Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 2010 Deletion review archives April 2010 >

31 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Songs with music by Kenny Dorham (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I've been thinking for this a while and thought that it's better to bring this to a broader evaluation. This XfD started as what seemed to me as a completely noncontroversial rename: the category in question contains and will probably always contain exactly one article, the jazz instrumental Blue Bossa. Since an instrumental is not a song, I felt that renaming the category from Songs with music by Kenny Dorham to Compositions by Kenny Dorham was a relatively straightforward proposal.

However, the discussion took some sidetracks. For example, people were confused about "songs by artist" and "songs by composer" categories – note that the former ones are by conventions named "songs", even if the categories do contain instrumentals. So if there was a "by artist" category for Blue Bossa, it would be named Joe Henderson songs. I don't necessarily agree with the current convention, but that's not what was being discussed. Also note that "by composer" categories have always made a difference between "songs" and "compositions". A song is a composition, but an instrumental should not be categorized as a song if a more general category (ie. "compositions by X") exists.

Another confusion was the difference between "composition" and "songwriting", as well as the difference between "songs by songwriter" and "compositions by composer" categories. That sidetrack went so far as to suggest that all of the aforementioned categories be merged together, although that was very out of scope for that simple CfD discussion and although I had no intention of proposing a change to the convention. I was simply requesting a rename of one category to match the current convention.

All that aside, I'm aware that this is not CfD round 2. I'm just trying to clarify some confusion that might arise when reading the discussion. (Others are welcome to disagree with my assessment, of course.) Now, I'd like to discuss on whether a "no consensus" closure was warranted in the discussion. I contacted the closing editor about it, and they asked Richhoncho for further clarification before asserting again that there was no consensus to rename in that discussion. My request and Postdlf's response can be seen here (see also the section immediately below).

I'm of course biased, but I was expecting a "rename" closure, considering that my main point (that the category does not contain any songs) was not contested, and because the "instrumentals are usually categorized as songs" argument only applied to "by artist" categories. There was also precedent for this sort of renaming, as discussed in the CfD. I'd like to hear if others think the closure was appropriate, and what my options are for getting this (in my view) clear error corrected if no support is found here. Jafeluv (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse no consensus close. Without having any opinion on the merits of the proposed rename, the discussion at CFD consisted of two people who disagreed on the outcome. Hence no consensus. That said, a no consensus close doesn't mean you can't renominate it for renaming in the future; hopefully you'll get more people to join the discussion. --Kbdank71 13:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is a big ask to close an XfD in favour of the nomination with only the nominator arguing for the renaming and at least one other contributor questioning the renaming. Like Kbdank71, I'd suggest just renominating it. I think it is quite proper to renominate a "no consensus" a month or so after the no consensus was closed, especially if the nominator considers in good faith that the reasons for objecting to the deletion were misguided. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I think it's pretty hard to fault this close. I agree with what the others have said—that a re-nomination is appropriate when an initial discussion is closed as no consensus. As for the merits, I know little about all these variations of song and album categories, so I won't put forward an opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Global Bell Curve (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was two days old when deleted, and so was still just a stub article. The article was deleted without a prod, or any deletion request without prior discussion. Admin User talk:Jimfbleak deleted with the tag that it lacked notability. I discussed this with him and he declined to undelete it I believe. The day following that discussion, someone else must have undeleted the article and a BOT then deleted it. User talk:Chris G The problem is that when the article was created it had copyright issues. I resolved those for the editor who created it by removing all copyrighted material. The author of that book Richard Lynn has an article and is notable. The subject of the book The Bell Curve has an article, and another book discussing the topic The Bell Curve Debate also has an article. The topic of all of these Race and intelligence is controversial, but again, quite notable. Even if the book itself is not shown to be notable at some future time, the process of submitting the article for deletion and then comments should have been followed. I believe that the article topic is notable. Atom (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn speedy A7 specifically mentions that books don't fit under it. Also [1] shows two reasonable news sources. Gscholar gets 11 hits (some seem like reasonable sources). So not a speedy in any case and quite likely notable. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. A pretty clear case. A7 did not apply. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion. WP:CSD#A7 does not apply to books, and proposals to expand it (or A9) to cover books have not gained traction at WT:CSD. By the way, I'm not sure at all what Atomaton is talking about. So far as I can tell, Jimfbleak deleted the article once under A7, declined to undelete it (citing G10, a bit dubiously), and that's that. The deletion log does not show an undeletion occurring, much less a re-deletion by one of Chris G's bots. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Why are all the pages relating to the Australian National University except the main one being proposed for deletion, and being merged into the ANU page? I think the ANU page and the university sections are significant enough to have separate sections for each school of the university, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.37.202 (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Koini (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page Koini was deleted. Unfortunately I do not have enough edits to speak with the administrator on their talk page. I believe that the page was deleted because I did not make clear the 'notability' of Koini. The site has been in development for two years, initially was the world's first finger print protected kids site, but was updated with different safety measures after sale of the technology. The site has come out of consultation with 'the Internet Task Force' and UNICRI for where one of the company's directors sits on the committee. We believed the page was reasonable to posts compared to others in the 'content-control' category such as 'Kidrex' which is just a Google custom search with no protections at all, whereas the Koini site is an extremely sophisticated social networking platform that is the first to verify every user, to provide protection to its members. I would be happy to elaborate on notability should the page be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OneLifeNoFear (talk • contribs) 02:12, March 30, 2010

  • Who is the "we" in "We believed..."? What is generally going to be required is non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, rather than just your or my say so. Do those sources exist, if so then list some of them out here. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What 82.7.40.7 said, basically; we don't accept "trust me" here, you've got to show us proof that it's notable. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It was a reasonable speedy deletion. I've had a look for sources and the best I'm turning up are some (fairly good) blog sources and PRwire bits. Once the site sees coverage in the mainstream media (or something more than blogs) provide those sources and we'll be good to go. But at the moment, there just isn't anything that meets the requirements of WP:N. Hobit (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the reply - I am afraid I was using the 'royal we' - forgive me! - I have supported the company from the outset as they are in a space that I am passionate about - hence I felt is was important to have some reference to them on wikipedia - I felt that as the company geared up its marketing and became more newsworthy I would add the references and citations to news articles and press. With the CEO on several safer Internet committees and the platform being the only social network for kids with the extensive parental controls it has in the platform, there will be press shortly. - Having said that I do take your point and perhaps I was premature in posting the page now and should have waited for those articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.74.229 (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7. This article met the criterion; the deleting admin made the correct decision. OneLifeNoFear, please wait until the company is actually notable (and you can back that up with evidence) before re-posting an article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 March 2010

[edit]

28 March 2010

[edit]

27 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Black Rock Shooter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Was deleted because of lack of notability; new information given should offset this now. Only dead fish go with the flow. (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Private series characters – Closure endorsed. The general consensus here is that there's no consensus at the AfD to delete this page, and therefore it has to be retained. There's some support for changing the closure to "no consensus", but DRV is normally concerned with the question whether the article should be retained or not and not the semantics of the closure, and I see no consensus here to change that. – Tim Song (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Private series characters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

None of the arguments for keeping this page address the fact that notability has not been established once in the two years since its creation. The main arguments given were that the page is in accordance with Summary Style, which does not change the fact that its content has been in violation of numerous policies for two years (WP:NOR, WP:PLOT), and has shown no sign of improvement during that time. This is merely a page where fans of the novels come to edit in what's stored in their memories. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. One commenter states that being in need of clean-up is not grounds for deletion, but I'd think that a lack of established notability for over two years is. James26 (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse the consensus at the afd was that as this article has been spun out from the main Private (novel series) article (for length reasons) it was not required to demonstrate notability independent of that topic. It was explicitly stated that while the plot summary style, amoungst other issues, meant that the article was in need of cleanup, this was not reason to delete it. In other words the arguments made in the nomination were considered and rejected. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having re-reviewed the comments, I don't notice the argument you mention in your first sentence becoming a "consensus." I see one editor (Ed321) possibly alluding to your argument, but not stating so explicitly. If the article can't establish that the characters are notable apart from the book series, then there should be no separate page for them. For example, the book character Blair Waldorf, of the novel series Gossip Girl, has received coverage in The New Yorker (among other publications), which is cited as a source in her article. None of these Private series characters demonstrate any such independent notability. Respectfully, this was hardly "considered" in the nomination. -- James26 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the primary issue is that it's not notable and shouldn't exist for cleaning up in the first place. I believe I created it in order to move an overabundance of original research out of the main article, which a persistent editor kept including. Looking back, this was a mistake; I should've just tagged its material as OR when it was in the main article. There have been no signs of it establishing notability in two years. That's more than enough time for it to be deleted. -- James26 (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The keep !voters towards the end of the AfD were obviously well aware of the reasons advanced for deleting the article and considered the article didn't warrant deletion. However, (a) I agree with all of the nominator's concerns; and (b) think that stubbifying the article to what can be verified is appropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain- As the only delete voter other than the nominator, I obviously feel this "article" has no place on Wikipedia. But can I honestly say that the closing admin acted against consensus? I don't know. The question is whether consensus based upon weak arguments ungrounded in policy, as all the keep votes were, can be considered proper consensus at all. Probably the best thing to do is to take to the "article" with a big cruft-scraping tool and remove everything that's not verifiable, or is editors' opinions and editorializing- ie. 95% of the "article". Reyk YO! 01:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was agreement at the afd that this sort of combination article is the way to handle to problem of character articles. And there is general consensus that character lists are appropriate. James, you said "the article can't establish that the characters are notable apart from the book series, then there should be no separate page for them" -- this would be true with respect to individual character pages, though it is disputed whether the GNG is the only way to show it , but this is a combination article, and not every thing mentioned in an article need be notable. WP:N does not apply to the contents of articles, just articles. . DGG ( talk ) 14:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, which is a matter of semantics because the end result is the same. Like James and Reyk, I personally feel that arguments to delete were stronger, particularly because they were rooted in core Wikipedia policy. However, while AfD is not a vote...The relevant guideline is WP:PNSD, which is actually murkier than one might expect on the subject: "Polling forms an integral part of several processes, e.g. WP:AFD; in other processes, e.g. article editing, polls are generally not used. In both cases, consensus is an inherent part of a wiki process." This suggests that while the strength of arguments presented is the top priority, the closing admin should not override the majority unless the minority's reasoning is especially strong. WP:CONS implies that consensus cannot be truly reached if a majority of participants in a discussion strongly rejects a minority's arguments. Also, per WP:IAR, Wikipedia policies are not firm and can be ignored in specific cases if the community elects to do so. My conclusion, therefore, is that the participants in this discussion leaned towards rejecting the policy-based arguments for deletion in favor of reworking the article. However, consensus would have required a stronger agreement among the discussion's participants, and I don't think that was achieved here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "no consensus". If, as appears to be the case here, policies are ignored and an article on a topic without secondary sources is kept, at least make it clear that is what happened. Abductive (reasoning) 05:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Box on the ear (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was nominated for deletion because an editor believed it was a dictionary definition. I disagree. It was a stub and could have been expanded. Philly jawn (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Consensus at the AfD was unanimous and DRV is not AfD round 2. If you think that there should be an encyclopaedia article on the topic then feel free to write one. Do it as a userspace draft though if it will take you a while to get it beyond a stub. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was no other way to close it. I too suspect this could be a good article. Try it in userspace. I assume most admins would be willing to userfy it for you. Hobit (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A very obvious close. I can't see the original article, but I guess working on the article in your userspace would be fine if you think it can be expanded to demonstrate a notable subject. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response It was a good stub article. It had a number of articles linking to it. It had an image from the commons. I think that the deletion was premature and the article should have been given more time to grow. How about restoring the article as a soft redirect, with its history, so the text that was there can be salvaged into a new draft. Philly jawn (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just rewrite it in a somewhat fuller manner. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure This AfD really could not have been closed any other way, although I too suspect that there was potential for expansion beyond a mere dictionary definition. This currently has an entry over at Wiktionary (wikt:box on the ear), but the situation is complicated by the fact that the good folks over there seem to be leaning towards deleting it themselves (see wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#box on the ear). So, if this doesn't belong in a dictionary and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, where does that leave us? My view is that this should get another shot at expanding into a true encyclopedia article. We should send it to the incubator, redirect the mainspace title to Corporal punishment, and replace the redirect with the article when it's ready. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Habari (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

"no serious reason offered for nominating this article for deletion" said the closing admin and yet Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluesnarfing (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City car were allowed to continue despite the nominator failing to provide a reason. either those afds were decided wrongly and bluesnarfing should be undeleted or this the closure of the Habari afd was wrongly decided and the closing admin should be disciplined. either way at least one afd was decided wrongly Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. *facepalm* You're right. Consider that comment directed to the IP address who wanted to open the AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ropeadope (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Requesting Userfication of deleted content. I'd like to be able to see the full history of the deleted article if possible. Thanks. Chubbles (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Chubbles (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Doxiedana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Out-of-process speedy deletion. Was deleted with log entry "Sillyness" by User:DragonflySixtyseven. That is not one of the Speedy deletion criteria, nor does the page, as beat as I can determine, fit any of the criteria. In this edit I requested User:DragonflySixtyseven to undelete, and in this edit DF67 wrote "If Doxiedana comes back to Wikipedia and asks me to restore her userpage, I will consider it. Are you claiming Doxiedana as your alternate account?". In this later edit DF67 wrote"I let people get away with silliness on their userpages under a couple of conditions: first, that they've actually done something useful to the project, and second, that they not be trying to sneak unacceptable articles in the back door. This one failed on both counts." I take this to be a refusal to consider restoring the page. I will grant that the page is not encyclopedic, but then it is not in article space. It is IMO in no way disruptive or harmful, and less of a diversion than many examples of wiki-humor that have been kept at MfD. User:Doxiedana has made a couple of valid contributions to the project, and is a new user. It is my view that under WP:CSD and WP:DEL, admins are only empowered to delete without discussion pages falling strictly within the enumerated speedy deletion criteria, other deletions requiring discussion at the proper forum, in this case WP:MfD. It seems to me that to delete a user page without warning or notice, and without discussion, is to violate WP:BITE. I ask that the page be restored, and that if anyone then thinks it needs to be deleted, a proper MfD discussion be opened, where a community consensus can be formed. DES (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't useful contributions, they were spamming her relatives onto disambiguation pages. And she's been gone for a month. Go find something better to do. DS (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is of my opinion that DESiegel is looking for a witch to burn. There was another article that he has hounded DragonflySixtyseven over, Versicolorin reductase, which was a clear copyvio; that is, the person clearly took the mouse, highlighted all the text and other junk on the webpage itself, hit Ctrl+C, and then opened a blank page and hit Ctrl+V. It took me no more than ten seconds to find that out. Following procedure is one thing, but there is also exercising just a little common sense and using something else called a brain. But seriously, claiming BITE on someone who has been long gone? Give me a break. –MuZemike 20:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. My attention was drawn to DragonflySixtyseven over the speedy deletion of Studio 1 Photography, which deletion was overturned by a wide margin further down this page. DR67's comments on that page suggested to me an over-willingness to delete, and a willingness to speedy-delete pages that do not actually fall within the WP:CSD. I for one hold the view that the CSD should be strictly followed, and that deletions outside them should use Prod or a deletion discussion. Therefore I have reviewed a number of log entries and when I found deletions that seemed to me not in line with the CSDs, I took the matter up with DF67 as the merits seemed to me. In the case of Versicolorin reductase DF67 didn't mention the copy&paste issue in the deletion log reason, nor in the msg posted on my talk page. You did. I might add that IMO that wasn't strictly a copyvio, because the source is a pure list of facts not subject to copyright under Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. However copy&paste is still discouraged, so i am not pursuing restoration in that case. As for "someone who has been long gone" User:Doxiedana has not edited in roughly a month. Many people have longer gaps than that between contributions, without having left the project for ever. There is no way to know when, or if, User:Doxiedana will return. as to "hounding" I don't see that a perfectly polite request to undelete a deleted page is hounding, the instructions on this page suggest such a course. I invite anyone to look over the exchanges at User talk:DragonflySixtyseven and User talk:DESiegel. I might also add that the majority of deletions i reviewed were perfectly fine, and while I wish DF67 notified article creators of speedy deletions as is strongly recommended on the WP:CSD page, this is not a policy or rule. But when I do find what seems to me an invalid speedy i normally raise the matter with the deleting admin, and bring things here if the response (or lack of response) seem to me to justify doing so. I have done this with pages that were deleted by many different admins, I am in no way "hounding" DragonflySixtyseven. DES (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone point to a speedy criteria for this? The Google cache has nothing, so I don't know what was there. Hobit (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have, temporarily, copied the content of the last revision to User:DESiegel/Snow Weasel. DES (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is such a pointless exercise. The existence or lack thereof of this page has absolutely zero effect on the encyclopedia whatsoever. Surely there must be some more productive use of time? Tim Song (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't understand the reason for the deletion. An admin shouldn't be deleting a userpage and yes, it is BITEY to do so. I don't see why being silly on a user page, even for a barely contributing user, is worthy of deletion or why the admin feels it is their job to delete it. I admit however I partly agree with Tim. If it weren't for the issue of being BITEY I'd say this was 100% silliness. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Process is important (to a point). But in my view, process does not need to be reinforced by overturning an otherwise low impact and uncontested userspace deletion at DRV, just because it was out of process. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn As it met no speedy criterion. It is not helpful to delete harmless page of non-active editors-- if anything, the act of doing so adds slightly to the system overhead, while maintaining it costs absolutely zero--the space is not recycled. If they ever return, it sends a signal the reverse of what we should be sending, that they are welcome back if they want to contribute usefully. User contribution histories show that users--even users who do not make helpful contributions at first--often return, sometimes many months later, and start to make them. It is right to bring a Deletion Review, because admins should learn to act always in process. To the extent that a particular admin has deleted not in process , every out of process deletion that the admin does not revert themselves if asked should be brought to DR. If necessary to delete for some other reason or in some other process it can then be done. This is not process wonkery, but a proper insistence that people with arbitrary power follow the rules. For anyone to think they need not do so is not safe for the encyclopedia. The time we spend discussing a few here will be repaid by the many we will not have to discuss in the future. Even though the particular instance here may be trivial, the refusal to follow policy is anything but trivial. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. You have stated my thoughts precisely. And this isn't an isolated instance. I find at least 9 pages deleted with this same log reason by this same admin within this month. Most are by users with no other contributions, or no useful ones, at least yet. Most do not seem to fit any of the CSD -- a couple might be deletable as vandalism. DES (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn this does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, and wouldn't do even if it were in the article space*, let alone userspace where we allow a far wider range of content. While the user might not have made any useful edits to the encyclopaedia, their edits were misinformed rather than disruptive. Deletion of their userpage (without notice or explanation) combined with a lack of being welcomed to the project is very bitey. If someone with this contribution history had been gone for a couple of years then it would be a moderately safe bet that they would be unlikley to come back again soon (it does happen though), but with only a month since their initial edits you cannot reliably infer anything about their future intentions. When pages do not clearly meet the CSD criteria, any deletion must be done only when there is consensus to do so at the appropriate XfD. In this case though I doubt that consensus to delete would have been reached at MfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is surprising that Editor 1 bothered to create the trivial page in question, doubly surprising that Editor 2 does not have better things to do than delete harmless trivialities in user space, and triply surprising that Editor 3 is sufficiently concerned about this rampant triviality to bring it to drv. Occuli (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I started with the same opinion honestly. But I do wonder if treating someone's user page, no matter how rudimentary, as a triviality is the right approach. Hobit (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concede that I would be disconcerted if my user-page were to be deleted summarily. I would also be irritated by edits like this one ... the only edits I have ever made to someone else's user-pages is to remove pages from category space eg Category:Nervous system neoplasms contains some such. DS aka DragonflySixtyseven does seem unduly concerned about user space. Occuli (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been on a tear through newly-created userpages recently -- removing spam, libel, and non-COPPA-compliant material. NOINDEX tags don't stop mirror sites from copying troublesome content all over the Net, and mirror sites don't bother with said tags. And would you seriously be irritated by someone correcting a spelling mistake? DS (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DES, DGG (and any other TLAs...). Deleting a person's userpage should only be done in circumstances of extreme offense. A paragraph about Snow Weasels is within the bounds we're granted to express our individuality. --GRuban (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. If this page needed speedy deletion, but no established criteria was sufficient, raise the case at WT:CSD. This is supposed to be a community managed project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn- If you want to send to MFD, that's cool. But a speedy deletion, when it doesn't even come close to meeting any speedy criteria really isn't the way to go. I know we're all not a bureaucracy here, but there should still be some attempt at discussion before deleting things that aren't speediable. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. No valid basis for speedy deletion cited. G1 and G3 set a narrowerer standard than "silly"; for better or worse, the community decides, case by case, how much silliness will be tolerated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse. I consider that bringing this deletion to DRV, in the absence even of a concern expressed by the (former) user, borders on frivolous, and I am considering closing this discussion summarily. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the endorse, of course, but suggest that a summary closure of this may only escalate the trivial drama even more. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've found that sometimes when I do something summarily per IAR, anticipating a hostile reaction, people move on and the concern disappears. Other times, seemingly obvious actions (like the one under review) precipitate absurd overreactions. I wish I had a better talent for predicting which would be which. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Incidentally, as a general comment to the deleting administrator and others, merely blanking the page rather than deleting it might have been a better procedure and avoided some of the concerns expressed here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you give any reason why this userpage should be deleted? I think it would have made it as MfD as it was causing no harm and deleting it would be biting a newcomer. To close early against consensus here? Really? Hobit (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Speedy closing a DRV where multiple editors have favored overturning seems rather WP:POINTy, and clearly against consensus. I suppose it wouldn't justify arbitration, but it seems highly improper to me. It would surely justify unilaterally restoration of the page in question, as any admin is empowered to restore pages improperly speedy deleted without process. But the main issue here, IMO, is not the specific page -- it is the abuse of speedy deletion. It is not whether this particular user was offended, or even saw the deletion -- it is the high likelyhood that such practices will, in time, offend some new editors and lose potentially valuable contributors. That is why i think this is far from trivial, even though the specific page is not at all important. Newyorkbrad seems to me to miss this point, while DGG, Thryduulf, and others get it. DES (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Newyorkbrad, perhaps that inability to predict which IAR actions will gain subsequent approval is a good reason to make less use of IAR? I will guarantee that unilateral, undiscussed deletions, outside the narrow limits of WP:CSD will always cause me to object if i become aware of them. So anyone thinking that such deletions are uncontroversial should perhaps reconsider. DES (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is this "Newyorkbrad" who seems to think he knows better than the community and has the arbitrary right to summarily close a contested discussion? Does membership of the Arbitration Committee confer demiGodKing status? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was uncalled for. Brad is a long-standing and well-respected admin & arbitrator. Insulting him doesn't reflect well on you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not only that, but Brad's generally had the reputation of being among the calmest and most deliberative arbitrators, which is why we all love him, and threats are quite out of character. Anyway, I chatted it over with him on his talk page, and it looks like what he actually wanted is to merely say "this is a waste of time", like Tim Song or Occuli. The threat to wave around the mop seems to have been unintentional. --GRuban (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DGG. Outback the koala (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doxiedana probably should have not have created such a silly page. DF67 probably should not have deleted the page. Fine. But bringing this to DRV was quite ridiculous in my opinion, regardless of the merits of the deletion. For all of the massive problems with articles on Wikipedia, we are still wasting our time with trivialities. I am somewhat disappointed with the number of comments that this DRV has gotten, and with myself for commenting here. If you are looking for important work to do, I could point you towards some. Do we really have to waste our time with this? NW (Talk) 05:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I feel that ensuring speedy deletions are done only in accordance with the criteria for speedy deletion and overturning actions that bite newcommers to be some of the most important work that can be done on Wikipedia. I feel this because it protects the encyclopaedia from the whims of individual administrators and stops valuable and potentially valuable contributors being driven away. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Hobit and DGG. Note: I cannot see the page, so I reason entirely from arguments presented. Frankly, "I don't like it" as a reason for arbitrary and summary deletion goes to the heart of abuse of admin power, and is not a trivial matter. RayTalk 02:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The contents have been copied to User:DESiegel/Snow Weasel for the use of people commenting in this DRV. DES (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, DES. Looking it over, I see nothing inappropriate enough to justify a IAR deletion. I mean, c'mon. Yes, it's a fictitious entry, but it's on a user page. A user page is meant to give some sense of the user's personality, and there's nothing malicious or out-of-scope here. If somebody had wanted to delete this in a fit of overconcern over somebody else's userspace, MfD would've been the forum. RayTalk 18:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: User pages have traditionally enjoyed some freedom and attract users to the encyclopaedia. They are not free, as I discovered when my own user page was edited in the past, but this was to avoid material deemed to risk conflicting with Wikipedia's aims - a much more serious situation, with a much more minor sanction. This deletion was disproportionate. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to MFD. Process is important. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Conspiracy journalism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Original article was a stub with substantitive references in academia and mainstream press, as well as the lesser considered "fringe areas" of the internet. The identification and usage of the term appears to be universally accepted and agreed upon. The article was a good stub. The category appears to be relevant and not subject to WP:OR. Furthermore, there is some notability to the term and it is routinely referenced in sereious scholarly work as well as in common parlance. It should be allowed to stand for further review, development and reinforcement. In my opinion the strong opinions of one editor appeared to overwhelm the discussion. Jettparmer (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. There were not many participants in the AfD, but there was a thorough discussion of the sources, so more than enough material on which the closing admin could determine a consensus. With a 4-1 headcount to delete and all delete !votes providing policy-based reasoning (the "patent nonsense" jab aside), there was a clear consensus to delete.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think I would have likely argued for weak keeping if I had seen this AfD but the consensus seems reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly endorse. I suspect this topic is in fact notable, and i might well have favored keep had I looked at the AfD. But the consensus of the AfD was clear, and those who favored delete made policy-based arguments. What constitutes sufficient coverage is always a judgment call, save where no reasonable person could hold a particular view. However, there should be no bar to recreation with better sourcing, which would remove all relevant objections from the AfD. Indeed if the creator or anyone else indicates a serious intention to work on this, i would favor restoration and Incubation for that purpose. DES (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I nominated the article for deletion. I do not oppose either userfication or incubation. Maurreen (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I opted for deletion review as I felt there was insufficient commentary on this articel, nor did their seem to be any neutral analysis of the notability of the topic. Relevant and reliable sources were discounted (I could not find the original lecture by Ellick, and was preparing to contact him directly for source location). It would have seemed more in keeping with WP approach to edit out the "offending sources" and let the article grow as a stub. Jettparmer (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse essentially per DES the admin did not do wrongly, though had I noticed the discussion, I would have argued to support instead of closing as delete. The solutiuon is hjust to write a slightly expanded article. No permission is needed to return a better article. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Encourage userfication or Incubation and see if the article can be developmented or reinforced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 March 2010

[edit]

22 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
RaRa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Illegitimate G10 deletion. This was not an attack page, all content (that I can see via google cache) is verifiable and the relevant sources can be easily added, please see my referencing at de:Revolutionaire Anti-Racistische Actie and dutch sources at nl:Revolutionaire Anti-Racistische Actie. Additional source see here. Meisterkoch (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rather premature, don't you think, considering the active discussion on my talk page? You certainly have the right to request deletion review, but it's a far simpler process to convince me to reverse my deletion. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Xeno, that's what I have already done. I have discussed everything on his talk page that I had to say on this topic. If he doesn't see that he is in breach with the guidelines, he doesn't leave me any other options then to go here and see what other people think about it.--Meisterkoch (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Excellent call by Jclemens. Falls squarely within G10 as an article about an organisation (including named individuals) that contains only negative unsourced material. For negative pages, a general source cited at the bottom of the page is not good enough. There is no way of verifying that the negative factual claims in the article are true. G10 extends to entities as well as people. In my view that is for two good reasons: (a) an attack on an organisation by extension attacks its members and officers; and (b) many jurisdictions allow organisations, not just individuals, to sue for defamation. Negative material about organisations or persons should be sourced from the moment it is placed on the mainspace. I would not support restoration of this without a properly sourced userspace draft. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. en:WP has some more strict expectations than other 'pedias, but that doesn't mean this discussion is over. You'll note that I didn't issue any warnings or blocks, nor did I salt the article against recreation. There is still a way to work forward on this, but when it's such an article talking about crimes and people and whatnot, we delete it until it can be shown to be supported and neutral. I realize this might be frustrating for you, but there's no reason to abandon en.wiki entirely yet. Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a well-known terrorist organization in the Netherlands. The Dutch article references three national papers and a book by a BVD employee (Dutch equivalent of the NSA), among other sources. I don't know what the English article looked like, but sources are available. Remco47 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. This was a good-faith G10 deletion. However, it seems that it should not be difficult to find and ad WP:RS to the article. The organization is notable and was (apparently) covered by national press. -- Flyguy649 talk 21:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but without prejudice to recreation as the article stood when deleted it was clearly a negative article about a specific group, accusing them of violent crimes. In the article a single source was cited, a book, with no page references or inline cites to indicate which claims it supported. Talk page discussion has stated that there was a criminal conviction. If so, there must have been news coverage, although that may not be online. Under the circumstances, better in-article sourcing is needed for any such article. Specific inline citations, preferably with relevant quotes (translated, if not in English) from any off-line sources, should be provided to multiple reliable sources to clearly establish the accuracy and fairness of the article. That said, if the statements made in the deleted version are in fact supported by RSs, this group is notable and a proper article can be written, and there should be no bar to a properly sourced version in future. DES (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google news returns some 20 hits on "Revolutionaire Anti-Racistische Actie" but none appear to be in English. Non-english sources are fine, as stated in WP:RS, but this means that I can not personally evaluate them or add them to the article. Someone who reads the relevant language could and should consider doing this. Note that {{cite news}} provides the trans_title parameter for translated titles, and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Non-English sources says "When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate." DES (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Google news search on "Revolutionary Anti-Racist Action" returns some 11 hits, which may be enough to source such an article. DES (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my user draft linked below. DES (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G10 due to the undersourced nature of the decidedly negative article at the time. I'll vote to restore the article, but only if someone is going to rigorously source the facts within it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userspace draft created. I have created a draft at User:DESiegel/Revolutionary Anti-Racist Action. I think it is sufficiently sourced, with some 16 different sources (all but two in the English language) and 44 inline citations. Sources are newspapers, journals, and books. Note that I started with the text of the deleted article, so if this is accepted that would have to be undeleted and this applied over it, or my draft moved and a history merge done, to preserve the attributions for the text from the original article. i dropped any statements not supported by sources, most statements are supported by multiple sources. There are probably additional sources out there in English, plus the 20 Google news hits not in English, so this could no doubt be improved further. But I now ask that this draft be permitted into mainspace, with appropriate history undeletions for attribution. DES (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Superb. I'd note, however, that there's nothing in a G10 which prevents anyone from taking such action, nor was any DRV intervention needed for such an outcome. Thanks for doing the grunt work to create a more neutral and specifically-cited article. Jclemens (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Granted. But given that a DRV discussion has been started and that it is still open, I felt it better to present the matter here than to unilaterally use admin tools to undelete and edit. Use of admin tools would be required for GFDL/CC attributions, so this isn't just a matter of creating a new article by an old name. Besides there is WP:PI. DES (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also note, it isn't much more neutral -- 90% of the text is straight from the deleted version. Mostly what I did was add cites, adn remove the few statements I couldn't cite, and add details found in the refs cited. All refs came from Google searches, BTW. DES (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore DESiegel's superb userdraft. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, permit recreation from the draft or otherwise. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Studio 1 Photography (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven with the log entry "notability not asserted". I presume this is intended to be WP:CSD#A7, although that does not actually match the A7 rule. The deleted page included the text "This is the same company that was featured as Utah's best wedding photographer on a budget." and included three inline references to three different news stories. Now this might not have been enough to establish notability at an AfD, But I think it is well over the bar for an A7. I asked the deleting admin to reconsider in this edit but got no response. Overturn this as an improper speedy deletion, please. DES (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the deleting admin did not notify the page creator, nor was the page tagged by any other editor. DES (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


There's no point in notifying someone of a deletion once they've been gone for a month. This was a single-purpose account, whose purpose was to promote this business. Furthermore, notifying someone that an article they wrote is going to be deleted... that's a courtesy, not an obligation. I do try to be courteous, but I'm not obligated to be.

