously consider having no part of Wikipedia as well. Groupthink 13:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The trick with BLPs is balance (easy for me to say since I usually write about 18th-century opera singers). This person may well be notable, but we need to write a balanced article about him, one that mentions this Holocaust stuff but also mentions other stuff that he's notable for and is fair to him in general. Incidentally, I don't think what he complained about was what I deleted - what I deleted was worse. But I'm quite happy to start off the article with "Joel Hayward is a person", and then you can work from there. There's no particular reason for some of the nasty stuff in the history that he (and then I) disliked to be available to the world and his wife. If we can't write a sourced, balanced biography of him, then the information should probably not be in a biographical format. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 14:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, like I said, I have no problem with attempting a balanced blp -- I just don't want to be confined to writing something that's one-sided in favor of NOT mentioning details that reflect unfavorably, even if said details are encyclopedic. As for "stuff he doesn't like being available to the world and his wife", hasn't that ship sailed, that cat been unbagged, those worms been uncanned, and that horse been unbarned? Every version of the article I've read has cited material on the web. Now, that is not to say that every version cited reliable material in a balanced fashion and wasn't original synthesis, but the fact is there's plenty o' unfavorable and embarrassing stuff out there sluicing through the tubes of the Internets. So here's what I'm a-gonna do: I will make one and only one stab at a blp. If it's speedy deleted, then I'm moving on. Groupthink 15:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless we can find enough verifiable biographical detail to make an article at least three or four times the size of the section on the Masters' controversy (and to be honest I could find very little indeed beyond that), I would suggest that a section in holocaust revisionism would be a much better solution. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - in fact, redelete this damn page after someone created it. It was originally deleted after this guy, who used multiple sock accounts to create vanity articles, threatened to sue wikipedia if we didn't take it off - essentially because people included unflattering information about him. Ridiculous. The Evil Spartan 17:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to close we now have a much better sourced, better written article that doesn't give the incident with the thesis much weight. Since this DRV is about a version which is now very obsolete I suggest we close it. JoshuaZ 18:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur (but it should be noted that I did the rewrite). Groupthink 19:20, 18 June 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.
Peanuts in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was mostly blanked. It seems that while it was under nomination for AfD, the article was blanked and replaced with this single sentence: "The long-running comic strip Peanuts by Charles M. Schulz has been the subject of many references, homages, parodies, etc. Here are some of them:" - The page should at least be restored (and possibly relisted), with the actual article shown. "Hiding" the article during an AfD discussion means that those who may have commented, who merely saw the blanked version, may not have bothered to comment. Note that one commenter suggested that the information was in the Peanuts article, but that rather obviously refers only to subsequent edits of the article after the change to the single sentence). - jc37 11:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - the bulk of the comments to the AFD were made within a couple of hours of the nomination. Unless it can be proved that the article was altered before those comments were made then the AFD should stand. "People might have wanted to comment" is not a valid reason for overturning the AFD. People are certainly not shy about speaking up with comments like "keep because it can be improved," especially in AFDs for "in popular culture" articles. Otto4711 19:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the blanking occurred after all but the last comment was given in the debate, so it didn't have an effect. In any case, someone looking at an effectively blanked article would most likely know to check the history. I don't think that act made any difference, and I can't see anything wrong with the debate. Mangojuicetalk 22:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse in popular culture. The way to deal with bloated "in popular culture" sections in articles is to prune them, not to split them out into separate articles consisting of nothing but trivia. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Shouldn't this be merged with Peanuts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaDrought3 (talk • contribs).
    Heck no. Peanuts already covers pop-culture aspects well enough, and doesn't need a bunch of unsourced, irrelevant cruft. Mangojuicetalk 04:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, since I can't seem to view what was deleted, I'll have to agree. What I meant to propose earlier was merging any new and useful information into the Peanuts article.--DaDrought3 04:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Peanuts already covers this, then why isn't this a redirect? - Mgm|(talk) 08:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article doesn't cover this. Would anyone have any issue with copying the last version to a sub-page somewhere? - jc37 11:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the article does cover the influence of Peanuts, but it does so appropriately, and doesn't (and shouldn't) contain a list of trivia references to Peanuts. Part of the point of the deletion here was to get rid of the material and avoid merging it back, so yeah, I wouldn't approve of that... and having it on a subpage would be just like undeleting it. Mangojuicetalk 14:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstood. I was suggesting that it be restored in some way so that those commenting here may see how it actually looked, since that's one of the concerns of this nom - that it wasn't "visible" during the full length of the AfD (and now the DRV - I'm reading editors comments that suggest that they are "guessing in the dark"). The article had quite a few sources, and was more than the typical "chaff" of pop-culture. Especially considering that it listed the yearly tributes by other cartoon artists to Schulz and Peanuts. - jc37 09:44, 21 June 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.
