Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcuts:
Wikipedia:DRV
Wikipedia:DELREV
For articles deleted via proposed deletion or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see Wikipedia:REVDEL.
Administrator instructions
link=#Active_discussions
Skip to: Active discussions · Recent discussions · Archive
<inputbox> type=fulltext prefix=Wikipedia:Deletion review break=no width=50 searchbuttonlabel=Search logs </inputbox>
Deletion discussions
Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here (administrators may replace with {{TempUndelete}} where appropriate).

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the list of perennial requests.

Contents

What is this page for?

Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.

Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions

Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.
  1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look.
  2. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions.
  3. Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.
  4. In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to Wikipedia:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid corrective action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. Equally, this process should not be used to point out other pages that have not been deleted where your page has — each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).

Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed.

The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in the main part of the page—please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.

Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:
  1. The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
  2. The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
  3. The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.
Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

History-only undeletion

Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.

Contesting 'proposed deletions'

For these uncontroversially-deleted articles, you can make a quick request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

How do I do all this?

All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request:
  1. discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #What is this page for? (above).
  2. please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:
  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • 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; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.
Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are requested to routinely restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{tempundelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

alt= If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a prod, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.
 
1. Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.
2. Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3. Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used. For example:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
4. Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:

[[Template:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME]] ~~~~
5. Nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept should also attach a Template:Delrev tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
6. Leave notice of the deletion review at the top of the original deletion discussion. If the discussion was an AFD, the following template should be used: {{Delrevafd|date=addDate}}
 
Click to create a log page for tomorrow (5 September 2010)

Active discussions

4 September 2010

Amarna Reign

Amarna Reign (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
Page was deleted even though it met criteria posted at Wikipedia:MUSIC Orangemohawk 03:47 September 4 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse, but allow recreation [1] Speedy deletion per A7 appears to be within process. The requestor is urged to work on a copy in userspace (I will provide one if desired) and seek to demonstrate independent, reliably-sourced coverage of this band, moving it back into mainspace once the article has improved sufficiently. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

3 September 2010

Pet Smart

Pet Smart (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
Previous discussion: Wikipedia:ANI#Inappropriate AfD closure
Kinu (talk<dot-separator> contribs) has closed this Afd as delete ([2], log), after he voted for the deletion of the article. According to Wikipedia:NotEarly AfDs should be closed by "uninvolved (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin or editor". And he was cleary involved. Other concern is that this Afd was open for just 92 minutes and was snowed after just 3 delete votes (without the nomination). Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted per Wikipedia:CHILD, Wikipedia:SNOW, and Wikipedia:NOTBUR. Obviously doesn't meet inclusion criteria. It's an article about a book written by a minor published by a DIY/Vanity press. No reliable sources. –xenotalk 17:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse Yes it was out of process but I'll only !vote to overturn an out of process deletion if it can be shown that the outcome had any real prospect of being different had the process been followed properly. I'm not seeing that here. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Mkativerata. Any other outcome would have been objectively unreasonable, so involved administrator closure, while it is an appropriate cause for outside review of the closure, isn't inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Can't see the article, but assuming it was a valid speedy, this is fine. If it wasn't, I'd !vote to overturn. Hobit (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Xeno's description of the deleted content is accurate. The same account also wrote a (largely empty bar some templates) biography for the book's author in another article, which was also speedily deleted. I'm being circumspect in naming that second article because the deleted content in both articles identified this living person as a minor — not in a problematic way, I add, but entirely without any sources at all. Uncle G (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Kinu came close to breaking the spirit of the rules about uninvolved action, but I don't think he did. It looks like on continued investigation, he reviewed his !vote in favour of the close. I suggest that in such a case, he should strick his !vote. No slap required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse, but with a due sense of mild exasperation. It's out of process deletion, and I can't condone that, but at the same time it was a mercy killing and the discussion was clearly not going to go any other way. I would suggest to the deleting admin that it's usually a good idea to wait more than 90 minutes before mashing delete on articles like this. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

2 September 2010

Neon Sarcastic (closed)

David R Hawkins, David R. Hawkins (closed)