About those three different news sources? They were about a competitor's bankruptcy, and briefly mentioned Studio 1. There was also one article about Studio 1 itself, calling it "Utah's Best etc etc", although a) I strongly disagree with that being an assertion of notability, and b) the site claiming it appears to have been down for quite a while - archive.org only has versions until mid-2008.

Of course the page hadn't been tagged by another editor. I don't need to wait for people to tag pages for speedy deletion; I can assess them myself and then delete them -- and I do that all the time, because it's more efficient.

I don't bother using the CSD codes because they're too damn cryptic. I know what they mean, and I use their meaning.

If you want to argue process enough to take this article to AfD, I will gladly restore the page; however, if I do that, then I expect at least one of you will implement a proper AfD within the next 24 hours. DS (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • File:Goatse.fr homepage.png – List at FfD. This is a difficult case. It is undisputed in this DRV that the image was deleted out of process. Nonetheless, the !votes are split roughly 49-31 in favor of overturning, with the endorse !voters arguing essentially that undeleting is futile because (1) the image fails WP:NFCC#1, as it is replaceable with text and (2) the image is entirely unencyclopedic, which is the rationale employed by the deleting administrator. The overturn !voters respond that (1) the image is irreplaceable, since no text could convey the "shock"; (2) the image is encyclopedic in an article about the website, and WP:NOTCENSORED prevents its deletion solely because it is grossly offensive; and (3) these issues should be debated in an FfD, not a DRV.

    While DRV normally limits its reach to process, it has endorsed out-of-process deletions when such deletions are inevitable. However, the discussion here fell short of demonstrating the futility of further discussion. Cogent arguments are presented on both sides, and both of the endorse !voters' points are countered by the overturns. Moreover, given DRV's usual limit to process issues, one must take into account the fact that many participants may choose not to address the merits issues, leaving any apparent consensus on the merits here relatively unsafe. For instance, one might argue that the merits discussion might be somewhat biased toward the side favoring the out-of-process action, since those who believe that the image should not be deleted would !vote on the process issue alone; on the other hand, it can be argued that quite a few of the overturn !voters indicated that they would !vote delete on the merits. The upshot is that it is impossible to predict what would happen in an FfD for this image based on this DRV, and therefore there is no consensus below that the image either fails NFCC#1 or is unencyclopedic, and no consensus to keep this image deleted despite the out-of-process deletion. I take note of MzMcBride's note of a previous DRV and FfD on another goatse image that resulted in deletion, but that image is different from this one, and in any event this image at issue has survived an FfD postdating that DRV and FfD already. – Tim Song (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Goatse.fr homepage.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleting administrator opened a thread at ANI to announce his decision. The discussion became contentious.[2] Most of what's been discussed there would be better suited to DRV. Opening this request procedurally with no opinion about its outcome. Durova412 02:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: [3] << for those not familiar with this image, here it is. Which was once found on this webpage: Goatse.cx. Okip 02:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore, regrettably because I have a great deal of sympathy at a personal level for Prodego's actions here. However, there was no consensus to delete this image, so deletion was out of process. This went through an FfD as a keep, was subject to an open MedCab case, and no speedy deletion criteria applied. Invoking WP:IAR in this case is not appropriate as many editors (not me) would dispute that the invocation of IAR "improved the encyclopaedia". But I would like to see this brought back to FfD where editors can give proper consideration to WP:NOTCENSORED and whether this image adds anything to the encyclopaedia. In my view, genuine consensus has not been reached on this yet. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note if this turns into a super-FFD discusion, as seems likely, I would !vote delete. I would !vote that way not for the reason that a fair use claim is invalid, but because of the reason Prodego deleted it: that its inclusion does more harm to the project than good. Just because an image can be displayed on wikipedia does not mean that it should. But that is an on-balance judgement on which reasonable minds may differ: such judgements should be made by consensus, not unilateral fiat. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The photo is not compatible with our mission to build a free encyclopedia. It is neither free nor encyclopedic. The only reason we don't have a specific policy "Wikipedia is not a shocksite" is that this is such a rare case. Wikipedia is not censored. Liberties are best preserved by (1) making use of them extensively, and (2) not abusing them. Hans Adler 02:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And just to give a formal reason for the process wonks: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (NFCC) Any encyclopedic purpose of this picture is far overshadowed by its primary purpose of shocking whoever stumbles over it. The reader of an article illustrated in this way will either be thrilled that Wikipedia breaks taboos so shamelessly, or will be shocked and somewhat disturbed. Neither is an encyclopedic purpose, and in either case the reader will be distracted from the article. Hans Adler 11:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't part of our goal as an encyclopedia to provide historical insight into what cultures find offensive? –xenotalk 12:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. But our contribution shouldn't consist in demonstrating that finding photos of stretched anuses in an encyclopedia article extremely offensive is a feature shared by all cultures worldwide. It's not our primary purpose to do such research, and especially when the result is so predictable. Hans Adler 13:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should also remove visual depictions of Muhammad, as it also facilitates such in-house "research" as to how many Wikipedia-using Muslims find it offensive? –xenotalk 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact we should remove some of them, but not all. One picture of Muhammad being tortured in hell, another of him trampling on a globe, a cross and the Ten Commandments. In addition no less than four other images outside the section "Muslim veneration", which is the only section where such images convey information as opposed to being purely illustrative. This is serious overkill. In quantitative terms it's not quite as bad as the severe over-illustratedness of Jesus and Buddha, but it's still bad enough and the fact that every single of these pictures gives offence to a significant portion of our readers either (1) directly, or (2) by showing them that we want to offend the more extreme of their faith, gives this more weight. Hans Adler 08:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. We have deletion polices for a reason: to ensure that our contents benefit the encyclopedia, and to ensure that deletions are performed only if they benefit the encyclopedia. We also have the important WP:IAR policy, specifically in order to ensure that anyone can take actions that benefit the encyclopedia, even if they can't find some specific sentence in our many policies that specifically says they may do so. In the long run, because we are an encyclopedia and not a shock site, it plainly benefits our encyclopedic purpose - and therefore is the right action - to cut through all the debate and just remove the image, and to delete the image in order to prevent the removal from becoming an endless edit war. Unless there is some reason why the image is actually required by our encyclopedic purpose, and not replaceable by a link to the site depicted in the image, there is no issue here. In particular, bureaucratic arguments about what "should have happened" are of no importance; only what "should happen" is important. What should happen is for the image to stay out of the article on the grounds that we are not a shock site - and we are not required to be one merely in order to provide encyclopedic coverage of shock images. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think Hesperian summarized this excellently: "A picture conveys more than text. If you subtract what the text conveys from what the picture conveys, you're left with the marginal benefit of displaying the picture. I'm pretty sure the marginal benefit of displaying the Mona Lisa is substantial and educational. I'm pretty sure the marginal benefit of displaying the goatse.cx image is nothing but shock value." This image is intended only to be "offensive, disgusting or/and disturbing to its viewers"[1]. It is not an image that is useful in an encyclopedia, and its inclusion is far more harmful to the project than any marginal benefit gained by readers from viewing it. Prodego talk 03:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: horrible abuse of process, no two-ways about it. As has been emphasised a million times, DRV is not IFD, it examines process issues in deletions. As there is no procedural reason at all to delete, and at least three to overturn...:
    1. Not eligible for deletion under any speedy criterion;
    2. Image has already survived IfD, so it can't be speedied for the given reason anyway;
    3. It's currently a matter of contention at mediation so it's inappropriate to take action during the mediation process.
  • ...thus, the image should be undeleted. There is also very flimsy justification for ignoring all rules because there are solid arguments that unilateral deletion is a detriment to the encyclopedia; remember, IAR is not carte blanche. Sceptre (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Hesperian. :-) Hesperian 03:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn / Undelete - While I agree that goatse is rather a nasty website, the image IS encyclopaedic on the grounds that it is essentially the subject of an article. Furthermore, there is an ongoing dispute as to whether the image should be included, and that should have been allowed to conclude before such unilateral action is taken. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the website, not this single image. Risker (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsensical argument, as in this case the website is the image. And let me ask you this: If they never published that image on that site, would we have grounds for an article at all? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's particularly nonsensical given that the image was only presented within a screenshot of the website's front page. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The image fails NFCC criterion #1, in that it is easily described in words and can be linked to at an external site. In fact, it *is* described in words in the opening sentence of the article. The image itself is not encyclopedic or educational, nor is it free. Risker (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn / Undelete - its a nasty picture, but the process for deletion was fatally flawed (community process subverted). Without the pic, the article is kinda pointless. Maybe its a good AFD candidate, but this was not the way to do it. Bevinbell 03:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Community discussions do not override fundamental policy. WP:NFCC overrides consensus just as WP:COPYVIO does; we don't keep copyvios around even if there is a consensus discussion to keep them. Otherwise, we'd still have dozens of album cover images in discography articles. Risker (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus determines whether WP:NFCC is satisfied by interpreting it and applying it. It is not self-executing, especially where it asks us to make editorial judgments like determining an image's encyclopedic purpose and informational value. If a consensus of editors have determined that the image is not replaceable, then it is not replaceable, and no admin is empowered to enact his own opinion as if it were policy. postdlf (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This was a deletion in the middle of a content dispute, and counter to another administrator's actions. At Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-01-12/Goatse.cx, it has already been established that the image does not fail NFCC. Whether the image should remain in the article is purely a question of value versus offensiveness. Therefore, a deletion out of process is not warranted. Remco47 (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: I've stumbled across this over at ANI, and while I make no comment on the file in question, this deletion was disgusting. There is ongoing discussion about the image, and no legal situation justifying a speedy deletion. The IAR justification being batted around is not, in my opinion, very convincing, as there are many people who do not think that this deletion benefits the encyclopedia. I think Sceptre sums it up nicely. Some responses here seem to endorse keeping deleted because they feel the picture is not appropriate. I make no comment on their rationales, but I think that that discussion should be held elsewhere (like IFD). Buddy431 (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Per Risker. This is an unfree image that does not add any encyclopedic value to the article. The description in the article is accurate and succinct; the link is on the article page. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/undelete - I've actually been arguing for removal of the image at MedCab, but this deletion was way out of line as consensus seems to currently lean in the other direction. IAR means "Ignore All Rules", not "Ignore All People". It's fine to ignore a rule if everyone agrees that the rule is holding up progress, but it's not okay to ignore everyone else in favor of your own opinion -- especially when we're talking about administrative action. At most, Prodego should've taken the matter to DRV himself following the failed IfD if he thought the closure was improper. Equazcion (talk) 04:04, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn and discard every insipid "not a shock site" argument from consideration. This is not round 2 of an IfD to discuss the merits of the image; we are here strictly to discuss the breach of trust and authority that Prodego displayed by ignoring the community and using admin tools to support a personal opinion. There was no valid policy-based reason for up and deleting this image. None. We just had an Arbcom motion that dealt with another admin who invoked WP:IAR in this manner. Apparently some lessons have not been learned yet. Tarc (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have outlined the policy-based reason for this image to be deleted above. Please explain why this image passes NFCC #1. It is already well-described in words, although if one wished to expand the description one could do so. Risker (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that a shock image can be as well-described with words as it can be by seeing the image itself is charmingly naïve. The subject matter itself is the image, and no amount of textual descriptors can adequately convey what the image itself can. Why don't we simply describe Mona Lisa's smile, sans portrait, while we're at it. Tarc (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the article? The subject is the website, not simply that single image. And the Mona Lisa is not an appropriate comparator, being in the public domain. One gaping anus looks pretty much like another. Risker (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, feel free to snap a pic of your own gaping anus, head on over to 4chan with it, and see if you can get the kiddies to make it into a meme too. Until then, we have an iconic image here that would be the height of absurdity to not have a copy of on its own article. There is nothing you have said here so far that wasn't shot down in flames back at the Virgin Killer IfDs. Tarc (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I've read it. The main (well, only) attraction on the site is the image. All the history, details, and tangential stories derive from that image. None of that would exist or be of interest without it. If you don't like the Mona Lisa as a comparison, you can compare it to any controversial figure in history whose portrait we include, controversial incident whose images we include, or controversial art that we include. Equazcion (talk) 04:54, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted: I think I filed one of these IFDs. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean one of the IFDs that failed? If so, why do you cite that as a reason to keep deleted? Are you saying that since you filed an IFD on this, it should stay deleted? Not following your logic here. Equazcion (talk) 04:58, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)
      • It was partially to disclose the fact that I'd been previously involved in this debate and partially so that I wouldn't have to write out another rationale for why this image should be deleted, having done so previously. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that would be the deletion discussion where the closer thought it would probably fail NFCC#1 but he would "be damned if I'll waste my time trying to write the replacement text". Well, the replacement text is there now. Risker (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, it isn't here. You can't just change the goalposts like that. The deleting admin did not delete it on NFCC grounds, not in the slightest. From the AN/I post; "However, the image seems to me to be so egregiously unencyclopedic, that I deleted it despite both of those discussions.", i.e. a specific invocation of WP:IAR, not a delete based on non-free policy. Tarc (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't undelete copyvios or images that fail NFCC because the deletion process was less than optimal, goalposts or no goalposts. In fact, I think your "desysop" argument earlier might be more effective with respect to an admin who failed to delete an image that violated NFCC. Risker (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do, however, undelete images if the deletion process wasn't followed at all. There is no debate here: the deletion policy was violated by the unilateral deletion of an image ineligible for speedy deletion, contrary to a recent consensus at an appropriate forum, and contrary to our guidelines of retaining the status quo during disputes. That is fact. You can wikilawyer all you want on this, but the image should not have been deleted in the way it was. And endorsing deletion endorses abuse of the deletion policy and of our content policies and encourages administrators to violate our policies. Sceptre (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleting a non-free image that does not meet NFCC isn't just a violation of Wikipedia policy, it is a violation of WMF policy, and that is an even more serious matter. Risker (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realised that, so I refactored my reply to encompass all images. But the point is: without following the deletion process, we have no way of showing a violation of the NFCC. Additionally, no-one has demonstrated that the image fails any part of the NFCC: neither the parts which you can speedy delete for (4, 7, 9, 10) or the parts that require discussion to ascertain violation (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8). And don't pretend this is NFCC enforcement; this is prudishness, plain and simple. As far as fair-use images go, this was one of the more exemplary images on the article in terms of NFCC compliance, save maybe for the fact the image displayed a bodily orifice. Sceptre (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, a prude would never have found this page or this image in the first place. If you're suggesting that I'm a prude, you might want to keep in mind that I probably spend more time addressing far more offensive stuff than this image on an average evening of editing than I have spent on this discussion; my tolerance for shock is considerably higher than that of most Wikipedians, let alone the average member of the reading public. I also strongly disagree that this is an exemplary image in terms of NFCC compliance, as it is one of the simplest ones to describe with words, and there is a solid external link to the image itself, unlike the Virgin Killers example above. Risker (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Virgin Killer cover: "A naked pre-pubescent girl, with a cracked glass effect obscuring her genitalia". Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima: "six American soldiers raise an American flag on a hilltop". Bingo, that image fails NFCC#1, or at least the version given in this DRV. However, the criteria has another part: an image fails it if the free media serves the same encyclopedic purpose. In this case, drawing on the multiple visual identification and notable image precedents, I believe that a free replacement would not serve the same purpose, as I have argued at the MedCab case several times. But I'm straying off-topic, here. My argument is that failure of NFCC#1 is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion, as it doesn't pass CSD's requirements that said criteria must be objective. And setting asside the NFCC#1 question (as any image can be easily argued to fail the commonly recited version, as I've just shown), this image is indeed exemplary among the thousands of "this shows an important thing that we barely touch on in the article" rationales for usage. Sceptre (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I usually tend to agree with Tarc, but in this case, I think Risker is in the right. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honest question - If Mr. Goatse himself was tracked down and agreed to release his image to the public domain, would all objections to its inclusion be dropped? Tarc (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's far from an honest question, but it is a fair point. The rights arguments should probably be put on hold if they don't matter anyway. Equazcion (talk) 05:18, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)
    • Mr. Goatse would have to prove that he is indeed Mr. Goatse, and that he owns the rights to that image, which is going to be nigh-on impossible at this stage. The article itself refers to a Snopes article about one of the parodies which has been claimed by multiple individuals as the "rightful owner". Risker (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Mostly per Risker. I happened to stumble upon this from the ANI thread. Killiondude (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Risker. The image does fail NFCC#1. AniMate 06:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel I should ask, as there seems to be a misunderstanding on what NFCC#1 is: is there a plausible free equivalent that could be located or created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose? Sceptre (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all? From the article Its front page featured a picture, hello.jpg, showing a naked man stretching his anus to a large size with both hands, with the inside of his rectum clearly visible. Is there anything else we need to know about the picture? AniMate 07:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima can be adequately conveyed by the text "six American soldiers raise an American flag on a hilltop". That doesn't mean that it serves the same encyclopedic purpose; see my reply to Risker above that there is clear precedent that lends to supporting using the image. Sceptre (talk) 07:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are technically correct. "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" can be conveyed by text. However, we're comparing one of the most important moments of World War II to a man showing his gaping asshole. Sorry to be blunt, but... really? AniMate 08:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like your objection to the image is based more on its content than the non-free content criteria. Jafeluv (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. This is the core issue we're examining in the MedCab case: whether we can find a policy-based reason that a) would not delete similarly offensive images which otherwise would be acceptable for use, and b) would not delete any famous images such as Iwo Jima. So far, I've yet to see an argument that, with a minimal amount of tinkering, couldn't be used to delete the Virgin Killer cover or the Iwo Jima cover. The worth of the image by itself to society shouldn't matter when we decide whether to use an image or not; what should matter is the worth of the image to the article we wish to include it on. And I believe there to be to some worth, based on precedents of website screenshots and famous images. For the record, I'm not a big fan of the image, but I nevertheless believe there to be a valid fair use claim for this image and my distaste for censoring material just because it's offensive is larger than my distaste for the image. Sceptre (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send for another IfD. I think the image is obnoxious, and wish it had never existed, but I do not see what this has to do with the matter. I refuse to decide issues of Wikipedia procedure and policy on such a basis, and I think that attempting to twist the copyright policy to keep it out are using sophistry to ignore the fundamental principles. The community cannot ignore copyright, but the community did not ignore copyright , and I do not think it ever will, for the community very strongly believes in respecting copyright and endorses the enWP copyright policy, as is shown in hundreds of unchallenged decisions every day. Admins rely on their own judgement, but only when the matter is unquestionable, because when it is, they trust that the community will endorse it. If in a decision of theirs the community were not to, the community would be right and the admin would be wrong as far as dealing with the problem goes--for those who cannot accept this, Wikipedia would not be a suitable place to work, and they should find some place where they could get their own way always. This of course goes much more strongly when they know in advance that their view has been rejected.,) If the community decides not to follow the view of an admin or anyone else. the person can seek to have the individual issue reviewed, or to try to change consensus to change the policy. In this case, the normal way would be to bring another IfD or go to deletion review, in each case to get a broader consensus. Whether this image passes NFCC must be decided by the community, and the community decision followed. No admin has the right to say the community is wrong and is right over the interpretation of this or anything.. He has the right to use IAR in the absence of a community decision, but only to the extent the community will back him., certainly not when he knows the community will oppose him. The only people who can override the community is the office, on legal grounds, for we like everyone else, follows legal advice on what we can and cannot do. But here again it is actually consensus: if the foundation thinks the law is clear, the community has agreed in advance to follow their view, for no responsible person would do otherwise. I see no need to consider now whether I think it meets NFCC1. The material must be restored, and then the deleting admin can open a deletion review, or try another IfD, It is now three months, and an acceptable time for another if this was the first IfD on the file. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn there has been explicit consensus at the FFD to keep the article based on WP:NOTCENSORED, there is explicit consensus at the talk page and an RFC that the image is encyclopaedic. No speedy deletion criteria therefore applies. WP:IAR should only be used when there is consensus that the rules are wrong, in this case there is consensus that the rules are right, and thus IAR is not helping the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Hans Adler, Risker and Hesperian. Best to remember the purpose of this encyclopedia from time to time instead of getting caught up in red tape. Mathsci (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. NFCC#1 calls for an editorial judgment as to whether a textual description would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the image. Apart from it being a post hoc rationale, this is not an appropriate ground for speedy deletion, but rather a matter to be discussed on an article's talk page in the first instance, and failing resolution there at FFD. An FFD was conducted, and the result was to keep it. At most, it should be relisted there given the complaints about the minimal participation in the last go-round; I doubt there would be another low turnout after this debacle. Further, "Wikipedia is not a shock site" is not an argument. Wikipedia is always about subjects deemed notable and in the process describes and illustrates those subjects even though it is not itself those subjects. That one of those subjects happens to be a shock site doesn't change the equation in any other way, at least where there does not seem to be any question of illegal content. Likewise, the claim that the article is about the website, not the image, misses the point that the website is notable only because of the image and was defined by that image. So there are no clear and objective grounds for speedy deleting this image. postdlf (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore - The image is undoubtedly offensive, but we've never made that a deletion criterion in the past. The Goatse meme and images are unfortunately significant on the net, and it's hard to demonstrate just how they were without being able to illustrate it. Those arguing for deletion are creating a new policy argument to do so - a variation on IREALLYREALLYDONTLIKEIT. If you want to change policy to remove all seriously shocking content from Wikipedia that's fine, but this is not the legitimate way to do so within our policy or process. The image needs to come back until and unless our policy is redefined to actually prohibit it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and take to FfD for fresh consensus. Clearly, based from the ANI and DRV discussions, there is not a clear consensus to keep this. I am no NFCC expert though, so I am unsure if this is a valid concern. However, I do sympathise with the deletion motives, but it may not be a suitable speedy candidate, thus the best thing to do would be to hold another FfD in line with process and let a wider group discuss this as it has now gained the attention of the community. --Taelus (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-list at FfD. DRV does not exist in order to determine the appropriateness of the deleted subject for Wikipedia; it exists to determine whether the deletion process (where we do determine the appropriateness) was properly followed. No one is disputing that the deletion was out of process; therefor it must be overturned. However, consensus is unclear as to the appropriateness of the image itself; therefor the image should be listed at FfD, the proper venue for such a discussion. Rami R 08:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn because deletion process was not followed. Whether the image is unencyclopedic or fails NFCC must be determined through the deletion process. Deleting images out of process because the anticipated result of the process does not correspond with one's own opinion is an abuse of administrator tools. I have no opinion about the merits of (and no desire to see) the image itself.  Sandstein  08:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as clearly deleted out of process in a highly controversial way. Given the ongoing dispute around the image, and the previous "keep" FfD discussion, this unexpected deletion really feels to me like using admin tools to win a content dispute. ~ mazca talk 09:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete (there is nothing to "overturn" here but one admins unwise act). The concept is notable if offensive to some. However, many things are offensive to some. If we stop covering them, Wikipedia loses every usefulness. The image is an extremely effective illustration of the concept. Mere text cannot convey the effect of the image. Thus, the image is a valuable addition to Wikipedia. Trout Prodego, restore the image. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, par WP:NOTCENSORED. We have pages of about every sexual organ on Wikipedia, and these pages all include images. The images might be highly offensive to some people (For example, my vandalism patrol left combating censor attempts at Cock ring just yesterday), but they describe the subject in a way that words cannot. A similar problem arises atDepictions of Muhammad, which is again highly offensive to a group of people, yet again we keep images citing the uncensored rule. I think that we can therefor conclude that we don't remove images on the basis of perceived grossness and not liking it.
This leaves us with the issue if the image actually adds anything to the article, or if it has any encyclopedic value. I would argue that any press coverage generated for Goatse.cx is due to this particular image. Hence, the only reason why we cover the subject altogether is because it received press coverage due to that specific image. I would therefor argue that the image has value for the article - gross as the image might be. As argued before we can of course just link it, but couldn't we do the same on every other questionable page? As for scaring our userbase: The images on the Gangrene page are in my eyes even more nauseating then this image, but we keep those visible as well. So yes, we already present out users with quite a bit of.... questionable content.
Apart from the image matters we have policies to deal with these kind of situations. The image was kept at an IFD procedure, and as the medcab case signifies deletion without discussion is controversial. This is NOT a case where WP:IAR / WP:SNOW should be applied, nor a matter of red tape. Overriding policy should only be done if there is clear consensus, or if certain actions are not controversial, and that is not the case here. We wrote our policies, and if we wish to change our policy we can do so as well. Discuss this, and if the discussion warrant it change the policy, and acts on its new content - but not the other way around. How long do you think it would take for me to be banned if i create a new account and start CSD'ing a bunch of pages for WP:NOT criteria, stating WP:IAR? In my eyes this is entire issue is just a big WP:IDONTLIKEIT topic, were people vote on personal opinions. See also the Encyclopedia Dramatica AFD's, where lots of editors argued it should be removed due to personal offense, and not due to it breaking the rules. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn let the currect MedCab run its course and then maybe argue again afterwards. There's no point in having the same discussion on a hundred different forums. I think it should be considered lucky that there's a MedCab at all. At any rate, this was a serious abuse of admin 'powers'. raseaCtalk to me 10:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete per DGG's arguments. It's a revolting image and I'm unconvinced we need an article on it at all (to all extents and purposes, the website is the image, so the "this article is about the website not the image" arguments are meaningless). However, as long as the article does exist, it's clearly fair use to illustrate it. It's not the job of a Wikipedia admin to unilaterally decide what the dividing line between "art" and "pornography" is and to demand that everyone else on the site follow their particular prejudice. – iridescent 10:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, obviously. Being an admin doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want against consensus. Even if you think an image is "egregiously unencyclopedic", you still need to use the proper channels like everyone else. Jafeluv (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Hans Adler, Risker and Hesperian. Seems to me like a classic case of red tape getting in the way of common sense - one of the other WP:NOTs is that WP is not a bureaucracy. Orderinchaos 11:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & undelete I don't think that the IAR policy was meant to be used in this way. From reading all of this as an outsider, it seems that an administrator ignored the community and acted on his/her own opinions which is not acceptable at all. Let the discussions continue, but return the image first. Administrators are not supposed to have more or less of an opinion than any other editor, lets show this by reversing the action taken. I have seen this image somewhere, don't remember where, and yes it's gross to me. I have uploaded some medical images that are also seen to some as being gross too, yet the images are still in the articles like they should be. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as strictly out of process. An admin executing summary judgment while the image is under good-faith dispute resolution is not appropriate and prejudges the outcome of that process. –xenotalk 12:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, gratuitous or decorative use of non-free content. Failure to include this does not in any measurable way degrade the project. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, unambiguously out of process deletion. That said I'd be just as happy for Jimmy or the foundation to make explicitly clear that this isn't part of the proejct's mandate. This is a non-free image that we don't need. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, as so many write, "while I make no comment on the file in question, this deletion was disgusting"; "unambiguously out of process deletion"; "an administrator ignored the community and acted on his/her own opinions which is not acceptable at all", and so forth. A WP:TROUT is called for. --GRuban (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn due to process issues. Hobit (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse unfree image that does not add any encyclopedic value. Restoring bad images for "process reasons" is simply disruption to prove a point.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary - leaving this image deleted endorses (and encourages) cowboy adminship (which simply exacerbates the situation). If the image is to be deleted, it should be done through the appropriate procedures already in place - not a bold unilateral action. –xenotalk 15:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn on purely procedural grounds, no prejudice against relisting on IFD. I have no comment on whether or not the image is helpful or suitable for the encyclopedia, but it should not have been deleted while there is an active mediation going on. Disclosure: I'm the mediator. The WordsmithCommunicate 14:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted.--M4gnum0n (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. We need room for editorial judgment in extreme situations such as this; otherwise, we will never be able to maintain any concept of quality of the encyclopedia. I don't see this as a unilateral action--I see it as an action based on a long-running feeling among reasonable people in the community that this image is not necessary, a feeling that was absolutely right. Chick Bowen 16:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore the image. This was not an emergency, so there was no call for deleting it while discussion was ongoing. For the same reason, this is not the time for de novo review at DRV. ReverendWayne (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete: un-encyclopedic addition which merely replicates the shock site in wikipedia space.--Ludwigs2 16:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn by all means have a discussion over whether or not to delete. Can't see what's changed since last time, although I suppose there is more input from other users now. As this page clearly shows, there is dissagreement between users including sysops. Users are given sysop tools so they can use them for the best of the encyclopedia, which is decided on by the community, not to mention an ongoing mediation cabal. If Progego thinks it should be removed that doesn't mean it's what should happen. A decision like this should be a community one, whether or not people want the image deleted. We can't have a proper discussion about the image if there's no file page on it. Jolly Ω Janner 16:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Like most image deletion discussions, this one has unfortunately been rather binary; should the image be kept or deleted. There are always ways to use a non-free image while minimizing that use, and consequently its visual impact--such as by reducing it in size or making it black and white--that do not remove relevant information. A thumbnail size b&w copy of this image (noting in the caption that the original was in color) could communicate all relevant information while significantly reducing its shock value. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally feel that desaturation would be rather a poor measure, as if we can't use the right image, there's really no point using an image at all. Also, to respond to people saying we should just take a photo of our own backsides - we're not going to use, oh, let's say a picture of George W Bush just because we couldn't get a picture of Obama, and what the hell, they're both presidents so it's close enough, right? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No disagreement on the substitute picture argument. But regarding desaturation, it's a sure way to both strengthen compliance with NFCC#3 (not to mention the underlying legal fair use claim) by using less of the original work and its creative elements, if the color is not important information; the same would go for reducing an image to the minimum resolution that it is still informationally useful, or cropping an image down to just the relevant part. A prime example of an appropriate desaturation would be a non-free image used to depict a deceased person. By contrast, most uses of non-free art images could not be desaturated without losing important information. I guess it could be argued here (at the risk of sounding crass) that the redness of the orifice is central to this image's "information." But that's a matter for discussion, and it's at least worth considering these alternatives. postdlf (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn as per WP:NOT#Censored. This image has been discussed before and the consensus was clearly to keep. It is precisely this image that made the site notable, and the reader must see the image to fully understand the controversy over the site. it is therefor highly encyclopedic. Deletion was completely out of process. DES (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more comment. A major problem I'm seeing with this DRV is that many participants are treating it as a de novo deletion discussion. The sole issue that should be discussed here is whether the speedy deletion was appropriate. If it was not, then the file should be restored and anyone can then list it at FFD for a full discussion. This is the only proper scope and subject matter of this review, because while FFD requires a consensus to delete an image, DRV requires a consensus to undelete an image. If this is then treated just as a garden variety deletion discussion rather than a review of the deletion that occurred, then the unilateral actions of one admin would have shifted the burden of consensus, effectively deciding the issue by weighting the result in favor of deletion, such that a no consensus result would default to keep deleted rather than keep. Throwing the odds like that seems an invitation for speedy deletion of all sorts of objectionable material rather than going through the process of XFDs. postdlf (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Risker, unofficial, informal mediation for disputes on Wikipedia doesn't overrule NFCC. Q T C 16:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion was not carried out on NFCC grounds but asserted to be because it was an "inappropriate, unencyclopedic image". If informal mediation had stalled, formal mediation or arbitration was the next step, not unilateral action. If NFCC is truly a concern apart from the odious nature of the image, list at FFD. –xenotalk 16:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yay for process wank? End result is the same -> deleted picture. it's gone now, Process complete. Q T C 17:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you be so sure the image will be (would have been) deleted at FFD? –xenotalk 17:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yay for anarchy? End result would be unknown -> No certain outcome. Besides, NFCC lists a total of 10 points. Mind enlightening me which it fails in your opinion? I see point 8 has been claimed and refuted several times for example, so deleting it as WP:IAR is nonsensical. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In your opinion it might pass 8, but it mine it doesn't. There is nothing in that picture that helps explain anything more then is already in the article. Q T C 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn restore, continue in-process discussion. Out of process, and this forum isn't for debating the merits of the image, only of the process.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oveturn. As this discussion is solely about the process followed in the deletion, really the only relevant policy here is WP:IAR. Some editors are mentioning NFCC#1 and no doubt that is relevant to a discussion about the fate of the image, but that is not why the image was deleted, rather WP:IAR was the (implicit) rationale. There was nothing abusive in that actually, and I understand why Prodego decided to go that route. However (and unfortunately many folks don't recognize this) IAR must always be paired with WP:CONSENSUS. That is, when any editor ignores a rule in order to improve the project it must either: A) Be so trivial or non-controversial that no one even bothers to discuss it, i.e. a tacit endorsement from the community; B) Garner a rough consensus in agreement with the action after the fact, i.e. much of the community thinks it was a good application of IAR and says so. It's obvious that without pairing WP:IAR with WP:CON we would have chaos, with anyone able to ignore any rule at any time. So the deleting admin was perfectly within their right to be bold and take an out of process action which seemed in the best interests of the encyclopedia, but afterward invoking WP:IAR the ignorer-of-rules must let the chips fall where the may. This discussion seems to show a pretty strong consensus that this particular application of WP:IAR was not appropriate, and as such the deletion rationale would seem to be invalid (which, oddly, we can really only determine after the fact when IAR is invoked—had the current consensus here been that this was a righteous action then I would be arguing to endorse on the same grounds described above). Please note that this comment is most certainly not an effort to be wonkish or to limit the utility of WP:IAR. I think WP:IAR is still one of the most important policies we have and it can be incredibly useful, but it simply cannot be separated from the "consensus based" decision making process that we generally use around here. Finally like others I would encourage a return to FfD (and/or a continuation of the MedCab case) which would surely receive more eyes and comments given this discussion. I would hope some kind of compromise can be worked out, or a consensus arrived at that an external link to the image is more than sufficient for our purposes (that's how I feel). If the deletion kick-started a discussion that results in a consensus-based decision then it was useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Out-of-process deletion with no support by policy. Woogee (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, I don't like the image either, but it's what the page made famous, so it should definitely be in the article. Wikipedia isn't censored and there are other disguisting images here on Wikipedia as well. If you don't want to see them, install Adblock Plus and block the images. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Prodego and Hesperian. There is no reason why this can't just be substituted with text. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & restore I'll add to the other arguments in favor of restoring this image that the appropriateness of this image has a long, contentious history to it; ISTR a thread on the ENWikipedia-l mailing list about it when I still followed it (i.e. before 2006). Invoking WP:IAR in this instance only serves to prolong the discussion & drive the opposing views apart, not resolve the conflict. That said, I'd like to state on the record that Prodego was undoubtedly acting in good faith, & that AFAIK no one is voting "keep" because they enjoy looking at the image. -- llywrch (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, per Sceptre.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - copyvio, non-encyclopedic, and - well - please --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - While process may have been a bit atypical, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The image is non-free, fails NFCC, and this is a perfectly valid application of WP:IAR. I see no benefit to a restoration. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral, with comment After reviewing this a bit more, I realize that the situation was much more controversial than I originally understood, and thus I don't think WP:IAR is appropriate. IAR and consensus go hand-in-hand. That being said, I see no encyclopedic gain from this image and wholly endorse deletion on the grounds that it has been deleted and I don't see a good reason to bring it back, however I redact my endorsement above on the grounds that IAR should not have been applied here and going to IFD would have been more appropriately. This does not, however, mean that I agree with overturning, because I see no gain to that except adherence to red tape, which is wholly in violation of WP:BURO. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Just because we can (by NOTCENSORED), does not mean we should. My main reason for wanting the image removed is to avoid exciting some editors who interpret pictures like this as an invitation to add other shock stuff to other articles. Removing this picture does not set a precedent that other shock stuff should be removed (we always debate each case on its merits), but it does set a precedent that the community can choose to remove a shock image if that is judged appropriate for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting we "make an example" out of this image, even if it might be encyclopedic? –xenotalk 00:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No. For brevity I failed to explain that I agree with those who have stated that the picture is not encyclopedic (it might have some encyclopedic value in an article on anus elasticity or whatever, if presented with other verified anatomical information). Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. I understand where you are coming from. I just had a frightening flash-forward to Wikipedia 2020 where we were debating whether the out-of-process deletion of the 2girls1cup video excerpt was appropriate. –xenotalk 01:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BEANS, xeno... Equazcion (talk) 04:30, 23 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse - It's deleted now, for better or for worse. Restoring it at this point means endorsing copyvio. Whether it was a justifiable delete or not is immaterial at this point, because it's gone now. If it is going to be restored there needs to be some justification for using an image that fails NFCCThere Is No Cabal (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    — There Is No Cabal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    — actually, I've edited and commented several times under my IP address. The new account was unrelated to the current issue. With that said, how does that reflect on anything? I'm pretty sure everyone knows Goatse, and I've been following the article for some time. There Is No Cabal (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]
If this is your first account, then allow me to welcome you to Wikipedia. The tag is applied whenever a user's first edits are to a community discussion. It is for the convenience of the closing admin. Do you agree that Goatse is perhaps (as of the Internet age) the world's "most notable anus"? If so, does that warrant a Wikipedia article? If so, isn't an image not the clearest way to convey information about this topic? The fair use claims may demand examination at the proper venue, but DRV ain't it. "Copyvio" has yet to be determined, and a fair-use claim here seems to satisfy all 10 criteria. –xenotalk 01:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to FfD. I can accept a good faith IAR decision to delete, but it's clearly contested now by a range of editors, reasons presented for deletion above are clearly contested as well, so it needs a consensus (and that was actually to be expected). In an FfD, I can see myself following Mkativerata argument that Wikipedia is a better place without it, even though the NFC would certainly allow it. Nonetheless, this is not the place to find such consensus. Amalthea 01:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist at FfD. I cast this vote with reluctance, as I firmly agree that this image should be deleted on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a shock site, and that this non-free image does not significantly enhance reader understanding of the topic. The text of the Goatse.cx article conveys what the image shows perfectly well, so we really ought not include this just for the sake of including it.