Tom Rockney (male model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This should not have been deleted, as there are reliable sources that prove he meets Wikipedia:Notability and WP:BIO. He was in:

  • Southport Visiter at some point in July 2006
  • Chat magazine, UK woman's magazine, doing photoshoot in January 2005, and later on in April 2006
  • Interview with him in the Daily Star about his failed attempt to get into Big Brother (last year in June)
  • That's Life magazine, in March 2006, August 2006
  • Liverpool Echo, at some point in April 2006

These are all reliable sources, and the article should be relisted at articles for deletion. He is clearly notable, per the above sources. No BLP issues or controversy here. This article was deleted out-of-process. As it were, the sources mentioned were not listed in the ORIGINAL article, but now they're here, the article should be relisted at AFD. --Paltriss 09:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Are these sources articles or photoshoots? Not having seen the Daily Star, was the article about Tom or was he interviewed in connection to the subject of the article? Spartaz Humbug! 10:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to the question: the Southport Visiter one was an article about him, with an interview. As regards the Daily Star article, well, that was a full interview with him about his failed attempts to get on Big Brother - it was an article, full-length, non-trivial coverage of him, it was also about his lifestyle and life in general too. So yes, it was an article about Tom. Regarding the Chat magazine one, that was a photoshoot with an interview, and the That's Life one was a small real-life story about his notoriety on Merseyside, The Wirral and Greater Manchester. I also forgot to mention Love it! magazine, which did an interview with him at some point last year about his multiple failed attempts to get into Big Brother. All sources are non-trivial coverage, about Mr. Rockney, and should be considered. The article should be allowed to be rewritten and then relisted at AFD, per my research above and what I've mentioned here. He meets the notability and biography standards. --Paltriss 10:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have copies of any of these articles or on-line links? Its very difficult to verify information without access to the sources. This is a concern because the AFD did have concerns raised about whether or not the article was a hoax. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 10:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I have these sources, as it is I regularly buy those magazines a lot. The sources aren't online, but it doesn't mean an article is a hoax. They are verifiable sources, and the AFD can be re-listed due to these new sources. --Paltriss 10:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry If I'm being unclear but it would help everyone if you could make the sources available to other users. Do you have links, editions and page numbers or even better: can you scan and e-mail the sources? Sorry to press this but personally I'd like to actually see the sources before commenting given the strength of the AFD discussion. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 10:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overthrow and relist --Jmbranum 19:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The original article was a tiny stub and didn't contain a whole lot of info. If you were to write a new version we could put that live and undelete the history afterwards. (make sure you have issue numbers and dates for the magazines). - Mgm|(talk) 08:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - a clear decision based on the debate. Without predjudice for the creation of a fully sourced version but it needs to be better sourced than, for example, the Southport Visitor, a very local paper. Bridgeplayer 17:02, 21 June 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.
Gstaad Palace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD was improperly closed as "delete" by the admin when the !votes clearly point to no consensus, i.e. keep. The articel was changed every time at there is a good change that the articel will be soon 100 % wiki suitableUser:Puppy milehnort 11:11, 17 June 2007 (GMT)

  • Endorse I see five votes to delete, 3 to keep (2 accepting sourcing problems) on this article and the closer clearly indicates that the decision to delete was closely connected to our policy on verification and sourcing of article contents. The deletion clearly falls within the closing admin's discretion. If you were able to come up with better sourcing, it might be worthwhile to see whether some kind admin might recreate the article in your user space for further work. Spartaz Humbug! 10:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been userified at User:Puppy_milehnort/Gstaad. DGG 19:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to User:Milehnort/Gstaad. No idea where the puppy came from. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As closing admin I looked at the article... A Location paragraph on Gstaad that read like something out of a tourist brochure, an unreferenced History bulleted list of non-notable events, and a Trivia section. The consensus was clear. --Steve (Stephen) talk 00:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as written. The only acceptable source is the Guardian review, the rest are trivial mentions or virtually non-existant ones, and the two that are listed as references, not further reading, are pathetic. And there needs to be proof of the contention that it was prominently featured in two movies. If the objections can be overcome, then I have no problem with a rewrite, I suggest doing that where the article is now then coming back here once valid sources are provided. Corvus cornix 01:39, 18 June 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.