Filair plane crash

Filair plane crash (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
This debate appears to have been closed simply because people have vaguely said 'it's notable' per the GNG, and the closing admin seems to think it is standard practice to allow current events articles to be created, and only deleted later when they prove to be non-notable. [3] This is simply wrong. For a start, it is pretty clear that the vague hand waves to the GNG are evenly matched by objections that this violates NOT#NEWS. Secondly, WP:EVENT makes it perfectly clear that if you can't prove a current event will be of lasting significance, you wait. On the GNG and EVENT, the keepers barely even made an argument, let alone rebutted the deleters. Past precedent has made it perfectly clear that these sorts of accidents are not automatically notable just based on one days news coverage without extra factors, and the closing admin has completely ignored this piece of inherent consensus of the site, and the fact that keepers completely failed to make an argument or a rebuttal of any substance whatsoever. As such, this is not a valid closure per the instructions. MickMacNee (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a tricky one I think, because the keep !votes were on the whole quite poorly reasoned. Some had no reasoning at all; others asserted "notability" (which is not the test here) or "significance" without any real explanation. Then others cited coverage alone, which of course isn't enough because NOTNEWS was the valid reason for deletion cited in the nomination. Because this was tricky and demanded more than a headcount, I would have expected a more detailed closing rationale from the administrator. How did he/she weigh the arguments? The editors who put the time and effort into making well-reasoned delete arguments can rightly expect an explanation. An explanation has now been given on the admin's talk page and I'll hold fire with my own view here for now.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Closing admin correctly dealt with this AFD, both regarding assessment of overall consensus from the AFD discussion, as well as regarding assessment of Wikipedia:NOTE through coverage from reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse numerically, this was 11 keeps to 6 deletes. There's really no other way it could have been closed, as there certainly wasn't consensus to delete, and even "no-consensus" would have been a stretch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    Do you know what is probably the most depressing thing about DRV opinions like this? You haven't even bothered to discount the blatantly invalid keeps in that tally, let alone the simple assertion votes and vague handwaves. Shit, I bet you've never even read the debate at all, let alone the article, which is holding steady at just the one day's worth of source material. Someone could have said, 'keep', purple elephants are cool!, and you would still be here counting it as a valid vote, asserting that this is all that matters in assessing whether this was a properly closed Afd. I seriously don't know why anybody bothers even pretending that the concept of strength of argument even exists on Wikipedia, it pretty obviously does not. MickMacNee (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus I would have discarded one or two !votes entirely and given significantly less weight to a few others, leaving the weight/numbers roughly even. Keep vs no consensus is usually semantics. I don't usually argue to overturn one for the other. But here I think it is worthwhile to make it clear that (a) the keep side was not as strong as the numbers looked and (b) the article can be renominated soon.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete, as per the strength of arguments and their basis in policy. Stifle (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse Again, I get the objections and would likely agree that WP:EVENT applies, but that others seem to disagree is important. All airline crashes are EVENTs, and when the bar gets crossed into enough long-term coverage is an opinion. Hobit (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I would say NC would be within admin discretion here, but keep is also fine. Hobit (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete I would probably have leaned toward closing as delete (but wouldn't bother objecting to no consensus) in this case; many (well, most) of the keep rationales weren't policy-based while the delete rationales were. —fetch·comms 12:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn, delete - Or at the very least, non consensus. As in the Agni Air one, the !keeps were overall quite vapid and should have been weighed next-to-nothing. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse The overturn !voters here are entirely uncompelling--the numerical consensus in the debate is endorsing one side of an entirely contested and routinely debated application of a guideline. Asking for DRV to overturn such a close is asking that a closing administrator be overridden for simply treating a disputed question as open and subject to the numerical consensus of editors. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Even if not brought to DR, the closing statement is still incorrect in that, Wikinews cannot accept content from Wikipedia due to licensing incompatibilities (cc-by-sa here vs. cc-by there). —fetch·comms 00:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agni Air Flight 101

Agni Air Flight 101 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
As above, this appears to be another Afd closed based on a vague consensus in the Afd, where the admin seems to think it is acceptable that possibly not notable event articles can be kept around until it is shown they are not notable. [4] Again, WP:EVENT makes it crystal clear this is not appropriate. The keepers have not adequately addressed concerns, in terms of policy, their rebuttals to delete arguments were weak, if not non-existent, and they go againt all established precedents - fatal scheduled aricrashes are not automatically notable, hull losses are not automatically notable, crashes with investigations are not automatically notable. The closer seems to simply have taken their invalid opinions as read. It is down to keepers to prove this was not a violation of NOT#NEWS, which they totally failed to do with any strength at all, and infact, there were so many invalid keep rationales it was unreal. In such a scenario, simply acquiescing to the crowd is not acceptable, not when they cannot prove in the slightest that they know what they are talking about. MickMacNee (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse this one is even more clear, at 17 keeps to just 3 deletes. Any admin who closed this as "delete" would have been overturned at DRV before their 'enter' key had time to rebound. This and the above monination should bear in mind that "[DRV] should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome" which appears in bold at the top of the DRV page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    Maybe you should just keep your patronisation to yourself. Afd is not a vote count and I am not bringing this here simply because I don't like the result. So if you have anything sensible to add here DRV wise, other than confirming the closer can apparently add up and subtract correctly, then please add it. You can start by explaining how this outcome is remotely acceptable when the arguments made by keepers don't have a cat in hell's chance of being accepted if they were bundled into an aircrash notability guideline in itself. Jesus Christ. MickMacNee (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Mick, please try to tone down your comments. Your combative attitude and employment of profanity damages your case and makes your goal less likely not more. I endorse this closure as there is clearly consensus among editors to keep the article. DrKiernan (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Endorse. I have to say I see where Mick MacNee is coming from with this one as well. The AfD starts with the keepers quoting wikiproject essays as if they were guidelines; continues with vague assertions that the number of deaths confers notability; and then come assertions that the coverage is sufficient (again, WP:EVENT and NOTNEWS refer to impact as well as coverage - we are not a news service, that is policy. And there is nothing in the closing statement to suggest that the closing admin has considered the arguments, and how they have been considered. But who would have the balls to close a 17-3 headcount as delete? Numbers are important - they shouldn't be the determinative factor but they are a factor. And here the reasons to delete just didn't get support. So it couldn't have been closed as delete. Having said that, I think renomination at some point is justified. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse I too can see where Nick is coming from. That said numbers do matter. It may be that's just a lot of IAR !votes to keep, but with those numbers keeping is the right call. Guidelines, and even policies, need need human interpretation and in this case they went in a direction different than I would have... Hobit (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse. They were strong arguments for keeping. The fact that some comments in favor of deleting were not refuted and arguments for keeping were not further defended can be explained by behavior by MickMacNee, who rejected almost every comment and ridiculously demanded definitions for every word and proofs for every basic statement, and seemed to expect some kind of definite "proof" that the article does not "violate" NOTNEWS. This caused doubt that a serious discussion was going on (especially since the notability of the subject seemed obvious), and created the impression that it was just the rant of a deletionist troll who wants every plane crash or any other kind of event out of Wikipedia, and who should not be fed. --memset (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    If you don't think a serious discussion was occurring, it may be because you seem to think that notability is either just "obvious" or not, and so presumably, we can do away with all those policies, guidelines and essays which attempt to describe it, which at Afd, you are expected to be able to explain your rationale with reference to when challenged, because 'it's obvious', is frankly not a valid opinon in the slightest. If it was just 'obvious', this Afd would have been a SNOW closure, which it patently was never ever ever going to be. It is frankly a joke that you want to label me as a troll - anyone who thinks that being asked to explain their rationale at an Afd responds with "Don't be ridiculous", is an out and out troll by the very definition of the word. This is a perfect example of trolling ironically, recognise it? And worse than a troll, you are a liar, I do not want every plane crash deleted, I have infact cleaned up and expanded a great many of them. MickMacNee (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Regretful endorse, could not have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus, or (very) boldly delete - "Notavote" notwithstanding, it's hard to close an AfD that tallies at 17-3-1 any other way. BUT, the only keep calls with a shred of honest rationale are those by Mansford and Alzarian. The rest are discardable junk, to put it mildly, ranging from pure essay citations to a low-edit IP to a literal "just to piss off the nominator" one. So if we're truly going to be evaluating strength of argument rather than counting beans, we're in more 2-3-1 territory here. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You don't ever really want to be an administrator, do you? IAR is for handling things not covered by the rules, not for ignoring consensus because you think you know better. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I already have a big enough ego as it is; I'm not insecure enough that I require the validation of others, thanks. As to this, I don't think an admin should shy away from discarding opinions if the rationales employed are utter horse puckey. Tarc (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Hobit. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Frank B Kermit (closed)

Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America (closed)

1 September 2010

Manabu Suzuki (closed)

Justin James (closed)

Carbonite (polyatomic ion) (closed)

Black hole naming controversies

Black hole naming controversies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
Out of process deletion of a well-referenced article on a real topic. Maybe it's not notable, maybe it is, but there was no debate other than a thread on WP:PHYS where people thought this was a stupid controversy, and that "black hole" isn't an offensive term. But idiots exist, and their being offended was covered in several news outlet. There are also controversies in other languages as well (such as French, where some deemed the term too close to anus for their liking). This should be speedily undeleted as this is nowhere near a speedy deletion candidate. The article was proded, then contested, then summarily deleted by User:Kwamikagami for being an "idiotic" article. If you want to delete, have a proper debate about it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep speedy delete - I think this article should have been speedy deleted on the first day it was posted. I will just repeat what I just posted over at wikiproject physics talk:
The title is obviously misleading - it is not about Black Holes at all, or naming black holes. The article is just a venue to stir things up, and a cover to make disparging remarks against certain groups of people. This was hardly a real topic. The subject matter had nothing to do with the title. There was no sources supporting controversial names for black holes. And it had no connection with black holes as astronomical phenomena, Even the WikiProject Astronomy tag on the talk page was misleading. There was no connection to astronomy in this article.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
And I will repeat my reply. "I'm fully aware of that this has nothing to do with black holes and does not fall within the scope of either WP:PHYS or WP:AST. But that has little relevance on whether the article should exist or not. Bad templates can be removed, and issues with the title can always be fixed via the standard method of page moves." Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I just want interested parties to know that I actually placed a speedy delete tag on this article as an attack page, it was reverted, and then User:Kwamikagami deleted this page. So, there was somewhat of a basis for this adminstrator to come along and delete the page. I don't know if this is relevant to this discussion, but I thought it neccessary to bring it up. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not an editor placed a speedy deletion tag on the article has no bearing whatsoever on whether the administrator was right to speedily delete the article. Hut 8.5 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Undo speedy delete - I don't see anyone being attacked by this article. I see an article about people who felt attacked' by a scientific term. I.m.o. there was no reason to delete the article. DVdm (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy delete. The article encourages racism. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC).
It does nothing like that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes it does. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC).
  • Overturn speedy deletion. I declined Steve's G10 speedy, because this was not an attack page. It did not say anything disparaging; it did not even quote any disparaging remark. It did not "encourage racism". It just described two occasions when people made a fuss because they thought (mistakenly) that a reference to the astronomical concept of a black hole was disparaging to African Americans. The article should probably sent to AfD as non-notable, but it was not speediable. JohnCD (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion nothing in the deletion policy supports the deletion of this article in this way. "Idiotic" is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. The article was not written to disparage or threaten the subject. Other concerns, such as "obviously misleading title", "not a real topic", "encourages racism", or "no sources", even if true, should be discussed at articles for deletion. I'm personally not convinced Wikipedia should have an article on this subject, but that does not mean the article should be speedily deleted. Hut 8.5 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy deletion While I would vote for this to be deleted or perhaps merged into an article with more general scope, I do not think the speedy rationale applies. Take it to AfD and do this thing properly. Icalanise (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Not covered by any valid criterion for speedy deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn-Doesn't meet any speedy criteria. The CSDs are narrowly construed for a reason. Admins don't get to delete any article they don't like.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy overturn. The deleting administrator has not even attempted to nominate a valid reason for speedy deletion. None exist. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy overturn - per Mkativerata, no valid criteria given for speedy deletion. Claritas § 22:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy overturn and trout admin. Bring at AfD if needed. --Cyclopiatalk 22:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Hut 8.5. Nothing in policy backs the actions of the deleting admin. --Falcorian (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: If anyone has not read the article, and would like to do so - I just discovered that it is in the "cache" link on the top of the section. Clicking on that link specfically accesses this article. Further comment about the content of the article below:
There is no need to explicitly repeat antisemtic expressions to demonstrate it is an antisemtic expression. All this does is show case a lack of sensitivity. Also, in this context it is merely an opportunity to explcitly repeat a hateful expression, while exploiting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to do so. This is the same as using the Wikipedia site as a platform to promote a single point of view. Also this same process is repeated in the next section by explicitily repeating a disparaging remark derived from a source, about black women. There is no need to explicitly repeat disparaging remarks against black women, in order to demonstrate these are disparaging remarks. Please note that the "W" word is repeated three times within one pargraph of 105 words. Just because these paragraphs are sourced and have citations, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, does not make the content acceptable or appropriate. Also this is far from neutral wording.
I think the goal of this article is to invite, or even inflame conflict. It does not show concern for achieving quality as an encyclopedia article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored and we are not the thought police. If Bob says X, and Bob's saying of X is relevant, then we say that Bob said X, regardless of where people's sensibilities lie. The article is quite neutral in it's presentation of facts, and there's not a hint of support or endorsement of these views by the article. I have a hard time believing you are reading the same article as I am, because it's quite obvious that this is about verifiable "controversies" (of varying notability), and not a platform to invite conflict. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn The deletion reason "(Idiotic. This is not a naming controversy for black holes, but rather sensitivity to the word "black" in any form" ) is completely without support in policy. Speedy deletion does not mean, that if an admin finds what he thinks is a bad article he may delete it. Additionally: The article must be considered, not just the tile -- we don't delete article for having poorly-conceived names, but rename them. It is not true that the articles only purpose is to cause conflict, and even if it did, such is not a reason for speedy--the speedy reason that comes closest is G10"Pages that disparage or threaten their subject, or some other entity, and serve no other purpose." This does not seem to do that--I cannot see that any entity is being disparaged. "Encourage racism" is not a reason for speedy either--one editor say it does, another says it does not, and the place to decide the suitability is AfD--in any case if providing NPOV information should have the side effect of encouraging racism by reporting on it, removing it on that grounds violates NOT CENSORED. DGG (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn per all of the above. SNOW? Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy deletion no valid reason for speedy deletion. Could be possibly challenged as not notable or maybe even OR synthesis, but the correct place for that discussion is AfD. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn without prejudice so that a proper Afd can be carried out. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn. None of the content indicates G10. Being about a race-related controversy does not make the article itself inflammatory. Notability should be assessed at AfD. --Kinu t/c 16:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse the outcome, but not the reasoning- I don't agree that the Wikipedia:G10 category applied in this case. That said, having had a chance to look at the article now, I just don't see any way on earth it would survive an AFD. All the article does is discuss two seperate incidents, and then try to make a case that its a larger issue, which smacks of Wikipedia:SYNTH to me. Perhaps I'm wrong and perhaps it could be salvaged as meaningful content with a merge, but honestly I'm just not seeing how. So even though I think the logic behind the outcome was wrong, I will say that I don't see any point in restoring an article that would more than likely be deleted by AFD anyway. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Wikipedia:TROUT deleting admin. Not even vaguely a speedy and would seem to meet WP:N though it doesn't meet wikipedia:HOBITTHINKSTHISISAREASONABLEARTICLE (good luck with that one). Hobit (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Hobit. Also, Steve Quinn's argument is patent nonsense; he needs to read Wikipedia:NOTCENSOR right away. We have an article entirely about the N-word, so saying an article should be deleted because it "contains offensive terms" (or, as Steve Quinn put it, "the W-word"), is ludicrous and contrary to Wiki policy. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