    However, Prodego deleted this image out of process, when (a) no speedy deletion criteria applied, (b) there was no consensus for deletion established, and (c) the image's inclusion was the subject of hot debate in a MedCab case. WP:IAR should not have been invoked in such controversial circumstances, even if the MedCab case had stalled out for a week or more. While I agree with Prodego's motives and respect his boldness in approaching the problem, it was unacceptable for him to delete under those circumstances without consensus at FfD. (Indeed, the image has been kept at past FfDs, making this deletion even less proper. Is the image a copyvio? That's not a matter for DRV, but a discussion elsewhere can establish consensus on that question.)

    I propose, therefore, to overturn the deletion and immediately relist at FfD. Due to the size of this controversy, it would be best to have a high-participation FfD to consider questions of WP:NFCC compliance and other issues. This FfD should be advertised on the article talk page, at WP:VPM, WT:WikiProject Internet culture, WT:WikiProject Pornography, and WT:WikiProject Websites. If the image is kept at FfD, I encourage those involved in the MedCab case to revive their discussion. if the image is deleted, perhaps that case should be closed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict × 5)Weak/Procedural Overturn Quite honestly, although I agree with the deletion (from what I've seen/heard) there isn't adequate concensus that this was the correct move. Suggest image be undeleted, then immediately be sent to FFD. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 01:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn You can't ignore previous consensus through IAR without extremely valid justification. The issues with this image were already debated and there was no consensus to delete the image. A relisting at FfD would be the proper way to delete this image. ThemFromSpace 01:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - While I have sympathy with those who prefer that objectionable images should be used with great discretion, and my own concerns about opening the floodgates to those kinds of photos, I believe in this case, because of the internet actions connected with the image, it should be restored, and use of it controlled through the restriction list. The deletion was clearly out of process, which is hardly even disputed (higher standards being claimed to justify the action), so there is plenty of reason to overturn. I think we cause more damage to ourselves by these disputes, then we will suffer by having the image in stock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as failing requirements for fair use. Risker explained it well; and may I add, the article is about goatse.cx, while this image is of goatse.fr, a semi-mirror which isn't even exactly the same as the original, making the fair use justification even more dubious. Fran Rogers❇ 03:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an argument I would give due consideration to at FFD, but this was not the reason for the original deletion. As such, your vote really ought read "Keep deleted on other grounds" rather than Endorse (and this goes for a good deal of the endorsers above) - because Prodego did not delete on invalid fair-use grounds. –xenotalk 13:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, when the image is restored, I believe the main article should be renamed simply "goatse", as the subject matter and notoriety thereof centers around the image, not on the literal website. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the .fr mirror is not good enough, we can always use the Internet Archive as a source for the screenshot. Remco47 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn This is not the venue for arguing whether or not this is acceptable fair use. The community was not convinced of that argument at the last in process deletion discussion. If necessary, IfD it again. There's no compelling policy reason for Prodego's action. Nor is there any compelling policy reason to keep the image deleted. We have policies for a reason. One major one is that so we can amicably resolve disputes or major disagreements in the community. Out of process deletions just further fan flames. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as Risker states, this would seem to run afoul of NFCC#1. Also, while I agree there's NOTCENSORED to consider, I don't think is really a censorship issue. If someone were to go to vulva for instance, one would assume that the viewer wouldn't be surprised by finding pictures of vulvas there. The same doesn't necessarily hold here, since I would think the average reader would want to know "why is this site shocking?". That's a question that can be answered with words and links, without a need for non-free images. -- Bfigura (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would someone think that Vulva had pictures of a gaping vulva? Also: any question can be answered with words and links. That does not mean every non-free image fails NFCC #1. Remco47 (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image was not deleted per NFCC.1; as DRV deals with procedure, the fact that it may or may not fail NFCC.1 is irrelevant to overturning Prodego's deletion. Sometimes it is okay to use DRV to circumvent a future XfD, such as when the result of such an XfD is a foregone conclusion, but I think to do so in this case is not acceptable. It ought to be restored and sent to FfD if someone wishes, so that the NFCC.1 issue may be discussed at FfD, where it should be, rather than at DRV. (As a side note about NFCC.1, this is one of the few cases in which the image itself is iconic; as such, it is not replaceable by text.) ÷seresin 18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. Deleted while discussion was on going. Also, unless its determined that this image's Fair use rationale is invalid there is no reason do delete it. Acer (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Deleted against consensus. Take it to IfD if you want to reexamine consensus. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and restore It had survived a IfD, we don't delete images just because they are offensive. The application of NCFF#1 is argueable and many are opposing it (there was even a RfC on removing the image that included discussion of NFCC#1. You couldn't use NFCC#1 as a speedy deletion rationale because it's not a clear-cut case and if had been argued in the RfC and the IfD, and in both cases the image had stayed. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Notcensored doesn't have to mean needlessly disgusting for the same of arguing that we are not censored. Spartaz Humbug! 13:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But I do think it does mean that "disgusting" shouldn't be the main reason to delete. I think we all would agree that we wouldn't be having this debate if it weren't disgusting--the arguments to keep it are pretty strong (the iconic image of a notable website). It NOTCENSORED doesn't protect this (assuming we agree it is an otherwise ligit image), what does it protect? Hobit (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The phrase I used was needlessly disgusting. NOTCENSORED should be an argument for retaining encyclopaedic content not being vile for the sake of being vile. Last time I looked, our aim was to be educational and I think there has to be a compelling educational argument for the use of an image like this. Some things can only be demonstrated by an image but this isn't one of them and retaining this is really nothing more then doing it because we can, not because we have to use this non-free and improperly licensed image to demonstrate something that words alone cannot convey. Spartaz Humbug! 18:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The image is non-free, but not improperly licensed. Fair use is easily satisfied in a case of an iconic image. Remco47 (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm using licensed in the wrong way. What I mean is that we don't actually know who the license belongs to and what the proper license actually should be. I hope this clarification is useful. Spartaz Humbug! 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • In case you were confused, Deletion Review is not XfD Round Two. This is purely a discussion on the propriety of an administrator ignoring both a prior XfD and an ongoing mediation case, summarily deleting an image not because of non-free policy, but because of personal opinion that it was "egregiously unencyclopedic". Tarc (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you so much for explaining the purpose of DRV to me. I must confess after being a regular here since before BDJ quit that the purpose of this page and the rules of engagement had completely escaped me. Or maybe not, and you just disgaree with the view that I chose to express. I'm clearly too stupid to understand what I'm supposed to say here so you decide what it is. Spartaz Humbug! 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Apparently they have escaped you, and several others, as we see some arguing about why the image should be kept or deleted, and not about reviewing the deleting administrator's actions. But hey, it's your time to waste. Tarc (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • "NOTCENSORED should be an argument for retaining encyclopaedic content ... there has to be a compelling educational argument for the use of an image like this." At least two prior discussions (an FFD discussion and an RfC) came to the conclusion that the use of this image in the context of the article was encyclopaedic and thus educational. There was an ongoing mediation over whether the use of the image was appropriate. Yet despite this one administrator took it upon themselves to speedy delete the image outside of process because they personally didn't think it encyclopaedic (despite consensus saying it is). Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is there a reason I am being badgered so firmly here? Perhaps its just because its the last vote. I'm entitled to express my view whether you agree with it or not. The closing admin will, I'm sure do a bit better then counting heads and will be more then capable of evaluating the weight they choose to give my argument. But then I could be wrong because I clearly have no understanding of how DRV works, am making the wrong argument and wasting my time. Spartaz Humbug! 19:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment <ec> Assuming, for the moment, that this image would be kept were it not disgusting, should it be deleted because it is disgusting? I claim that NOTCENSORED says "no". The bar for keeping this image should be no higher or lower because it is (highly) disgusting. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with that. Whether the image is "disgusting" (a highly subjective quality) or not should be completely irrelevant in determining it's encyclopaedicness. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said disgusting. I said needlessly disgusting. There is a big difference and if you are to challenge what I say, at least do me the courtesy of actually responding to what I said. Spartaz Humbug! 14:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I intentionally de-indented and reworded after the edit conflict in an attempt to address what I saw as the basic reason Risker et al were arguing to delete. Further, I'm saying that if it weren't gross we'd keep it then we should keep it--gross or disgusting whatever shouldn't matter at all. I claim that's exactly what WP:NOTCENSORED says. Hobit (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Motion to close for the sake of expedience / convenience break
  • Overturn It's quite clear that the deleting admin had personal objections to the image as well as some other problems with it. However, IFD already returned a keep and in deleting it, this action seems as if the admin did not like what the community returned, so he deleted it himself as if he were superior in judgement, a bad case of adminitis. Regardless of the picture's merits, this deletion was clearly out of line for such a decidedly not noncontroversial issue. I would like to motion for an uninvolved admin to bring this to a close and restore the image.--Ipatrol (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to second this motion to close. It's obvious this needs to go to WP:FFD, because any attempt at a final decision here is going to be hotly challenged anyway. No point standing around continuing to kick dirt on eachother. Someone restore the image, and let's get on with it. For those who like counting heads, it's 48-24 in favour of overturning/undeleting with a good number of the endorsers admitting that the deletion was at least somewhat out of process. –xenotalk 05:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this can be closed now - the activity on this DRV has died and there's a clear consensus to overturn. I must say though that "no consensus default to no anus" has some appeal! --Mkativerata (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Spartaz has quite rightly pointed out that DRVs should remain open for seven days. I didn't know that. Those of us who argue process should have been followed here can't turn around and ask for an early closure of this hotly contested DRV. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The DRV never should have occured in the first place, the deletion being so clearly out of process. Swift consensus to overturn should have been obtained at ANI, the image restored, and sent on to FFD. For whatever reason, Durova felt the need to stifle closed the ANI discussion and bring it here where the result was a foregone conclusion from the start. This image should be discussed on its merits (or lack thereof), and untangled from the discussion of Prodego's unilateral act. –xenotalk 13:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record I raised this motion at AN and it was declined by User:Shereth [4]. –xenotalk 14:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Xeno has no excuse for presuming to speak on my behalf in any way. Please do not put words in my mouth again. Durova412 22:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Durova412 23:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the result - Wikipedia shouldn't aspire to be 4chan. No, the proper deletion process was not followed, but the other processes in play right now seem to have stalled. This isn't the best way of breaking the deadlock, but I approve of the end result. It shouldn't be this hard to get images of distended anuses removed from mainspace. I blame Obama. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • They've stalled because they lack consensus. On the hopefully off-chance that this DrV gets closed as "endorse" do you seriously believe that bypassing consensus like this will have been a net win for this encyclopedia? Should admins take action when they don't have consensus in the hope that DrV will endorse that action? I'd think that way would lie chaos. I don't see a good reason not to follow process and let this be discussed at FfD rather than DrV when we all agree process was not followed (which is what DrV is supposed to be figuring out). Hobit (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • They lack consensus to either keep or remove the image, with no end in sight. Same discussions, over and over. In the event of a split decision, it's my personal belief that Wikipedia should generally default to "no anuses". Speaking strictly of the deletion action itself, I don't agree with it and it's hopefully not an example to be followed, but I think it serves this particular situation. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your default plan amused me. :-) That said, we only delete things if there is consensus to do so. Lacking that... Hobit (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sometimes, I find doing the right thing in the wrong way is the only way to get anything done. Fundamentally policies, guidelines, and processes are established ways of doing things to help the project. They aren't perfect, and they don't always work. If there is a way to have a net positive impact, don't let process stand in your way. You shouldn't ignore process for no reason - but when you can see that has become bogged down with little hope of a productive outcome, then perhaps just doing something is a better way to resolve the problem. I try only to take those sorts of actions when I believe I am Right™. I've been around a fair amount of time, and usually I'm correct. Sometimes I'm not. But either way something more is accomplished than if we had endlessly argued about it. I respect the opinion to endorse the deletion, and I respect the opinion that the deletion was out of process (it was) and that the image should stay. I do not respect the opinion the image should be deleted, but that it should be restored for an IfD. Process is a tool for getting something done, either the image should be deleted, or not, it doesn't matter how it happened. Prodego talk 06:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I find that doing the right thing(tm) in the wrong way leads to a bad place. At best you piss people off because you ignore process and trample on them (actual people who don't think you are so right that you get to be special) to get that right thing done. At the worst you really screw it up. There is no need for this discussion to be here rather than at FfD, where it belongs. In any case, at the end of the day, all this does is prolong the discussion, not shorten it. Hobit (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's very sad if with so many participants we can't even get a clear consensus here that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I am aware that this is not only because so many believe that, yes, Wikipedia is a shock site, but mostly because of the large number of people who believe that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy. Still, it's very sad.

I wonder if there is any way to get rid of the bureaucrats and 4chaners and just restart the project with the encyclopedists. With flagged revisions, of course, so that we don't need the silly warrior caste. But obviously this would require Foundation action, so it's not going to happen before the problem gets even more pressing. Hans Adler 07:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • DRVs get closed after 7 days unless there is a compelling reasons and I'm not seeing a compelling anything here. Spartaz Humbug! 07:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think (well, I hope) we all agree it's an encyclopedia. Some of us just want broader coverage. Others want to recreate the World Book Encyclopedia. I don't understand why, given all we can be, that people are so interested in recreating something you can buy for a few hundred dollars, but people do odd things. :-) Hobit (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with deletion. We should not be hosting sexually explicit images without the model's consent. While I guess that the subject consented to have that image displayed on a shock site, I am not so convinced he would consent to have it displayed on one of the most widely viewed websites on the internet. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, per WP:IAR. --Conti|✉ 10:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't close this early even though in the face of such blatant misuse of administrator tools it should be closed and the image restored now. But early closes just cause histrionics and hissy fits all around, so there'll be less overall eDrama if we just let this linger til the 29th. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience break 2
  • Comment: Whether or not this image passes NFCC#1 (which it pretty clearly does not, in my opinion), there has been a long, consensus-backed history for excluding this particular image from Wikipedia. In 2005, a vote was held on the article talk page that overwhelmingly supported using an external link to the image rather than including it inline. Subsequent uploads of the image were generally treated as CSD G4 (re-uploads of deleted content) or CSD G3 (vandalism), for example File:G4tv.jpg, File:Goatse.jpg, File:Hello.jpg, and File:Goatse.png. The system administrators went as far as to ban this particular image from being uploaded at the server level (grep "UploadBlacklist" here). Until very recently, it has been unequivocal that this image was not appropriate for Wikipedia. Past deletion discussions and deletion reviews, such as Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 15, have strongly supported not including this image on Wikipedia. In that particular case, the Community was faced with a nearly identical situation (a speedy deletion followed by a Deletion review) and the Deletion review strongly upheld the speedy deletion. Even joke depictions of Goatse, like File:Goatse.gif, File:Times goatse.JPG, and File:Goatse.JPG have all been deleted. Any administrator who deletes this image (speedily or not) does so with consensus on their side. While consensus can change, there's been no evidence to suggest that it has. The past discussions have all pointed in the same direction. I don't see any reason for this discussion to point elsewhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm -interesting. How did it sneak back in? –xenotalk 15:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The current consensus seems to be no consensus. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that many of those past versions of this image were uploaded purely for vandalism uses. I think that the discussion of the usage of this image in this specific article should be left untainted (pun mildly unintended) by past transgressions. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A three-week discussion on the talk page last July came to the result that the image could be used in the context as a screenshot of a website, hidden by default using the excuse of it being standard practice on other website articles. The image was unhidden for the same reason (as most website articles had unhidden screenshots) last October. Between July and October, there were no objections on the talk page to its use in the article (as it was hide-on-default); most of the objections have come since it was unhidden. When it was deleted by Master of Puppets (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) last October for fair-use concerns, he undeleted as he recognized that there was a consensus for use in some way. The addition of the image also reflects a recent willingness to apply NOTCENSORED to the fringey sex articles, most notably Autofellatio. Sceptre (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This DRV seems in favour of the image (atleast on the grounds of it being deleted wrongly in the first place) 2-to-1. raseaCtalk to me 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse Deletionand salt the sonofabitch while your at it !: This image is not free and is cannot be licensed as there's no proper attribution, a lot of sites say they own that image. That criteria alone excludes it from wikipedia. Second, it's not encyclopedic by any means. I heartily endorse deletion based on WP:IAR. by the way, to the guy that suggested taking a picture of yer own ass: I'd do it, but the lens on my camera is no where near wide enough for that :P KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Attribution is clear - goatse.cx via goatse.fr. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note - I have found and sent a message to the person whose anus we all know and love, seeing if he would be willing to license the image under a compatible license, to eliminate the NFCC concerns. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm now completely confused as to what the intent of this Deletion Review is. I have already called to overturn the decision based on procedural grounds, but now it seems that the discussion has officially moved to matters of content. So now I will call to overturn again, but now on the basis of content:
Argument 1: I believe the image passes NFCC, because it has an extensive and precise fair use rationale, and it is an iconic screenshot related to the subject.
Argument 2: The image has value, exactly because it is an iconic image. It tells you in a microsecond exactly what the nature and extent of the phenomenon is.
Argument 3: I don't believe the issue of offensiveness should have any effect on our decisions.
Conclusion: These three arguments combined constitute for me an undeniable reason for the image to be reinstated. It does not fail NFCC, it does have value, and offensiveness should not enter into it. Remco47 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some folks are trying to turn this into a de novo review of the image. The closing administrator will surely dismiss these positions as malplaced. –xenotalk 18:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reply to the edit summaries (see history, for those who have now lost all comprehension of this DRV):

  • Since this page tries to tackle two issues at once, I think all should have the opportunity to state their stance on each of the issues. Some administrators have already expressed the view that in light of WP:IAR, apparent consensus around content should be taken into account. This is biased towards deletion, since most of the overturn arguments are based around procedure, while literally every endorse argument is based on the content. Remco47 (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not rely on anyone's any preconceptions about what an IfD would decide on this--my own is that it would end as non-consensus. S But there's essentially complete consensus here that this particular way of doing it was wrong. But the opinion of an admin on whether it ought ultimately to be deleted is worth no more than anybody else's. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, it certainly is worth the time to discuss whether the image is worthy of inclusion. if we decide the image should be deleted anyway, there is no sense in resurrecting it. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on that, actually. As can be seen here, what we have is some editors arguing that circles are better than squares, and others arguing that zebras are tastier than llamas. In other words, people thing they're on opposing "sides" when in reality they're discussing two completely unrelated things. So, we're better off keeping DRV about process and XFD about appropriateness. The WordsmithCommunicate 23:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm... that smacks of a 'foot in the door' argument - i.e. "We had the image in, and there's a serious chance we might not be able to get the image back in if we allow it to be deleted, so we must find some technical grounds to prevent it from being deleted." Great tactic if you're selling encyclopedias, not so good if you're writing them. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so please don't try to justify content decisions with a "them's the rules" argument. --Ludwigs2 03:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that this DRV consists of two separate discussions?
Do you agree that many editors have participated in one discussion but not the other, and vice versa?
Do you agree that this makes it very difficult to establish consensus for either of these discussions at all?
Do you agree that splitting these discussions up according to procedures, would make it easier to establish consensus for both discussions? Remco47 (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. The two are inextricably interlinked. The quantity of discussion on the procedural issue is prompted by the content of the image (an image which seems to have obsessed Wikipedians one way or another for some five years); and the breach of procedure was prompted by the impossibility of gaining consensus on the content. Endorse by the way, because only children (or perhaps very sheltered adults) would need to see the image to understand the article: the motivation for supporting inclusion of the image seems to be an abstract insistence that Wikipedia censor nothing, no matter how offensive; its value is an icon for that argument, but it has no value to the article or encyclopedic value at all.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
yes KD, you're right. and reinstating the image on procedural grounds is going to do nothing to solve the problem implicit in the image itself, so we might as well ignore the procedural issue and get down to the real debate. --Ludwigs2 02:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that 'the real debate' is not happening right now, and that the procedural debate is distracting from it? In that case, do you see the problem of having two discussions at once? There is a 2:1 ratio of people who want to overturn. But we don't know whether it is on procedural grounds, or on content grounds, or both. We can not predict how the consensus would turn out if we would start the real debate. Remco47 (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remco: I've been stuck in mediation over this for a long time now, so I've lost all sympathy with procedural arguments. The fact is, as long as this image is on wikipedia, advocates for it's inclusion will not discuss the matter, and they will not listen to any argument about removing it. The will simply turn to NOT#CENSORED and IDONTLIKEIT and other procedural grounds to wiki-lawyer all arguments away. That is what they have done for the entire time that I've been trying to discuss the issue, and (as I understand it) for a very long time before. screw that. the image is deleted: they now have an incentive to engage in discussion and to make some argument about how it he image improves wikipedia as an encyclopedia. If they do so convincingly, so that there is a consensus that the image is needed, then (and only then) should the deletion be overturned. otherwise we will just be back to the same old wiki-lawyering advocacy that that this image has always had. --Ludwigs2 13:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem at this point, is that there is no idea what the next step would be if this action was endorsed. There is no venue for discussion of an image that doesn't exist yet. There is no "Image for Upload". In case of of an "endorse" outcome, the only thing you could do is just be bold and upload the image again, and then everything that happened before, will happen again. So, that's probably why the overturners find procedure to be important: there is no next step. If this action is overturned, then you can be sure there will be an IfD immediately following that. And that will definitely have the same participation as this DRV has had, hopefully without the procedural noise. Remco47 (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct at all. The next step (if proponents choose to make it) would be to go back to the article talk page and start a new thread (or an RfC, if they like) saying that they want to include such-and-such an image on the page, and presenting a set of reasons why they think the image would be useful. Then we could examine their reasons for wanting to use the image, discuss the matter, and if the consensus is that we do want to use the image, it can be re-uploaded with an explanation that consensus has been reached on its use. read wp:BURO - policy exists to supplement consensus; policy is not there to supplant consensus. --Ludwigs2 13:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, seems reasonable. So, this DRV will decide whether we'll go to IfD or Talk to continue the debate. Remco47 (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


21 March 2010

[edit]
  • Bellingham Bells – That's ridiculous. No way was that a valid NAC speedy close so I have reverted the close and reopened the AFD. Please feel free to vote but don't stifle discussion. I am not currently an admin but I believe this NAC is defensible and shortcuts an unnecessary debate before doing the right thing, which is to allow the discussion to continue – Spartaz Humbug! 18:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bellingham Bells (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Poor NAC closure based on the quality of the argument and appropriateness of using AFD for discussing a redirect (versus deletion). The argument of "there are no delete !votes" is specious, since it was only open for under four hours. tedder (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was the non-admin who closed the discussion. I believe that the nominator made a poor decision in bringing the article to AfD. They preferred a redirect as opposed to deletion, but had failed to start a dialogue on the articles talkpage (the article had no talkpage at the time of closing) to explore this outcome and find a consensus. Discussions on talkpages are better because they give more chance for interested parties to comment rather than the 7 days of an AfD. With all this in mind, and with nobody else advocating deletion, I closed the debate as speedy keep. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closing it early, rather than commenting on the talkpage decision, is a pretty pointy thing to do, especially for a non-admin closure. Further, the first criteria of WP:SK#Applicability was not fully met. Finally, redirection is a proper outcome for an AFD, not just by !voters, but also by the nominator. tedder (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It surprises me that an admin did not choose to follow process properly and open up a talkpage or use mergeto/mergefrom tags, but thats moot. No more to say from me really, it's all in my first comment. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Living anarchists (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In general "Living xyz" categories are useless however most people who are important enough to anarchist thought to have a page are dead. It serves a real purpose to be able to locate people who can actually comment on current affairs. The last discussion was also closed by a sock puppet account. 66.21.143.7 (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. There was a clear consensus to delete. I'm convinced to relist. This is not solely for the reason that the closer was a sock: I don't think it is prudent to undo administrative actions for the sole reason that they are performed by a sock. There is nothing to suggest improper motives here by the nominator or the (sock)closer. However, the sock's involvement, combined with the improper non-admin closure and subsequent deletion by the nominator were so far outside proper practice that we ought to render the close invalid. This is particularly given the thinness of the discussion at the CfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There wasn't that much of a discussion on it, all that was said was "we don't create living xx categories" without much discussion of whether or not, in this specific case, one is actually useful and noncluttering (which is the only motivation I can think of to oppose the creation of the category). As far as my mentioning of the socket puppet, it was only to bring up the fact that we had two comments going back and forth exchanging generic statements and then the category was deleted by someone who obviously didn't care to follow any reasonable process. --66.21.143.78 (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist because of involvement by the sockpuppet--better to dissuss it at CfD than here. DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment As far as I can tell, none of the other users who commented in the discussion were sockpuppets, there were no procedural errors, the debate wasn't closed early and the closure was not against consensus. Why is more discussion needed? Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment More discussion would be productive because the category was treated as a usual case scenario, and usually, "Living xyz" categories are useless categorizations. However, "living anarchists" is different since most of the people important enough to anarchism to have a wikipedia page are dead. So "Living Anarchists" serves a valuable end-user purpose. "Dead Anarchists" would be an example of the kind of category that I think the consensus was originally decided on. The discussion seems (to me at least) editors going through "the motions" of a deletion. --66.21.143.78 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – as the cfd was a unanimous delete it is difficult to fault the close. (And it is the case that we don't divide any people categories into living/dead. Anarchists in particular should object to being organised in any way.) Occuli (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for further discussion at CfD. I see three problems here. First, the discussion was closed by a non-admin, Erik9, even though the close would require administrator action. This runs directly counter to the advice at WP:NAC#Inappropriate closures. Second, Erik9 turned out to be a sockpuppet of banned user, John254. Wikipedia banning policy says that this renders his actions invalid: "Users are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other users. A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing 'unless they behave'." Third and finally, the actual deletion was performed by Good Ol'factory, the CfD nominator, who certainly was not uninvolved. Even if the debate could not have been closed any other way, these three issues make the deletion seem rather improper.