Kari Schull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article essentially identical to the now-deleted Holly Shively, Annilie Hastey, and Sommer Isdale below, but closed as an unexplained and unambiguous "Keep" by User:Y. Since User:PageantUpdater is holding up this closing as a rationale for undeleting the other three, it seems only fair to judge its "keep" by the same standards. At the very least, closing it as an unambiguous "Keep" is flatly wrong and out-of-process.

  • Overturn keep. Same flaws as the other three articles, so it should receive the same treatment -- which, for me, is "delete". Calton | Talk 06:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, to my mind the issue should be whether the subject meets WP:BIO. Are there multiple independant, third party sources that can be used to verify any information on this person? It is entirely possible that different contestants will have different levels of independant sourcing so it is possible to have different outcomes Spartaz Humbug! 10:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support keep Per BIO, “The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.” Kari has won the 2007 Miss South Dakota Teen USA pageant which is an award deemed significant enough for inclusion at WP as an article. Surprisingly there are few credible resources supplying information about her, but the topic is valid for inclusion if it meets the requirements of BIO. --Kevin Murray 12:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few problems with that:
  • The existence of a subject doesn't automatically transfer any notability to its members.
  • It has no third-party references other than individual references to .
  • It has no assertions of any kind of notability.
  • The list has 25 members, only one of which has an article -- one just as thin as the article under consideration here.
  • We have guidelines to be followed. If someone receives a notable award, then she is notable per BIO. This is a special case guideline which supercedes WP:N's requirement for third party references. We are not looking for the pageant to transfer notability; we are evaluating whether she won a significant award. If the rules don't work, change the rules. I would support the removal of all special case notability criteria, and rely on WP:N, but until then we need to be consistent in our application, or else it is just WP:ILIKEIT. (Kevin Murray)
  • We have guidelines to be followed. If someone receives a notable award, then she is notable per BIO. As I've already pointed out, you're begging the question, since you haven't in the least justified the claim that a Miss Teen USA "state title" is in any way, shape, or form notable in the first place, let alone whether the individual members acquire the allegedly inherent notability of the overall title. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that is not the usual interpretation. The special cases deal with some cases where notability can be presumed, but it remain rebuttable. And a State Anything award is not notable enough to reasonably come under any automatic guideline. DGG 19:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many US states are larger than most countries (ND excepted); thus how can we arbitrarilly say that statewide awards are not notable? --Kevin Murray 19:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never made that claim, and you've gotten it precisely backwards: YOU have arbitrarily said that all statewide awards are notable. So, how's about some backing for that assertion instead of more question-begging? --Calton | Talk 14:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Calton. Agree completely. Eusebeus 14:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - it was a mistake for two different admins to close the four AFDs for these articles. Clearly all four should have the same result as the same arguments apply to each. In future AFDs like this should be mandatorily combined into a single AFD and if that doesn't happen then a single admin should handle all of them. Otto4711 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - I do not think that In future AFDs like this should be mandatorily combined into a single AFD, because it will often be the case that one will have some distinctive feature of notability or better sourcing. But we should arrange that they be closed in agreement otherwise. A system where any one of 1200 admins can come forward and close any AfD at all, and decide based on personal judgement, is chaos. As for the merits, since there presently is local notability only, a keep based on a 2% chance that a person would become notable is not reasonable. Closings have to be based on policy. DGG 19:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that in a case where the nominator is stating flat out that he's nominating the articles as a representative sample to gauge consensus on the lot then there should be a single AFD, especially when people within the AFD are calling for it. However, that's really neither here nor there. Otto4711 20:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Otto makes a good point; however, I also like having more than one mind at work in determining the result of a broad based AfD. Could a mutliple article AfD's require consensus among multiple admins? This result points out the ILIKEIT aspects of AfD even when it comes to admins, who can not be purely objective in applying our overly confusing notability rule-sets. --Kevin Murray 20:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per Calton, the criteria I used to close the other three. — OcatecirT 19:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the Keep and Delete the article Not even I can make a case for keeping this one. Didn't think it stood a snowball's chance in Hades of being kept, so a surprising keep, or effective promotion of a beauty pageant candidate that may backfire in the long run--all these discussions become part of the record of the article. Let her actually win even an almost major pageant. Wikipedia is not the place to put your efforts in promoting her. KP Botany 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The only thing that makes this seem notable is the numerous articles PageantUpdater (talk · contribs) created about the same subject.