31 August 2010

Samuel Galindo

Samuel Galindo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
A Bolivian footballer currently with UD Salamanca. I'm aware that he hasn't played any first team matches yet, but he made an international appearance for Bolivia in a friendly against Mexico back on the 24th of February. If a player makes a first team appearance in either a league or cup match, or an international appearance, then why delete the page? That's why I'm adding this on here. – Michael (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment I see that the article was deleted for failing to meet Wikipedia:ATHLETE which states, that a player is notable if they "represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition . . . The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria." The second point is "Players who have appeared . . . in a fully-professional league." I'm assuming that "senior international competition" means competitions like the Olympics and FIFA World Cup. So my question is, was the Bolivia v Mexico match part of the 2010 FIFA World Cup? If not, then he doesn't pass this criteria. The second is playing in a fully-professional league. So is UD Salamanca part of a fully-professional league and has Samuel Galindo played in a league game? —Farix (t | c) 00:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The Bolivia-Mexico match was an international friendly match. All international matches count on their international career. Also, UD Salamanca is part of a fully-professional league. As I said, international matches count all the same unless it was against a non-international team. – Michael (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Wait a second, does it have to be an international compitition? – Michael (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
        • The notability guidelines doesn't say any international match, but a senior international competition. Based on your description, the Bolivia v Mexico match doesn't fit the criteria. And you still haven't answered the second part of the professional league question. But either way, you need to show significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. Without it, there can be no article. —Farix (t | c) 03:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
          • UD Salamanca plays in the Spanish Segunda División. – Michael (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I began a discussion on the NSPORTS Talk page about this issue of international "A" matches counting towards the undefined "senior international competition" requirement. I believe they do, and I recall supporting comments on the talk page, but the language of NSPORTS was never clarified. Jogurney (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Unsalt and allow recreation. The multiple G4 deletions are made on the basis of an AfD over 12 months ago. But it is abundantly clear that the player's career has moved significantly forward since then. Reliable sources say he has played a full international match.[12] He is variously described as a "wonderkid", "starlet" and has significant coverage in reliable sources. He might technically fail NSPORT as an international friendly is not a "sanctioned competition" and he hasn't played a senior club match, but he passes the GNG in spades (just do a news archive search). In any case, isn't it ridiculous that 10 minutes on the field in the English fourth tier gets you over NSPORT, but a full international friendly doesn't? At the least his claim to passing GNG is much better than it was 12 months ago so another AfD is called for rather than salting.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Note because the most recent article wasn't fully up to date, I have created a userspace draft here. Far from perfect but sufficient in my view to be on the mainspace.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation. Things have changed since that first AfD, and Mkativerata's draft is easily good enough. Meets Wikipedia:NSPORT thanks to the international appearance, and has the coverage to back up the content. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Unsalt, with no prejudice to recreation and if necessary an AfD. Given that the player has made a full international appearance, there is enough to suggest that he might be notable. If he isn't notable, it would still warrant a second AfD, given that the circumstances have significantly changed. --WFC-- 15:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Unsalt and allow creation - playing in an international match for Bolivia should connote notability, and the G4 was based on information which no longer applies. Jogurney (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Unsalt and allow recreation Fully agree with the sentiments of Mkativerata that representing your country is considerbly more prominant than a sub appearance in a marginal pro league - as long as it is a sanctioned FIFA international between two senior international sides, which is arguably a competitive match anyway as the result counts towards FIFA rankings, which determines your seedign for fianls tournaments. While there may be little or no mainstream press on the guy in England, he is without doubt covered in his ative Bolivia--ClubOranjeT 01:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional magic users