    As far as the debate goes, it consisted of Good Ol'factory's nomination (by the way, I agree with his reasoning) and two WP:PERNOM votes. Surely it cannot hurt to relist for a more thorough discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I deleted it pursuant to the close, so by that time my status as nominator was irrelevant. Since the closer was a non-admin, he couldn't delete it. I'm not positive that the closer asked me to do it, but he may have. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist closed by a banned sockpuppet and deleted by the nominator - don't really see that there's much more to say. Guest9999 (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That it was the nominator who did the deletion is irrelevant, given that they did it after it had been determined after a proper discussion that consensus was to delete the image. Thryduulf (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Before deleting a page an admin should fully consider all the different factors involved. If there has been a deletion discussion then they should be able to objectively and neutrally consider its content. I assume that the nominator/deleter in question did not just blindly follow the close made by someone who had not been given the community's authority to make it without at least glancing at the discussion itself - something they could not have done with complete impartiality. Guest9999 (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The discussion was unanimous' - what possible bias could anybody impart on that? Also, the deletion happened 7 and a half hours after the discussion was closed. During that 7 hour period other discussions on the page were closed individually, producing lots of hits on watchlists. All the other users and administrators who viewed that page during those 7.5 hours had ample opportunity to dispute the close before the page was deleted. Nobody did so, by implication agreeing that a discussion that was unanimously in favour of deletion was correctly closed as "delete". Equally, it has taken over 10 months since the close, and just under 5 months since Erik9 was blocked (that anniversary is today) for anyone to raise this issue here. None of this is indicative of any great problem with the outcome of the deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would you agree that there are probably good reasons behind the following general practises:
  1. Non-admins should not close discussions when admin tools are required to carry out the result.
  2. Sockpuppets of banned users should not close deletion discussions.
  3. Pages should not be deleted by the user who nominated them for deletion.
Personally I think that there are and when a discussion goes against all three I think it is worth going to the relatively minor inconvenience of relisting it in order to retain the integrity of the process itself. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but I think that in this case the process was so abused and misused that now it has been brought up for review it cannot be endorsed however rational the outcome might seem. Guest9999 (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In the case of unanimous and other blatantly obvious results (as for example this case), then no I don't agree. Judgement in cases where the result is not blatantly obvious either way should be left to administrators, but that isn't relevant to this case.
  2. Banned users should not be editing Wikipedia. However, when they do this does not mean that every edit they make is bad, and closing a discussion unanimously in favour of deletion as "delete" is hardly (a) controversial or (b) incorrect. The only extra thing that needs to be said about sockpuppets (leigtamte or otherwise and regardless of who the sockpuppeteer is) is that they must not be used to make more than one recommendation in a deletion discussion (which in this case they did not), nor should they be used to close a discussion in which another member of the family has commented (which in this case they did not). In this case therefore, it is not relevant that the user was banned - the decision was the only possible one. Remember that it was not known that Erik9 was a sockpuppet for another 5 months, so we cannot expect anyone around at the time to be aware he was banned.
  3. As for point 3, once a deletion discussion has been closed as delete, and a reasonable time has been allowed for others to do it or the closure to be reverted (I consider 7.5 hours more than reasonable in this regard), then it really doesn't matter who pushes the button. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The discussion was unanimous to delete. Had I been around that day, I'd have closed it the same way. In fact, if people are upset because Erik9 closed it, I'd be happy to sign my name on the close. --Kbdank71 00:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too would be happy to attach my name to that close, and the subsequent deletion, if it would make others happy. Thryduulf (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I. Endorse as the outcome was clear, indeed inevitable given the general reaction to "Category:Living foos". "Living foos" / "Dead foos" is not a category set that has historically found any support at CFD except in the rarest of cases, which would explain why the debate itself attracted little participation. So, what's to stop this? The criticisms of the process of closure are points of technicality rather than ones with actual merit here. The category would have been deleted correctly whoever closed the discussion and whoever thereafter pushed the button. Relisting would be a triumph for process over results. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, after all. BencherliteTalk 08:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist There are enough issues to make one believe that another discussion might be useful. Hobit (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only issues are completely irrelevant ones - the discussion was unanimous, based on sound reasoning and could not have been closed any other way, regardless of who closed it. When a discussion is closed in favour of deleting the page under discussion, it really doesn't matter two hoots who pushes the button. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm perhaps too big of a fan of policy, but I think Guest9999 has it right, when the process has been bent this badly it's worth the relatively small amount of time to do it right. Hobit (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm a big fan of policy too, but not to the extent of pointlessly rehashing something where the outcome is obvious. See my response above for the reasons why I feel that in this case that the wrong people doing the right thing is not really doesn't matter too much. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Probably not, and if no one had raised the issue I'd favor just leaving it be. But someone does care and process was really quite broken, so in the interest of fairness I see no reason not to allow a new discussion. It's a reasonable request. Hobit (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Process for process' sake is unhelpful. I would sign my name to that close if someone wished. NW (Talk) 10:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. In the abstract, the discussion was closed properly, even though it was closed by a user who we wished hadn't closed it. Relisting would be empty formalism. It is quite normal for consensus to agree that categories that subdivide people into explicitly living and dead categories should be deleted, so I doubt consensus would change even if it were relisted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Manzie Johnson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Illegitimate A7 deletion. Article plainly stated that this jazz musician played with a host of luminaries, easily meeting notability guidelines; a reliable source was cited; the artist appears on WP:MET (indicating he has an article in the New Grove Encyclopedia of Jazz); and he's been dead for over thirty years. Please Restore. Chubbles (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Chubbles (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Otheruses3 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) (TfD) (RfD)

The typing of Otheruses3 will actually confuse people. The redirect is also confusing. 174.3.98.20 (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not sure if this DRV is meant to appeal the RFD for the redirect, or the TFD that led to it being redirected, or both. If it concerns the TFD, which I closed, I would point out that redirection was endorsed as either the preference or the acceptable second choice of all the editors who commented (other than the nom). It was also supported with sound arguments. With both numbers and argumentative weight, the consensus seemed very clear. If it concerns the RFD, which another admin closed, given that the RFD was opened just two days after the TFD was closed, a speedy keep at RFD seems entirely justified. And for what it is worth, the admin who closed the RFD has correctly interpreted the meaning of my close of the TFD. --RL0919 (talk) 05:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I speedily closed the RfD listing, which amounted to forum shopping—a second attempt to achieve the deletion that was decided against at TfD (with clear consensus to redirect). It also was based upon a misinterpretation of the TfD closer's statement (as confirmed by RL0919 above).
    Like RL0919, I don't know which closure 174.3.98.20 is contesting. His/her rationale refers to neither and appears to be based entirely upon the opinion that the redirect should be deleted (without any explanation of how it's "confusing"). —David Levy 06:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I disagree that it was forum shopping. I think the main idea of the TfD was "we don't need this template. Don't delete now because it's not orphan and probably some editors still use it". My experience says that otheruses3 is not actually used and names like that (with numbers) are confussing. Since, we both side are assuming based on own experiences, the best strategy is to wait and see who's gonna use it in the short future. I still believe there was no reason for speedy keep, we could wait 7 days to see what the people who proposed "delete or redirect" would say and that was a reason that I sent it for RfD. PS Just in case: I am not related iwth the anonoymous IP above. Personally, after the speedy close I was planning to sent it to RfD in some weeks after we have more data to judge. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus was to create a redirect instead of deleting. You then went to another forum almost immediately and proposed that the redirect be deleted, in part because you misinterpreted the closer's statement (regarding the likelihood that editors will continue to use the template) as a reference to the revision history. You made no mention of the TfD discussion that had just concluded. You noted that the redirect was an orphan in the article namespace, and you didn't disclose that this was because you'd just orphaned it with a bot.
    And to what end? Neither you nor 174.3.98.20 has explained how the redirect is "confusing." You've claimed that such redirects usually are deleted, which simply isn't accurate. When longstanding, widely used templates have their functionality merged into other templates (often enabled by code that didn't exist when the templates were created), the standard procedure is to redirect. You haven't explained what harm you believe this causes.
    You say that your "experience says that otheruses3 is not actually used," but you know perfectly well that it was used on more than 2,000 pages until you deployed a bot to orphan it (despite explicit feedback at TfD that this should not be done, along with a closure that rendered it inappropriate). You then listed the redirect at RfD without waiting to see whether it remained in use (though I personally consider this largely irrelevant, as the redirect is harmless and helpful if even one person uses it at some point in the distant future). —David Levy 15:37/15:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse TfD and RfD. I too am not entirely sure what this DRV is requesting, but I endorse both closures. Had I seen the answer to my clarification request before the RfD was speedily closed I would have recommended keeping it (I wasn't aware of the preceding TfD), both for the "non-trivial" edit history and for the fact that the otherusesN templates were around for a very long time before they were mostly tidied up (AIUI the advanced template syntax now used didn't exist when they were originally created). Over the years I've done a lot of tidying of hatnotes, and so I learned which otherusesN template I needed in various scenarios, and I would be surprised if I am alone in that. An outcome of redirect was clearly supported by consensus at the TfD and so nominating the resultant redirect for deletion a handful of days later is not really abiding by the spirit of that outcome. I've got no prejudice against a repeat nomination at RfD in a few months time when we can judge how much use the redirected template is getting and whether the edit history is worth keeping in some form or not, but 3 days is much too soon. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the TfD too but for the RfD instead of speedy close David Levy could just oppose my RfD writing the things he write abive instead of speedy closing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the issue was that the listing itself was inappropriate (for the reasons cited above). —David Levy 18:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both the TfD and RfD closures. During the TfD multiple editors specifically recommended against using a bot to orphan this, but it seems that one was run anyway. Bots are supposed to be used for tasks that are non-controversial or have consensus, this case doesn't seem to fit that description. DES (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jeffrey Waruch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I request userification. The conclusion of the {{afd}} was "The result of the debate was merge to Edward L. Richmond (Pfc) then delete." Well, the target of the merge was just nominated for deletion itself. One of the suggestions there is an article on the incident. I'd like to review the revision history of Jeffrey Waruch in order to have a more fully informed discussion of an article about "the incident". I request the full revision history be userified to User:Geo Swan/look/Jeffrey Waruch. Geo Swan (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tham Fook Cheong (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hey there =) First of all, I would like to thank you all for all your sincere contributions to wikipedia. About the deletation of Master Tham Fook Cheong, I hope you can re-investigate his information. I am from Malaysia and I had heard about Master Tham for a very long time. He was really famous and had received a Medal of honor by the Sultan of Perak (King Azlan Shah) for his contributions. He deserves to be in wikipedia to be recognize as he had fulfilled the Requirements of WP:BIO. By the way, i had read the deletation log's discussion and found out that there are some wrong researches. i just searched through Master Tham's website and there are a lot of facts and he did not sell snake oil as described by Philip. I think he mixed up Master Stanley tham frm Singapore with Master Stanley Tham Fook Cheong from Malaysia. Master Stanley Tham Fook Cheong frm Malaysia had a lot of proven records and testimonials. there are also a lot of news that had proven he is famous in Malaysia. That's a support to the first point-Notable People In Malaysia and is the reason he qualifies for a page in Wikipedia like other notable people. I had also read about the Purpose of advertsing. He was already famous and had appeared in numerous interviews and television programmes and it don't seemed as he tried to advertise here. I really hope you can revive Master Tham's page. Thank You for your kind attention 60.48.245.64 (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse unless significant new sources can be put forward (preferably in a userspace draft). The last proper AfD for this was in 2008. There was a reasonably fulsome discussion of the subject's coverage in sources there, the consensus being that the coverage was insufficient. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse unless new sources are found and provided, as per Mkativerata. If the OP really thinks that a proper articel can be written to show notability, I strongly urge creating a userspace draft, and asking for feedback when it is ready. Published reliable sources will surely be needed tio make a valid article. DES (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse The nomination is basically by assertion and a decent userspace draft backed up by multiple reliable sources is the way forward with this article. Spartaz Humbug! 18:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Limb salvage surgery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Gregorian mass (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Mass card (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hello, about 6 months ago I made 2 pages and improved 1, all of these pages I accidently copied and pasted copyrighted information. When I went to create and improve the pages I didn't really give much thought to using the copyrighted data. I've fixed the pages as much the best I could without violating or using any of the copyrighted information. I tried replacing the copyrighted information with information that I already knew. I think that since the articles have very little value, I think it would be best if you could please delete them. User:BennyK95 March 18, 2010, 19:39 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue. You need to go to WP:AFD. DRV is used when someone is challenging the results of a deltion discussion and since that is not the case here there is nothing that can be done here.--76.66.189.193 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used some copyrighted information (without thinking) on Gregorian mass and Limb salvage. Since Limb salvage has no encyclopedic value (if you try looking them up in a search engine there isn't much information regarding it) I believe since this article contains copyrighted information, please delete it or have someone revise it with information from a different source.

With regards to Gregorian Mass: I think since Wikipedia is not a Catholic encyclopedia and some of the information that I tried to make it look better is still copyrighted, maybe delete the article. I could revise Gregorian mass and get permission to use the information on the page. I think for the mean-time I will put an under-construction template so people will come back later when we have decided what to do.User:BennyK95 March 19 16:19 2010 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do with Gregorian mass might be to delete it. If people are looking for information regarding this, I think the best place to look would be on the internet.

- BennyK95 - Talk 17:06 March 19 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Gregorian mass this seems a notable topic and reliable sources are available this version does not appear to include any copyvio text, insofar as I can tell. The article has since that version been redirected, but i think I will revert the redirection and expand with content from other sources. That should also deal with any copyvio issues. DES (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Mass card currently redirects to Holy card. If these are in fact the same thing, having a single article would be better, but the info on the Irish controversy (rewritten to avoid copyvio) should probably be merged. DES (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorian mass does have on line that is considered copyvio. So if I can remove that one line then you can restore it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyK95 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. 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:JJAudubon.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hi! I am reviewing this image at Commons, where it lacks information about source. It only says "{PD-old} from en wiki John James Audubon" [5]. FTR, deletion log here says

  • 23:34, 12 November 2007 Maxim (talk | contribs) deleted "File:JJAudubon.JPG" ‎ (Deleted because "CSD I8 - Image has the same name on Wikimedia Commons".

I don't need to restore the en: page, what I ask for is that you tell me if there were more information on the en: page than there is currently on commons: one, in order to complete the latter.

Thanks for your help. --ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Upload log on en: would be valuable information. --ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 March 2010

[edit]

16 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gallery of sovereign-state flags (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

EVERY !vote was based upon WP:ILIKEIT or "Others do it" (but ""commons crashes computers!"" was a cute reason too). WP is not the place for a Pretty Picture Gallery, Commons is. Just because WP can do it, does not mean it should. WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Forgive me, "aware of WP:NOTREPOSITORY and made considered arguments" ??? One person said that the caption "Flagg of XXXXX" was enough encyclopedic content, and another said NOTREPOSITORY needed to be rewritten? Not very weighty arguments to keep IMO. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 06:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The consensus was clear in this case. The nominator made a credible claim based on the image use policy, but a significant number of editors weighed in to disagree based on the strong precedent of encyclopedias having this type of content. Moreover, as to the nominator's argument that the content belongs on Commons, the images themselves are hosted there already. The only policy referenced by those in favor of keeping was WP:IAR, and although it was only referred to by a single editor, there appears to have been strong consensus to keep the article on those grounds alone. IAR specifically exists to allow us to set aside rules when we agree (achieve consensus) that the policies are preventing us from building an encyclopedia, and in this case the gallery of flags very closely mirrors the practice in paper encyclopedias, a fact with which virtually all participating editors agreed.--~TPW 23:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it would be intresting to have a count of the number of soft redirs to commons and which have the Pretty Pictures all on WP to see how true "virtually all participating editors agreed" is. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. What is all this "review" business about? As I understand this is simply the most prominent page from Category:Lists of flags - which is just one of many "lists" families we have. All lists help to organize information, and sometimes also provide some additional information about items listed. E.g. List of largest power stations in the world has links to Wikipedia articles about various stations, and also gives their location and capacity info; I suppose one could also add a photo of each station to each entry. A List of premiers of China lists, indeed, premiers, with their term in office dates, and gives a picture, whenever available. Now, the set of all current flags of de facto sovereign states is as natural list as any, and, compared to many other lists, has the advantage of being close-ended (only 200 or so states, and new ones don't appear often). And of course once we have a list like this, the most natural piece of information it ought to contain along with each link is the picture of the flag! Now, I am not saying that the list can't be improved by adding other info (e.g., since what year the flag is in effect, the aspect ratio, etc.), but deciding on what details of info should go into the list is an entirely different business from deciding to delete the list.
    Now, it is true that a list like this should exist on Commons as well (it does). But I think the gallery on commons should be modified so that each link there goes to to the appropriate Category on commons, rather than to an article in English (or any other language's) Wikipedia. Vmenkov (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a list with some context can help. I remember seeing on the Russian Wikipedia a page where they list the flag ratios for each national flag. We could do that here, along with adding a date of adoption. We should still link to each page here (each article has a Commons cat link). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be acceptable. But this page is not that, and has no intention of becomming that. It is a Gallery, not a List. It has no Encylopedic content. The argument that "Flag of XXXXXX" is encyclopedic content was put forth, but, IMO, does not wash. List of flags of Norway actually does have Prose and links to Articles other than "The Flag of <Insert Country>". A "Gallery of Flags", by its very topic, will never have Prose. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the argument is, "since it does not have any prose (beyond the links to flag articles and country articles), it is not a proper list?" While this is logical, and while I fully agree that some additional information on each flag, if concise enough (i.e., not hurting the layout), would be useful, I don't think it's an argument for deletion. First of all, I don't think that lists even have to have some "prose" at each item - there certainly are some that don't (e.g. Index of Eastern Christianity-related articles, List of people from Rome), or have very little (List of Biblical names, List of New Testament stories). Second, what is the most important information one would want to have for each flag in a list of flags? Why, it is of course the appearance of the flag! While is can be described in words, this information is certainly better conveyed by a picture (sometimes pretty, sometimes ugly, sometimes ho-hum - that depends on the flag designers...); so really, in this case - due to the specific nature of the matter being discussed - the pictures (and the "gallery" format) really serve as the information conveyance medium, just as prose would do in most other lists. This is not exceptional either, whenever Wikipedia discusses other visual of "spatial" topics. Besides the flag galleries, images play a core role in lists elsewhere; see e.g., such articles as List of U.S. state fish, List of U.S. state butterflies, List of uniform polyhedra, or list sections in such articles as Uniform polytope, Kepler–Poinsot polyhedron, Platonic solid, Lattice system. I believe that our time is best spent not by train to constrain information into preconceived forms, but by finding most suitable presentation form for each particular topic, or a group of topics. Different types of information call for different presentation formats, and for this particular subject area - international flags, or Flags of the U.S. states - the gallery format appears quite suitable. Vmenkov (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. OP, I understand that you don't like the fact that this article is a Gallery and not a List, but I think it would be more productive to propose renaming the article (perhaps to List of sovereign-state flags or Flags of sovereign states). I think you'd have a good argument for that, since one glance at Category:Lists of flags shows that these articles do need a consistent naming scheme. And perhaps once the name is changed, the editors of the article will be willing to also add text content, to remain consistent with the other Lists of flags. Indeterminate (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am all for a soft redirect to Commons, seeing as it is already there and this is a duplication of what Commons presents. That was even suggested by the Original AFD Nominator. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can a consensus built upon ILIKEIT and "others do it" be the right thing to do, when the properly designed infrastructure already exists to host this near exact page elsewhere? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Consensus was overwhelming. Wikipedia is governed by consensus in such matters, and unless there are clear indicators that the AFD discussion strayed very far from the general sense of the community, the consensus formed at AFD is controlling over existing policy, guidelines, etc. I see no such indicators here. RayTalk 02:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because 2 people is not a full consensus. Keep had many arguments. 2 transwiki arguments, 0 delete. I concur with closing Admin. Perhaps close here per WP:SNOW? Hamtechperson 17:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Although both the nomination and the DRV are understandable based on WP:NOTREPOSITORY, the "keep" consensus in the AFD was based on a very reasonable comparison to paper encyclopedias. This is an unusual case where the general wording of the WP:NOT policy conflicts with more specific traditions of what is considered encyclopedic content, and the consensus on how to resolve that conflict seems clear. --RL0919 (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure There was an overwhelming consensus, both numerically and in terms of strength of argument, to keep this article. Participants in the discussion were clearly aware of WP:NOTREPOSITORY, but they firmly rejected the argument. This is an instance where strong consensus is established to ignore a policy for the benefit of the encyclopedia. In addition, please note the first of the five pillars, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia," which states: "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." In this AfD, the community reasonably gave this principle precedence in deciding to keep the article, as described by others above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse it seems the nomination is more a case of idontlikeit (the result that is) but this is clearly a case of encyclopedic material and if its good enough for a paper encyclopedia its surely good enough for us. I remember looking at the flags and country articles in Britannica at school and letting my imagination run wild. Surely this deserves a place here. Spartaz Humbug! 19:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gallery of dependent territory flags (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

EVERY !vote was based upon WP:ILIKEIT or "Others do it". WP is not the place for a Pretty Picture Gallery, Commons is. Just because WP can do it, does not mean it should. WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Forgive me, "aware of WP:NOTREPOSITORY and made considered arguments" ??? One person said that the caption "Flagg of XXXXX" was enough encyclopedic content, and another said NOTREPOSITORY needed to be rewritten? Not very weighty arguments to keep IMO. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The consensus was clear in this case. The nominator made a credible claim based on the image use policy, but a significant number of editors weighed in to disagree based on the strong precedent of encyclopedias having this type of content. Moreover, as to the nominator's argument that the content belongs on Commons, the images themselves are hosted there already. The only policy referenced by those in favor of keeping was WP:IAR, and although it was only referred to by a single editor, there appears to have been strong consensus to keep the article on those grounds alone. IAR specifically exists to allow us to set aside rules when we agree (achieve consensus) that the policies are preventing us from building an encyclopedia, and in this case the gallery of flags very closely mirrors the practice in paper encyclopedias, a fact with which virtually all participating editors agreed.--~TPW 23:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the strong precedent of encyclopedias having this type of content" ... other encyclopedias do not have Commons. Just as the spirit of WP:NOTPAPER shows us, we are not constraind by the limits of paper or what Other 'pedias do. Just because it can be done does not mean it should be done. Consensus may be clear, but, Consensus can be wrong, esp. when the only basis for that Consensus is WP:IAR ! Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think my reasons for endorsement were not clear. I don't buy the NOTREPOSITORY argument because the images are actually hosted on Commons. My interpretation of the consensus at the AfD (and that's really all we can discuss here, whether or not consensus was judged properly) is that the IAR was properly used as a policy argument. When the vast majority of editors who participate in the debate feel it is encyclopedic despite other policies, IAR is properly invoked, and since it's policy that makes it the stronger argument. It wasn't that the only basis for consensus was a desire to simply ignore rules; it was that the overwhelming consensus in this debate was to keep the page as a useful part of the encyclopedia. When consensus is backed up by policy, proving it "wrong" is a tough row to hoe.--~TPW 12:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons is the place for a Gallery. A consensus of ILIKEIT and "others do it" has no traction to duplicate the same page on WP, when you consider that the proper infrastructure has been set up elsewhere to host a near exact copy of this Gallery. A soft redirect would be perfectly acceptable, as was suggested by the original Nom. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
St. Anthony's Senior Secondary School Udaipur (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Inappropriate no consensus close. Virtually all of the keep !votes included the astonishing claim that "there must be sources out there somewhere". Since when did "there must be sources" become an appropriate source for anything? Woogee (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is true, and if I was supposed to do that, I apologize, but what would the result of that discussion have been? I did notify Juliancolton that I had added this discussion here. Woogee (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The essay upon which the keep arguments were all based can be frustrating, because I think it encourages editors not to bother doing the hard work of actually sourcing high school articles. However, 3 out of 5 editors felt confident that this was one of the vast majority of secondary schools which are notable. Two other editors felt that no, there is not enough information in this particular case to demonstrate notability. Since it is most likely that any sources won't be found online, the argument for keep is just as reasonable as the one for delete, and even if you go just by the numbers I don't see how an admin could have closed this as "delete" despite the nominator's instruction to do so.--~TPW 19:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. After initially thinking "no consensus" was open to be made here, I can't but form the conclusion that none of the keep !votes were consistent with policy (for the reasons articulated by Atama in the debate). They should be discounted for that reason. Additionally, the keep !votes were specifically refuted by Atama. Notability requires verifiable objective evidence, not guesses. That is a core wikipedia guideline. This was not a debate where some keep !voters argued sources were significant or reliable and delete !voters disagreed. This was a clear case where no coverage of the subject was presented at all. This DRV is an appropriate vehicle to re-inforce that (a) high-schools must be held to the same standards of notability as every other article; and (b) notability requires verifiable objective evidence. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, I won't let my views on schools stand in the way of consensus here. While I firmly believe there is no reason to hold schools to any different standard to other organisations, it would have been too much to ask of JulianColton or any closer to discount the keeps on that basis. There is at least an informal consensus of sorts that I know has been used as a precedent in AfDs for a long time. I'd encourage those who believe that schools can be held to a different standard to try to achieve a genuine consensus for that. I firmly disagree with the position, but will oppose that position in AfDs (sensibly of course: most schools are notable, it's just these small exceptions) rather than try to make a point at a DRV. To be honest a "delete" close would have been controversial and I can't genuinely fault the "no consensus". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- JulianColton got it exactly right. While the keep arguments weren't strong, there was absolutely no consensus to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse Our guidelines are applied as the community chooses to apply them (N is just a guideline in the first place, & admits all sorts of exceptions) It is consensus that for a secondary school, wp:V is enough, not because there are necessarily sources, but because there are so overwhelmingly likely to be sources that it is not worth arguing about them. Better a few % of non-notable HS among the HS articles, than thousands of discussions over them. ` DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
right here, and at the afd, and all previous secondary school afds for the last 2 years. If all discussions lead to the same decision, there's consensus. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well in my view community-wide consensus about notability standards can't be achieved by a run of AfDs. If there's genuine community consensus about schools, it needs to be reflected by amendment to WP:ORG. Indeed reading through the talk page there, it appears that attempts to get such consensus have failed. Each AfD should be treated on its merits. Indeed, WP:OUTCOMES, which is often invoked in support of following AfD precedents, itself states "Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of their sources". That statement has particular resonance for this AfD, which threw up zero secondary sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clearly within the closer's discretion. In light of the well-established consensus that secondary schools are generally notable, and the clearly established existence of this school, something more than weak sourcing needs to be shown to overcome the presumption of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Appropriate and correct reading of the state of the discussion. Wikipedia is governed by consensus in such matters, and unless there are clear indicators that the AFD discussion strayed very far from the general sense of the community, the consensus formed at AFD is controlling over existing policy, guidelines, etc. I see no such indicators here. RayTalk 02:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I was one of those who favored Keep on the AfD. Wikipedia has a systemic bias toward Western European and North American topics, and toward topics that can be easily researched online. To counter this, where there is evidence that a a subject exists (sources demonstrating this are already cited), that it would be notable if covered in sources (particularly likely for a secondary school), and that it is not controversial, insistence on sources beyond those proving bare existence when such sources are highly likely to exist offline but ate not online should, in my view, by bypassed. In any case the AfD consensus was clear, and what is notable is a matter for case-by-case consensus, WP:N establishes guidelines but says itself that "...it is important to consider not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present." DES (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The closing admin made the right decision here, as no consensus was reached in the discussion. The argument that there is a presumption of notability for high schools is a fairly strong argument; however, problems with WP:V are a major issue and a solid argument for deletion. At this time, it appears that the content of the stub that remains post-AfD is verifiable. Therefore, I believe the actions taken by Juliancolton, Atama, and Terriersfan were the correct ones. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse stupid as it may seem there is a meta agreement that secondary schools are all notable whatever the state of the sourcing. Its utter bollocks of course but its a long standing compromise that ended a wiki civil war so I guess we are stuck with it. Spartaz Humbug! 19:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus close; that was the status of the debate. I personally think it should be deleted, but this particular procedure is not where one goes to get that to happen. I think if these people who voted keep on "sourcing may exist" don't find suitable sources in 3-4 months, another nomination would have a higher chance of success. Orderinchaos 11:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mohammed Daniel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There were actually more votes to keep than delete and many improvements were made to the subject so that he was mentioned in more than one independent source which was the reason for nomination and deletion. The closing admin stated "Being mentioned in multiple places is not enough to ensure that someone meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. The research done persuades me that there is nothing at this time to indicate notability" which is incorrect because the sources clearly demonstrates notability and the arguments of the nominator were comprehensively shown for their weakness as more sources were continually being added to the article. BintAmeen (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Note for transparency I participated in this debate and !voted delete. This was a good close. Consensus is not determined by headcount. The strength of the arguments were overwhelmingly on the delete side, were grounded in policy, and lead to the inevitable conclusion that there was not significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I read the closing admin's comment about "multiple mentions of the subject" being insufficient as being nothing more than an (entirely correct) reference to the notability guidelines that require significant (as opposed to minor, trivial or incidental) coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Putting aside the fact that a number of "keep" votes appear to have been lodged by SPAs emerging from Kuwait, this is a perfect example of why consensus finding is not a mechanical vote counting exercise. I think those in favour of deletion correctly interpreted the standards in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the request of BintAmeen I have restored the article to their userspace and it can be viewed at User:BintAmeen/Mohammed Daniel. something lame from CBW 07:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.'Significant coverage' is quite nebulous as there are many articles that make it through an afd that have far less sources and coverage.What Mkativerata would be significant coverage to you? As it definitely is not the same for all admin based on many afds I have seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BintAmeen (talk • contribs) 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I was posting the following while the page was archived and am posting it here perhaps for future reference. I have gone through each reference and have illustrated that in spite of the new references the article's contributors have added nothing has changed. Many of the references were simply deceptive, different pages announcing the same lecture, for example was used as a source four times and is simply not a reference to begin with. There are now three reliable sources two of which describe two of MD's lectures and another presents his views about Niqab. These three are mixed in with dead links, repeated links to the same lecture announcement. Here is a listing of the sources and a brief summary of their contents:
  1. http://209.85.135.132/search?q=cache:eXDkeYj2wtYJ:www.islam.gov.kw/thaqafa/news/sections_details.php%3Fcat_id%3D2%26start%3D50%26page%3D6+mohammed+daniel&cd=5&hl=ar&ct=clnk&gl=kw&client=firefox-a Mentions that MD attended a cultural conference with no further mention
  1. http://www.muslimleadersoftomorrow.org/about/search_mlts/c2a724520e788b193085c9ac9bd1c9ab This website mentions MD's name as an attendee of conference with no text other the caption underneath the picture
  1. http://www.cordobaacademy.com/faculty.html Significant coverage from an unreliable source
  1. http://kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=NjgzOTc5MzIx An article written by MD about kindness to animals
  1. http://kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTA4ODk2NjcxMQ== An article written by MD
  1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch8JB-GXnNI Youtube footage of MD
  1. http://www.asmasociety.org/emails/mlt/june_09.html leads to: http://www.asmasociety.org/emails/mlt/images/scan-imam_daniel.jpg which is an interview with Unique Magazine which is no longer online—this ref was entered as a separate one and then labled dead link
  1. http://www.chillnite.com/course-the-sublime-character-of-the-prophet-pbuh is a post on a networking site announcing a lecture by MD
  1. http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/150340/reftab/36/Default.aspx Is yet another announcement for a lecture by MD
  1. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache%3ASlrBcNWVc74J%3Awww.arabtimesonline.com%2FPortals%2F0%2FPDF_Files%2Fpdf09%2Fdec%2F23%2F28.pdf+arab+times+mohammed+daniel&hl=ar&gl=kw&sig=AHIEtbQSQBl95XsEO0_8tfyW5AIJSe3Clw&pli=1 is an announcement for the same lecture as the above
  1. http://www.asmasociety.org/emails/mlt/images/scan-imam_daniel.jpg is a dead link as has preceded
  1. http://www2.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?MgDid=723048&pageId=473 This is the al-Watan article that mentions MD as having attended a conference
  1. http://www.thecedarnetwork.com/?page=fullmembership/ is not found
  1. http://www2.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?MgDid=723048&pageId=473 This link was mentioned two links ago—same thing
  1. http://www.qatar-conferences.org/dialogue2009/english/English1.pdf This link yielded a malware warning so I did not go past—if someone else is feeling brave...
  1. http://www.asmasociety.org/emails/mlt/20100129_jan.html#daniel Has MD's picture and his attendance at a conference
  1. http://www.kuwaitagenda.com/en/calendar/view/1075/2.html Is an announcement to the same lecture mentioned twice previously
  1. http://jesr.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?MgDid=735332&pageId=163 The fourth announcement for the same lecture
  1. http://www2.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?MgDid=774205&pageId=473 Mentioned his views on the niqab during the course of an article
  1. http://www2.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?MgDid=667319&pageId=163 Details a lecture given by MD

