Administrator instructions

Skip to: Active discussions · Recent discussions · Archive

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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions

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).

Deletion review is explicitly a drama-free zone. 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster. 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.

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

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

 {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~ 

[edit] Active discussions

[edit] 7 January 2010

[edit] UPWA Pro Wrestling

UPWA Pro Wrestling (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am a fan of UPWA along with many of my friends and family. I feel the page should be unlocked and re-instated. It is VERY notable in Wilmington and all of North Carolina. There are many pages on Wikipedia that I dont find notable but don't feel it is my place to say. We live in a free country so if nothing offensive was said, I dont understand why the page is not allowed to remain.

• Endorse AFD was unanimous and properly closed. I'll assume the moninator is sincere in their confusion as to why this was deleted and suggest that they check out WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ORG, and WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse as unanimous delete consensus. To the nominator, the test of notability is not subjective (ie what you or I think is notable - everyone's views will differ); it is objective (normally whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources).--Mkativerata (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. Unanimous decision based on properly completed AfD. --Smashville^talk 21:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

We can verify it if we had known it to be an issue. We do not live on Wikipedia and when we got it reinstated once we found it was deleted. Then as we were verifying once again, it was deleted for no reason. We have been bringing it up to what was once stated but there are plenty of pages on here that are not notable and we are fans of said organization. You are not allowed to create a page for the sport we love? We can also prove plenty of coverage in various types of media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfan4life (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Why not reopen it for discussion and allow me and my friends to speak our peace on the matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfan4life (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has already taken place. Also, you appear to be advocating meatpuppetry. --Smashville^talk 21:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Bernat

Lauren Bernat (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

While there is somewhat an issue with the "famous for one thing", I think that she this one thing has become significant enough to be more than JUST one thing - it has led to many offshoot videos, including two made by models for Zoo Today and Playboy, led to her getting a job as an Electronic Arts spokesperson for a competing product, which tells us that EA thinks that she is famous enough to have her be a face for it, even including her in a fitness challenge along with famous fitness celebrity Jillian Michaels, an event hosted by Oprah Winfrey's personal trainer. In Wii Fit Girl [gotta view history], the article I created, it shows that not only does the notability of her li'l YouTube video branch out from just being a popular YouTube video, but the video in and of itself is very notable. It's been covered worldwide, and it's not like the coverage was all around the posting of the video, it's been steadily flowing since then [even getting listed as one of the most memorable video game moments of the decade by GamesRadar]. I propose that it satisfies all guideline problems found with the original article, and if not given an article, much content that is clearly significant will be reduced to a single sentence that does not even remotely cover enough of the content. I guess redirecting wouldn't be so bad if the list it redirects to doesn't allow for proper expansion, because as it stands, it treats all redirected subjects as equal in notability by setting it up like this. But that's neither here nor there. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • In a case like this that was unanimous to delete it is usual to provide a draft to consider. Absent that I can hardly fault the closing admin for going with the flow. Endorse Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse, nomination gives no rationale for concluding that the AfD was closed incorrectly given the discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. There was a clear and unanimous consensus to delete.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, would it be possible for it to be temporary undeleted to have a second AfD? THat is, I'm arguing that if the article were in its current state, the verdict would, at the very least, be anything but clear or unanimous. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse, AFD was unanimous, and as several commenters pointed out this is basically the classic example of WP:BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 6 January 2010

Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance

Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page has been speedy deleted but it was completely new, with new secondary and primary sources, and a new title. Everything was different. It has been improved on the french Wikipedia, and kept, and this is the translation. I am not sure it has been read. I haven't been notified. And the admin Jayig (talk ) doesn't answer to my questions. Thank you Raymondnivet (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

For information :

Hello and Happy new Year Hell in a Bucket,...

... Eva Rhodes & Ophélie Bretnacher have been kept after 17 days of discussion I am very happy with the way the French Wikipedians have improved the page

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oph%C3%A9lie_Bretnacher

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Rhodes

Congratulations Raymond, the article looks real good. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well now that the article has survived a deletion review on the French Wikipedia I don't think there should be aq problem adding it here. I can't speak french or I would offer my services. You might try rewriting the article in English and asking a editor to make sure that the spelling and context should be in English but I think it has a doubled chance of surviving here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg, You deleted the page too fast. I didn't have the time to answer. it was the translation of the new french page, which has been kept, after the discussion. Maybe you will have the time too read this new page, which is an important european problem http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oph%C3%A9lie_Bretnacher It has been improved by the french wikipedians. Maybe it can alsobe improved by english wikipedians.:-Raymondnivet (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You were the closing admin for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophélie Bretnacher. The author consulted me here and I told him if he wanted it back he would have to go to DRV. Instead, it has come back as Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance, essentially the same but avoiding BIO1E by retitling. I think, despite the attempt to show political significance, it still fails WP:N/CA, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:109PAPERS... Question: do you consider this is a repost per WP:CSD#G4, or does the retitling save it so that it needs another AfD? JohnCD (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've deleted it again, since it was just a re-creation of the original article. If he wants to have the article on en-wiki, he'll have to take it to WP:DRV. Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg and Happy new Year, You delated a new page on Ophélie Bretnacher. It was completely different, improved by the french wikipedians, and kept after the discussion. Not the same text, primary and secondary sources... You didn't read it ?...-Raymondnivet (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a recreation. Everything inside is different. The french Wikipedians changed the sources, The National Assembly for exemple in references, added secondary sources, . Nobody can read and understand french here ? Nobody has looked at the references ? It's terrible. --Raymondnivet (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Maybe, that (in english) can help : http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23663033-miliband-failed-to-help-hunt-for-model-feared-murdered-abroad.do --Raymondnivet (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg has delated 2 pages with speedy deletion january 5 th. I ca'nt find the new Ophélie Bretnacher's disappearance !!! So it's there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raymondnivet/Oph%C3%A9lie_Bretnacher_disappearance --Raymondnivet (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Isupport a recreation. If nec. I will help, but this article ahas survived a french deletion discussion. I Strongly suggest you ifind a editor here that speaks french. I argued for deletion on the first, definitly not baised. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD. Without gauging the article's merits myself, it looks like a new AfD discussion would be a good idea, especially if the content is substantially different as it claimed (can an admin confirm that?). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and AfD at editorial discretion. A substantial portion of the original AfD concerns WP:BIO1E, which no longer applies. I do not think it is clear-cut enough for a speedy. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AFD; sufficiently different to previous version. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The article has been retitled so that WP:BIO1E is no longer an issue, and it has been rewritten, but it is basically the same, and the considerations of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL at the original AfD still apply: this is a tragic case but not encyclopedically notable, and adding additional references does not help that. French Wikipedia has its own standards, and inclusion there is not a strong argument for retention here. JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not NEWS, it's an encyclopedic case. It is a criminal and diplomatic case, which has now lasted 1 year and 1 month. And the Eva Rhodes case has lasted 7 years. It's not MEMORIAL, it only have the name of the student, and it affects the judicial creation of the new EU. --Raymondnivet (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn The plac eto discuss the merits will be AfD, but I will just say that I give considerable weight to the judgment of the frWP, which in general is much less inclusive on the coverage of sensational or tabloid - style topics than we are. Their decision is at any case a reason to relist, DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] File:Liberalhtv.jpg