List of fictional magic users (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
Also List of fictional parasites, List of fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds, and List of fictional characters with telekinesis. I'm the administrator that eventually deleted these pages (except for the list of parasites). This discussion is practically already being held on my talk page, so I'm listing it here because the user who asked about listing hasn't done so yet. I initially closed as no consensus, but upon review changed to delete all except for the parasite list. Many of the keep votes rest on arguments that should be avoided. I believe the correct desicion has been made, but considering others disagree, I'm putting this here. — GorillaWarfare talk 00:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse- yup, you got this one right. Reyk YO! 01:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Expand my opinion- IMO the lesser weight accorded to the keep votes was justified. Firstly, many of the users advocating that the parasite one should be kept either had no opinion regrading the others or thought they should be deleted. Ignoring votes along the lines of "It's silly, but where's the harm", or "ITS USEFUL", or "Please give us more time", or incorrect assertions that no deletion rationale was presented, really leaves only DGG's opinion. This one was well argued, but seems to hinge implicitly on the idea that our requirements regarding things like Wikipedia:V, Wikipedia:OR and Wikipedia:N are lessened when we're talking about lists- and that is a questionable assumption at best. On the whole I find the side advocating deletion to have the stronger arguments. Correct close. Reyk YO! 23:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn all No reason these can't be sourced lists, no reason they can't exist as both categories and lists, arguments of "unencyclopedic cross-categorization" are without any policy merit and should have been given zero weight. In other words, there was no good reason to delete any of them, no matter how many people showed up with non-reasons. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC <EC> got it right the first time. NOT#INFO is all well and good, but the lists were an organizational structure (as most lists are) not a directory or something else. Navigational aids are just fine. As such the !votes for keep were by-and-large policy based. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, parasites was a clear keep... Hobit (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Just pointing out that it was kept. Not sure if you're just restating the point, or if you didn't notice that it was kept. — GorillaWarfare talk 02:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yep, was trying to say that I wanted that one to stay keep, the others overturned to NC. Hobit (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as written. Keep !votes had little basis in policy, while the delete commentary was on-target and relevant. Closer correctly discards many- not all, but many- as making weak arguments. That the deleted lists were original research went without a real refutation, and were correctly identified as higher arguments, worth more weight. Courcelles 02:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Could you identify those arguments you find to be the strong delete arguments and those you find to be weak keep arguments? I don't see things that way, but I can't tell what arguments you are basing your !vote on. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse, while I can't claim that all delete !votes were based in policy, the ones that were were more based in policy and in line with the (LOTS AND LOTS of) previous discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can fly, whereas the keeps were primarily Wikipedia:ATA. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Overturn to "No Consensus" with respect to all except parasites which is a clear keep. While I believe that such lists have no organizational benefit and should be either categories or nothing, I don't see consensus for such as view either reflected in policy or in the AfD. The earlier "list of fictional superpower" list deletes were influenced by the claim that the powers were trivial or undefinable which isn't really the case with the iconic powers in the last debate. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse, though TBH I would've endorsed the original closure as well, they were both within discretion; this was a close call. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse all, along the same lines as Black Kite. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse as just a lot of "I don't like the outcome!" BAWWWing. Keep opinions rested on Wikipedia:USEFUL & Wikipedia:EFFORT, and were rightly given little weight. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse Except for one, none of the keep arguments attempt to address the policy-based problems the lists face. One of the keep arguments didn't so much about why the lists should be kept, but was a rant about AfD as a whole. Most of the delete arguments, on the other hand, try to use policy to back up their positions based on recent outcomes of similar AfDs. —Farix (t | c) 14:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn to No Consensus for all but the parasite one that was keep. Some of those who wanted them deleted, said the content was better as categories, preferring them instead of list. Not a good reason to delete something. If you believe the information is valid as a category entry, why not as part of a list? Are there different standards listed somewhere? Do you sincerely doubt any of the characters used magic, in that one list about magic users? You can read a review about the series, or the back of the DVD boxes they come in, which will confirm they can use magic. Seems like just a bunch of list haters to me. A lot of people felt the same way and said keep. No consensus to delete any of this. Dream Focus 15:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn the deletes to keep, which was the actual consensus. The conclusion that they should be categories but not lists is plain contrary to policy, which is that both are normally appropriate ( I think the only reasonable exception is when there are too few items for a list to be helpful). If there is enough evidence for a category, there is enough evidence for a list. A list limited to material in notable anythings is not indiscriminate, nor directory. Totally inappropriate rule-making by the closing admin. The arguments about sourcing was also contrary to fact, as most of the material could be sourced from the appropriate (primary, in this case) sources; an incorrect statement is not a policy based argument. DGG (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, per our verifiability policy, if there are no reliable, independent sources that discuss a subject then we should not have an article on it. That means it is not enough to "source" an article about a fictional element entirely to the work of fiction in which it appears. Reyk YO! 19:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
      • You're applying a narrow view of notability unsupported by consensus. Each list entry does not need to establish notability, and reliable sources for "list of fictional X" don't need to explicitly state "fictional x...", as long as they apply to the topic. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
        • No, I think my view is supported by consensus- particularly concerning "list of fictional characters with attribute X" type articles. The community has well and truly decided that they are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Consensus has been established that if you can't even write an encyclopedia article about "X in fiction", then dumping a lot of names into a cross-category list is not on. The principle is very clear: is a list an article? Yes. Does policy allow articles to be written from only primary sources? No. Should you then compile a list from only primary sources? No. Reyk YO! 23:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
          • No, individual other discussions don't determine consensus other than locally. The fact that a lot of !voters are confused by the bad current state of some lists does not give you a license to presume that all such lists are to be expunged. Deletion discussions are to be about the encyclopedic potential rather than the current state of articles, so most of the "delete, looks like OR crap" votes are not supported by policy. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
            • I would think that several discussions regarding many of these lists, held in a central location like AfD and commented on by a large number of neutral observers and all ending in unequivocal delete is about as far from being limited consensus as you can get barring a Wikipedia-wide straw poll. I also think that, since Wikipedia:OR you know, kinda is policy, then arguments that make reference to it are also supported by policy. And arguing that anyone who disagrees with you must be "confused" is just poor form. Reyk YO! 00:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
              • While uncorrectable OR violation is a good deletion reason, there is no OR. Saying "OR" when it is itrrelevant is not a policy based argument but just bluster. Anyway, don't the continued arguments here and elsewhere prove there is no stable consensus? I hardly think the people who persistently gtry for the deletion of these articles count as neutral observers. DGG (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Could someone explain how NOT#INFO applies here? It's a navigational aid to existing articles. I'm extremely unclear how that can be in violation of NOT#INFO (and I was in the AfD too). Hobit (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    • While I can't speak for others, I would generally say that "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" which I believe these lists to be are "indiscriminate collections of information". I also note that the former is not a subheading of the latter in the current layout of Wikipedia:NOT, but I suspect that similar thinking influenced many of those who cited Wikipedia:NOT#INFO in the debate. This is the disadvantage of arguing with links and acronyms rather than arguments. Even if it's a standard one it can often be clearer to make it explicitly rather than via a linked acronym which often applies on in part or in spirit and not in all the specific bullet points listed at the linked section. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