--Svetovid 19:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete: concerns about the sparseness, triviality and locality of the coverage were not adequately rebutted. If one national television appearance were enough to confer notability, we'd need an article on every Jeopardy! contestant. AfterMidnight's suggestion that these people should be considered athletes rather than models makes no sense whatsoever. Closer seems to have given too much weight to strength of feeling (which should never be a factor at XfD). Xtifr tälk 22:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The arguments for deletion are not compelling and DRV is not AFD again. "This article should be deleted because others were deleted" does not make sense. What's next, DRVing every other article linked in Template:Miss_Teen_USA_2007_delegates saying they were improperly not nominated for deletion and should be deleted? Each article can either stand or fall on its own. Wikipedia does not and will not fall apart because it is inconsistent. No valid argument has been made that the closing of this AFD is 'wrong' or 'out of process' other than "well, this one over here is different!" Kotepho 22:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, IMO, Miss Teen USA candidates should be all deleted.--Svetovid 23:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should the winners of the state contests for Miss America and Miss USA be deleted (e.g., Miss Califonia or Miss New York USA)? Are these less notable than Playboy playmates etc. as allowed by the pornography guideline? --Kevin Murray 23:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In addition, the other candidates may have additional claims to fame. I don't know if the Miss California 2003 is more or less notable than Miss November 2002 (assuming neither rose to their grandest moment, either Miss America 2003 or Playmate of the Year 2002). It doesn't sound worth weighing. Both are more notable than a potential candidate in future low level beauty contest. KP Botany 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps I phrased the question poorly. Independent of other claims to notabiltiy (not fame), (1) Playmates of the month are specifically considered notable per WP guidelines. Are they more notable than Miss(any state) Teen USA. (2) Are Miss America or Miss USA pageant state winners inherently notable, for example Miss California or Miss New York USA? --Kevin Murray 00:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • 1) yes, absolutely, being one of the main features of one of the most popular mens magazines in the world confers more notability than winning an obscure regional competion that rarely gets any non-local coverage. 2) I would tend to say no, though I do think those pageants are slightly more notable overall. But I would still say it's primarily of local interest only. Xtifr tälk 01:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, okay. 1) No, playmates of the month get more coverage in a few limited venues than state Miss America winners (the state winners, not the national contest winners). Miss State (of the America) contest winners get broader coverage from more sources in their states. Miss California gets a lot of coverage, so does Miss Utah, that year, in all state newspapers for all of her appearances and on all the state news channels--it's a lot of coverage for Miss America state pageant winners. Playmates of the month get extensive coverage in the magazine, and may appear on Hugh Hefner's shows or other venues related to Playboy or covering Playboy. In this case the coverage of the state beauty pageant winner (for Miss America alone) is m ore extensive and covers the winner, whereas the playmate is covered generally during the coverage of other things, unless some scandal ensues. 2) Not Miss USA pageant winners so much as Miss America pageant winners. KP Botany 01:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • We are talking about candidates here, not winners. But many of those local winners are still not notable anyway.--Svetovid 10:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For the record, as far as I'm concerned, the mere title of "Miss [NOUN]" -- absent any other criteria -- is an utterly insufficient threshold for inclusion, whether it be Miss April 1997, Miss New York 1977, Miss Rhode Island Teen USA 2007, Miss Iowa Pork Queen 1956, or Miss Chippewa County Beet Queen 1984. If and when they actually go on to achieve something later, like Miss New York 1945 or Miss California 1955, sure, but not until then. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't dispute what you say, but this should be made clear at BIO. Your assertion/opinion of "as far as I'm concerned" is the definition of WP:ILIKEIT. This is not the forum to change the rule, it is the forum to apply the rule. --Kevin Murray 01:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part of my use of "for the record" immediately following a discussion of the general principles of cheesecake notability did you misunderstand? Hint: no part of said general opinion was a part of my original AFD nomination of Kari Schull nor of my listing Kari Schull here at DRV. Try sticking to the reasons, logic, guidelines, and applications of policies I've actually stated regarding Kari Schull rather than making up new reasons, logic, guidelines, and applications of policies for me out of whole cloth.