File:Liberalhtv.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|restore)

Entirely reasonable fair use, on the article How-to-vote card, to show what one of the beasts actually looks like. Transformative use, and no possibility of commercial damage to the Australian Liberal party. So satisfies NFCC#2 and NFCC#8: showing this would indeed enhance reader understanding. It would also add to understanding at Australian_electoral_system#The_House_of_Representatives, which discusses how the parties use these how-to-vote cards to achieve a very low rate of ballot papers being ruled inadmissible by being wrongly filled in.

Despite my putting this arguments in a speedy-disputed tag, User:Fastily went ahead and speedily deleted it without any acknowledgement to me or thought to list it at FFD, and when asked to reconsider on his talk page did not respond beyond a cursory "Somehow, I get the feeling that Wikipedia doesn't have a license for this kind of media". Jheald (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy and immediately send to FfD for a proper debate on the issue. It's unclear whether this is an acceptable image but it's a sufficiently unusual case that it should be properly debated; I can see both sides of the argument here - it is superficially replaceable (with text) but that point can only be compelling proven by thrashing out, if possible, some adequate words. CIreland (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• I originally tagged this image as possibly violating fair use policy and the image was correctly deleted at that stage. However, it would be helpful to list at FFD to obtain a proper consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn Vague feelings are not a proper basis for speedy deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn, send to FFD. I don't see this image as meeting the requirements of F7; even though there appears to be a reasonable case against the fair use claim, the rationales for use aren't "clearly invalid" (especially since mutiple claims for multiple articles are involved). The NFCC issues are substantial enough to cal for community discussion/resolution rather than by the speedy deletion process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy deletion and list at FfD. Speedy deletion is reserved for only the most obvious cases; if there is dispute now about whether this should've been F7'd or not, then I think it's fairly certain that a discussion should have occurred prior to deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn. Strong fair use claim, should never have been speedied. Rebecca (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at FfD. Not speediable. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn This shouldn't have been speedy deleted. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ducktastic.jpg

File:Ducktastic.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

image was inappropriately deleted. this was/is the POSTER for that appeared all over GB, and everywhere else the show was performed, and its inclusion in the article on Ducktastic is permitted under wp fair use guidelines. depiction of the individuals is only incidental and not relevant. comments in the original FfD all incorrectly reference 'articles on other performers' (user:ESkog), 'that it is replaceable', that it is 'decorative' (user:Peripitus), and 'inappropriate' without addressing the fact that posters, window cards, etc. are permitted in the same manner that the posters File:Edward & Mrs. Simpson.jpg, File:TheMcMartinTrial.jpg, and the thousands of others are used in their accompanying article. emerson7 12:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn per nom -- poster for a show, used in the infobox about the show. Original deletion discussion related to use in the article The Right Size on the performers (which would indeed have been replaceable). But the proposed use now, on Ducktastic, is not about the performers, it is about the specific show. That said, the article is very short; the case for the image would be a lot stronger if the present stub was a lot more substantial. Jheald (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn, but not quite per nom. The original deletion, when the nonfree image was used as a general illustration in a BLP, was correct. However, the image was reuploaded for use in a different article with a clearly legitimate claim for NFCC use. Therefore, G4 deletion was inappropriate, since "the reason for the deletion no longer applies." Since the image is being used primarily for identification of a notable subject (Olivier award nominee), I don't see any other NFCC issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  comment: actually, the image was originally deleted from a section where it was being used as illustration to describe the show. it was never intended for use as identification of its stars, The Right Size. --emerson7 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  Whatever might have been intended, it was the primary/sole illustration in a BLP without any significant text relating to the particular show, and therefore would still fail NFCC requirements. Just as a screenshot of an actor's TV role would fail NFCC in a bio article when the role was only included in a list of credits without any substantive discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  i wholly disagree with your assessment and your interpretation of 'significant' and substantive discussion, as the show is about two dudes and a duck--a parody of sigfried and roy. not a helluva lot else to be said there. at any rate, the point is moot since it is not the topic of this review --emerson7 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• If it is used to identify the show Ducktastic, then it may be OK to have it back, but if it shows up on Hamish McColl or Sean Foley or the theatre company The Right Size it played in, then the problem is back again. The article should talk about what is in that poster. However I am doubtful that the poster achieves what s described in the fair use rationale. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy deletion and list at FfD. As Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wrote above, the reason for deletion at the original FfD no longer applies in the same way. As such, it is wholly proper to have a new discussion. Speedy deletion is reserved for the most obvious cases, and this file is not in that category. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and FfD at editorial discretion. Not a G4. The rationale in the old FfD does not apply here. If the file is used in another article inappropriately, the solution is to remove the image from that article, not to delete the image. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Valhalla Vineyards