      • That was my guess. I can't see how a navigational aid can indiscriminate collections of information. I think "loosely related" is a massive stretch here. I think the arguments for deletion in the AfD are just fundamentally flawed. I don't see how flawed arguments can win the day with that close of a !vote count. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • overturn to keep Per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • overturn to keep or at least no consensus, admin's closing summary clearly misinterprents or misunderstands the rationales - it would be harsh to blame the closing admin because the quality of debate here was very poor; there was an alphabet soup of quoted abbreviations, but their actual application in these cases received minimal discussion because of the varied bunch of articles nominated. There are legitimate arguments for the deletion of lists like these (I'd probably consider them only "marginal keeps") - for instance discussing navigational structure via Wikipedia:CLT, or arguing that the inclusion attribute is not a meaningful, important, verifiable, or just poorly defined - but I didn't discussion about this, particularly judging the articles case-by-case on their merits.
The arguments for deletion generally don't seem to apply policy and guidelines to the individual articles - one main thrust was that it was duplicated by a category, but that's not by itself a reason to delete if you read through Wikipedia:CLT (which is glaringly relevant, yet not mentioned in the nomination, the "delete" rationales or the closing statement). I'm not sure Wikipedia:IINFO was relevant: the lists had clear inclusion criteria, so by definition are not indiscriminate. The closing statement suggests that recreation as categories is possible which presumably rules out Wikipedia:IINFO - information that is genuinely indiscriminate wouldn't deserve a category! (And according to Wikipedia:CLT there is a valid argument for creating a list article from such a category and annotating and referencing it to make it non-redundant...so if a category is acceptable, there should be a specific reason why a list wouldn't be.) Some of the other "delete" rationales simply showed lack of knowledge about policies and guidelines: the idea that any list which could contain individually non-notable items is deletable unless it includes "List of Notable X" in the title shows a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia:NNC (it is appropriate for lists to include entries that don't deserve their own article - actually at Wikipedia:CLT that's a benefit of lists over categories - but it's also appropriate for editors to keep a list at maintainable and readable length, if necessary, by including only entries notable enough to possess an article), while arguments like 'wasted opportunities that follow the boring "click on the blue link" format' seen never to have considered Wikipedia:CLT or the fact that improvement of the lists by annotation so they are no longer redundant to a category.
What I found very unhelpful was the clear misinterpretation of several "keep" rationales, including in the admin's closure, in order to render them argument to avoid. For instance, under Wikipedia:CLT, a system of navigation (category, list or navbox) that is not useful, is a bad system of navigation, and should be removed if it's redundant to one of the others. So arguing for navigational usefulness is not the same mistake as Wikipedia:USEFUL, it's just pointing out that it satisfies Wikipedia:CLT. Similarly, DGG stated that for individual items on a list about attributes of fictional characters, it generally would be possible to reference the fact they possess that attribute (and hence belong on the list) to their source material. That's a point about whether the articles could be referenced, yet it is represented in the nominator's reply and closing summary as if DGG had made the mistake of arguing for Wikipedia:INHERITED notability of the list, and hence his point can be dismissed. Alphabet-soupping Wikipedia:ATA at opposing points of view, without considering arguments on their merits, is very harmful to meaningful debate. TheGrappler (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse Most of the "keep" opinions were weak and ignored valid concerns with Wikipedia:IINFO Wikipedia:NOTDIR and Wikipedia:OR. ThemFromSpace 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Honestly I just see waves toward those polices, with very little discussion of why they apply. It's now OR to group topics? We do that all the time. You'd be hard pressed to find a list of people here where there is a RS that puts all those people on the same list. NOTDIR also would seem to rule out all lists if you applied it here. Could you explain how it's different than say a list of songs by artist or a list of episodes? And IINFO doesn't even seem to vaguely apply. Could you explain how these policies apply here and where you see that explained in the AfD? Hobit (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse Bold call but I'm not going to support overturning the deletion of rampant original research. No, primary sources are not enough, it depends too significantly on how the individual editor interprets the primary source. People who write this stuff about fictional universes shouldn't be held to different sourcing standards than the rest of us who have to actually look for sources rather than watch movies and write about them.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse, mostly per Mkativerata. Though I agree that both sides both had some rather poor arguments brought forward, concerns about original research – amounting as a result of a near-blind following of verifiability and nothing else – I think are valid. –MuZemike 06:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse - there were essential problems with the lists that were deleted - mainly absence of secondary sources and OR problems. Claritas § 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus. Sustain parasites as keep. The AfD nomination should have focused on one list and its associated articles, not several lists. The original nomination's two arguments were "inappropriate for Wikipedia" and "has a category already":
  1. Inappropriateness mentions no pillar, policy, guideline, or essay. Not a reason for deletion.
  2. "Has a category" is countermanded with authority by Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates - paraphrasing: lists and categories both are useful and considered necessary, and are mutually compatible; camps should not seek deletion. Not a reason for deletion.
  3. This leaves the nomination without foundation, except as a fishing expedition for reasons to delete. Fishing is not the purpose of deletion nominations. If I were an admin, I would close as an invalid nomination.
But WP isn't Includipedia, nor is it Deletipedia. The post-closure flip, in my view, should automatically result in a "no consensus" merely on procedural grounds, with sincere respect to the good faith of the closing administrator. The AfD discussion points were not shining examples of the best in such discussion, for two reasons: 1. the fan/editors of the articles and lists are comparatively deers-in-the-headlights of doggedly determined, blooded deletionists, and 2. too many editors on both sides inexcusably failed to read the entirety of linked pillars, policies, guidelines, and essays. What's the matter, TL;DR? As a result, the discussion was nowhere close to reaching consensus - no offered compromises were seriously considered - one example: the notion of "keep for some duration of time," per Wikipedia:DEADLINE, was dismissed here as "give US more time", even though the proferring editor obviously had nothing to do with the articles or lists mentioned. The Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates guideline strongly supports the mutually-inclusive existence of both by-list and by-category navigation of topics, which was the main argument offered for deletion in the AfD nomination. I have no interest in the mentioned lists, having created none, and having edited one only as an example of the kind of improvement which I strongly advocate. I would insist that the lists be improved with descriptions and some internal organization, and linked articles be improved with reliable, verifiable 3rd-party sources. If that improvement doesn't happen, I'll re-up the lists for deletion in Wikipedia:DEADLINE days myself. --Lexein (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Weakly endorse. In a sort of AfD2 sense, the general argument about list articles suggests that the added utility of a list justifies some leeway when it comes to judging content and inclusion issues. There are some stronger opinions out there (that notability is additive and others), but that is the basic idea. On those merits, I have a lot of trouble seeing a list of fictional magic users as useful enough to overcome the OR/N/NOT issues raised in the deletion debate. On to the discussion itself, we do empower closing admins to take into account some opinions more than others. This is a case where that weighting happened and resulted in delete opinions being given more weight than keep opinions. And weighting those opinions did not require much tea leaf reading. The comments in the AfD were clear and articulate with rationales generally supporting keeping the parasites list (which has some strong potential sourcing) and deleting the rest. I won't do a line by line unless requested, but this close was at the margin of admin discretion and explained clearly. Protonk (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse All, most of the Keep arguments made were extremely feeble, justifying a delete call, and also per Mkativerata. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