  • ...it is the forum to apply the rule. Which, your wikilawyering aside, I'm trying to do. --Calton | Talk 14:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per Calton. All the articles are identical and should have received the same treatment. --Coredesat 03:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete If winning a Miss Teen USA state competition makes her notable, this means that all finalists of national teen beauty pageants would be notable, which in turn means over 100 girls from the US (Miss USA and Miss Teen USA). Given that Wikipedia has a worldwide scope and other countries have similar competition rules, e.g. Germany (16 finalists), France (49) etc. (have a quick look at Category:Beauty_pageants for some perspective), this means we could have thousands of articles per year for people whose sole claim to notability is once winning a regional competition. All of these articles are bound to be either a massive pile of gossip and trivia or a short stub that says nothing more than a table in the Miss Whereever article could say. Malc82 08:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & delete per above. This is almost an A7. >Radiant< 11:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, all, except for winners and particular examples of people who actually achieved something notable, articles at Category:Miss Teen USA delegates should be deleted as well.--Svetovid 14:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominating 49 at once was unwieldy and likely -- with good reason -- to be rejected out of hand as too broad. Nominating one was too few to set a precedence. So I went with a sampling. If this article's AFD is overturned and the other three upheld, then the rest can be PROD tagged or grouped in a mass AFD. --Calton | Talk 14:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that this is the best course for our project, but whatever is done it should be consistent. I suggest that this be refelcted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. There has also been a proposal to include some guidance on awards at BIO, rather than have a separate guideline called awards as proposed here: Wikipedia:Notability (awards). --Kevin Murray 15:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calton's attitude has pretty much brought me to leave Wikipedia. He makes me so incensed and furious that I just want to scream. As have most of the comments here... you people are so FUCKING IGNORANT. You call a state Miss Teen USA pageant "some regional contest" and compare it to someones brief soiree in Playboy but you don't bother to consider the fact that these girls reign for an ENTIRE YEAR and are highly visible in their community during that period and afterwards, not to mention the fact that they appear on a NATIONALLY TELEVISED show with MILLIONS of viewers. YOU IMBECILES even talk about A7-ing them. ARE YOU KIDDING? It's discussions like this that show why Wikipedia has gone down the toilet. PageantUpdater 15:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My anger gets int he way of my message: you people are showing intense prejudice. Just because beauty pageants are not something you know much about or are interested in, doesn't mean they are irrelevant. There are many things on Wikipedia that I know nothing about and are not interested in, but at least I would show some courtesy and look into the subject before suggesting it be deleted willy-nilly. PageantUpdater 16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I encourage you strongly to leave Wikipedia, at least for a while, until you learn to develop some critical distance and perhaps deal with your sense of ownership. To specifically address your point about television coverage, I am willing to lay odds that a single episode of Survivor is viewed by more people than any nationally televised Miss Teen USA pageant, and Survivor contestants get way more mentions in national press in a week than any Miss Teen USA gets during her entire reign assuming no scandal, yet every Survivor contestant doesn't have a Wikipedia article. That's because not every reality show contestant in notable, just like not everyone who wins a state-level pageant is notable. Otto4711 21:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & delete. We really can't have articles on which there are no reliable sources. Here, there are none. My google news search even turned up empty, which goes to show that these pagaent winners, while apparently very important to you, aren't important enough to even local media for them to report on. This is not true with all these articles; for instance Jaymie Stokes has a source or two... but even there, the coverage in reliable sources is piddling. We really shouldn't have individual articles on these people if they are of this level of interest. We have to watch out when we have individual articles on living people of minimal notability: no reason to take the risk here. Mangojuicetalk 17:02, 21 June 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.