Valhalla Vineyards (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted by the closing admin even though he merged a good portion of the content elsewhere (without redirecting), and in so doing has failed to maintain GFDL attribution. He told an editor inquiring about the merge "What is this, the Spanish Inquisition?", and expresses very strong opinions on the subject's notability and appropriateness for a stand-alone article, going so far as to refuse to userfy it for improvements. He appears to be enforcing his own opinion of the subject instead of weighing the arguments offered in the discussion, which clearly demonstrates at least a no consensus or (based on policy arguments) a keep outcome ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Can you provide a diff of the merge please CoM otherwise we can't assess the allegation of a licensing violation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• I did not take part in the deletion discussion but I have just reviewed it. The deletion decision by the closing admin was correct. The were no good keep arguments based on policy. However, I do think the article should be undeleted and made a redirect to North Fork of Roanoke AVA. The relevant diff is here. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Definitely need to undelete and redirect. Trout slap to Sebastian for not knowing that. I abstain on endorsing the close. Fences&Windows 03:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No opinion on the keep/delete issue, but why is it necessary to undelete in order to create a redirect? Why can't a redirect be simply created from scratch now? If the delete outcome was basically correct, then undeleting and redirecting could create potential problems in the future, e.g. if somebody simply undoes the redirect later. Nsk92 (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Quick link: WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry for being dense, but after looking at the link you mention, I don't see how it answers my question. My point is that, undeleting and redirecting will, as I understand it, restore the history log of the deleted article. Then if someone simply undoes the redirect later, the deleted article will reappear and this could be problematic. If the delete outcome (rather than, say, keep or no consensus) was basically correct, then amending the AfD outcome to delete and redirect seems better than changing it to undelete and redirect". Nsk92 (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
        • WP:Merge and delete has more. The linked pages have complete explanations; the gist is that due to attribution requirements, copying/merging and deleting are mutually exclusive or require workarounds. Since SebastianHelm copied content to another article after deleting the source history/list of authors, some action must be taken, which is most commonly undeletion. The increased ease of unilateral restoration is an unintended side effect. Flatscan (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks, got it. Nsk92 (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Stifle points out below that WP:Merge and delete is outdated, listing requirements that no longer apply. WP:Copying within Wikipedia is a better reference. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
              • That reference still makes it clear that attribution is essential and gives undeletion as a way of doing this. This fits our case perfectly. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - The offending material has been removed from the North Fork of Roanoke AVA article. It really wasn't appropriate for a wine region article to single out details on 1 winery, especially when the information itself isn't noteworthy or encyclopedic. Anyways, there is no longer a GFDL issue or need to redirect the winery's name to the AVA. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There is, I think, still a copyright issue with the earlier versions of the page which are accessible through the page history. Wouldn’t those need to be deleted to solve the problem? Ian Spackman (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No, copyright issues are and should be resolvable by ordinary editors. Expecting copyright compliance on every version in the history is not reasonable. Creating attribution for removed inappropriate content as normal policy would be to create a can of worms. If someone really cares, Wikipedia:Revision deletion could be used, although I think it would be overkill. We are working to make a good quality live encylopedia, not to attend to intermediate versions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Selective deletion is another method. Deletion may be necessary to prevent accessing or reverting to an infringing version. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse the close and the extensive list in the closing statement. Merging was mentioned only once and not actually recommended, so it is a poor "compromise" solution. I need more information to judge the attribution issue. Is the cached version the same as the deleted version? Its date (25 Dec 2009 23:30:52 GMT) makes that seem unlikely. How much of the content was copied or rewritten? Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The copied content appears to be a clear infringement and a distraction to evaluating the AfD. I propose that the merger be undone by deleting (WP:Selective deletion) all revisions after this version. This resets the article's state to the time of deletion; I assume that SebastianHelm did not intend to subvert his own close. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse close While no doubt Sebastian was working in the best good faith efforts to forge a compromise solution, in all honesty, the material he added to North Fork of Roanoke AVA is not needed in the article. As expounded on in the AfD, the winery is not notable enough to merit a mention in the Virginia wine article nor is it particularly notable for inclusion in the AVA article. As an editor that works extensively with wineries and wine related articles, I can tell you that the "gravity flow" wine cave is by no means a unique or notable feature in the wine industry. In fact it is a rather "old school" technique that is only noteworthy (at best) as an example of something "retro" occasionally coming back in use. Wikipedia wouldn't find it interesting if one pharmacist in the city of Roanoke, Virginia decided to go "old school" and exclusively use a mortar and pestle. I doubt we would redirect the drug store or pharmacist name to Roanoke based on just that. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse close I fully realise it was not to everyone's liking, but it clearly was the product of Sebastian taking time to look long and hard at the arguments, and weighing them against policies and guidelines. This, by the way, resulted in the same conclusion as for those of us who are active participants in WP:WINE and have tried to think about where to "set the bar" to achieve good and worldwide but encyclopedic coverage of wine-related subjects. That Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics) is only a proposed policy and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide is only an essay should not really matter that much; rather than differing from other existing policies, they represent fairly thoroughly elaborated attempts to explain in more concrete terms how these other, official policies apply to wine-related articles, partly to the benefit of editors who jump directly into editing wine-related articles. I get the impression that real issue behing bringing this to DRV is mainly concern about closing it as "delete" rather than GFDL issues or the mentioning the Spanish Inquisition in response to "inquisitive" :-) questioning after the AfD was closed with a very thorough explanation. To me, the Spanish Inquisition mostly brings associations with soft cushions, comfy chairs and -not to forget- nice red uniforms. :-) Tomas e (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Can we get a temp undelete to check out the claims of a licensing violation? Timotheus Canens (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No need, this is clearly a violatiuon of our attributation policies as merge material must be attributed with a redirect from the undeleted history of the source article. This becomes moot if the marge material is rejected by the host article and I suggest we hold a tad to see if the merge material sticks. Aside from that the closer requires a severe trouting for violating our license. Any admin closing xfd debates must have a sufficient understanding of attributation requirements to avoid foul ups like this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I asked because the cached version looks very different from the merged text. So it was edited in the mean time and then the edited version was merged? If so then undelete and redirect. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I have gone by the closing admins edit summary when they merged the material. (→Wineries: Adding some of the text from deleted article Valhalla Vineyards) Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn The issue was a straightforward matter of notability which turns on the quality of sources. The sources were extensively reviewed in the course of the long discussion and new sources were found. The sources were generally quite reputable organs such as Wine Spectator and the New York Times and the reviewing editors split quite evenly 7-8 in saying whether they were adequate. Rather than making the obvious conclusion that there was no consensus to delete, the closer reviewed the sources himself and applied his own judgement of them. His rationale for applying his own judgement rather than accepting the judgement of the discussing editors is "I just have seen too many sock puppets, meat puppets, vote stacking and sheep votes". This fails to assume good faith without any evidence to support these allegations in this case. This seems inadequate to override the guidance of WP:DGFA which states clearly, "When in doubt, don't delete". The existence of doubt is further confirmed by the closer's action in merging some of this material to another article. This demonstrates that he considers that this material has merit and, as discussed above, he should not have deleted its edit history contrary to our licence. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:MAD and GFDL references are no longer relevant as Wikipedia now uses the CC-BY-SA, which only requires preservation of attribution (which can be done by a null edit) rather than history. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Please see Licensing update which states, "Re-users will be required to credit you, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL to the article you are contributing to...". If an article to which an editor contributes is deleted then it is no longer possible to attribute to it. Deletion is therefore improper if you wish to reuse the content. It is also obviously improper for a closer to claim that material should unambiguously be deleted and then to reuse that exact same material - the two positions are not consistent. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Stifle is correct. That text appears to be outdated, see c) a list of all authors at WP:Copyrights#Re-use of text and wmf:Terms of Use#Information for re-users. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
      • The links that you provide emphasise the need for a hyperlink to acknowledge contributions and so Stifle is incorrect. It is clearly possible for us to provide such a hyperlink in this case and so we must do so. To do otherwise is to treat contributors with disrespect and to break their copyright. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
        • If you want to get that technical, I'll point out that the requirement is that users are credited by means of a hyperlink, not that anything be actually present to read at that hyperlink. If there's a redirect, someone visiting the article will be redirected to the new article, and clicking the history is unlikely to reveal the editors of the old article. Therefore, my solution (a null edit with the usernames of the main contributors to the old article) is in fact better for attributing than your suggestion. This wildly paranoid conjecture that an article must absolutely never, ever, ever be deleted ever after it has been merged somewhere is at best obstructive. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
          • This is not a matter of mental illness but of common courtesy. Maintenance of edit history and content in such cases is entirely consistent with our editing policy and so is helpful rather than obstructive. Removal of good faith well-sourced content and creation of dangling links is both obstructive and destructive and so inconsistent with our mission and policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
            • This discussion is on how to attribute merged content. Trying to broaden it to arguments against merging or arguments against deleting articles on non-notable topics isn't helpful. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse and applaud the closing admin not just for making the right call but for carefully and specifically explaining it. Well done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn: I think it was a clear keep case, but "no consensus" would have been within admin discretion. But not "delete." In addition to the cites added to the article while it is was in AFD (which are not in the cache version, but which I think I captured most of [1]), I'd say the Keep !votes generally show they thought keep was a no-brainer outcome. The coverage of this winery is rather extensive, and not all coverage of the winery was even added to the article. (e.g., and this is just a few more, [2] (article in The Japan Times), [3] (Governor of Virginia visit to winery), [4], [5], ) Despite being judged "possibly the best of Virginia wineries" [6], (out of at least 157 wineries in the state [7]), and "some of the best reds on the East Coast" [8] [9], the article was deleted. If the most revered Virginia winery, with sourcing, is not notable, that suggests that every winery article for any winery outside CA, WA, and OR (the top three wine producing states in the U.S.) should be deleted. That doesn't make any sense.--Milowent (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Were those sources discussed at the AfD? They don't look familiar. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse what seemed to me a thorough and considered AfD close. The support for keep relies with on undue weight on local paper and tourism-route books, while multiple reliable sources are absent. While the mention in the Wine Spectator article was a start, to claim New York Times as a source is deceptive and insulting. This producer may be in Virginia's top 30, but it is most certainly not the state's "most revered". Wikipedia needs better sources than this. Winemaking is normally a long game, and satisfactory sources for this article subject may well appear in the future, but for now they are insufficient. MURGH ^disc. 20:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in your view, are there any Virginia wineries which merit coverage on Wikipedia?--Milowent (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sincerely? Well, beyond the obvious Monticello Wine Company, the pioneers of the 60s-80s are notable. There is certainly Barboursville Vineyards and Horton Vineyards where vast amounts of acceptable sources could be found without much problem, I'd guess Linden, Kluge Estate, Pearmund Cellars, Thibaut-Janisson, maybe Michael Shaps, White Hall, Jefferson Vineyards or Veritas Vineyards would edge in the needed RS. Just some of the VA producers not yet on WP whose source coverage and notability I think far surpass that of Valhalla. MURGH ^disc. 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Its far from obvious to me why Monticello Wine Company is notable, if Valhalla isn't. The sources cited include a locally published book about architecture, a Virginia highway marker, a CFR cite that doesn't mention the winery, a Virginian-Pilot article that makes no mention of the winery, and a blog (shiver me timbers!!) that says the winery won an award in Vienna in 1873, the same year it was founded(?)(Actually, I think that blog is wrong, as this book says it was 1876.[10]). This winery has a total of 11 google news hits, a few of which are trivial -- and clearly less coverage than Valhalla has received (though I concede its hard to write about Monticello a 100 years later.)--Milowent (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you really mean "far from obvious".."why Monticello Wine Company is notable, if Valhalla isn't".. Its history vs. no history. Noone has even given a proper effort to sourcing it and it's still vastly more notable than Valhalla is likely to be for a while. I wouldn't worry about the blog text of Richard Leahy, he is an editor and journalist with Vineyard & Winery Management and appellationamerica.com, a US East Coast wine expert in the absence of many of those, a collaborator with Kevin Zraly and a guy with satisfactory wine pondus, working in the field since some 10 years before the Vasciks decided to have a go at winemaking. His statement placing the alleged event in Vienna in 1873 seems sound, and it's not so incredible to envision a cooperative of grape farmers having fruit to work with in the year they merge to establish a collaborative facility. I can promise you however that Dr. Vascik hadn't sold a drop of wine by the time the AP interest piece ran in the Wilmington Morning Star. (They had however found a Buddha while they were digging which curiously isn't mentioned in the story). Polishing this historical article will have to wait, but please look to Barboursville Vineyards as an example of what I mean with how easily a notable subject of VA wine allows an article to be sourced. Why must it be about scraping through as much inadequacy as possible when we should be supplementing quality from the top? MURGH ^disc. 21:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I really do mean far from obvious, Murgh, look below for my comments about Barboursville in reply to Amatulić. As for Monticello, old history doesn't automatically mean better or more notable history.--Milowent (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well. One is featured in A history of wine in America, and the other isn't. One would nicely benefit from hard work and the other couldn't support sourced substance for an acceptable article. MURGH ^disc. 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured? It has two paragraphs!!! (starting at p.413).--Milowent (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Williamsburg Winery, for example, is the largest producer in Virginia at 60,000 cases per year. Considering that the entire state produces only 250,000 cases per year (less than some single major producers in California), that's certainly notable. And look, we have an article on it, although the sourcing is just awful. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And how does one distinguish the two then? It seems to me that article should be deleted, if the standards which were applied to this AfD were also applied there. The grape producers of upstate New York that contribute to far greater quantities of Thunderbird-quality wines aren't notable because of the volume they produce.--Milowent (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How does one distinguish them? Easy. Williamsburg Winery has done something notable by becoming the largest producer in Virginia, dwarfing all other wineries. This is established by reliable sources. Valhalla, by contrast has done... practially nothing. This is also established in the reliable sources put forth in the AfD.