I think the results of this reference review shows the desperation with which the efforts to keep this article is based upon.--Supertouch (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Dear esteemed colleagues, as I am the subject of the article (Mohammed Daniel) would it be possible that I request the removal of the article. I do not believe that my lowly-self warrants an encyclopedic entry and am not of those who seek the limelight. I also apologise for any inconvenience or upset caused to you by those who deem me worthy of such.Imam MD (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no Wikipedia article at present, so nothing to delete, and the absence of an article does not diminish the subject. What it means in this case is that few others have written about the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good close, within allowed admin discretion. RayTalk 02:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Worker–Communist Party of Kurdistan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Referring to the party there was only one keep-comment but no support at all for deletion. This is really few feedback for an AfD relisted twice, but in any case there is no consensus on deleting. PanchoS (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing where you contacted the closing admin before listing this. Could you do so? Given there was 1 !vote to keep and none other than the nom to delete I'd think it likely he'd restore just as if this were a contested prod. Hobit (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutly right, that would have been the right thing to do. I just forgot about this. This can be closed. Sorry, PanchoS (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PSEmu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It appears that both the original deleter and subsequent commentators had little knowledge on the level of impact PSEmu on the emulator scene and lacked the ability or time to identify numerous 3rd party sources. An exhaustive literature review citing unique 3rd party sources Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PSEmu has been presented. This also includes additional 3rd party references useful in fleshing out other prominent emulator articles.121.45.167.176 (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse but suggest userspace draft. Looking at the "new" sources, I don't see any that really stand out as being what we would consider a reliable source. If you register you could try making a draft in userspace, however, which might stand a better chance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would be considered a reliable source for emulation information?121.45.167.176 (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally, peer-reviewed papers (I've seen plenty on the subject of emulation) and physical publications (at least one UK magazine was devoted to emulation, with magazines such as Retro Gamer devoting considerable time to them). None of the links added to the closed AfD (now reverted) were suitable; the majority were based on fan sites of no established reliability. FWIW I think that PSEmu has indeed had enough coverage in that regard to warrant an article, but I wouldn't argue for undeletion until such point as the legwork is done to collect said reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retro Gamer is devoted to classic games, not classic game emulators. The sources presented can be grouped into various categories:
  1. References to PSEmu Pro extracted from existing emulators and graphical plugins (i.e. EPSXE) documentation (online and text FAQ and Readmes).
  2. Interviews and articles from various well known gaming and emulation sites i.e. the emulation64.com interviews, 1up.com article, elitegamer.com and pcrave.com interviews with Bleem! authors - Note that these interviews are also a primary reference for the Bleem! wiki page.

If these sources are rejected, there is the possibility of penning a unique article on PSEmu Pro and its influence on modern emulation (i.e. MAME and PCSX2).

  1. Pete's Domain - The homepage of the author of Pete's OpenGL plugins; these highly recommended GPU plugins are defaults in multiple playstation emulators (epsxe/AdriPSX/PSXeven). Pete is considered an expert developer in this field and his Sound Plugins are currently in use in PCSX2.
  2. The three sources listed under Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/PSEmu#Reliable_Sources were found using CiteSeer and Google Scholar.

These sources are more exhaustive then existing articles covering other emulators; if they are inadequete, by the same reasoning I would flag other playstation emulator articles for deletion. 121.45.167.176 (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who considers Pete to be an expert developer in the field? Of the 3 sources from the parts given at AFD, the 1st and 3rd are just passing mentions, they won't be a source for anything to do with this subject beyond "it exists". The second it's hard to tell from the info given, but I doubt it's a reliable source - most scholarly papers don't gush about features being "awesome". --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Places affected by the 2010 Chile earthquake (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It is not clear that the closer actually followed consensus in closing the debate. Discussion has already taken place at the closer's talk page. I think either "no consensus, default to keep" or a position "keep now, review in a few months" per Peterkingiron/BHG would be the actual position reached. Disclosure: I actually voted delete in the debate. Orderinchaos 15:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to NC I read the CfD and tried to read the discussion on the admin's talk page. At the very least the closer should have provided a closing rational. At best I'd say the closer should have !voted instead. In all cases I'm not seeing consensus to delete nor is there any obviously applicable policy that is squarely on target here. I'd likely have !voted to delete (is this really a long-term defining feature of these locations?) but apparently others felt it was. As the nom suggests it might make sense to revisit this in a month or two. Hobit (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as Keep Consensus at the CfD was rather clear for retention. That the closing administrator offered a one word close contrary to consensus, without any explanation whatsoever to backup his interpretation, only aggravates the problem here. Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (original nominator). I think the administrator could have gotten away with closing this as delete on the strength of the arguments or as no consensus based on a vote count. I prefer to take the strength of argument, personally. One way or another, I believe the category will eventually be deleted, so I think there's little harm in letting this result stand. On the other hand, I do agree that relisting for more input would not be a bad thing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (relist for more discussion). It is not good enough that the the right decision was made. The participants in the discussion must be respected. Decisions should be made by the community, not by an educated elite. In this case, the closer should have !voted. Consensus was not nearly clear, it would have been a stretch to close with a detailed rationale, and was certainly not suitable to be closed summarily. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep In general I do not think it is the business of the closer to decide how to interpret policy. Their job is to discard arguments not based on any policy, or, sometimes, by SPAs, and then judge consensus. The community decides. The closer just decides what it is that the community has decided, which can be difficult enough DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep per DGG. Seems clear to me that there was a consensus to keep (or at least, no consensus to delete) and given that there is no evidence of canvassing it should have been kept. If administrators can ignore consensus and simply decree their preferred solution, why bother with the discussion at all? It would save a lot of wasted effort at CfD... -- Mattinbgn\talk
  • Overturn to keep (category creator) per DGG. No clear consensus to delete, strength of argument to delete somewhat tenuous, several arguments to keep ignored and unexamined. Ericoides (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (relist for more discussion). Three options were set out in the discussion: delete now, keep without qualification, and keep-but-review-in-a-few-months. AFAICS, the arguments for an unqualified keep were weak compared with the arguments for deletion, because there was no answer to the delete comments about the lack of clear inclusion criteria. Just how much does a place have to be "affected" to fit in the category? Where is the threshold on the spectrum between "no physical damage at all, but some loss of tourist trade" to "completely flattened and all inhabitants killed"? That's a classic case of a WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE category, and tightening the inclusion criteria would inevitably breach WP:OC#ARBITRARY. The "keep but review later" solution which I suggested in this case was AFAIK a bit of a novel one, intended to allow time for editors working on the articles to consider a more durable way of categorising the earthquake's impact ... but I dunno if it was workable, because it hasn't been tried.
    I think that the closer's lack of a rationale is mistaken, and that the discussion should be relisted to allow further exploration of the unresolved issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hope so, otherwise BHG is going on a trip to WP:RFC/U to get whacked with a civility stick... ha. --Xdamrtalk 23:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oooops! Thanks for spotting that: I did of course mean "closer". Sorry! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus Unlike the debate being reviewed below, this one in my opinion was best closed as "no consensus." Numerically, the debate was fairly split; in terms of strength of argument, while both sides made interesting arguments, I don't think either side's arguments stood out as especially strong. "Keep for now and discuss in a few months" seems like the most prudent course from here on; I do hope that the closing admin will provide a closing rationale next time, as it was needed here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. No clear consensus to delete. –SJ+ 06:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:London Films productions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer ignored consensus and near-unanimous opposition to the proposal to impose a farcical solution on the basis of a "convention" which did not have the status of policy. Discussion has already taken place at the closer's talk page. The two moves were:

Orderinchaos 15:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Endorse as closer - convention of Category:Films_by_studio is to adopt the form 'XYZ films'. These two categories were exceptions to this format, used unanimously throughout this category tree. In the event of absurdity or oddity it is more than open for someone to open a group nomination to amend the standard form. --Xdamrtalk 17:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As I proposed in the discussion, I think this was a reasonable approach to take given the contents of the discussion. I presume the categories can be re-nominated for discussion if a proposal is made to change the entire format of the category tree. Until then, these conform to the standard. The nominator is incorrect to state that there was "near-unanimous opposition" to this format. There were as many in favour (2) as there were explicitly opposed (2). Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't forget an additional vote which made a (in my view) best-of-3 proposition, which would appear to indicate a lack of agreement with the proposed rename. Orderinchaos 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't forgotten it—I said there were 2 in favour and 2 explicitly opposed, which is true. I purposefully ignored the other comment because it could be read as not being squarely in favour of either. My only point was that characterizing this as "near-unanimous opposition" was not super accurate. Anyway, it's not a vote count, so I'll stop counting. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Was this a joke? (was my first thought... but on reading, I see not, so seriously...) There was certainly not consensus to proceed. Conventions do not trump an explicit discussion. The use of film is dwindling, anyway, so better to use the more generic word and not go ugly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, not to be a nit-picker, but in some circumstances conventions most certainly can and do trump explicit discussions: per Consensus is not a walled garden: "A consensus by a small group of editors cannot override policies and guidelines that have been agreed to by a wider range of editors." I'm not saying this necessarily did or did not apply here, but I am noticing some unfamiliarity with the basic concepts of "what is consensus?". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd prefer to see participants unfamiliar with established conventions pointed to documentation of those conventions, and not see participants ignored or overruled because they failed to argue why an obscure (to them) convention should not apply in this case. Discussion of a particular case in the light of a particular convention should be in the discussion, not in the close.
      • Yes, I have seen Wikipedia:What_is_consensus, although not in a long time. Definitions via "not"s are intellectually weak. A walled garden is best fixed by cutting windows. If an XfD looks like a walled garden, then the participants need educating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can understand your point that the convention should perhaps be more explicitly stated in the discussion, however since we are not (another not) a burecracy I can't see how a failure to follow your or my preference would make the close "a joke". I'd also note that we can get ugly any way if we rigidly impose a convention, first to come to mind is a game producer - Sucker Punch Productions - we don't have the category Sucker Punch Productions productions yet. I can't imagine the communties vision of the convention is so rigid as to create such nonsenses. There are always exceptions to the rule which probably is what should have happened here. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, indeed. I don't mind being subject to the scrutiny of DRV - it's an important part and parcel of the nexus of rights and responsibilities to which any Xfd-closing admin is subject. That said, whether they end up agreeing or disagreeing with my actions, I would hope that people would at least have read the discussion in question. There were reasons for my closure. Agree or disagree with them according to your judgement, but before jumping into a DRV, at least do me the courtesy of considering the circumstances and merits of the case.
Anyway, enough said. --Xdamrtalk 23:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence was my first thought. The "this" referred to the rename itself. The rest was composed later. I often work on a slow connection, and it can take a while for pages to load. I should probably have never posted the first sentences, but I find it funny, as in ridiculously funny, that we would seriously rename "Category:London Films productions" to "Category:London Films films". Rest assured that by the time I pressed "save", I had read the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Endorse. I was the first of the two objectors to the proposed rename, but I support the validity of the closure. There is a convention, and the closer was quite right to attach a lot of weight to existing naming conventions. The category system relies heavily on a consistent approach to naming, and the convention of a category tree should be breached only when there is a pressing need to do so. The arguments put forward by me and others for breaching the naming convention in this case were weak, because there were already three other sub-categories of Category:Films by studio which use the ugly "Foo Films film" convention (see Category:FenceSitter Films films, Category:Dimension Films films and Category:Cha Cha Cha Films films). Since the convention was already to append the word "films" even when it created a "Films films" name, the closer was right to suggest that the solution is to revisit the naming convention by taking a wider look at the category, rather than to create an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I agree with all BHG's remarks immediately above. Occuli (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per closer and BHG. Making exceptions to existing conventions just creates confusion. --Kbdank71 14:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that to make exceptions without an explicit awareness that we are doing so is a bad thing, but so is overriding a discussion without a clear reference to the alleged convention. "Per 100 or so categories in Category:Films_by_studio." is not good enough, because Category:Films_by_studio is not a sufficient documentation of a convention. I am still not seeing documentation for the alleged convention, let alone a discussion discussing the pros and cons of adopting it as binding on future editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might be right that in a perfect world it wouldn't be the way to do things, but in the real WP world it's very difficult to avoid, unless we decided to meticulously record every consensus-based CFD result, organise them into types, and then use this collection to derive generally worded principles and conventions. It can be done and it is done—bit by bit, here a little and there a little—but there's no way we can be adequately prepared for every new nomination that pops up. I do my best to at least track deletions, but even that collection is far from comprehensive, and comprehensively tracking renames/category format conventions that have been adopted by consensus would be a mammoth task. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your resources are excellent, thank you. I think we've agreed that finding a solution is not so easy. I am still inclined to say that this would all be easier, including for the newcomer to categorisation, if there was a hoop or two to jump through before creating categories contrary to conventions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I am inclined to say that this one was within the closing admin's discretion. Five editors participated in the debate; two, including the nominator, supported the proposed rename, while two others opposed it. A fifth user proposed an alternative rename that failed to garner any support. It was up to the closing admin to weigh the arguments presented; more weight was assigned to the argument that all categories in the category tree should be named in a conventional way. This is not a policy or guideline, as noted by Orderinchaos, but it is a convention and a reasonable argument. Orderinchaos, moreover, fails to note that if anything those opposing the rename had even less policy-rooted arguments, simply insisting that aesthetically speaking the new name would be "appalling" uglier. That's rather subjective, as Good Ol'factory noted in the debate. In any case, I think this was a valid close with a valid closing rationale. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Once Upon A Midnight publicity photo 2.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This image was deleted at FfD; the FfD closure was endorsed here at DRV last month. The verdict in both debates was that the image did not meet the nonfree content criteria, and that deletion was appropriate in the absence of evidence that the image was in the public domain. However, I've been discussing the issue with an anonymous user, and they have made their case for why the image is in the public domain. As such, this is not a review of the FfD closure but a procedural nomination given the presentation of new information, which can be found here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the anon is confusing released to the public and released into the public domain - there aren't synonymous. PhilKnight (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't see that discussion adds much, it's all unsubstantiated assertion. Even if true it doesn't alter the copyright status, like many publicity shots it still isn't public domain. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at FfD. This seems to come down to technicalities on "public domain", not of process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Evidence is not firm enough to demonstrate that the file is free. The image having been shown in a variety of news sources does not mean the image is free. Each of those sources might have held licences or sublicences to reproduce the image issued by the copyright holder or licencee. In my view the photographer telling the band it can use the photo (for what purposes we don't know), and the band then telling news sources they can print it, do not without more constitute release into the public domain or a disclaimer of copyright by its holder. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that the photograph actually was taken in Japan, not Australia. Per Japanese copyright law, photographs taken in Japan are copyrighted for their creators' lifetimes plus fifty years, and the author has the exclusive right of reproduction of his work. The author "may establish a right of publication in favor of a person who undertakes to publish the work in a document or picture," but the latter person "may not authorize a third person to reproduce the work." Also, Japanese law dictates that "whenever the holder of the right of publication intends to make a new reproduction of the work with respect to which his right of publication has been established, the holder of the right of publication shall notify the author, in advance, of such intention." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was asked to come here. I actually worked on this show and I am in contact with the Japanese producer. I can verify that this is a free image. The photographer was hired under the understanding that this would be the case and would be happy to see the pics on this site. Is there a way to contact an admin user directly without posting e-mails in a public forum? (123.2.53.91 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jewish Peoplehood (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While I agree with Black Kite that the discussion did not show an overwhelming consensus I feel that a close reading of the arguments would close the discussion as delete. At the very least I would like the AFD re-listed for further comment. A NC close does not really help anyone. Joe407 (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I may have misunderstood DRV. I saw the close and did not understand it. From the remarks made and the policies cites, I thought it was a sure delete. When Black Kite did not clearly explain his close, after requesting clarification at his talk page, I brought the issue here to see if people agreed with his analysis of the arguments and the close. Given the responses I'm seeing here I guess I'll wait a month or so and relist ir for AFD. Perhaps different people will weigh in at the next AFD. Joe407 (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. WP:RELIST explicitly prohibits relisting of debates with more than two or three contributors. Stifle (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I cannnot discern a consensus either way in the discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good close. Bring this back up in a few months if you're so inclined. RayTalk 02:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dwm (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I've seen questionable closes, but this goes a step further. After taking 5 days to close this apparently "complicated" AfD. He has come to the conclusion that [6], there are no reliable sources, there is nothing to verify anything which also means nothing to build an article on. So he agrees that those arguing for delete were right. Yet, then turns around and uses an unconventional statistic, something for which there is no consensus to use, to claim that it is equal to or outweighs not having any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The statistic has this program ranked 5724th by debian. Last I checked Debian rankings aren't indicative of notability, and unless it was in the top 10 I wouldn't even consider it in the first place. But ranked 5724th certainly doesn't outweigh standard notability guidelines. Nor does it outweigh WP:NPOV a proper article cannot be written without any reliable sources independent of the subject. So there could be several reasons to overturn this, but the most obvious one is that those arguing for keep basically failed to establish anything remotely in line with existing policies and guidelines which would indicate this article should be kept. So my argument is overturn and delete. Deletion closes are not the place to be suggesting new methods to establish notability, but we simply cannot have articles based solely on primary sources with no notability.If he thinks debian rank should be used to establish notability, then he might want to suggest it at WP:NOTE but I feel even if the community accepted that, nothing ranked that far down would ever fall under the guideline.Crossmr (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • How so? He admitted there weren't any reliable sources. How do we build an article without them? How do we establish any kind of an objective neutral point of view? We can't. That is why those sources are required for articles. He flat out admitted that none of the standard arguments address the threshold for inclusion of this encyclopedia and basically invented a new one for the close. One for which there is no consensus. Rankings have been used before (Alexa) but those were thrown out years ago. I don't know if there are any current notability guidelines that even rely on any kind of rankings anymore (except for those that would come in the form of a notable award for being #1). I've also already pointed out on his talk page that WP:CONSENSUS isn't a majority vote, so if those arguing for keep are making arguments not in line with policy or guidelines they don't really have any weight. According to the ranking for which he claimed established notability, 845 downloaded 141 use it 630 don't use it 74 have updated recently. 845 have downloaded it, 141 use it regularly. His deletion argument is that a program used regularly by 141 people is sufficient to be equal to policy and guidelines on wikipedia, including WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Read that again. According to his closing rationale, a program used by 141 people is apparently notable. There is no way that would ever find its way into any guideline or policy with consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. If you think the sourcing is insufficient to write a useful article, I suggest you don't. There are plenty of other topics. For me, sufficiently independent sources are available to establish existence and identity, and we always have the repeatedly republished primary sources of the program source (no pun intended) and executable for details. The only fault I can find with Flyguy649's close is that he wrote a long justification for an obvious no-consensus, giving people more to nitpick about. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those numbers are obviously wrong. Since this program is configured by recompiling it, it is rarely used through installing an already built package. Do you understand what that means? That statistic is wrong and definitely underestimated. You and many others here have quite strong opinions on a subject matter where you seem to be very far from being an expert. If you were to try to understand window managers and their history, I suggest you also read the dwm entry, while you still can. It is pretty informative, though a bit short. When articles that contain correct encyclopedic information on important topics within its sphere are seriously considered for deletion for lack of traditional "notability", there is a sickness in the system itself. --Wicked247 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the sickness comes from those who want to make claims they can't back up so they try to abuse the process to get their way. The argument that the closing admin felt compelling was the statistics that were linked. They were what was provided during the deletion discussion which showed 141 people use the program. That doesn't even remotely begin to address notability. Your claims that it is very notable or important without any evidence don't really amount to anything. Yet again though we've seen some community with a few interested users manage to make a mockery of the AfD process. If no one really cares enough about this product to give it any press that amounts to anything then it isn't notable. A proper article cannot be written about it from an objective point of view. That's the same threshold for everything else on wikipedia. No one here has managed to demonstrate why this little windows manager should get such special treatment other than the fact that they really like it and we have it on their word that its really popular even though they can't prove it.--Crossmr (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's sick because the deleting based on notability rules as you apply them are wrong and immoral. It's obviously not just this entry that is up for deletion, but everything that's not covered in traditional media. I can't even begin to comprehend why you are so insistent on deleting good encyclopedic information, but fights like this are obviously very important for you to win. There are now many pages that reference the "awesome" window manager, but it has been deleted. Now, if you have your way, many pages will reference the non-existent dwm. Maybe we can get rid of the entire window manager section here in the end. It's sad to see people work so hard for a worse Wikipedia. --Wicked247 (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without reliable third party sources there is nothing good and encyclopedic about this article. That is why it was nominated for deletion. Those are the same rules that apply to all articles including FOSS. There is nothing special about FOSS compared to any other subject regardless of how willing its fans are to try and abuse a process.--Crossmr (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "regardless of how willing its fans are to try and abuse a process." Please, regardless of whether someone has understood or misunderstood how things work, AGF still applies. --Chriswaterguy talk 10:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you pick up a copy of what you consider a solid encyclopedia and look at the number of sources you find there. Sit down before opening, because there are usually no sources! You are confusing what traditional media (including academia) considers salable with what is good encyclopedic information. --Wicked247 (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the "meatpuppet" who added the Debian Popcon stats to the discussion. I should have clarified that the data is submitted by users who have voluntarily installed the popcon package, like a virtual Nielsen box. 141 is just a fraction of the actual number of regular users. The Debian and Ubuntu projects consider these numbers reliable enough for deciding which packages to distribute on legacy physical media. Also, as already pointed out by Wicked247, it's uncommon for dwm users to use the default configuration. That said, I would, if possible, withdraw my arguments from the preceding discussion. I hardly think anyone with knowledge about minimalist Unix window managers would spend time writing WP articles about the subject knowing that it'll end up in the trash anyway. —Ive-Ive (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, why are the Debian and Gentoo wikis not considered sufficiently reliable? They were clearly written by people other than the authors of DWM -- check the article history! Plus, the teams that maintain Debian and Gentoo clearly have extensive knowledge and expertise w.r.t. open-source software. I'd consider them at least as reliable many of the examples on WP:RS. Scythe33 (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (edit: perhaps the article should link to a specific revision?)[reply]
You never user another Wiki or Wikipedia it's self as a source as a Wiki is usually an open site and subject to false information. Rgoodermote  23:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't everything ever written subject to false information? Why should external wikis be disallowed? These sites have editorial oversight, and false information is removed when it is discovered. Other publishers have similar standards of editorial policy. The people who write information in the Debian and Gentoo wikis that's good enough to stay in them are going to be far more knowledgeable about the subjects at hand than drive-by journalists or article writers in other publications. These software wikis are not generally for documenting the existence of stuff. They are to aid the people who must use the software. To that end, accurate technical information is essential. I couldn't think of a better place to find it than in those wikis. --Xyiyizi 18:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was the closing admin. I explained my reasons at the subpage linked by User:Crossmr above. If the community disagrees with my decision to give any weight to the atypical sources in the article, then I suggest that the content be merged with tiling window managers. I'll add more comments here tomorrow; I'm sick and am heading to bed. -- Flyguy649 talk 01:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying the wikipedia article human should be merged with the article animal . While one might be a subset of another they do not belong together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.118.7 (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse -- Just wait a month or two and see if consensus has gotten firmer on one side or the other. it rarely makes sense to ask to overturn a close as non-consensus. And I remind Crossmr that the community in an AfD can interpret notability however it wants to. Guidelines have exceptions, and this particular one goes out of its way to say that specifically. The community interprets the rules. The community decides which rules to use, and when. People who disagree with me may be wrong, but if I can't get a consensus, I let the matter rest and try another time. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the exact problem. You get rid of the abusive meatpuppetry and you're left without much. It seems like we're rewarding abusive meatpuppetry by keeping the article. Which seems completely contrary to what we should be doing. If you look at the AfD and what he took as the persuasive keep argument, it was the very last argument made. So in reality only 1 person made the argument for keep that he accepted, and that was apparently good enough for him to ignore the fact that there were no reliable sources. I cannot help but think that this is one of the poorest closes I've seen which is not only ignoring existing policies and guidelines but bending over backwards to reward meatpuppetry. Unless he can adequately explain how he feels a program used by 141 people is sufficiently notable that we can ignore the already project wide consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The closing admin admits it himself, the sources used in the article are not WP:RS as commonly accepted by the Wikipedia community. His closing arguments make it clear that the no consensus rationale relies heavily on the above mentioned statistics page, but that page is in no way indicative of the subject's notability. To my regret, I thought that the program's rank (5724th) made it so unequivocally obvious that I didn't even bother to rebuff that argument during the AfD discussion. — Rankiri (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse per DGG. It's a guideline folks. Not everything fits the guideline exactly. We occasionally delete things where notability is firmly established (Michelle Obama's Arms come to mind, clearly notable per WP:N and something we have a general agreement we don't need/want an article on) and we occasionally keep things where they aren't. And if I understand correctly this is the 3rd discussion on this in 2 weeks. Please stop. Hobit (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first discussion was closed because of meat puppetry. The second also had the same problem and was basically allowed to be muddled into an effective keep by the most generous allowance for notability I've ever seen that goes far and beyond anything I've ever seen the community agree on to establish notability. and I regularly participate in notability discussions. As I said, his rationale above, claims that 141 people is sufficient for notability. It would be silly to even invoke WP:BIGNUMBER here, because its barely 3 digits.--Crossmr (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Concerning the above endorsements, I think I should reiterate the fact that the few established editors who voted keep did so without realizing the details behind the first closure or before it was argued that both of the key sources were undoubtedly tainted. Just as scores of initial "delete: fails WP:N" votes shouldn't outweigh one unambiguous demonstration of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources, recommendations based on conclusively disproved assumptions shouldn't carry the same weight in deletion discussions or anywhere else. — Rankiri (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I voted with a full understanding of the discussion and endorse the the closure with the same. I do, however, have stricter standards of "conclusive (dis-)proof" than "someone said so over and over again". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide them, because the closing admin didn't seem to find any. If you're going to agree with him, you should probably be buying all of his argument, unless you only want to pick and choose the parts that gets you what you want.--Crossmr (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already made my position on the sources and on the closure clear. You are wrong. Now go bully someone else. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My conduct is not up for discussion here. You might want to read some other policies beyond deletion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should learn the difference between personal attacks and rational discussions. When you make an unfounded claim, don't be surprised when someone asks you for an explanation and doesn't stop when you try to divert his attention with a childish remark. — Rankiri (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want your opinions discussed, don't take part in the discussion. You might also want to give NPA a read, because discussion isn't bullying. Someone wants to bring something up, I'm free to rebut and discuss. Yes, some people would like to just leave their comment as a vote and disappear, but we haven't done that in years around here. You've made claims you've failed to substantiate. You want to support his decision that there is no consensus, then you should support his decision that no one of the sources were sufficient. If you've been keeping sources in reserve, provide them or stop making unsubstantiated claims.--Crossmr (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its useful to either me or the community to continue this. You may have the WP:TRUTH on your side, but consensus on the close seems to be unanimous. Silent majority arguments need not apply. See the points made by others below. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for those sources you are claiming. What I have is policy, and it is becoming extremely apparent that you have zero grasp of WP:CONSENSUS. Its not a majority. The closing admin dismissed every single keep argument except the final comment, which means all of those people who argued first, didn't count. He then decided to accept the final argument for keep as being sufficient but its a reason that has never been used on wikipedia to justify notability and one which simply wouldn't pass discussion on any guideline or policy page. That is why it was taken to DRV. You should read consensus again because it is quite clear that the arguments are to be compared to existing policies and guidelines and that argument isn't even on the radar. So a no consensus close wasn't remotely inline with policy. No consensus closes should only occur when there are two conflicting policies which apply in a given situation that are both equally valid. Far too often admins don't properly read debates or the policy and close them as no consensus because they think a handful of people don't agree. They're supposed to actually read the arguments and see if either side, regardless of how many has actually made a compelling case based on existing policies and guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. When an AFD has been the venue of a full-blooded discussion and there are genuine and valid arguments on each side of the discussion, there can clearly be no consensus and the closure was accurate. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then, I take it you didn't read the link I provided above with his rationale? The closing admin basically said out of the 30 or so people arguing for keep none of them except 1 made a valid argument for keep. The only argument he took as meaning anything was the debian ranking. The ranking which states the software is used by a grand total of 141 people. He claimed that this was the only valid argument of notability and that software used by 141 people was sufficiently notable to ignore a complete lack of WP:RS.--Crossmr (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - This was not an easy close, and it's been pointed out by pretty much all concerned that reliable sources for establishing notability are not quickly forthcoming. I probably would have agreed with the deletion arguments had I participated; that the closing admin did not find a clear consensus in that direction, however, was reasonable for this debate. I do not believe this close rewards meatpuppetry so much as it assumes that the topic is notable regardless, and the admin took the time to explain the reasoning which led to that decision. The rationale was more liberal than some, but not entirely out-of-bounds by any stretch.--~TPW 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think the community would support calling software used by 141 people an acceptable claim to notability? I've been in AfDs where websites and things used by thousands of people wasn't sufficient. 141 people isn't even a hint of notability.--Crossmr (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shit happens. No reason to make more of it. Your 141 argument was refuted above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Where? All I see is one person claiming it isn't right, but they haven't provided anything else to dispute that. Just their opinion. And my argument isn't invalid. Flyguy closed this AfD based on that ranking, he explicitly said so. He made no mention of any other evidence of a greater number of users using the software. If he did, I'm sure you'll be able to provide a diff where he said that. Until you can provide evidence to the contrary the closing admin has stated that he felt software used by 141 people was notable. I won't hold my breath waiting.--Crossmr (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just my opinion? Look at the facts of that statistic: Only Debian users. Actually, only Debian users who use the "popularity contest" application. Actually, only Debian users who use the popularity contest application and also upload the results. If you also consider that the package instructions tell you to not use the pre-built package, you're willfully being dense if you believe only 141 people are using the software. Let me ask you straight out: Do you believe the statistic to be massively under-reported or not? (Let me also add that I think that 141 active users may be enough for notability for a software project if it has other causes for notability, like several other projects reference themselves as being "clones" or inspired by the original project. Wikipedia is not paper, we can afford more knowledge.) --Wicked247 (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes your opinion. Have you provided any reliable sources to indicate how many more users beyond what is listed on that page actually use the product? No you haven't. Until such a time that you do, as far as we know it could be 2 more people. Or it could 200,000 people. We have no idea, but we simply do not take your word for it. The people being dense are those arguing to keep this product on their own insistence without providing the proper sources like every other subject on wikipedia is required to do. Wikipedia is not paper, but we have thresholds for inclusion and this particular little piece of FOSS doesn't remotely meet them and the closing admin had to bend over backwards and pick something ridiculously obscure that would never be accepted in any other situation for any other subject to even claim no consensus. Wikipedia isn't a compendium of all human knowledge, that's a common mistake many make.--Crossmr (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, it could even be 15 billion people! We have no idea at all. No, 141 users is the only thing that we can believe to be correct. We have no brains, we know nothing, we cannot draw any conclusions whatsoever. [citation needed]
Seriously though, there is significant notability coverage in the form of guides, forum posts, videos, blog posts, and especially other projects that reference this particular one as being the basis for their. If this project doesn't fit Wiki rules, the rules must be wrong. --Wicked247 (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this well-reasoned and valuable analysis. As the closer cogently argues, when an article appears to have encyclopedic value, when there are significant indicators of notability, and when the article content does not contravene any substantive policies, the purpose of encyclopedia-building can be better served by allowing the ongoing process of striving to develop reliable sourcing to continue even though its current state may be unsatisfactory. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for all the reasons already given here. I see no reason to rehash them, and I won't respond to any badgering by Crossmr and Rankiri. I've already clearly explained my position on this, and I see this DRV as simply sour grapes and forum shopping on the part of Crossmr because he didn't get the article deleted as he wished. It was very, very clearly no consensus in the discussion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion is badgering now? Maybe you could make your arguments without the personal attacks. DRV is part of the deletion process and there seem to be quite a few people here who don't have a firm grasp on WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus isn't a majority, its judged based on the strength of the arguments. The closing admin dismissed all of the arguments of those arguing for keep, except one. One which I find to be not remotely in line with any existing consensus for notability anywhere on wikipedia. You'll forgive me if I think that requires another look.--Crossmr (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, you might want to consider taking the lessons of WP:DEADHORSE and WP:BLUDGEONto mind. You have said your point, continuing to repeat yourself does not serve to help your cause. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (no !vote since I'm biased). My "speedy no consensus" close was better in terms of execution. :-) Pcap ping 01:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because I found his analysis well-reasoned and helpful in that it recognizes the difference between subjective notability and WP:N. It is vitally important to recognize that WP:N is a guideline, not the be-all-end-all of determining what is valuable, encyclopedic information. I think the point made above about Michelle Obama's Arms is extremely pertinent: just as there is information that meets WP:N that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, so there is also information that is appropriate for an encyclopedia that (to some) does not meet it. Good editorship is not the process of rigidly applying rules, but of applying interpretive insight to filter out chap without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Resistor (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that I also think that WP:N in general handles specialized fields of interest quite poorly. What we're facing here is a situation where a topic is of note within its field of interest, a field that does not have much in the way of reliable, third-party sources, and even those that exist are often obscure and/or transient (i.e. very few dead tree publications). I've seen this come up in AfDs in other specialized fields of interest. We run into problems where domain experts will say that something is obviously notable, because it's notable within their field of interest, but non-experts don't understand because it's not something a major newspaper or magazine would write about. Resistor (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pretty sure we accepted field-specific publications last time I checked. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but plenty of fields of expertise don't have significant unbiased, verifiable sources. The example here is open source software, where most communication of important ideas is on mailing lists, blogs, and other transient media, and done by people who are involved in the projects themselves. The few independent sources (tech magazines and some news sites, though as noted here, those often use first-party authors) that would report on these usually stick to topics that are only notable outside of the realm of expertise. The other field of expertise I was referring to was Role-playing game articles. The problem there is that (almost) all the reputable magazines are affiliated with one publisher or another, and even when not talking about their own products, the industry itself is quite incestuous, so the authors may or may not be completely objective. Resistor (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse clearly no consensus The bellman (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Obviously no clear consensus, and the closing admin went to rather remarkable lengths in explaining their logic. Steven Walling 21:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"solely on primary sources with no notability" There is a problem here this statement is wrong. Please note if you don't trust dwm web site. By the way the web sites is a seconndary source of information from a open source project point of view. Primary source when it comes to a open source program is the source code itself. Any feature of the program that is claimed in the secoundary sources of documentation can be checked for existance in the source code itself so confirming the 100 percent correctness of the secoundary source. Same with confirming or disproving releationship between open source programs. Just because sites claim to be releationship between two open source programs does not make it true way to confirm if it true or not with open source is compare the source code's and the history data with the source code. Evidence of a releationship will be there.