30 August 2010

Biomechanics of intrinsic gravity

Biomechanics of intrinsic gravity (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
This page was deleted in an AfD on the 10th of August and appeared on REFUND both before and after the deletion discussion. I deleted a recreation and the author asked me to post a deletion review here. He (I.R.Bhattacharjee) contends that the subject itself was inadequately covered in the deletion discussion and offers some sources and arguments on my talk page. My opinions on the page and the original deletion discussion are summarized on that talk page section: I don't think it belongs on wikipedia and I don't think the original deletion discussion was fatally flawed. Please understand that I am posting this on behalf of someone who does feel that the subject should be covered and that the deletion discussion was insufficient (ie. don't close this as without reason to overturn). Thanks. Protonk (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I left a note w/ the deleting admin. The page is currently at User:I.R.Bhattacharjee/BmecGrav. Protonk (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse there was no other way to close that one. It _sounds_ at least moderately kooky to me, but some of the publications are in reasonable places though they appear to be more about measurement than the overall theory. Also appears to be a large Wikipedia:COI issue. I'd like to see at least one or two more papers in reputable conferences/journals by someone other than Dr. Bhattacharjee before I would argue to keep or some other sign of wider acceptance. Hobit (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse, could not have reasonably been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse I would like to draw the attention of user Hobit and proton towards the article "THE CORE OF THE MATTER
Core and Sleeve in the Rolfian Paradigm" in the url http://www.somatics.de/Linn/Core.htm , which explains the wider acceptance as required by them. I would not like to prove the wider acceptance in any other way but deletion of an elite article Biomechanics of intrinsic gravity from wikipedia would also entitle deletion of other related articles from wikipedia. An example of it could be Artificial Gravity article, because it also starts with some of the facts which have been deeply described by Dr.Bhattacharjee in his newly edited article [[13]]. Rajan Kashyap--Rajan Kashyap (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)--Rajan Kashyap (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)--Rajan Kashyap (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse Wikipedia is not a forum for the "figurehead of a new science" to promote his new science. "What is the gravitational attraction of my finger for my nose, approaching zero?" as Mark Twain might had inquired? Edison (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Courtney Thomas (closed)