Furthermore, unlike Valhalla, the article for Williamsburg already makes a strong claim of notability by being Virginia's largest producer. If it went to AfD due to the poor sourcing, the AfD would quickly fail because better sourcing is easy to find. The 'keep' proponents for Valhalla had to scrape the bottom of the barrel really hard, and even went so far as to misrepresent 1-liner mentions as "significant" coverage. Such writhing about with sources wouldn't be necessary for an AfD on Williamsburg.

A winery doesn't have to be notable only for the quality of their wines. Bronco Wine Company, for example, is a huge producer of cheap wine in California, notable for growing huge by buying up other (usually non-notable) wineries as they fail.

You asked for an example. You got one. There are others. Valhalla may become notable in the future. But not now. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your examples suck, frankly. The dividing line that those in favor of deletion are drawing is an I know it when I see it thing. What would it take for you to say Valhalla has "become notable" in the future? Because I am sitting here reading Barboursville Vineyards at Murgh's suggestion[11], and I see a winery located near Washington D.C. that gets covered a lot in the D.C. papers, just like Valhalla gets covered in the southwestern VA press. No doubt Barboursville is more notable than Valhalla because it was one of the first modern wineries in Virginia (though "for the first 15 years, Barboursville produced mediocre wine" per the NYTimes, but it gets covered any time someone wants to write about Virginia wine and talk about Jefferson's connection), but then I see paragraphs dedicated to Valhalla in the Wine Spectator article[12] cited in the Barboursville article--with the intimation that Valhalla is among the top wineries in Virginia. (Indeed, Valhalla and its "much-honored Valhalla reds" are also mentioned in passing in that same same NYT article, where a local expert includes Barboursville and Valhalla in his "upper pantheon" of Virginia wines). The sourcing of the Williamsburg Winery article is abysmal at the moment (indeed there are no RS cited). Apparently you believe Williamsburg is more notable because it makes a lot of wine, while I believe Valhalla is notable because SOURCES cover it (not to mention that those sources say its among the best Virginia wine.)--Milowent (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. The close was interpreted fair and within policy. That leaves the open item of merged material and any outstanding GFDL issues. If there are any I would suggest somehow merging the history into the parent article or instituting a protected redirect with the history in tact. There are multiple options available for retaining the edit history here, they could even be copied over to a talk page for attribution (if it is even warranted or necessary). What we don't want is to undelete the article and leave a non-protected redirect in place leaving us wide open to a reversion of the closure by a drive-by editor who doesn't know any better leading us to an AFD round two. JBsupreme (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn I'm glad the closing administrator listed the reasons he thought the information was invalid. Wine Spectator is clearly a notable magazine. Notability is not limited by age. So, his argument that 2.Two of their wines have been mentioned at WineSpectator.com ten years ago., doesn't make sense. How long ago it was mentioned, isn't relevant. 4.Four paragraphs from an interview with the owners at winespectator.com. Sounds like notable coverage to me. They interviewed the owners because of their vineyard. As for their awards not be notable, a quick search of Google news shows that "The Governor's Cup Virginia Wine Competition is sponsored by the Virginia Wineries Association." For a state that is known for its wines, I think that's a notable enough organization, and if the organization is notable, then so are its awards. Dream Focus 22:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You evidently missed the deletion debate, and this isn't the place to re-hash the arguments; however: Wine Spectator covers thousands of non-notable wineries. That is their function. A mention in that publication does not create a claim of notability for the subject. I agree the age of the article is irrelevant. Also, please review WP:WINEVENT; the "governor's cup" is not a notable event for a topic having global scope, any more than local/regional competitions in Europe are of concern to Californians. "If the organization is notable, so are its awards"? That's a fallacy; see WP:NOTINHERITED. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• overturn and replace with redirect even if the merged material has since been removed, the article should not have been deleted after the merge. A non notable winery can certainly be mentioned in an article about the wine region, as long as information is verifiable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As I noted on the AVA page and alluded to above in a previous comment, this material is inappropriate for a wine region article. As an active editor in the Wine Project, I can vouch that redirecting a non-notable winery to a wine region article is as worthwhile as redirecting non-notable garage bands or non-notable restaurants to their home cities. Who does that? Wikipedia is obviously WP:NOTDIRECTORY and it makes little sense to have the redirect. The content itself is gross WP:UNDUE weight to have an article on an entire region focus on a particular non-notable winery. Take a look at the hundreds of wine region articles in Cat:American Viticultural Areas, Cat:Appellations, Cat:French wine AOCs, Cat:Wine regions, etc. It is like dedicating an entire section of the Chicago article to content about the restaurant chain Uno Chicago Grill (or worse, a non-notable local pizzeria) or a section on the Incandescent light bulb article to notes about the light bulb manufacturer General Electric-wholly inappropriate and not needed. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus and restore the article. Both sides had well-argued points, and numerically the debate was split down the middle. There wasn't really a consensus either way. While the closing admin clearly considered everything very thoroughly before pulling the plug, I don't like his heavy reliance on WP:WINETOPIC in the closing rationale, as that's only a proposed guideline at this point. In some ways, the close seems more like an exceptionally well-considered vote to delete rather than an evaluation of the consensus at the debate. That is, he decided which side of the debate was "right," not which side had the stronger argument. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As the closing statement noted, the article failed to established notability in line with the expectations of WP:CORP, WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. WP:WINETOPICs is just an emphasis of those core Wikipedia policies and how they relate to winery articles. While it is very easy for most editors to distinguish trivial, insignificant coverage relating to the notability of garage bands, bed and breakfast, local pharmacies and mom & pop restaurants, those same intelligent and good faith editors can have difficulties separating the romanticism of wine with the reality of the matter. Case in point above where one editor is "impressed" with this winery receiving 2 wine reviews from Wine Spectator. Wine Spectator reviews over 10,000 wines every year and throughout it 30+ yr history it has the reviewed wines produced by over 100,000 different producers (many of whom are no longer around). It is rather silly to argue that all 100,000 of those wineries are notable simply because they have been reviewed by Wine Spectator. It is like contending that every bed and breakfast or restaurant that has ever been reviewed by Fodors or Frommers is notable. Again, while it is easy to see that insufficient notability in the context of garage bands, bed and breakfast, local pharmacies and mom & pop restaurants, sometimes it becomes more blurry when dealing with wineries-especially if the editor is unfamiliar with wine topics. The closing admin saw the clear insufficient notability in the context of Wikipedia policies of WP:CORP, WP:N and WP:SIGCOV and deleted on that account. The references to WP:WINETOPICs just helps to make what is blurry more clear. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, then try to make something else that is exceedingly blurry to me more clear. What is notable about Tintara winery, an article you recently created, if Valhalla is not notable? As far as I can tell, Tintara's claim to fame is that it produced what is currently the oldest existing bottle of australian wine, which is a serendipitous piece of trivia. It only existed as an independent entity for 15 years (1861-1876), one less year than Valhalla's current age. I find nothing in that article that tells me why it is more notable than Valhalla.--Milowent (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'm glad you brought it up. This is an excellent example of the night and day notability compared to Valhalla. Tintara story has barely been scratch with lots of fodder for expansion. Now compare these items-