So the wikipedia page dwm is based on secondary source with light notability. http://hg.suckless.org/dwm This would be primary source when particular features where added and by who could be referenced from the primary source. History of patches is there. The dwm page could have a lot more detailed history about dwm if the primary source was used. Even better this primary source is basically absolute either the code for XYZ statement exists or it does not. Same applies to a lot of open source projects in the wikipedia due to primary source not being used.

By the way same mistake is make with lot of reports. The data something is made from is always the primary source.

Of course I can understand the mistake. When dealing with closed source the website would gets incorrectly primary source not a secondary due to the fact you cannot look at the source code to confirm the correctness of website information so the source code ceases to be an accessible primary source so the accessible secondary source of information gets treated as primary. Big problem since the site is a secondary source being used for closed source programs it should be presumed contain errors. Classic example is the bugs that keep on turning up in MSDN it is a secondary source not a primary. Primary is confirming that the binary do exactly as the MSDN says with testcases or being able to see the source code.

Basically you guys are screwing up what is a Primary Source and what is a Secondary Source when it comes to software. So leading to items with good Primary Sources being removed from wikipedia. Articles based purely on non confirm able Secondary Sources should be examined far more closely from the wikipedia. Good example is this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_Window_Manager References are all Microsoft. No test cases to confirm that anything said about operation is really happening. So how do we know the secondary sources are correct. The complete article could be lies there are no primary sources or tests to confirm how truthful the in secondary source is. Only sources people have mistakenly taken as primary and blog crap without any direct evidence with link to primary source other than blog being Microsoft's. By the quality of links on the article I could setup a company making a fake malware virus scanner since my web site says its a top notch working anti-virus my own programmer blogs back it up I could get it put in the wikipedia as a top quality virus scanner. This is the issue of having no true primary sources or tests to confirm real fact.

Basically pick on dwm again when there are not other artical far worse off.

If issue is quality of documentation in wikipedia you will go a long way to get better than when open source primary and secondary sources are used as one to make the web page. If you want confirmation of use there is a bigger issue here. Does wikipedia record history or does it not. Seriously.

Open source projects have complex history. Dwm is the bith source of list of other projects. Claiming no notability is wrong. Notability is not your standard form yes. But there is a form of Notability. Notability comes from that it gave birth to other projects that are still developing. This is recording history. Dwm site could disappear in future if there is no tertiary source record in the wikipedia the history information might be lost. Deleting this records about open source project that created others is basically white washing history.

Deleting pages rules need to be tighted up to stop this destruction of open source history.

Open Source projects that are just a flash in the pan don't normally give birth to other projects and keep on going. Oiaohm1 (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 March 2010

[edit]
  • Tapuah junction stabbing – Overturn to no consensus, defaulting to keep. Several questions are presented in this DRV, some easily answered, some not.
    1. Is Black Kite's delete close correct?
      A strong consensus says it is not, and therefore the closure has to be overturned.
    2. What should the close be overturned to?
      While a plurality supports overturning this to a straight keep, there's also significant support for a relist, implying that consensus was not clearly present in the original AfD. One must also take into account the endorse !voters, which, while not close to a numerical majority, is nonetheless rather substantial. In light of all this, I believe that overturning to no consensus is the better result.
    3. Should the debate be relisted?
      There is significant support for a relist, though clearly not a consensus for it, but I do not consider that course advisable in this case. The participation in the AfD is anything but low - the automated counter reports 14 !votes alone, and a couple editors commented without !voting. I do not see how relisting this could have much effect on clarifying the consensus.

      Moreover, AfDs over recent events tend to produce no consensus, in part because some of the questions, such as many of the factors in WP:EVENT, cannot be answered merely a few weeks after the event happened. This case is no exception, and I think a relist will probably make the consensus harder to determine, rather than easier.

      In short, because I do not believe a relist would be productive, and because there is no consensus here for a relist, I will not relist it.

    This close, of course, cannot and does not preclude another editor from renominating the article, however, I suggest that people wait a few months before renominating. – Tim Song (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tapuah junction stabbing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The issue at the afd was whether this event was a regular news event and should be deleted per wp:notnews or it was a more notable event and should be kept. A number of editors gave rationales why this was not a regular news event and thus notable. These rationales were accepted by the majority of !voters and there was a clear consensus to keep the article. Nevertheless, User:Black Kite closed the afd as a Delete, stating, "Absolutely no reasons put forward why this is not a standard news item in a violent part of the world." A basic reading of the afd discussion shows the opposite, that reasons were put forward why this is not a standard news item. Those reasons were accepted by a clear consensus. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn* This event is very unique especially for Israel considering "terrorism" has decreased significantly compared to 2007-early 2008. This is the first soldier casualty in a long while, and the fact that the killer was trained at US-support academy is notable. Israel has been victim to hundreds of terrorist attacks and a handful continue to memorialized. I don't think the event qualifies as NOTNEWS. There are far irrelevant Palestinian happenings that continue to have articles, like enumerating every village that was a victim to the Arab-Israeli war. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Relist works too. NOTNEWS does not exactly apply. This is not routine announcements. The coverage is also significant from sources throughout the world (see WP:SIGCOV and WP:GEOSCOPE). The coverage details responses that equate this to recent government actions giving it more umpff than just another killing. This analysis when coupled with notability not being temporary might be enough to override continued coverage. It also looks like Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) spells it out pretty well: Wikinews would be better but this topic was discussed "by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope."
Procedurally, the admin closed it for it being only a news item. That is disputed. This with the lack of consensus means that the admin should not have closed it.Cptnono (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak overturn and or relist- Have to agree with the above, that it doesn't seem like there was a (firm) consensus to delete or keep. It would serve us well to have further discussion on the topic. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - My original !vote remains relevant; hard to reference without seeing the article, but I remember my reason being that hits were concentrated around the date of the event, not subsequent coverage. NOTNEWS seemed pertinent. Not a strong objection to relisting, but given the extended discussion I find claims that "clearly consensus is to keep" questionable. Shadowjams (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, or secondarily, relist - the close did not seem to be an interpretation of consensus, but rather a !vote which probably should have been placed in the discussion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and do not relist Close was not within discretion, consensus both in numbers and for weight of arguments was clearly for keep. If close felt otherwise he should have joined the discussion, not closed it, as Arbitrarily0 said above. DES (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or relist - per Arbitrarily0 BorisG (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I tend to agree with the closer's argument. But I don't agree with the close; there's no consensus to delete here. There were a number of reasonably argued keeps that can't be discounted, and insufficient contributions on the delete side to outweigh the keeps to the point of a consensus. Relist at discretion. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, I'm not seeing a single well-argued keep. I'm seeing "this event is special" type arguments but no evidence of that. I too would have closed as NC (or more likely, !voted), but could you identify one or two keeps you felt made reasonable policy-based arguments? Hobit (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both brewcrewer and Arbitrarily0 pointed out coverage in reliable sources. Per WP:N, significant coverage in reliable sources is evidence of notability (the general notability guideline) and a policy-based reason to keep the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course, but WP:NOTNEWS is applicable no matter if WP:N is met. That's the whole point of NOTNEWS, we know the news gets covered in RSes and news events meet WP:N but we don't feel all such events should have articles here. What I'm saying is that I didn't see any valid arguments that WP:NOTNEWS didn't apply here. Hobit (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, relist. Clear lack of consensus to delete. Applying NOTNEWS involves editorial judgment and discretion; the closer of an AFD discussion should not discount reasonable policy-related arguments even if he/she disagrees with the policy interpretation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as keep to reflect the actual consensus in the AfD, which was rather clear for retention. Alansohn (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as keep - if someone wants to nominate it for delete again, they can do so. The consensus was clearly to keep this time. Breein1007 (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse I wish the admin had !voted and let someone else close, this begins to look too much like a "supervote". In general I'd encourage admins to !vote rather than close against the numeric consensus. That said, we do allow, and even encourage, admins to look at the strength of argument. In this case I saw no valid argument given that WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. There is not (yet) sustained coverage nor did it seem to play a significant role in later developments. So I'd have to say this is within admin discretion. Hobit (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as keep per nom, Shuki, etc. Simply reading the deletion discussion shows fairly clearly that there was a rough consensus to keep, and that the closer's statement regarding what was and wasn't said is false. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as keep per nom and others. No consensus, notable event in conflict Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you identify any RSes covering this event 2 or more weeks after it occurred? If not, can you explain why WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply? Hobit (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you go: [7], [8]. It would be good if you modified your comment. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence here, one sentence there and Wikipedia reduced to a crime blotter. --Jmundo (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A request was made for an RS covering the event two weeks after the fact. I promptly provided 2 such references, which took me all of 30 seconds to find. Both of these reference discuss the event in the context of escalating Palestinian violence in the West Bank, after some relaxation in Israeli security policies there. There are doubtless many more, and probably dozens more in the Hebrew press. Please don't wikilawyer here. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been clear. I was hoping for non-trivial sources that would count toward WP:N on their own. I would be interested in RSes in Hebrew that provide significant coverage a few weeks later in RSes. Hobit (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own close. There simply isn't any ongoing coverage - or if there is, it wasn't referenced in the article. This is what we have WikiNews for. Black Kite 00:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Consensus favored keeping. Argument was made that this was not a minor news blip. That's enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of murders in the US, which have seen coverage years later and still get deleted per NOTNEWS is actually fairly large. I can think of 3 or 4 I've argued for and researched in the past (one in my userspace right now as I recall). It's obvious the direction this is going, and I hope it heralds a change in how we treat NOT:NEWS, but I suspect there are a bunch of folks who care a lot about issues in this part of the world and that is greatly biasing the discussion. I rarely argue against the numeric majority in favor of deletion and I'm doing so because this is just entirely inconsistent with how we generally do things around here. Hobit (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • One example [9]. This one had 10 articles on the topic at the time and some 30 articles solely about the topic over the next 25 years. There are a fair number of others. Hobit (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, per Hobit. WP:EVENT applies here. There is no significant coverage save that within a few days of the event. The numerical superiority of those voting keep should not outweigh policy considerations and this subject simply fails WP:N. There is no "significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time," nd there is no evidence of "lasting effect", i.e. that the event acted as "a precedent or catalyst for something else." The examples of coverage a couple of weeks after the fact provided by Momma's Little Helper do not represent significant or in-depth coverage, but are rather trivial. If editors can amass exmples of more siginificant, in-depth coverage after the fact, article recreation should be considered. But the sources simply do not support recreation at this time. Tiamuttalk 18:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse just saying that this is an important event does not make it so. No actual evidence was provided in the AfD that showed it was anything other than a news story. All news stories are covered in reliable sources, so saying it is covered in reliable sources is almost meaningless. Is every roadside bombing in an attack on US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan a "notable" event? If not, neither is this. This could have a line in another article, but the event itself is non-notable and nobody gave any real evidence to show that it is. nableezy - 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion was correct, this is a non-notable news story. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It is notable when a police officer murders a stranger for political or race-hate reasons. It would be notable in any country in the world.AMuseo (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A) I'm certain we don't cover this for all, or even a handful of other such cases. Can you point to an example of an article where it is covered? This has happened in the US a massive number of times (mostly 30+ years ago), the former Yugoslavia a massive number of times (15 years ago), in Germany (70 years ago), other parts of the Middle East (today), and Africa (today) a massive number of times. B) From what I can find, it appears this was as much a case of mental illness as hatred (if there is a difference). C) None of that is policy based. There was a distinct lack of policy-based arguments in the AfD too... Hobit (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The overwhelming consensus of the above editors reflects a valid point. Failure by the closer to abide by consensus is troubling. Closure as delete was a rather stark failure to follow relevant wp policy. International coverage and broad coverage militates in favor of notability and keep. No need to relist, as the ample discussion at the AfD is sufficient, but I note that even relist voters above indicate that the close at the AfD was not appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per nom. Also per Cptnono and Epeefleche. Stellarkid (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn—the closing administrator has indirectly admitted that his personal opinion was the deciding factor in the closure, not actual consensus. This is a deviation from the deletion policy; the closing administrator can make a decision when there is no clear consensus. When there is, like in this AfD, the closing administrator is required to act in accordance with community consensus, and not how he sees fit. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please redact that. I have no "personal opinion" on this other than none of the Keep !votes addressed the issue of why WP:NOTNEWS was not met. Black Kite 23:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking at the AFD, I see at least two editors (Brewcrewer and Shuki) explaining why they felt it was not just an everyday news story, and several other editors agreeing with them. So I can't understand why you hold that opinion. I could understand you believing their arguments were empty, but that is not what you are saying here, or what you said in your close. If you had simply acknowledged their arguments before dismissing them, I think there would have been much less objection. You have not simply disagreed with them; you have pretended they don't exist. -- Avenue (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • BlackKite: I, of course, have no idea what your personal opinions might be, and whether they influenced this decision. But since you are joining in, can you agree that the above reflects a consensus that you should not have closed it as a delete, as the above editors overwhelmingly agree that there was not a consensus for delete? If so, that might be a positive step at this point towards rolling up this string, and avoid further wikidrama.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still think Black Kite (who I rarely agree with on anything) is right here. Not that this won't be overturned, but that no one has shown that there was any significant coverage after the news story broke. We let numbers trump policy, and I suspect that will happen here. But WP:EVENT is pretty darn clear. I'm as big a fan of anyone of nose counting in AfDs and DrVs, but darn it, there needs to be something other than "I think it's important" for things like this. Hobit (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hobit: I respect that you have a different view. wp:event doesn't lead to the non-reflection of all events ... or else 9/11 and other one-time events (and people known for them) would not have articles. Notability can be reflected, as here, by notable (which is especially reflected in international) coverage. As to nose-counting (I know, you meant to say consensus), it is part of policy that consensus is important. And that it should be respected. Editors who don't get that routinely are rejected at RfAs, and no doubt that will be a consideration when the new "strip the sysops who violate policy" measures are articulated down the road. But yes, at the same time, I sometimes don't agree w/the view of the consensus myself--but that doesn't mean I would close an AfD against consensus, in violation of policy.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Until you address the few points already brought up I think it is hard to say that your opinion is not impacting your decision. (That of course is part of decision making which is aburde you have as an admin so apologies if that comes across overly pointed) I honestly can't fault you too much for making the decision since I am sure you really were looking at it as just news. However, I do think it needed more time to encourage discussion especially with people asserting that NOTNEWS is not the only guideline based argument. You also could have easily kept based on no consensus. For now, I think it is clear that the delete needs to be undone because people aren't done talking about it. You also should read the reasoning (yes, you will have to sort through the votes with none associated) to keep above since it has been provided and ignored. There are questions with both the procedure to close and the notability overall so it needs to be straightened out in a relisted AfD.Cptnono (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Cptnono--Sorry to disagree. I think that the close was wrong. I think there was not a consensus to delete. I think that in such situations, it is a violation of policy for Black to close as delete. This is core Wiki policy. The above comments in this review of the close reflect IMHO a consensus that the close was incorrect, as there was not consensus to delete. In such circumstances, proper procedure would be to keep the article (whether as no consensus or consensus). More wikidrama and wasted time through a relist is not required, and IMHO is a waste of valuable time of valuable editors. Let's let them spend their time improving the project instead. Respectfully.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hey, I would be fine with it restored as an article without a delete discussion as well. It should not have been deleted but I can understand some ongoing discussion at a new AfD (or better yet the talk page) if preferred.Cptnono (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Just to make it clear, I have absolutely no problem in people disagreeing with my close and if it is overturned that is fine - that is, after all, what we have DRV for - but I will not accept claims that I have any other reason for closing it that way. Anyone who wants to review my 22,000+ contributions will note that practically none of them are in the I/P area, which gives the lie to the claim. Black Kite 19:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • One more point of clarification from me, I wasn't trying to say your opinion on the topic but your opinion on it being NOTNEWS. It appeared to me that you thought NOTNEWS and were simply disregarding other arguments assuming that was the way it was. So no worries (from me at least) that you did something underhanded or wrong. You might have just been less diligent on this one AfD. I assume you close a fair amount so it of course will happen from time to time.Cptnono (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Reviewing, I tend to think I would've !voted to delete on this one, but admins do not get to substitute their judgments for consensus. RayTalk 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually (even if it turns out not to be the case here) they do. If an AfD has a couple of good policy based reasons for keeping an article, and ten !votes that basically say "Not notable" with no good reasons given, then the correct close is Keep. Otherwise admins are just !vote counters. AfD is not a vote. Black Kite 19:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • BlackKite -- a couple of questions. 1) Do you agree that if the consensus (not the "number of votes", but the consensus) is not to delete, then the closer is obligated to not close it as a delete? 2) Do you agree that there was not a consensus in the AfD here to delete? 3) Do you agree that the consensus here (not the 26-6 vote, or whatever it is) is to not endorse your close? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Black Kite - not to this extent. What happened here was that Brewcrewer advanced an argument, which others endorsed, for why this news item merits coverage. Rather than evaluating the community's response to that argument, you decided yourself that it didn't hold up - inserting your opinion into that judgment. The appropriate thing for you to do, IMO, would've been to rebut Brewcrewer and vote for deletion. While for various reasons (which I will probably state if this gets relisted) I do not find Brewcrewer's argument convincing in this instance, it was not so frivolous or ignorant of Wikipedia custom as to be summarily dismissed, the way an admin might dismiss thoughtless remarks from SPAs or editors who didn't put in the time to analyze things. RayTalk 02:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I largely agree with this though I take the position that the !votes to keep were weak enough they could, possibly, be discounted enough to reach a delete conclusion. No meaningful attempt to address the issues of NOTNEWS were made. If 10 people !voted to keep a BLP because "he's important" and 3 to delete, I'd hope in the face of no sources at all we'd delete even if the remarks were not thoughtless or frivolous. A NC would be how I'd have closed it. But delete isn't outrageous here.Hobit (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hobit: I think that that has been responded to, and is evident from the AfD page. What I am not seeing is responses by Black Kite to my questions on this page. From time spent at the RfA page, I know the 100 or so regular voters on that page regularly reject RfA requests from editors who approach this issue in the way I am concerned Black Kite may be approaching it, so for me this is a question the importance of which is far greater than this particular AfD, as no doubt Black Kite will be closing many more AfDs in the future.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Just came across this, and can't understand the closing admin's decision. It was a very close AfD, and if there was any consensus it was to Keep the article. Perhaps Relist to get a better consensus. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as Keep Issue of NOTNEWS was addressed and rejected by consensus. This consensus was ignored by the closing administrator. Alansohn (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beating the bloody remains of the horse: Could you explain where it was addressed in any terms other than simply disagreeing? All I saw were large number of variations of WP:ILIKEIT (well more accurately ITHINKITSIMPORTANT). Hobit (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well read closer then. We shouldn't have to reiterate it for you.Cptnono (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it should be plain, but I'm not seeing anything. Brewcrewer made probably the best arguments to keep. I didn't understand the relevance of the link he gave (inside joke?), but he did claim that the coverage was more in depth than normal but gave no actual examples. Adambro's arguments were easily the best of the lot, and came down neutral. No one supplied any sources that met the requirements of WP:NOTNEWS, or really any sources at all. If there were one or two RSes, in any language, that covered this more than a couple of weeks later I'd be fine with keeping this. Significant coverage outside of the region would help too. But I'm not seeing either in the AfD or the article. So NOTNEWS is very much a problem and the discussion didn't show any sourcing to show otherwise. Hobit (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly international coverage. Please review the sources and do a quick google news search. This was brought up in the edits time stamped 02:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC) and 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC) already on this page.Cptnono (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I have never seen the article. Even if the "delete" close was appropriate, the rationale was sufficiently unsatisfactory for the close to be overturned. "Absolutely no reasons put forward why this is not a standard news item" was clearly not an adequate reflection of the discussion and no analysis was given as to why Wikipedia:Notability (events) trumped Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) which was a thoughtful comment made in the discussion. However, it was good that the the closer took the time and trouble to give a rationale and so some of the criticism here seems to me to be too harsh. Thincat (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


11 March 2010

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

Was deleted per CSD A7 but appears to assert notability. It had references including The Economist. Toddst1 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
John Micheal McCarthy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I've made some arrangements to the best of my abilities. Most references to this person are in French as he has been more active in Europe. I was able to find a French blog which publishes in English. But it is the only source I could find in English. I've also deleted any information which might seem promoting. The edited article is in my talk section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Disgracious23/John_Micheal_McCarthy Cordially,


--Disgracious23 (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion --and protect against re-creation. To clarify, this is about the speedy deletion of the article John Micheal McCarthy,speedy deleted as A7 in turn by admins NawlinWiki JamieS93 , and Lectonar. The article deleted differs from the current one in user space only by also including more of the subject's poetry. No possible notability at present; no published work, no public notice. The only source is some material he has posted on a blog. This is the sort of article A7 is designed for. The aritcle says he plans to run for Mayor of Lyon in 2011. If he wins, he will be notable. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7. The article gave no indication of its subject's notability, thus making it an appropriate candidate for the A7 criterion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Because there was no indication of notability, speedy deletion was appropriate. Cunard (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Toy museum (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe this to be a notable phenomenon, as evidenced by some of the examples given in the list in the article. I am aware of at least one in this city as well, which isn't listed. MacRusgail (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Consider me confused about what you're asking for here. This was originally an article about a specific, non-notable collection of toys in Ohio. This was deleted at an AfD in 2007. On the same day the original article was deleted, the present article about toy museums in general was started. This present article has an unbroken edit history since 20 August 2007, has not been deleted (or even nominated for deletion) since. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't work out what is to be reviewed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could at least discuss it. What's the point of this bloody page otherwise? --MacRusgail (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to undo my close iff you can explain what exactly you want DRV to do. Tim Song (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or even if you don't want to be exact, we can continue on the talk page. In response to what you've written. "Yes, I think you are right. Is there something wrong with the article?". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied this to Talk:Toy_museum for us to continue there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • User:Lanternix/userboxes/BiasedARWiki – There are several points I want to make in the closure of this very complex DRV. The summary decision, for those wanting to get to the point is deletion endorsed.