User:Willy turner/Userboxes/Islamic misogeny (edit | [[Talk:User:Willy turner/Userboxes/Islamic misogeny|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|MfD)

More people wanted it kept than deleted. The deletion discussion lasted only one day. I the creator wasnt informed of the deletion discussion. It has not been established that the userbox is against any wikipedia policy,guideline, or rule. Reasons given for deletion were based on subjective, incorrect inferences of what the userbox meant. The userbox does not imply that all muslims are misogenists, or that islam is inherently misogenistic. The intended meaning of the userbox is that the user is oposed to misogeny or lack of equal rights and human rights for women that is justified by islamic scripture Willy turner 00:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has explained why they think it is inflammitory, apart from saying "Suggests misogyny to be Islamic and Islam to be misogynist". I believe above i have shown there is at least reasonable doubt to the truth of this statement. The admins statement that "Anything that might be considered offensive by a member of a religious group has no place on Wikipedia", is definately incorrect, as there is a substantial amount of material on wikipedia that might be considered offensive by a member of a religious group. Willy turner 01:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside article-space, i.e. Soap-boxing is not permitted on the encyclopedia in userspace. We are not a free web-host or blog service provider. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse :The negative wording is inflammatory, as would be a user box saying ...opposes Christian or Jewish misogyny. DGG 03:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Inflammatory and mis-spelled. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The appropriateness of a userbox stating that one opposes mysogyny in general is, I think, defensible. However, one that condemns only Islamic mysogyny is inflammatory as it seems to imply either that mysogyny is a characteristic of Islam only or that the user is fine with non-Islamic mysogyny. In either case, such a message is probably divisive enough to override the traditional leeway that is given to content in userspace. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 08:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or at least let the mfd terminate. The general consensus of the vote seems to have been keep.--SefringleTalk 00:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Overturn and keep. MfD was mostly keep !votes, sole reason for deletion was "inflammatory", and this is censorship, plain and simple. WP:NOTCENSORED. Moreover, you have to make assumptions about the intent of the creator / user in order to even get to the point where it becomes offensive, and it's not right for you to impose your interpretation on the creator / user and then decide that that interpretation makes it inappropriate here. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:00, 18 June 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.
====
Algiers Coffee House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD was improperly closed as "delete" by the admin when the !votes clearly point to no consensus, i.e. keep. Puppy Mill 00:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion as closing admin. The article was completely unsourced thereby failing WP:V and lacked any secondary sources to attest to notability. AfD is not a vote. TerriersFan 01:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Even if AfD was a vote, there was only one keep, and that was from the article's creator. Also, the initiator of this DRV seems to have some sort of personal issue with the closing admin. See [2] [3] [4] and [5]. (This is after a 6 month absence.) --Butseriouslyfolks 02:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD *is* a vote and no ridiculous rationalization is going to make it otherwise. Also, lack of WP:V is not a valid reason to delete the article. It *is* a valid reason to add an "unreferenced", "sources", or "fact" tag to the article, but not delete it. Puppy Mill 02:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If sources can't be found even when requested, that's a reason to delete an article. The 5 days of AFD is a reasonable amount of time to wait for references. Verifiability isn't optional, or postponable indefinitely... precedent supports this. --W.marsh 02:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have placed a copy of the article at User:TerriersFan/Algiers for non-admin users. Puppy Mill has twice put speedy tags on that page to try to prevent the article being read. Plainly, this drv is pursuant to some form of issue. TerriersFan 02:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Please point out anywhere where User:Puppy Mill has ever put a speedy tag on that article. Retract your lie, Admin, or I'll take your fitness to continue to be an admin all the way up to Jimbo if necessary. Puppy Mill 02:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I appologise - It was an IP. TerriersFan 02:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There were relative few comments, even after an extra 5 days (during which all the additional !votes were for delete.) I can't see any other reasonable inevitable close.DGG 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The closure was perfectly valid on the basis of the arguments. AfD is not a vote, although the article would also have been deleted if the closure followed a pure vote-count. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 08:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid close on the basis of the arguments. AFD isn't a vote, and the nominator is strongly urged to remain civil and not make accusations. --Coredesat 03:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, even if this were a straight vote I see only one person arguing to keep. That being said, it isn't a vote, and we can't have articles that we can't source. That concern wasn't addressed, so the delete close was correct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:50, 19 June 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.