• Tintara was founded by Alexander Kelly (a notable figure whose article hasn't been created yet), an early pioneer in the Australian wine industry. It early years were also influenced by the involvement of several prominent investors including Walter Watson Hughes, Samuel Davenport, and Thomas Elder. There were other influential people involved in the winery as well as the early history of South Australia but I only initially listed the people who had Wikipedia articles at the moment.
• Tintara was one of the first commercial wineries in the McLaren Vale region (Possibly "the" first but the initial reliable sources weren't emphatic on that so I hedged my bets with the wording until a more definitive source could have been found). Today the McLaren Vale is an internationally recognized wine region with consumers finding examples of McLaren Vale wine across the globe. Tintara's role in the establishment of this wine region is substantial. The same can't be said of Valhalla's role in the establishment of Virginia wine industry much less North Fork of Roanoke AVA-wine regions of significantly less notability that are barely recognized even in the United States.
• Current record holder of the oldest surviving bottle of Australian wine, while can be considered trivial, is of significant noteworthiness in the world of wine which places premium on the aging ability of wine. It is far more noteworthy in the wine world then the "trivial" note a winery using a wine cave technique that has been used for hundreds and hundreds of years.
• While Valhalla has only passing references, travel guides and meager coverage even in local papers, Tintara's story has been featured in numerous reliable sources (several of which are in the article such as John Beeston's Concise History of Australian Wine) but we could also add Sotheby's Wine Encylopedia, Andre Domine's Wine, Katherine MacNeil's Wine Bible, Hugh Johnson and Jancis Robinson World Atlas of Wine, several books by James Halliday, Catherine Fallis Wine Encyclopedia and several more featured in this Google Book search. These are just the good old fashion published book reliable sources (and we're talking dozens of serious wine topic and reference books not just travel guides like what Valhalla had). I haven't even scraped the surface of the numerous reliable sources in news archives, magazines and other online reliable sources.

Now of course we shouldn't expect every winery to have such an overwhelming claim to notability as Tintara but they should at least have something. This is the stark contrast with Valhalla Vineyard which had nothing to establish its notability according to Wikipedia's policies of WP:CORP, WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. They haven't done anything beyond simply existing and even then they haven't even a drop in the bucket of "significant coverage" compared to truly notability wineries. Valhalla is not even close to being in the ballpark of a notable winery. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be night and day to you, but all I see is your subjective opinion of relative importance, with perhaps a dash of OR. The same trivia about an old winery that existed for 15 years in the mid-19th century repeated 20 times does not make it more notable. You can say Tintara was one of the first commercial wineries in a section of australia, and I can point to Valhalla's coverage about its cave and being noted as perhaps one of the best wineries in Virginia, the state with the fifth highest wine production in the US. And your claim that "Valhalla has only passing references, travel guides and meager coverage even in local papers" is simply distortion--you keep mischaracterizing the references to suit your intended result. I looked at the Beeston references to Tintara as a sample and find it to be no more significant than profiles of Valhalla, it simply recounts older events. I was looking through some old closed AfDs earlier and see numerous examples of yourself and other WP:WINE folks losing AfD nominations for wineries less notable than Valhalla, because those wineries were also the subject of multiple references and an aggregate of significant coverage. That should be the applicable standard, which Colonel Warden touches upon above. True, sometimes these articles get deleted when few people are watching, and perhaps this one will stay deleted. But for the life of me I cannot tell which you will say should stay and which should go.--Milowent (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

We're starting to drift way off topic here but Tintara still exist. It has since 1861. Granted it has changed ownership hands but it is still an independent entity making wine in the constellation portfolio. Anyways, the root of the issue is and has always been WP:SIGCOV. A published book on the comprehensive history of Australian wine is more than just a "recording older things". Do you really think Mommesen's History of Rome is just a "recording of older things"???? Beeston's book is one of just the the 100+ potential reliable sources and significant coverage that Tintara. The meagerness of Valhalla coverage and the characterization of passing casual references, marketing material, travel guides and local, isolated coverage has been thoroughly dissected to the extent that it could merit its own sub-page of the AfD. But again, the vast gap between Valhalla and truly notable wineries is staggering. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no "vast gap" between Tintara and Valhalla, I just see you saying there is. Tintara is just a place where some wine is made, that used to be in business for itself from 1861-1876, and was sold when it met financial difficulty. Its older, so those facts have been mentioned more times in 150 years than perhaps Valhalla has been in 15. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.--Milowent (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion and send to incubation. Surprised it was not asked for nor considered. The very lengthy discussion underscores the number of Wikipedians willing to improve the article and the project... and improving is why we're all here, isn't it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Anyone interested in a "cliff note" version of the AfD discussion about the lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources for Valhalla Vineyards is welcome to review User:Agne27/WP:SIGCOV and Valhalla Vineyards. As far I can tell I've listed every source/claim that has been put forth by proponents of this article for what makes this winery notable. I think after reviewing these sources/claims it is clear that if this winery was just another restaurant, bed and breakfast inn, drug store or individual church, there is no way that this same type of meager coverage would be considered acceptable in establishing notability. I think it is also clear that after doing his own extensive and thorough review of the AfD and these types of weak claims of notability, the closing admin was quite right in upholding the consensus of Wikipedia's policies on WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORP. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oy vey! While perhaps useful for this little discussion, that you spent the time to create this is ridiculous! You could have created two more articles of Tintara-level quality by this point. Having to go to this length shows why this close should have been ("when in doubt") no consensus at best. This is not every existing source about the Valhalla winery; only a few of the keep votes have added references to the article or cited them, and we all know not everything about any subject is online, online-only research is a proxy to make a determination of probable notability. The standards you are applying clearly represent a split among editors when it comes to wine articles.
• One of the notability claims you discuss which I will address is "Valhalla is notable because it was featured in articles in local/regional papers like the Roanoke Times & Wilmington Star News" (I think Wilmington, North Carolina is hundreds of miles away though)-- which you discount. However, this is exactly the type of coverage which is used to support notability of significant topics in any local area throughout Wikipedia. Things important in the UK are often only covered in the UK (e.g., randomly, Red Pepper (magazine)), yet they have articles. The same prevails throughout wikipedia, so discounting repeated local coverage of an subject (and there are tons of regional press mentions of Valhalla of varying significance) is contrary to longstanding consensus, in my view. (See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Brothers Brewing (2nd nomination) (essentially this is the "pizza place" type of keep which you decry), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuhn's Quality Foods, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mechanicsburg HS Marching Band, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belvidere Discount Mall, Mzoli's (oh who can forget this one!), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul E. Reinhold Agricultural Fairgrounds (here's a local fairgrounds example), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridley's Family Markets, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bennington Triangle, etc.)
• Applying this observation more generally to wineries, many prior AfDs of this type have been unsuccessful. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byington Vineyard (Oct 07 Nom by Agne, kept); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewell Towne Vineyards (Jan 09, kept, almost an identical case for a winery in New Hampshire); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French Camp Vineyards (kept aug 08, after nom was withdrawn, though nominator noted, "while I disagree that this organization has anything notable enough to distinguish itself from thousands of others like it, and therefore doesn't warrant an article"); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bure Family Wines (kept, nov 2009); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer Roloson Winery (kept as no consensus, aug 08); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coriole (kept, June 09, interestingly, Agne's vote varied between weak delete, neutral and finally keep); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markham Vineyards (May 09 keep with a "weak keep" from agne, though looking at the article provides no clue why this one was a keep vs. valhalla); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries and vineyards in Maine (nov 09 nom by agne, quite a mess of an AfD really)