(1) Forum (i.e., MfD vs. TfD) is an issue of process, and arguments of process are often more heavily weighted arguments in the close of a DRV.

(2) The process issue regarding which forum was chosen (TfD vs. MfD) should not be blindly considered, especially given changing community norms. The advent of the German Userbox Solution (GUS) is long past. That said, the GUS still represents an important principle to consider in the default location of userboxes at their creation. Most userboxes are now moved to the userspace by default. This makes userboxes in template space the exception rather than the rule. Consequently, the location of the discussion becomes less of an important process issue. Similarly, the community's depreciation of CSD T1 indicates a shift toward discussion generally, but also away from a need to conduct said discussions in a given namespace. We are dealing with one userbox here and not the systematic deletion of many.

(3) Issues of process are not limited to discussion, but also to applications of speedy deletion policy. The main thread in opposition to undeleting or re-listing the userbox is based upon application of CSD G10. The argument of these !voters was that the userbox was an attack page--no matter what namespace it was present in.

(4) I am sensitive to concerns that strong and intractable POVs on this or other Wikimedia projects could very well bring Wikimedia projects as a whole into disrepute. WP:NOTSOAPBOX should not be taken as a suicide pact to prevent any discussion and criticism aimed at bettering the reputation of all Wikimedia projects. That said, English Wikipedia is probably not the best place to be having discussions about other-language Wikipedias (despite the fact that it is the largest and most widely read Wikipedia by far).

(5) I acknowledge that I have no knowledge or opinion either way on the potential bias or POV of the Arabic and/or any other language Wikipedia. I do not know the true motives of the userbox creator/users. It is possible that they are valid concerns of bias, and it is also possible that they represent another systematic bias on the part of said creators/users. It is not the part of this DRV to read hearts and minds.

(6) The weight of argument in this discussion falls to a literal application of CSD G10 being strongly endorsed in this case (and limited in scope to this case). The uncertain spirit of CSD G10 in cases of intra-wiki criticism, and its potential to squelch valid opinion (on this or other topics) remains a concern, but it cannot be examined directly without the potential of a biased closure if one has a preconceived opinion in the issues involved. – IronGargoyle (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Lanternix/userboxes/BiasedARWiki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Template:Biased Arabic Wikipedia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) (For reference)
  • 1. The debate was about the template in the public space NOT about the template in my own private space. The administrator involved (User:RL0919) has deleted both! This is in spite of the fact that most opinions were that it's a matter of personal freedom, and that it is perfectly fine to keep it in user space.
  • 2. The majority consensus was move and not delete! In spite of this, the administrator involved (User:RL0919) has deleted both the page in question and another page I had just created in my user space. λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 00:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The TFD can be found here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please be aware that the TFD provided above (this one) is about the public domain template, NOT about the one in my own user space, which is the one for which I am requesting restoration here. Thanks! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 00:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting admin comments. First, just to address the purely numerical issue: there were 2 keep comments, 5 who said to move the userbox from template space to user space, 7 who said to delete it, and 1 comment that I could not classify as making any recommendation. But of course consensus is not just about numbers, and I found the delete arguments to have more support from the guidelines they cited. Lanternix decided during the deletion discussion to make a copy of the box in user space, without waiting to see what the close was. Since the deletion rationale was based on concerns that apply across namespaces, I deleted the user copy as well rather than force a repeat discussion at WP:MFD, where the exact same deletion arguments would have been valid. (MFD is technically is where the discussion should have started since this is a userbox, but it was a rather late to be moving the discussion, and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.) I have talked about this at some length with Lanternix on my user talk page, so you may want to review my comments there for further insight on my thinking. --RL0919 (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all, I would like to contest the numbers given by RL0919:
    • There were 2 Keep votes (Lanternix, Degen Earthfast)
    • There were 5 Move to Userspace comments (AnonMoos, Collect, Arthur_B, ♥Yasmina♥, Gavia immer)
    • There was 1 Vote that could be classified as either Keep or Move (Toothie3)
    • There were 4 Delete votes (Robofish, Closeapple, Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556, Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky))
    • There was 1 Delete vote from an anonymous IP, and I am even sure if that counts at all
    • There were 2 Votes that were not expressed but could be classified as Delete (Chris Cunningham, RL0919 who happens to be the admin at question here)
  • Comment Second of all, in addition to the above, the voting was about this page, and NOT about this page. To my utter surprise, RL0919 proceeded to delete both, even though nobody expressed concern about the template in my own user space. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (ec twice) No harm will arise from restoring the copy in userspace and instituting an MfD if you feel it useful to do so. And it would appear that the 7 editors who felt it proper in userspace made up a significant part of the entire discussion panel, while only 2 voiced specific desire for simple deletion. Note: I !voted for userspace in the original discussion, and would !vote "keep" in an MfD. Collect (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how you interpreted the comments to say that only two editors "voiced specific desire for simple deletion". The comments included one simple delete, two "speedy" deletes (speedy was, quite properly, declined), "it should go", and "Delete, delete, delete (and did I say "delete"?)", plus an editor who changed position from move to delete based on one of the "speedy delete" comments, and the nominator who made it clear that he would have nominated the same box if it were in user space. But as noted above I did not base my close on headcounting. --RL0919 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and send to MfD. The TfD nomination has an unfortunate procedural problem that results from our somewhat bureaucratic template rules: Userboxes are allowed in template space (if they are utterly uncontroversial), in project space (if it's a WikiProject template, although this is discouraged) or in user space (anything that we as a community can tolerate as being within our standards). Per previous discussion, however, all userboxes are supposed to be discussed at MfD regardless. If the discussion at TfD had only encompassed the template-space userbox, that would be a minor flaw not worth quibbling about; however, applying it to a userspace copy that wasn't part of the original nomination is problematic, because it's entirely possible that editors commenting on a userspace template at MfD would have applied a different standard from the one they have for templates in the main template namespace. The userspace version of the template ought to be reconsidered in the correct venue. Having said that, the principal result of the TfD nomination looks solid - there is a consensus not to have such a template in the main template namespace. Short version: What Collect said, in its entirety. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course Undelete - obvious case of abuse of power by administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.137.20 (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from AnonMoos on my talk page:
  • Even though I was on the fence between delete and keep, and am still not entirely convinced it should exist anywhere, I now think that on procedural grounds, the template should be restored in userspace. The reason why I'm saying this is simply because it could create a bad precedent. I have no doubt that the closing admin acted in good faith here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. WP:CSD G10 applies. G10 is not limited to personal attacks, and the template is a page that "disparage[s] ... some other entity", i.e., the Arabic Wikipedia, and "serve[s] no other purpose". Tim Song (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought this issue was resolved before because clearly most people did agree to KEEP but MOVE this to userspace. I did not vote infavour of deleting this. Ofcourse this should be undeleted immediately. Also like I said before I really recommend people to read the translated version of Arabic wikipedia articles to see how biased they are just like most their editors even in the English version, the Middle Eastern articles are often subjected to edit wars against these biases.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Support for the template came in the form of non-arguments like "it's true" and the rather self-perpetuating "keep because others want it kept". This isn't a vote, so it doesn't matter how many bad arguments were made to keep it if they fail to address the concerns raised. I can see this being relisted at MfD and getting the same result, so I would regard that as a waste of time. (note that I don't usually go in for bolding my stance in XfDs these days, but Lanternix has made a royal hash of the above discussion by repeatedly re-commenting and as such it's difficult to tell what's going on.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion of userspace version. There is a clear consensus that this does not belong in the template namespace, but there are equally strong arguments for and against having this in userspace and there was no consensus about whether it should exist there. Combine this with TfD not being the proper venue for userbox deletions (and thus many of those interested and experienced in dealing with disputed userboxes may have missed this discussion), that not everyone in the discussion clearly expressed an opinion regarding having it in userspace (the anon's reason for deletion is irrelevant to userspace userboxes for example), and I cannot endorse deletion of the userspace version from this discussion. No prejudice against an MfD though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete the one in the userspace. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. It's not up to anybody, as far as I believe, to tell me what to believe in. There is a very popular userbox that misnames "rap" music to "Crap". Would you go delete this one because it offends Eminem? Arthur B (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a correct application of policy. While it may be technically correct to undelete and send to MfD, such content is not permissible per Wikipedia:CSD#G10 and/or WP:UP#NOT regardless of how many votes may pop up. WP:BURO, applied liberally, can save us a pointless exercise here. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, mostly per G10.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 11, 2010; 14:36 (UTC)
  • I can't see a way to see what exactly this thing said. Per the discussion I'm going to overturn userspace deletion. But to evaluate the G10 claim I need to see it... Hobit (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the DRV links for the template space one, which from what I gather is identical to the userspace one. You should be able to see it in the Google cache. Tim Song (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Tim. I don't see a clear G10 here. The difference between disparaging and reasonable (though heated) criticism isn't a bright line and IMO this userbox isn't clearly on one side of that murky line. I'd stick with overturn (as the discussion certainly lacks consensus to delete in userspace) and refer to MfD if desired. I'd probably !vote to keep at MfD. Hobit (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse not clear enough for a speedy, but not suitable content, even in user space. A decision that did express the consensus, and I personally agree with that consensus. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the discussion significantly addressed userspace at all other than those wanting to move it into userspace. How could the consensus be to delete something that was only discussed in the "keep" sense (moving to it)? I'm okay with those claiming that it's a G10. Though I disagree, it's not at all unreasonable. But to claim a discussion about template space applies to userspace is pretty novel. I believe we rejected a similar argument (article space and user space) quite recently for a bio... Hobit (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of the editors !voting to delete did so after most of the "move" !voters, so if they meant it was not OK in template space but was OK in user space, then they could have easily said "move" like the others. Also, the arguments I gave the greatest weight cited guidelines that clearly apply to user space. If someone cites WP:CSD#G10 or WP:UP#NOT, I can't possibly take them to mean "but only in template space". --RL0919 (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can find no precedent for weighing what one feels a person's opinion must be from looking at the point at which they state their opinion <g>. MfD is where userpages get discussed. Has that policy been altered recently? Collect (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do think the flow of a discussion is part of its interpretation, but more immediately relevant is that I believe my interpretation of the delete comments is supported by some of the same editors' comments here. But even if I was entirely right about what they meant, deleting the user copy that Laternix made late in the discussion was a difficult judgment call, so I'm not surprised that some of the uninvolved commenters here agree with it and some disagree. MFD is where userboxes are discussed, regardless of namespace. So one option would have been to close the discussion as being the wrong venue and require the whole thing (including the template space version) to be listed at MFD instead. I would have done exactly that if I had caught the discussion early enough (see this, for example), but after seven days of robust discussion that would have been needlessly bureaucratic. Deciding (as I finally did) that separately listing the user space copy was also unnecessary was much less obvious. Still, I thought it was the right call at the time and I still do. --RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at MfD While there was a consensus that this userbox should have been deleted in the template mainspace, I cannot discern a consensus for deletion in userspace, at least not in the TfD. Indeed, many participants in the discussion explicitly supported userfying the userbox. Ultimately, this can be sorted out best at MfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion in any space. The original content in question accused an entire Wikipedia language of being "completely biased and unfair" and "Run by some Islamic fundamentalists". Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page? exists specifically to proscribe this type of content: #9 ("statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons") and #10 ("Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws"). See also WP:BATTLE, and the original TfD, in which I described several guideline violations, including an argument for WP:CSD#G10. Unless User:Lanternix/userboxes/BiasedARWiki contains a substantially different statement that meets guidelines, it shouldn't be anywhere, user space or otherwise, regardless of which deletion procedure was used. --Closeapple (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, Arabic Wikipedia IS completely biased and IS in fact run by people who sympathize with Islamic terrorism. This is not only my opinion, but that of many Arabic-speakers users, some of whom did in fact express their opinions here or in the previous discussion (including Ysamina, Toothie, Arthur B, and Degen Earthfast). The fact that we are raising awareness about this should be praised not criticized! Secondly, there is nothing to suggest that rules #9 and #10 above applies to Wikipedia in other languages. Of course vilifying editors on English Wiki is not ok because people can in fact read English and make up their own opinion about who's right and who's wrong. But people on English Wiki CANNOT understand the atrocities happening on Arabic Wikipedia, and many of us feel that they need to. Thirdly, this is personal freedom and we are not harming anybody. This is merely our own opinion about a certain website. Like another person said, would you delete a template saying that rock music sucks because you would be harming the feelings of rock musicians??? Where exactly did the freedom of speech go??? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 18:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • These points are already addressed by Wikipedia policy:
        1. The first statement is the strongest reason the reason this content is up for deletion, and why I have mentioned WP:CSD#G10 and WP:BLP before: It makes defamatory statements about living people without reliable sources, which exposes Wikipedia itself to legal liability. This is the most strictly enforced rule on Wikipedia, just for that reason. I am not sure how one can have 5300 edits on en.wikipedia and not have a clear idea of how important it is to avoid defaming living persons based on just thinking everyone else would believe you if they saw what you saw. Unless you have third party, uninvolved, already publicly-credible sources to show that every active person in a leadership role on Arabic Wikipedia either follows beliefs that are widely held to be Islamic fundamentalism, or self-identifies as an Islamic fundamentalist, one cannot make this statement without attracting legal problems for Wikipedia from anyone who believes you have unfairly labeled them as following a belief they don't identify themselves as. It is prohibited on Wikipedia to make controversial statements about living people without something more concrete than the equivalent of "I know lots of people who think so" and "if you could see what I see, you'd know" (which is WP:OR on its face anyway). "Raising awareness" is what WP:NOTSOAPBOX says Wikipedia is not for. The first paragraph of that section specifically notes that it applies to templates and user pages as well.
        2. Second, as far as #9 and #10 (which have since become unnumbered) not applying to Wikipedia in other languages: (a) You are the only person I can recall ever claiming that Wikipedia editors in other languages weren't really Wikipedia editors when it came to policy. (b) If English Wikipedia guidelines did not consider Wikipedia in other languages to be relevant, then that would mean this userbox doesn't even exist for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia it's on, and therefore there is even less reason to keep such a userbox. (c) Regardless of (a) and (b), some Arabic Wikipedia editors (you, for example!) are also English Wikipedia editors; I assume that even some Arabic Wikipedia administrators are English Wikipedia editors as well. Saying the output of Arabic editors is "completely biased" and "run by" Islamic fundamentalism is a direct attack on their willingness to follow Wikipedia guidelines, which compromises their reputation for WP:NPOV in English as well. Feeling that "they need to" introduce opinions is (again) exactly why WP:NOTSOAPBOX exists.
        3. On the third point: It is policy and widely held consensus on Wikipedia, as well as official Wikimedia Foundation policy (per the organization's board of directors, if I remember), that defamatory statements about living people is about as close to "harming anybody" as exists on Wikipedia, second only to exposing personal identities of editors without consent. As I mentioned above to Arthur B above: If a template accused rock musicians of being "run by" people of a controversial religious belief (especially one with no specific definition) and of being "completely biased" as Wikipedia editors, yes, it would and should get deleted from Wikipedia. Freedom of speech went to WP:NOTFREESPEECH via "Wikipedia is not your web host". Wikipedia was not created to be a free web host for personal beliefs. There are millions of other websites and hosts for that. See also WP:NOT#ESSAY: "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge." It's worth pointing out that making your "opinions become part of such knowledge" is exactly what you've said the intent of that userbox is. (It is also worth pointing out that even very free societies have defamation exceptions to freedom of speech. Legal ramifications for Wikipedia are one of the reasons WP:BLP exists.) --Closeapple (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DRV discussions are usually kept open for 7 days or so. This discussion, for example, is scheduled to be closed on the 18th or 19th. The relevant policy on closing is Wikipedia:Consensus. This is not, strictly, a majority vote, but DRV's are more rarely closed "against the numbers" than AfD's though by no means never. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete the one in the userspace. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. It's not up to anybody, as far as I believe, to tell me what to believe in. We as a community kept the pictures of Mohammed on the Mohammed page. Someone gets offended, oh well. WP:Not PC.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Degen Earthfast! Excellent point! Why allow Wikipedia to insult all Muslims by posting Muhammad's caricatures, but prevent some users from expressing their opinion about Arabic Wikipedia? How is the former considered freedom of speech and the later not? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 03:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The images aren't there as an exercise in freedom of speech, they are present to improve the encyclopaedia. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not "Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech". Guest9999 (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The images are there even though they are "divisive"! Isn't this the argument used against my template? And even if they're only there to "improve the encyclopaedia", so is my template. It raises awareness about and exposes wrong actions on Arabic Wikipedia, which are the first steps toward improvement! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 03:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The drawing of Muhammad is on Wikipedia because of a month of discussion (and then some), about the primary element of an event that clearly met Wikipedia:Notability (events) because it resulted in extensive press coverage, major international diplomacy issues, and riots. Unless ambassadors and heads of state have had press conferences about this userbox, the reasons the Muhammad drawing is on Wikipedia don't apply to some Wikipedian's userbox creation. --Closeapple (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion in both spaces, per rationale of RL0919, DGG, and Closeapple. I would, however, support recreation of this userbox with some minor modifications in the language. Clearly, one should be allowed to express an opinion, but there are some limitations. I am hopeful that a reasonable compromise can be reached. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will not engage in discussion about the template until the template is restored in my own userspace, since I continue to believe the deletion is unfounded, unilateral and not in accordance with proper Wikipedia guidelines. Once my template is restored, I may be willing to discuss minor modifications suggested by Plastikspork that would allow my to freely express my opinion. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 03:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can message whomever I'd like. Wiki-hounding me won't do you any good. But as RL0919 said, I messaged everyone I thought was involved in the previous discussion (I happened to miss 2 of them by mistake). --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 03:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Canvassing "To avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia, editors should keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions." (emphasis added). Whilst the recipients may have expressed an opinion in the deletion discussion, deletion review considers a completely different issue - whether process was followed correctly. This is something that clearly could not have been discussed during the initial discussion and telling every user that the deletion was "unfounded" is clearly not neutral wording. Guest9999 (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say, I believe the deletion was "unfounded", and this is why I called for re-evaluation here. I thought it was redundant to mention something like this, but apparently some people still don't understand that I believe deleting something on my userspace without any consensus whatsoever is unfounded! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 19:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you believe the deletion was unfounded; that's implied by the fact that you acted to challenge deletion, and doesn't especially need to be repeated. The editors commenting above are correct in saying that you should strive to be neutral in your notifications regardless, which can usually be done simply by omitting comments about why you chose to challenge deletion. Anyone with an interest in the matter will be able to read your rationale at the actual deletion review. Just something to keep in mind for the future. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please reevaluate it, Lanternix's arguement makes sense.

And of course Lanternix has a right to message whome ever he desires. Toothie3 (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment first of all I would like to know why is it a geniune concern like this is being deleted (wrongfully since most favoured against deletion before) is being trialed like this when other editors have templates openly stating they support Violence against military agression an example; This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties [22] and another one [23] which was clearly made for Hezbollah whcih may I remind you all is by law in most the western world considered a terrorist organization yet a template raising the concern over the bias and extremist sympathizing taking place on the articles is considered extreme?. This is Political corectness beyond an abnormal scale. You know what there should be another template created stating; This user believes English wikipedia is manipulated by radicals and their apologists. why is templates that endorse violence allowed to be on wikipedia, yet this one not?♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

simple: It's not a template. If you'd like to complain about an individual user's page-design, bring it up at ANI. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It IS a userbox and explain why a userbox regardless if it's not a template which states a certain editor endorses violence not being automatically deleted yet this which was voted to be kept, was?♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to have another userbox deleted, you can nominate it for deletion? This discussion is reviewing the deletion procedure of one particular userbox. Also, as Seb az86556 already mentioned, those particular userboxes are not transcluded templates, they are using the generic {{userbox}} template. See the wikicode. So the correct place to bring up those pages would be at ANI. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my point is there is clearly a double standard in what wikipedia considers ofensive, we already went through another disucssion before about this before most people agreed to keep it yet it be moved to userspace which it was but still deleted anyway. Who on earth is this admin to overule on a voting outcome? which favoured keeping the template this is undermining the whole point of even bringing any complaints or discussion here if the outcome is already masterminded. ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion from userspace as a correct reading of consensus in the debate. Arguments are weighed, not counted. This is a clearly unacceptable userbox and needs to stay gone. The one mentioned above probably do to but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arguments are indeed weighed and not counted, which is why the deletion of the userspace version should be overturned. Several of those who thought it did not belong in the template namespace explicitly stated it should be moved to userspace; others advocating deletion advanced reasons that are irrelevant to userspace (notably "does not show expertise for article improvement on English wikipedia"). And while several of the keep votes are weak (e.g. "I also think you guys should go and see some Arabic articles and judge for yourself.") this boils down to "it is a true statement", which should (and probably did) hold little weight for keeping the template but should not be discounted as a reason for keeping it as a userbox (it shouldn't be given much weight, but should be given some). Also, as the copy to userspace did not happen until late in the discussion, you can't be certain that those commenting early one who didn't explicitly say anything about userspace hold the same opinion for both namespaces. All this points to there being no consensus to delete the userspace version. The only pages on Wikiepdia that are "clear unacceptable" without their being a consensus to this effect are those pages that meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Of the CSD only G10 is a possible fit here, and several administrators have explicitly said that it doesn't meet the criteria for G10, meaning that CSD cannot apply and thus it is not "clearly unacceptable". Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 March 2010

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

BZPower (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe this deletion was in error; this survived "3" keep votes before this. Also, it qualifies under W:WEB, here are some articles by independent sources of BZP:

Lugnet cool site, April 27, 2003 (LUGNET has an article here)

Maori Cyberterrorism Vs. Lego

In addition, it has 5 million posts and is about 50 members short of 45,000. That is about as many members and about 2.5 million more posts than The Dugout, Veggieboards, and xkcd. I have a sandbox of it here. TN05 18:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is a website with 5 million posts not notable? Is VeggieBoards notable? BS01, Bioniclepedia, Mask of Destiny, LUGNET, they all reference it, not to mention it was linked at Bionicle.com in 2004. TN05 20:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are useful third party references because they come from the same subject area. This isn't about the others you mention (although if you pushed me, I'd say that xkcd is definitely notable and the other two are marginal). Black Kite 20:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want then, a link from the Tranformers wikia? Seriously? It never says "anywhere" in the policy 'links must come from outside the subject area'. Also, MoD and B-pedia are not affiliated with BZPower; both are actually 'competitors' of BZPower and it's affiliate, BS01. And 'Scoop' is not a Lego/Bionicle website. TN05 20:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would need substantial coverage by reliable sources. And no, the Transformers wikia (or any wikia) is not a reliable source. Ideally, we're looking for coverage in things like books, magazines, or newspapers. For example, the article on 4chan admittedly isn't perfect, but it does have over 100 references, including BBC News, Time Magazine, and CNN. If the most notable thing one can say about BZPower is "it was linked at Bionicle.com in 2004", well, I just don't think it will ever be notable enough for an article. You can wish and hope all you like, but some things just aren't going to happen, ever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see why coming from the same subject area makes a reference unusable. That's where references would be expected to come from. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, DGG. A fansite being linked to from another fansite (which likely both share many of the same members) is not a reliable source, as you know perfectly well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. It doesn't make a reference unusuable as such, but it needs to be backed up by coverage from the wider world. Black Kite 23:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If fansite #1 is a reliable source (which I greatly doubt in this case, but I'd be willing to be convinced) then an article on it would count for WP:RS. As DGG says, there is no requirement that things be sourced from outside of their subject area. Most DSP topics, for example, are only referenced within their own topic. Same with baseball players. That said, I'm not seeing that this is a RS... Hobit (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ditto on that, never said it was a RS DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate article if you think it's notable now, because there's nothing barring that. DRV is about whether the closing admin judged consensus correctly, rather than being about the merits of the article itself. The arguments for notability were weak (relying on things like Alexa rankings and forums), while the arguments for deletion depended on such concepts as "it's been around long enough to have sources," which aren't exactly compelling either. I might have closed this as "no consensus," but a delete close was reasonable under the circumstances. It would take less time just to start fresh, and from what I'm reading here there may be sufficient sources now.--~TPW 15:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There was no consensus; Bonesiii put out just as good an argument as the others who voted delete did. TN05 —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Although if you just recreate the same article, it will be deleted again per WP:CSD#G4. Black Kite 00:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. My sandbox is not a copy of the old article, as I never saw it, but I would take time to improve it, adding more citations and stuff. That is the only reason this page was deleted. TN05 00:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I was just making it clear that if a recreated article doesn't rectify the issues that saw it originally deleted, then it too is liable to deletion whether via AFD or CSD. Black Kite 17:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't sufficient sources, or indeed any sources. A fansite linking to a fansite is not a source, and neither is a link from a "Transformers wiki". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clearly show the policy here:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:

  • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
  • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.

Both my sources meet the policy, as LUGNET and Scoop are independent of BZPower. They are sources. You are ignoring the policy. TN05 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this is the sandbox article, it has one single valid source (Scoop) and that's about a DDOS attack from eight years ago (and actually, it's really about the response to that DDOS attack which was against another website). It certainly doesn't show multiple non-trivial independent works. Black Kite 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a work in progress; I will have more links soon. This is not the AfD, this about whether the decision made was in error, which it was. TN05 21:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the version that was deleted at that AfD had no independent sources whatsoever, just links to other forums and blogs, I fail to see how that decision could possibly have been in error. Black Kite 21:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are those forums and blogs affiliated with BZPower? Nope, so your point fails. You are disregarding policy, and stating it to be what it is not. TN05 22:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you actually need to read the policy (WP:V) yourself. It doesn't matter whether they're affiliated or not - blogs and forums are not reliable independent sources. The policy quite clearly states that (WP:SPS). Thus the original AfD decision was completely correct. If you can recreate the article in a manner that solves these problems, then that's fine, but there's no doubt that a DRV will not achieve that. Black Kite 22:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...For the reason of vanity press. Also, the link to Lugnet is not on their forum; it is an award given out by them. TN05 —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
It is not purely for the reason of vanity press. Please just read the policy. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable". The only exception to this is certain circumstances where blogs are written by professional writers under the control of major media groups. Unless the subject can be shown to have independent multiple non-trivial coverage outside this area, it fails WP:V, as this article did. The LUGNET link is also user-generated content - it is reviews sent in by members of the site. Black Kite 22:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • O Acaso do Erro – No consensus to overturn, and closure endorsed by default. While the overturn !votes have a slight numerical majority (9-8), almost half of them were characterized as "weak" and many consider the close to be within reasonable admin discretion. Moreover, this is an album, not a BLP, and the concerns that arguably justified the close of the Jon CJ Graham DRV do not apply here. I recognize my discretion to relist the AfD for further discussion upon determining that there is no consensus here, but I have decided not to do so. While several noted the low participation in the AfD, something that normally would justify a relist, a good number of people here agreed that a redirect is appropriate, something that can occur without another AfD. As a result, I consider it inappropriate to force a new AfD at this stage. This, of course, does not preclude it from being listed at AfD if another editor wishes to do so, but I recommend the possiblity of a redirect be explored first before a second AfD takes place. – Tim Song (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
O Acaso do Erro (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Keep votes failed to address in any way how the article meets WP:SONGS. delete votes demonstrated a lack of significant third party coverage. discussion with closing admin did not seem to acknowledge this. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin - Consensus was not present in this debate. Arguments for retention were indeed weak; however, support of the nomination was not overwhelming enough to justify entirely discounting them. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak overturn. Julian's close was certainly within the bounds of reasonable judgment in terms of evaluating the AFD, which makes overturning it at DRV shaky. I think describing the arguments for retention as "weak" gives them too much credit, though. FranklinG simply votes "keep" on all Fresno articles, saying "The article meets all the specifications of Wikipedia and is part of the life history of Fresno in the same band."
Given that FranklinG created these articles, making the same (generally false) assertion about each and every one is too weak to count at all. Poltair's argument was refuted effectively by Ginsengbomb, so I would give it zero weight in the final analysis. I stay at "weak" overturn because I dislike using DRV as a second bite at the apple. As I said, Julian's analysis is not out of bounds.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A delete close was certainly on the cards here. The delete !votes outnumbered the keeps in numbers (barely) and strength of argument (fairly convincingly, as explained above). Having said that, DRV is about whether the close was reasonable (an objective test), not whether it was the best possible close (a subjective test that is inherently difficult to apply). Here, "no consensus" was also open to be made, having regard to the general thinness of the discussion and uncertainties about sources. A no consensus close in these cases is an appropriately conservative course of action; it allows for the article to be renominated in the not too distant future, where hopefully a consensus will be reached. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There no sources were provided so the policy based argument was delete. Closing as no-consensus fails to properly weigh the discussion against policy Spartaz Humbug! 04:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn, without implying anything really procedurally wrong with the close. I'm pretty sure I would have called that a consensus to delete, given the complete absence of any basis in policy for the keep votes. I can totally see where Juliancolton is coming from calling this no consensus, but there's definitely precedent for disregarding keep and delete votes that don't address the relevant policies - and this seems to me to be a case of where that probably should be done. ~ mazca talk 09:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There were two "keep" !votes, Franklin G's can be summarised as "It's notable" but doesn't give any evidence to back up the assertion and so can just be discounted. Poltair's is effectively "it gets a lot of google hits, so it is likely that at least some that meet Wikipedia criteria for giving notability", but Ginsengbomb and LibStar's comments refute this - the coverage in reliable sources that Poltair speculates exists doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as a procedural error, though an understandable one. Alternatively relist for further discussion. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn and delete, mostly per Kww's argument. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a completely reasonable close, given the small number of participants and the open question about sources. The article can be nominated again to generate more debate.--~TPW 18:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and redirect to band article, as is normal in such AfDs. Black Kite 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (no consensus). The Participants did not reach a consensus. Feel free to Merge and redirect to Fresno (band) without asking at DRV for permission. Discuss on the discussion page if necessary. In the AfD I see people !Voting to delete due to non-notability, but this is not a reason to delete if there is an obvious merge target. Verifiability is not an issue here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as no consensus and just bring another AfD in a week or so. I rarely see the point of trying to overturn a non-consensus close when one thinks it should have been delete, when there's such an easy way of dealing with it.
  • endorse not a clearly mistaken close. I would strongly support a redirect to the band though... Hobit (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no consensus call was clearly accurate. And, per WP:OSE, "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." Albums by notable bands are an ideal example of where to apply this principle. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My keep argument was indeed weak and doubtful, I think I made that clear. If the subject is not sufficiently notable, and is unlikely ever to be so, and there is some arbitrary guideline that makes it unwelcome at Wikipedia, then get rid of it. Poltair (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn, looks like a delete consensus after discounting the keeps per Kww. A redirect may be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no-consensus close as within the bounds of admin discretion, but without prejudice if somebody decides to redirect it, as seems to be appropriate. RayTalk 18:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • John Kiriakou – Doubly moot. First, the article has never been deleted, merely redirected, and no DRV is necessary to revert a redirect. Second, the closing admin has agreed to recreation. No prejudice to a new AfD at editorial discretion when the article is recreated. – Tim Song (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
John Kiriakou (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't remember reading our original article on John Kiriakou, and didn't participate in the deletion discussion. I know his initial claim to fame was that he could verify that Abu Zubaydah broke within 35 seconds of being waterboarded. I do know he continued to be frequently used by news shows as an expert they could interview. I know his claim was subjected to increasing skepticism as further details of the CIA's waterboarding program became public. I know he appeared on the Colbert Report after his book was published. And I know that in his book, published earlier this year, he acknowledged that he wasn't present where Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded, and he had no idea how long it took to break him. I don't think there is any question that Kiriakou merits his own article now. (I didn't consult the closing admin first, because his or her User page says they have basically retired from the project.) I request full undeletion of the article, its full revision history, and talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jeff Stein (2010-01-26). "CIA Man Retracts Claim on Waterboarding". Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 2010-03-09. Well, it's official now: John Kiriakou, the former CIA operative who affirmed claims that waterboarding quickly unloosed the tongues of hard-core terrorists, says he didn't know what he was talking about.
  • "Colbert: Waterboard Kiriakou, CIA Faker". Politifi. 2010-02-06. Archived from the original on 2010-03-01. John Kiriakou, the former CIA employee whose claims about Waterboarding became an oft-cited defense of the Torture practice, got the "Colbert Report" treatment this week.
  • John Kiriakou, Michael Ruby (2010). The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror. Random House. ISBN 9780553807370. Retrieved 2010-03-09.
  • Allow recreation. I believe this DRV is entirely unnecessary. The article was redirected, not deleted, so the full article history is available. Given that the AFD was over two years ago and all the sources cited by Geo Swan are more recent, it should be within the bounds of normal editing to undo the redirect and create a sourced article, without coming to DRV. --RL0919 (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation as per RL0919. An AfD result of "Redirect" is not binding even in the short term, and surely not more than 2 years later. No need to worry about whether the AfD was technically correct or not (I think i would have closed it as "no consensus"), indeed this DRV can probably be speed closed as moot, because DRV's permission is not required to revert to the previous version of the article and then edit to add new sources. DES (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You would've closed an AfD where only 2 of the 7 commenters opted for keep as "no consensus" (and thus default to keep)? Are you sure about that? Black Kite 19:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two "delete"s, two "keep"s, three "redirect"s, and one "merge" And since "redirect" when not "delete and redirect" does not delete the history it is arguably a form of "keep", not a form of "delete". And Scmdn's keep arguments were IMO the strongest in the discussion. IMO a close of "keep, with redirection at editorial discretion" would not have been out of line with the discussion. But the matter is really academic now. DES (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation as closing admin - the original AfD wasn't contentious in the slightest, the article was a single line stub asserting no notability at all - if there's new information that makes him notable now, then no problem. Not something that should be at DRV, really. Black Kite 19:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation if there's new information not considered at the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow re-creation and see if anyone wants to challenge it with a new afd. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Yonge Street plaque.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Will add licencing information on behalf of original uploader. Subject of the file is of legitimate importance to the article in question. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a photo of a plaque. The uploader didn't specify a license, or the license got removed. I was planning on adding CC-by-SA 3.0 to it, as it would save a lot of time over taking a new and presumably identical photograph of the plaque myself. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • restore and tag with {{attribution}}. The uploader used the {{PD-link}} template when they uploaded the file, linking to ontarioplaques.com. That site doesn't explicitly say the photos are public domain but does say "All photographs on this site were taken by me unless otherwise acknowledged. My photos are freely available to whomever wishes to download them as long as the source is acknowledged with the words "Photo used with permission from the website www.ontarioplaques.com." underneath the photo." which to my non-expert eye looks more like a case for {{attribution}} than {{PD-link}} but both are acceptable for upload both here and at Commons. The file was initially tagged for WP:CSD#F9 (unambiguous copyright infringement) but this was reverted by the same user a couple of hours later, and the words "Photo used with permission from the website www.ontarioplaques.com." added. 13 hours later a different user tagged it for deletion under WP:CSD#F11 (no evidence of permission). While it is true that there is no evidence of permission, such permission is not required. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation or restoration automatically with new licensing information following "(Deleted because "F4: Lack of licensing information"." does not require a DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jason Upton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't understand why this article was deleted. Jason Upton is a Christian artist known worldwide and considered influential by many as the links below testify.