Beniamino Borciani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Improperly closed as "delete" by the admin. The !votes were 2 to 1 in favor of keeping, and furthermore the closing admin in his/her closing comments stated that the decision to delete was based solely on nobody getting around to adding sources, which is not in itself a reason to delete given that numerous sources were noted in the !votes. Overturn and keep Puppy Mill 01:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure as within process, and I also agree with the underlying conclusion. In any event, the initiator of this DRV seems to have some sort of personal issue with the closing admin. See [6] [7] [8] and [9]. (This is after a 6 month absence.) --Butseriouslyfolks 02:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is on the appropriateness of whether or not this deletion was proper, not any other issue. Please refrain from bringing other issues into this discussion, per WP:COATRACK. I have accordingly struck out your comments at inappropriate to this discussion. Puppy Mill 02:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever dude. And we're the geeks? --Butseriouslyfolks 02:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're the geeks. And you were being parodied above. Puppy Mill 04:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I don't recall ever invoking WP:COATRACK or striking out another editor's comments. I s'pose we just have different senses of humor. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, no, that was BigDT, not you, but you saw fit to revert my edit back to BigDT's version which makes you and him in league together in my book. Puppy Mill 04:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't what WP:COATRACK means. (It's also someone's personal essay, AFAICT.) Please don't strike out other people's comments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. There were very few comments, and discussion should have been continued. Delete from the nom and the closer and one other !vote, 2 !votes for keep. That's not consensus. DGG 03:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and source. I was the lone delete vote but I note that the closing admin said he would be happy to userfy. That would allow you to add the sources that were never supplied. JodyB talk 11:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure admins have the right to exercise their good judgment, even against the "prevailing" (if such it could be termed here) view. As it is, TF has made a good case for how the debate was closed; I agree with the argument. Eusebeus 12:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Puppy Mill, and relist. Certainly no consensus to delete. --Maxamegalon2000 05:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Closing admin gave well thought out reason for the close. Being part of a famous choir does not make a person notable per Wikipedia guidelines and BLP and deletion polcy. FloNight 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overthrow and keep --Jmbranum 19:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, without prejudice to recreation and with an offer to userfy, (as closing admin) for the reasons I gave "Completely unsourced, with no references, this article fails WP:V. During the AfD minor sources were mentioned but no editor was prepared to add them to the article. Fewer than 15 Google hits, and some of those are duplicates, with none unequivocally demonstrating the meeting of WP:N. Being a member of a notable choir does not convey personal notability. I will happily userfy if anyone wants to source up the page in which case I have no objection to its recreation." Again, this is not a vote. The way forward, in my view, is for me to userfy this to anyone who wants to work up a sourced article and I am happy for it to be recreated without predjudice. I see no real point in relisting for further views unless someone is prepared to source the article up to meet WP:N and WP:V which it currently fails. TerriersFan 22:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure The voting for or against the a delete in an AFD does not actually decide what the admin will do, as three people could come along and put deletes with no reason, but one person could come and vote keep with a well thought out and understandable argument. Therefore, the 2 to 1 ratio of votes is irrelevant to this discussion. As a side note, striking out comments other than your own seems to be, if not in violation of, not in accordance with WP:Civil. Down to the business: let's take a nice, long look at WP:DRV, and see how things look. Puppy Mill, did you courteously invite TerriersFan to take a second look at his decision? None of the other criteria seem to be relevant, so I think we can forgo the rest of them. The article which was deleted due to a lack of verifiability (that a word?) and a lack of notability. The lack of sources is most certainly a major problem, and the supposed reason for notability seems to be only inherited, if any. When looking at the Amazon link put up by Aecis here, one must wonder why there is no article for any of the other members. We don't pick out one member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and create an article on them, do we? And finally, I can't find any article on what group he's in, so this seems like creating an article on anon-notable song without making one for the album.Ben
  • Endorse deletion, but allow recreation. Eventualism is deprecated in WP:BLP cases, and in this one, the article was basically an ad that referred to publications without citing them. Mangojuicetalk 15:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are BLP issues when privacy and reputation are at stake. I can't see that here. - Mgm|(talk) 08:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well... eventualism should also be deprecated for spam. And anyway, WP:BLP covers all biographies of living people, not only controversial ones. But like I said, allow recreation. I'm just not going to approve of undeleting an ad. Mangojuicetalk 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The closer deleted based on the fact that no one added the sources. That shows either that the editors lacked time or that eventualism occured but without discussion of the sources, there's no way he can determine if the sources weren't added due to their quality. - Mgm|(talk) 08:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure; without predjudice to the recreation of a sourced version. This article went through the AfD and emerged unsourced. The sources mentioned in the discussion were all tangential. There seems no dispute that there is a failure of WP:V and no case has been made for notability. Finally, though someone might have asked privately, no-one in this debate has offered to have the article userfied so that it can be worked up. Bridgeplayer 17:45, 21 June 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_June_17&oldid=1258407978"