So I written far too much and this isn't Afd round 2. It all goes back to my initial comment in this discussion that it was admin discretion to close as keep or no consensus, but not delete.--Milowent (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're sure you got that right? You don't mean admin discretion to close as delete (based on policies or guidelines) or no consensus (based on vote-counting)? Tomas e (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument to keep, even if the "other crap" has been subject to prior AfDs. Just because other AfDs failed when they shouldn't have (failing for the same "exception to policy" reasons put forth for Valhalla), doesn't mean this one should have failed also. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and other places note, "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." What my review of those AfDs tells me is that a few editors are interpreting our policies more narrowly than other editors. E.g., I learned that you are in favor of deleting vast numbers of winery articles, but your views do not represent the general consensus I saw. What I see getting deleted are what appeared to be blatant advert articles without sourcing.--Milowent (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn and send to AFD; sufficiently different to previous version. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  Huh? There is no different version then what was already debated at AfD. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  I've posted that to the wrong DRV, sorry. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 5 January 2010

[edit] Expressor

Expressor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting a review of the deletion of the Expressor article and that this article be temporarily restored for all to examine during this review.

I have attempted to engage the editors who initiated and supported the Expressor AfD nomination, but none have responded. I have also attempted to communicate with the administrator who deleted the Expressor page – User:Secret -- before requesting this deletion review, but Secret also never responded. I am requesting undeletion of the Expressor page because I believe it was nominated for deletion based on a misinterpretation of the notability guidelines, supported by conflicting interpretations of what constitutes notability for software companies and mis-statements of fact.

As I noted in a comment posted in the AfD discussion for expressor competitor Talend: “Like Talend, expressor is a new entrant with substantial VC backing in the established market for data integration and ETL products -- a fact both companies can and have proven with numerous, industry-specific references. An editor here noted that Talend has only received coverage in IT-related publications -- but those are exactly the kind of objective, secondary sources of information that not only confer notability within this IT market segment, but they are also the kind of secondary research buyers seek when evaluating a solution. (And since it competes in the same market, it is not surprising that expressor cited many of the same sources, such as Gartner, in its entry.) By deleting entries for companies such as Talend and expressor (not to mention other similar entries for Pentaho, Apatar and Jitterbit) for non-notability, you are ensuring that Wikipedia readers can only find information here on the largest vendors and products, and therefore get a skewed and inaccurate picture of objective reality.” Sccasey (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn/incubate userfy -- the AfD discussion produced a weak result at best, and a search here suggests it is very likely that an article can be justified. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • There is already a Copy located here User:Sccasey/expressor_software_entry_draft.--Hu12 (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • That's a pretty crappy draft, and if that's where we're headed then I agree that there is no need for an article here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• User:Sccasey has a probable conflict of interest regarding this topic. However, the topic itself appears to meet the general notability criterion ([13][14]) and the version of the article produced by Sccasey seemed to establish the notability of the topic. So, incubate (in this case, I think incubating is a better option than userfying because it will allow other editors to participate in the improvement) until a policy-compliant version of the article is produced. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. User:Sccasey is a Consultant for expressor software. See Spam Case. Nothing more than a Advertisement masquerading as an article for non-notable software(WP:CORP). References found are to splogs, press releases, self-submitted reviews and to partners that do not confer notability and do not count as reliable sources. Nothing in this suggests that this site or service has any sort of historical or technical significance of the kind needed to support an encyclopedia article.--Hu12 (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Temporarily restore article deleted on 12/10 by Secret. The article referenced by Hu12 above was an early draft that was subsequently edited based on feedback from other editors. This discussion should be based on the most recent article version that was deleted on 12/10 by Secret -- which is why I made that request when initiating this review. Sccasey (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)— Sccasey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC).
  • I'd be very careful, you attempted to the same thing at Afd under the anon IP 24.147.28.111 (talk · contribs)^[15]. You are the requestor of this DRV, and have a Clear conflict of interest and are a paid consultant editing on behalf of your client, expressor software.

• Canvassing other DRV's for Expressor, "keep Talend and expressor"
• Canvassing participants of another AFD unrelated to Expressor, where you liked the outcome Twice
• "'Admin'" shopping for undeletion after the AFD
• Continued spamming despite warnings Under IP 24.2.206.247 (talk · contribs)[16][17]

Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to promote expressor software.--Hu12 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. This is yet another business providing back-office software of some sort. Investment research sites and trade magazines (Bloor Research, "Enterprise Systems", "IT Business Edge") are never enough to confer notability on a business of this sort, which the general public has very little occasion to deal with; they don't have any real audience outside the trade. When WP:CORP says that "media of limited interest and circulation" don't confer notability, this is what it's talking about. That's the sort of reference offered by the current userfied version, which also has the sort of profound POV issue you expect from conflict of interest, and remains obvious advertising, as well as being full of vague and uninformative strings of glittering generalities (a suite of team-oriented, role-based tools that support the project development and management lifecycle). - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Can an admin do a temp undelete so that non-admins can evaluate the article? Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• There's a userfied version at User:Sccasey/expressor software entry draft that anyone can read. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is that substantially similar to the deleted version? Also, the AfD noted that the article was "hijacked" by Sccasey. What about the version prior to the "hijacking"? Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• The deleted version consists of this one paragraph and a link to expressor software;

"expressor software is a data integration suite that enables collaborative, role-based team development, business rule reuse and end-to-end project lifecycle management. expressor was founded in 2003 by experienced data integration and data warehousing practitioners and executives. The company is headquartered in Burlington, MA and is funded by Commonwealth Capital Ventures, Globespan Capital Partners and Sigma Partners."