Steelhaven

Steelhaven (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
Closed as NC "default to Keep", however there was only one "Keep" vote and one "Keep or Merge", both of which were basically Wikipedia:ITSNOTABLE and should've been given a lesser weight anyway. All the other eight comments agreed that the article was not independently notable. In no way whatsoever did the close reflect consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 13:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Relist (closing administrator) - I'm not against relisting to generate new consensus. I agree that keep was not one of the main choices, but I chose to keep so as to allow discussion for merge or redirect. — GorillaWarfare talk 16:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • There is already a consensus and that was delete. overturn & delete Spartaz Humbug! 16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I didn't/don't think there was a consensus, but I suppose that's why we're here. — GorillaWarfare talk 00:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete, as the arguments toward deletion are stronger than those for keeping the article. I wouldn't be opposed to just merging/redirecting, however, which seems more sensible. —fetch·comms 17:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • endorse but merge merging into list article is a reasonable outcome. Hobit (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse as very reasonable determination that no consensus was reached after a thinly argued discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Except that consensus was reached that the subject wasn't independently notable, yet the AfD was closed as Keep? Black Kite (t) (c) 21:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
      • No consensus was reached as to the disposition of the article. By policy, the default outcome was "keep," maintaining the status quo. Note also that the closer went beyond mere headcounting, finding the arguments on all sides unpersuasive as a basis for action. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
        • But since consensus was that the status quo was not acceptable, there is no way the discussion should have been closed that way. Reyk YO! 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
          • That's not how AfD works. If the status quo is not acceptable, it can be changed through discussion, usually through the article's Talk page. "No Consensus" defaults to keeping the article so it can be improved. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
            • On the contrary, that's exactly how AfD works, especially as of the only two Keep votes, one was ITSNOTABLE and the other was "Keep or merge". There was a clear consensus that the article should not stand alone, and the close will lead (as it already has once) to editors reverting any merge/redirect process with "But the AfD said Keep". Black Kite (t) (c) 19:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
              • My recollection is that we've turned away those wishing to convert "merge" results into "keep" results at AfD DrV on the basis that no tools are needed to undo the merge and discussion on the talk page can produce consensus to unmerge. Is that correct? If so, how is this case any different? Hobit (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to think we should overturn to merge. There wasn't anything in the discussion upon which a keep result could have hung. Merge was the least deletionist outcome that could have been arrived at, so merge was the most that was within the closing admin's discretion. Delete would have been an appropriate close too and I would have argued for delete in the AfD as I really doubt there is anything of value to merge. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • KEEP ARTICLE - The article has proved to be actively developed, have references, and people who want to continue to develop it. What is the rush to delete the thing? Do people plan to repeatedly nominate articles for deletion until they get their way? Move on. Mathewignash (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn to merge. Consensus was that it wasn't notable enough for its own article. Consensus was also that outright deletion wasn't a good idea, especially with the list already in existence. So merge it should be. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse but merge "merge" is a variety of "keep" outcome, so the close is not numerically unreasonable, if we're counting noses. Having said that, I still believe the merger is the most encyclopedic outcome, as I proposed in the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete- consensus was clear that the contents of the article were unsuitable for inclusion, but the participants were split on how best to remove the bad content. Keep was the only outcome that could not have been arrived at through that discussion, and defaulting to the only outcome that was unacceptable to the participants is not really an appropriate way to close the discussion. Reyk YO! 22:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Perhaps someone should just have nominated all the Transformers spaceships to merge a single page of Transformers Spaceships in the first place instead of going on a binge of Deletion nominations. It would have not ruffled as many feathers and probably been done better, even supported by the normal editors of the Transformers articles. Heck, maybe someone should propose that now. Mathewignash (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Black Kite and I had a discussion about that after this had been kicked off. I tend to agree with your position, but there are issues with sourcing such that if we take a bunch of uncited stuff and put it into one big list, it's still a big mess of uncited stuff. The problem with many fictional articles is that there aren't people willing to do the legwork to make real encyclopedia entries out of them, which I find quite unfortunate. Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, this is the problem; if you take half a dozen unsourced articles on non-notable subjects, you're just creating one big non-notable article. Whilst merging in this way is usual, the resulting article has to be sourced from actual reliable sources and not become a magnet for page upon page of completely non-notable trivia, like most of the Transformers articles currently are (i.e. this one is 116K - two thirds of it could be removed without losing anything important). Black Kite (t) (c) 08:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn to redirect (suggested boilerplate: "redirect, content available in history for merging"), clear consensus against stand-alone article. I don't see a delete consensus, but it would be within admin discretion. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Counting merge as a variant of keep here is an oversimplification that contributes to polarization – why not recommend delete if merge is actually keep? In this case, it is more useful to consider whether a stand-alone article is supported, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. Flatscan (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse, I can't find any sort of consensus there (and if there was a delete consensus available, believe me I would have fished it out). Stifle (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn to redirect It seems to me there were more comments for merge then keep (and more or less about the same for delete). There is no evidance proudced to establish any notability (and there is still none).Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse but merge: Looks to be no consensus on the surface. But with all the discussion here and there, it's clear there is support for a merge. No prejudice against starting an AfM discussion if this position appears controversial, but it really shouldn't be. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

29 August 2010

28 August 2010

Recent discussions

27 August 2010

Human molecule (closed)

26 August 2010

25 August 2010

24 August 2010

23 August 2010

22 August 2010

21 August 2010

Archive

2010
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December

2009
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December

2008
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December

2007
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December

2006
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December

Personal tools