Based on Wikipedia's criteria, an artist is recognized as being notable when he:

  • Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.

Here are some of the many articles available on the internet: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/worship/features/260 http://www.soulshine.ca/reviews/albumReview.php?arid=668 http://www.crosswalk.com/music/1116560/ http://www.crosswalk.com/music/1110242/ https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/music/reviews/2002/yourlovebrokethrough.html

  • Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

Integrity Music and EMI CMG (includes Sparrow Records, etc.) are a major music labels, regrouping notable artists and bands as Chris Tomlin, Underoath, KJ-52, Paul Baloche, Kirk Franklin, and many more. (N.B. : The affirmation on itickets.com from the President of Integrity Music is enforcing Jason Upton's notability.) http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-People-Jason-Upton/dp/B000RN37V4, http://www.itickets.com/news/index.html?detail=1&id=962, http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/you-are-one-performance-track/id320166453, http://ca.music.yahoo.com/release/43550306

I suggest that this article be rewritten as soon as possible.Cgadbois (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MUME (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page for MUME was deleted before the articles for deletion page had come to consensus. References were being found at the time of deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.187.192 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 9 March 2010

  • Endorse closure There was a rough consensus to delete, and keeping the debate open longer probably wouldn't have been fruitful due to Hobit's difficulties in obtaining the book that was cited as a possible source. However, someone should userfy or incubate this to allow Hobit more time to locate the book. Honestly, there's not much DRV can or should do here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse sources are weak at the moment. I think a no consensus close wouldn't have been unreasonable, but a delete is also reasonable. If and when I get the source I'm waiting for I may bring it to the closing admin if it seems strong enough. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was into its third week; any suggestion that the closure was early is absurd. Endorse per A Stop at Willoughby, with liberty to userfy. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and allow recreation on location of sources. Sourcing from real books is to be encouraged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as per [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe] and A Stop at Willoughby. I will restore and userfy if any interested editor, particularly Hobit, so requests. Or this might be a case for incubation. DES (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Awesome_(window_manager) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article in question was deleted per lack of third-party sources and/or notability. Since the deletion discussion an additional (reliable) source covering Awesome was found in LinuxUser magazine [24]. This source was not mentioned during the discussion and as far as I can tell is absent in the article itself.

I talked to the admin who closed the discussion (Jayjg) and he suggested to take it to the deletion review.

In short, do you think the new source is sufficient to restore the article?

-- MagV (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a translation by Google Translate, but no separate English article I'm aware of. MagV (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find it in the English Linuxuser Magazine [25], you maybe able to. I know of it as window manager for X intended for power users and developers but I don't know that it's that notable.—Sandahl (♀) 20:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find English articles as well. And oh, English counterpart of German LinuxUser is not linuxuser.co.uk (which is Linux User and Developer), but linux-magazine.com. Confusing, I know. MagV (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral and I know there's no absolute rule sources have to be in English and I didn't say there was just said it was better to have English ones. The discussion isn't about that one link it's about the lack of 3rd party sources at the time it was deleted.—Sandahl (♀) 02:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation and relist at editorial discretion. The availability of a new reliable source in any language means that the concerns in the original AfD may have been resolved. I do endorse the recent speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4, however, as that version of the article (a) did not contain the new source and (b) accused the AfD's closing admin of trying to attack the "open source community." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the speedy for the same reason as A Stop at Willoughby. Noted accusation too. I'm very much an advocate of open source but I can't find much other than blogs and forums [26], maybe someone else can. I see it got carried off to LINUX.ORG.RU also.—Sandahl (♀) 03:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
IronE Singleton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Initially when the article was deleted a few months back, it was cited that IMDb did not have IronE Singleton in the credits. Now he has been added to the credits on IMDb and has a great deal of references from various media sources also. Please review his credits [27] and review his performance in the trailer of The Blind Side at [28] which begins at the 1:40 mark. Please overturn his article and add it back to wikipedia. Thanks! FilmnMusiCritic



—Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmnmusicritic (talk • contribs) 05:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC) --Filmnmusicritic (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore The ajc and iae links would appear to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responding to those below: the "blog" would appear to meet our requirements of WP:RS per A Stop at Willoughby. I agree that iaemagazine is significantly less reliable than I thought when I looked at it (nice job btw). So I'm going to claim only one RS at the moment and thus not enough for WP:N. I personally might !vote to keep given the other (weaker) sources, but it's not enough to overturn. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lets have a look at the sources...
      • - IronE Singleton's Website
        • Primary source, not independant, not secondary, worthless with regard to establishing notability
      • - at the Internet Movie Database
        • Not a RS. lacks adequate independance and peer review and essentially is user generated content with a little moderation.
      • Pre-Oscars, here's a local "Blind Side" tale | The Buzz
        • The blog in the URL is a bit of a giveaway. Not RS
      • The Blind Side's IronE is Making All The Right Moves | I Am Entertainment (IAE) Magazine
        • Hmm, more interesting but this is an online magazine that is less then a year old - only 3rd edition. Very promotional tone from the interview and two major danger signs, no by-line for the author and the credits for the mag have reference to article submissions so its odds on that this is a promotional puff piece submitted to the article to raise the subject's profile. I certainly cant accept this is independent and its a far from clear this is a RS. and lo and behold there is a page on how to submit yourself for an interview and the googlesearch for the website is all facebook and twitter chatter so this isn't going anywhere.
      • Box Office Mojo - The Blind Side
        • This doesn't mention the subject
    • So the sum total of these sources is .. er .. nothing encyclopaedic that would establish notability under wikipedia polices. Sorry but this simply doesn't fly and I suggest, since we have been here before, that you simply wait until the subject of this article has done something noteable to be picked up by real world print media, in detail and without puffery. Endorse deletion Spartaz Humbug! 18:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Sorry, but I don't think the sources presented here are sufficient to overturn the deletion, which was because of a lack of reliable sourcing. I largely agree with Spartaz's analysis of the sources listed above, except that I personally think the piece on The Buzz would be a valid reliable source.WP:RS states, "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." The Buzz is hosted on the website of the Atlanta Journal Constitution and appears to fit the criteria of the aforementioned guideline. Therefore, I would not have qualms about its use as a source. I also have some mixed feelings about the IAE article, although like Spartaz, I ultimately tend to see it as promotional and a questionable source. I agree in full with the remainder of Spartaz's analysis and concur with his opinion that Singleton does not meet Wikipedia's threshold of notability yet.

    Also, it should be noted that there was a clear consensus to delete in the AfD, with only Singleton's wife opposing deletion. The Imdb bit was mentioned in the nomination, but that changing does not make the consensus reached in December invalid. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Michelle Obama's arms (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Ten months ago, when User:Prodego closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms and deleted the article, User:Prodego commented, "This is obviously not a topic that is appropriate for an encyclopedia."

I'd like to ask that Michelle Obama's arms be undeleted because:

1) There is no wikipedia policy for what is "obviously" a topic for the encyclopedia.

2) Here in the year 2010, the subject is still being covered by The Chicago Sun Times, The Daily Mail, Oneindia.in, The Australian Broadcastng Corporation, ABC News, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Wall St. Journal, Huffington Post, Fox News, and Fitness Magazine.

3) During the deletion discussion, some of the reasons given for deletion were that the subject was "trivial" and "just plain silly." These are not official wikipedia policies.

4) The subject meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability.

5) Wikipedia has a category called Category:Famous body parts which would be appropriate for this subject.

Grundle2600 (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. As pointed out at the top of this page, "this process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented". Stifle (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The consensus at the high-participation AfD was very clear that, at most, this deserves a sentence or two in the Michelle Obama article. The nominator's argument here seems to be that it deserves an article because it has lots of coverage, but this argument was explicitly considered and rejected at the AfD. If you think more coverage is needed on Wikipedia, then I suggest you try and get consensus at Talk:Michelle Obama to add it to that article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was a very clear consensus - numerically and argumentatively - to delete this article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There's plenty of RS coverage, and nothing about the article violated WP:NOT. The fact that it's a stupid topic is neither Wikipedia's fault nor concern. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree that the XfD showed a clear consensus. It was a mere "rough consensus", with valid arguments opposing the prevailing view. However, "rough consensus" is how these things are decided. I recommend that User:Grundle2600 should seek consensus at Talk:Michelle Obama for expanded coverage at Michelle Obama. It is the obvious venue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse- the decision in the AFD was pretty clear. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as these are the same, tired, tendentious arguments made almost a year ago. Whether mentions of the "arms" were in reliable sources or not was never a point of contention. It is almost worth noting that Grundle2600 may have, once again violated his topic ban by even creating this DRV, and that SmokeyJoe should not be unhatting year-old conversations. If someone really wants to see the origins of this ridiculous story, they are more than able to click the "show" link. Tarc (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The AFD discussion was closed correctly, and userfication for a user who can't work on the page is pointless. --RL0919 (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Consensus and common sense both show that Michelle Obama's arms are not a topic for an encyclopedia. I challenge you to find an encyclopedia with an article on Michelle Obama's arms. Prodego talk 04:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse block deletion, as above and WP:AN. Jack Merridew 06:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 March 2010

[edit]
  • User:JPatrickBedell – Speedily closed as outside DRV's jursidiction. All of the individual diffs have been suppressed in addition to being deleted, so even if there was a consensus to undelete the page, nothing would really change. – NW (Talk) 04:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:JPatrickBedell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is somewhat related to the 2010 Pentagon shooting. We don't delete user pages of even semi-legitimate editors without reason. By deleting this we give the appearance that whenever there is an issue our response is to hide things. As part of being open it is important that we be open in all cases and that means not deleting user pages in this kind of case. By over sighting it we are effectively saying that you cannot trust wikipedia to be open with you about what goes on on it. ©Geni 22:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that it's outside DRV juristiction?©Geni 22:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because AUSC specifically has the remit to handle disputes about Oversighter activities. Logically, by assigning such a function to AUSC, DRV lacks such a function. As long as we're here, though, Alison's actions here seem entirely reasonable. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alison didn't cary out of the oversight though.©Geni 23:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. She blocked the account, but didn't do the oversighting. That was my mistake. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rodney Watson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AFD was relisted today then closed. This is too fast. It should remain open. I was researching whether it was notable or not. I see that other head coaches have articles. I see that this is a sport that college teams do have articles. Yet I can't see the article because it was deleted just as I was evaluating it. Part of the problem may be because controversial editor Kmweber created it months ago and was just indef. blocked for commenting on the AFD. Recommend overturning the AFD because of inadequate listing time and because it casts a bad cloud for Wikipedia. One could conclude that it was closed because of a grudge against Kmweber. A regular timetable, not so fast closure, is the right thing to do. Ipromise (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to restore and move to your userspace or perhaps better the Incubator if you want to work on this, and would be willing to come back to DRV with a draft when/if you have one you think is ready for mainspace. DES (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restored to userspace at User:Ipromise/Rodney Watson as requested. DES (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This had already run for a full week, and with the striking of Kmweber's comments, no one was arguing for keeping. Indeed I'm not sure why this was relisted. DES (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; this one didn't need to be relisted to begin with; the delete arguments are far stronger than the one keep argument; who seems perfectly fine with keeping a marginally (at best) notable; completely unsourced BLP. It was up for a week, and no one came up with a policy-based reason to keep it around, and relisting a debate does not guarantee it stays open for another full week. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse indeed. The debate has run for the full 7 days. Relisted debates can be closed once the consensus gets clear, as it is. To be fair, Kmweber's comment was not struck until after the relist. Tim Song (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The original discussion was aptly closed. It should not have been relisted in the first place, discussion should have come to DRV if there was any question, and here we are. JBsupreme (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. WP:RELIST specifically notes that a relist need not last a full week once a consensus is present. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but feel free to come back to DRV when and if the article is sufficiently sourced to merit mainspace inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The striking of Kmweber's comments appears to be against consensus, but I don't think a reopen would help since yeah, the article's pretty obviously doomed per lack of sources and failure of WP:NOTABILITY. It ought to be reopened just so Kurt's comments can be unstruck, then closed as delete again. Şłџğģő 15:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, Kurt's input would not have changed the outcome. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question isn't really whether Kmweber's input would have changed the consensus (that input had already been provided and had not seemed to impress anyone except perhaps Ipromise), but whether the input of other unknown individuals would have been likely to do so had this stayed open. That is possible but IMO far from sure. DES (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Some sources and content have already been added to the draft at User:Ipromise/Rodney Watson. I expect this will eventually be returned to mainspace with more than sufficient sources to clearly establish notability. DES (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tony Wang (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Updated to meet notability standards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zelysion/Tony_Wang

I think the page should be unprotected and the article put on the mainspace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelysion (talk • contribs)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Millau-Viaduct-France-2-20070909.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This picture was uploaded here; en en:, on 21 October 2007 at 22:30 by Scole01. It was then transferred to Commons as commons:File:Millau-Viaduct-France-20070909.jpg and deleted here according to WP:CSD F8. Now the picture must be deleted on Commons because France doesn't recognize freedom of panorama.

I ask for the undeletion of this picture here, so that en: can still use it. I could upload it back from Commons, but file history would be lost and the status of the picture would be very difficult to check afterwards. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MASSIVEGOOD (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello everyone! I had a discussion with User:Jclemens on January 21st about the MASSIVEGOOD page being deleted User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_5 as it was a recreating of another page. I believe that I have addressed all the notability issues and that the article which is now located at User:Tomo64/MASSIVEGOOD should be finally restored properly onto Wikipedia as the project is up and running as of today.I completely agree that it was speculative to put it up two months ago and that there was only PR information on the web, but all that seems to have changed. ♪Tomo65♫ 15:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 March 2010

[edit]
  • Boss Audio – The discussion is not coming to a clear result here, either, with the smallest of numerical majorities pointing towards a closure as no consensus, and some substantial arguments on the other hand, to not have an article if it cannot be referenced better. Putting it into the incubator might help to unearth such sources. Moving it back from there to main space would then be at editorial discretion as well as a subsequent relisting at AfD. – Tikiwont (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Boss Audio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Greetings all! I've briefly talked to User:X! about the closure of this discussion (like a boss), in which we both agreed that bringing it to deletion review might be appropriate. To me personally, it seemed that, based on the discussion, a 'no consensus' closure may have been slightly more fitting. We also both agreed, however, that the community at deletion review would be a better interpreter of that than either of us (or at least than of me). Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  • Endorse. I would have !voted delete myself, without any question; hopefully that doesn't colour my assessment of this closure. Right from the outset of the discussion, the reliability of the sources cited by the article was called into question, as was the significance of the coverage. RadioFan and Gavin Collins had strong arguments here grounded firmly in policy. In response to that, there were four keeps:
    • The first (relying on the business directory) was refuted.
    • The second (from User:Daniel Christensen), with respect, was not grounded in policy.
    • The third (from DGG (which the fourth relied on)) was explicitly "weak" and was in my view effectively refuted by Gavin Collins pointing to the policy that precludes business directories establishing the notability of an organisation (in addition to RadioFan's earlier reasons).
At the end of the discussion, I can't find any sound reason to keep: the sources cited had been debunked as insufficient to establish notability, so the close was appropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I'm not going to claim that it could not be closed any other way, but I think a delete close is the better choice here. Tim Song (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Tim Song. I am not seeing an abuse of discretion here. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse proper close due to identified lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus and shame on endorse voters above. The AfD actually should have been a Keep, considering the number of votes, but due to not very strong arguments by keep voters I would see it a decent thing to do to say no consensus, but not delete. Notice I said "not so strong" for keep voters, and not irrelevant; keep votes did explain, especially DGG. Obvious abuse of discretion. We must always keep in mind that, if there are 10 keep votes that are weakly argued and one very well argued delete; decision MUST be keep, because it reflects community wishes. This is the basic principle of WP. Turqoise127 (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC First of all there are plenty (100+) news hits. Some are PR releases, some are directory bits. But assuming this is the right company [29] is fairly detailed, [30] is in-passing but ABC news seems to think you should know who they are, [31] has a review of their offerings, and there are plenty more. Secondly, there was no consensus to delete. I understand facts are facts, but you need consensus to delete, and it was clearly lacking. WP:IAR exist for a reason and guidelines are just that. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hobit, those sources you linked are not very good. The My Central Jersey article is a profile of a local installation business, not a manufacturer. Single products in review lists are also weak. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not arguing that the sources are great. I'm arguing that the sources were enough that consensus shouldn't have been overridden. This is a well known company. I'd never heard of it before this DrV but there are plenty of reviews of products (do you _really_ want those products in their own article? They meet WP:N), and it is highly discussed. If a majority had gone for deletion in the face of that, sure we delete. But a majority went the other way even knowing the sourcing was weak. Admins should respect that. These were not SPAs or something else. They were people who felt that blindly following the guideline was wrong in this case. That's why we have discussions rather than just listing sources--sometimes the guidelines are wrong. The majority felt that way in this case. Hobit (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC) (edit made a few hours later)[reply]
        • The numerical split was 4 keeps to 3 deletes, counting the nominator – I would give more consideration to a more pronounced difference. RadioFan refers to WP:CORP very early in the AfD, but none of the keeps address it directly. One may infer that DGG rejects RadioFan's WP:CORP and business directory arguments, since his keep follows them, but he does not present a substantial reasoning until his comments at this DRV. Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll admit I forgot to count the nom and 3 to 4 is a lot closer than 2 to 4. But I don't see how one can claim consensus (which is what we are to be evaluating) exists for an action when the majority oppose it. Sure, if the !votes were out in left field, but these weren't. Plus there are sources that are decent. [32] is another reasonable one (might be a respin of a press release, but if not it's in pretty good detail and there is a third-party biline. Hobit (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – my evaluation is no consensus leaning delete, and this close is within admin discretion. Mkativerata's evaluation is compelling. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus A D&B listing gives information . The actual wording of WP:ORG is "Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as... directions in business directories." A mere listing of an address is not sufficient but D&B gives considerably more than that. But regardless of my own opinion, when there is a real dispute on what argument is relevant, or the strength of the evidence, the closer is not to judge that, but close according to what most people in the discussion say. The way we interpret rules about the adequacy of sources is by consensus, not individual preference. The alternative is even worse chaos than at president, because inconsistent as our group decisions may be, they're inherently more reliable than individual decisions. If the closer has a view on the matter, he should join the argument instead of closing, and try to affect

consensus that way. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • D&B is a directory and a credit reference agency. That's like saying we keep every article on a company registered with Companies House because the Companies House database provides more than just the name. If we're really reduced to arguing over whether a D&B listing counts as a source then the company is plainly not notable as any notable company will have many more sources than just a credit reference agency. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does D&B meet the requirements of WP:RS? If so, it certainly counts toward meeting WP:N. I don't see any guideline that would indicate otherwise and I'd certainly oppose anyone trying to make such a change. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 March 2010

[edit]

1 March 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jim Diamond (Magician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) (previous discussion)
  • The biography has a donated copyright permission to Wikipedia.

{{PermissionOTRS|2009082910026398}}

After discussion with Prolog on a deletion review with revisions, we have an article that conforms to Wikipedia’s polices that uses a few independent sources and a primary source, which is reliable in its given context especially in sensitive situations where the person is still living. The article satisfies the actual purpose of notability, but it only partially meets the basic criteria for notability which request independent sources for article creation. It is also understood that notability guidelines are not policy for articles on people, WP:PEOPLE allowing for such exceptions WP:IAR that are reasonable for the creation of such articles. Therefore Prolog and myself are asking the Wikipedia community to come to a consensus on the proposed draft for acceptance on article creation.

Just ask yourself this simple question, does adding an article which meets rest of Wikipedia’s policies help or hurt Wikipedia in achieving its objective of massively categorizing a free flow of useful information. If adding the article helps the objective more than causing harm we should do it, or if it causes more harm than helps the objective we should not add it. Deadalus821 (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore (or more exactly permit new draft into article space) This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 which the deleted version of the article quite obviously does not meet -- it asserts significance and importance all over the lot. The OTRS ticket means that the previous G12 (copyvio) deletion is now moot. The article as it was when deleted was more than a trifle promotional, but that could be dealt with by editing. And indeed it has -- the draft is far less promotional and far more encyclopedic in tone. There might still be questions about sourcing, but that would be a matter for editing or an AfD, not a speedy such as we are now asked to consider reversing. Frankly i wouldn't hesitate to reverse even without a new draft -- with this one this is a slam-dunk IMO. DES (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I wrote on my talk page, this was deleted for many reasons. It was (intentionally or not) circumventing the creation protection on Jim Diamond (Mega Genius), it was created after a final warning not to create promotional pages, and it again was practically identical to the earlier attempts (correctly) deleted under G11 by other admins. I was sloppy with the deletion reason, but as I understand it, salt means salt. Prolog (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that Jim Diamond (Mega Genius) was never deleted by AfD. It was speedy deleted several times, with the substantive reasons being G11 (promotion) and G12 (copyvio). (it was also blanked at one point.) The OTRS ticket deals with the G12, and i don't think the draft is promotional at the speedy deletion level. Since the former reasons for speedy deletion do not apply to the draft, restore this and let the matter be brought to AfD if any interested editor sees fit. Salting does not mean an eternal ban. Ideally the creator should have come here first, but missteps in procedure, even mis-steps in bad faith, are not punished by deleting otherwise valid articles. I will grant that the version you deleted was quite promotional, and a G11 speedy would not have been unreasonable. DES (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse based on the new draft, it doesn't appear that it would pass an AFD and arguably could be an A7 speedy. Mere membership in Mensa and similar clubs isn't considered a claim of notability for our purposes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we overturned incorrect deletions, not passed judgment on whether something would pass afd. the claims in even the original version are claims that would pass A7. DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would decline an A7 "performed in theaters and nightclubs throughout the United States, and appeared frequently on television" are claims of significance. "Executive Vice-president of the National Heritage Foundation, Inc." and "Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of The Houdini Institute, Inc" also at least suggest significance. Sources might be called for at an AfD, but this (the draft) isn't IMO subject to speedy as it stands, and might well pass an AfD, depending on the quality of sources. I note two news stories from reliable sources are cited in the draft. DES (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding AFD survival and sourcing, the problem with those two sources is that they are simply recycling a press release from the subject. The apparent lack of independent sources for any of the often-wild claims, in the deleted version or in the draft, makes the content highly suspicious, even hoaxalicious. And I googled. At the moment, I am not convinced that Jim Diamond the genius and/or the magician even exists. There is someone marketing products with that persona, though. Prolog (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The stories cited in the draft are reporting on this person's publications, specifically on his so-called "Stupidest Statement Awards". Obviously in reporting on such a publication, they quote extensively from it to show what it is. That is not, in my view, the same as "recycling a press release". Indeed, all other (currently unsourced) claims aside, I suspect he is at least arguably notable for this publication alone, as a satirist. If the other statements about his life cannot be verified, they can be challenged and removed from an article. DES (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The sources do not provide any information on the subject beyond what is contained in the press release, so I certainly don't see a basis for a biography per WP:BLP1E. It would be pretty odd to write an article on a satirist/magician/genius if there isn't even a single source describing him as such. "'''Jim Diamond''' is a [[Man|guy]] who calls himself '''Mega Genius''',<ref1> and issues the "Stupidest Statement Awards" annually.<ref2> {{stub}}" doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Prolog (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can confirm the OTRS ticket is valid. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation more or less per DES and restore if an old version is needed for some reason. I agree it may not make it past AfD, but as far as I can tell it has never made it _to_ AfD. Hobit (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A7 and allow recreation There's nothing particularly compelling in the lead paragraph that asserts notability, and there's a whole lot of cruft to wade through: the deleting admin can be forgiven for failing to notice an assertion of notability in the body that isn't in the lead. At the same time, of course, A7 allows recreation automagically, and with the OTRS ticket confirmed I see no reason why this couldn't be used as the basis for an actual article on the guy. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While anyone can make a mistake, I do think that an admin ought ideally to read the entire article looking for assertions of significance before accepting an A7. But whether the previous article was properly speedy deleted or not, it does not seem to me that the draft would be properly subject to any of the WP:CSD. DES (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agreed-- d judging by the lead paragraph is below the expected standard of an admin or any good editor. . DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is the epitome of TL;DR. It's 17k (four screenfuls of text on my laptop) of mostly irrelevant assertions. If it had been 300k, containing assertions of notability in the body but not the lead, would a deleting admin have been expected to wade through the entire thing? Of course not: overlooking claims buried in text is an error, but certainly not an actionable one. If an A7 is wrong, the best thing to do is simply resubmit the article with the notability assertion firmly ensconced in the lead. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation per DES. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. Although I'm not certain I'd recommend keeping this in it's present form at AfD, the draft does not meet any speedy deletion criteria, including [[WP:CSD#G11] and WP:CSD#G4. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It never was an a7 speedy. " repeatedly on television on all three major networks: NBC (KSL-TV), CBS (KUTV-TV) and ABC (KTVX-TV)." is an assertion of importance. It is not enough to keep an article if unsourced, and there is a certain reluctance about keeping pages with so strong a promotional air, but it was not so much so as to fall under G11. Copyvio of course is a sure reason for deletion, but that is no longer the problem. I, like the others, am not happy with the proposed version , and in particular think we must remove will remove the IQ material unless sourced to an unquestionably reliable source as an extremely unlikely claim--and even so, I would want it worded as "according to X, ..." unless there is a true peer-reviewed study in an academic psychological journal of high reputation. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. I certainly agree that this matter would easily be resolved with an additional independent reliable source. I fully understand the desire to uphold encyclopedia articles that are fully independent of the subject even though policy does allow self published material if it is reasonable. I do consider it biased that the IQ material must be independent while the rest of the self published material accepted, although I realize the simple intent for complete satisfaction. Here is an even better encyclopedia look you are asking for, please view the modified draft. In addition I could take it out the IQ material if it is not necessary for notability. If this is about a reputation of fact checking related to the website, please look at the intelligence briefings, particularly How to Begin Deprogramming Yourself, The Great Mystery of Jack the Ripper Series or A Lesson In Prediction. Deadalus821 (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_March&oldid=420278565"