Nothing in this suggests that this meets WP:CORP or this would survive at another AFD.--Hu12 (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Temporarily restore article edited on 12/1 by Sccasey. Apologies. I had overlooked the fact that Orange Mike had deleted the latest version of the article I had edited on 12/1 based on feedback from other editors. Secret then deleted that article, I believe. Can an admin please temporarily restore the 12/1 article -- which I sincerely attempted to draft from an objective point of view, so that all here can review on its merits? Btw, the draft on my talk page is very different -- from the article edited on 12/1. I would also like to apologize for posting edits without logging in first -- I was not trying to hide my identity, but simply forgot to log in.

To take a step back, the criticisms of the expressor article fall into two broad categories: 1. It was created by single-purpose account editor with a conflict of interest. 2. The company is non-notable.

To address the first: I have not attempted to hide my relationship with the company. I disclosed it. I did not engage in sock puppetry. It’s clear my first attempts to edit the expressor article fell short in several important respects, so based on feedback from editors, I carefully reviewed the conflict of interest, single purpose account and notability guidelines – as well as the articles on the company’s competitors in ETL and data integration, including Informatica, Talend, Pentaho, and IBM InfoSphere DataStage, and attempted to create an article that was similarly objective, non-promotional and cited third-party references from similar reliable sources.

Re the second: Notability for a business-to-business software company is conferred by the independent news outlets, analysts and experts that potential customers pay for their objective research, analysis and opinions of the relative merits of competing solutions and companies. To address one argument made here, cynics can question their objectivity, but if news and research organizations such as Gartner, 451 Group, Computerworld, Bloor Research and ITtoolbox (all of which were cited as references in the expressor article) were only “self-publishing” houses for vendors or “splogs” – and not delivering valuable information for prospective buyers, they would not be in business today and would have withered away decades ago, since many have been in business that long – unfamiliar as they may be to some Wikipedia editors.

To address the other argument re notability, if the only measure of notability for companies suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia is how much the “the general public” has “occasion to deal with” them – then none of the companies listed above are notable, even though they are in total selling more than a billion dollars a year in products and services to other companies who need to solve the same problems expressor solves. That “general public” measure would necessarily mean the deletion for non-notability of all the articles for companies and products but those that are sold and heavily marketed to consumers, such as the Chia Pet or Dungeons & Dragons. And if applied broadly, would render non-notable whole swaths of arcana such as the history of ancient Persian royalty. Sccasey (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sccasey (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is your second !vote [18][19], Not including the implicit !vote that comes with requesting this DRV[20]. Repeatedly begging for undeletion, and vote stacking multiple times, isn't apropriate when all the information needed for the comunity to make a decision is already availiable. "Media of limited interest and circulation" doesnt confer notability. Nothing in deleted text (provided above), or your Userfied copy suggests that this meets WP:CORP or this would survive at another AFD. You have a blatent conflict of interest and are a paid consultant editing on behalf of your client, expressor software. --Hu12 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Sccasey (talk · contribs) has !voted twice[21][22], and is the DRV requestor[23]. --Hu12 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 4 January 2010

[edit] List of unusual personal names

List of unusual personal names (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

During the deletion debate, just about all the deletion rationales were in the form of "delete, violates NPOV" or "delete, subjective". The former is a WP:VAGUEWAVE, as no specific reasoning for how the article violated WP:NPOV was offered, and the latter actively disregards the WP:ASF section of NPOV, which states, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves... When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion."

The opening paragraph of the article is what makes the list compliant with this principle: "The following list... is of people who have received media attention because of their name." This simple criterion, and adherence to it, is what makes the list non-subjective. It contains opinions (drawn from reliable sources), and declares at the top that that is the intended entirety of its content. "Unusual names" is a subject that many professional writers have touched upon, often at length (which is what justifies our having an article on the subject, if anyone wants to raise the WP:N angle), so if Wikipedia is to have an article about the subject, the only neutral way to approach it is to simply collate what various writers have said about the subject. Colonel Warden pointed this out in the course of the debate: [24].

Perhaps it could have been made clearer that the list is "not subjective" as a result of following that rule -- through a rename or further tweaking of the opening paragraph -- but the article still shouldn't have been deleted on the basis of delete !voters failing to properly assess the policy-compliant nature of its content.

A number of editors attempted to communicate these problems to the closing admin, who has reaffirmed his closure without addressing any of our specific policy concerns. Post-closure, he cited "BLP issues", although that issue was similarly unjustified during the debate: BLP was invoked in the form of WP:VAGUEWAVEs, or under the rubric of "do no harm", which is distinctly not what WP:BLP states or embodies.

To the extent that there may have been valid BLP concerns, they could have been addressed by editing, not deleting the article. In fact, such work was actively underway at the time of the nomination: all unsourced entries (or those attributed to unreliable sources) were being re-cited or removed. Had "the protection of minors" been found to have valid basis in policy, that too could be addressed by simply removing them from the list.

I also note that there was irregularity during the AfD in the form of sockpuppetry, as described here. However, this element is far less important, in my view, than the broad absence of any rationale based in actual policy that would have justified the article's deletion.--Father Goose (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Note as closer Please see my talk page User talk:Chillum#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (5th nomination) where I have responded to the issues raised by 4 people who have sought to keep this article. I am not sure how you can say I have not addressed your policy concerns Father Goose as I have explained the policy basis of both the delete and keep opinions and show that I have taken the instance sock puppetry into account. I feel there was a clear majority of people presenting a valid policy based reason for deletion. While both sides have valid policy based arguments it is not the job as my the closer to decide which opinion is correct, but simply to judge which policy based arguments represent a clear majority. The sock puppetry was a minor influence and only echoed the already prevalent opinion.

This is one of those AfDs I expected to go to DRV regardless of how I closed it, however I believe my closing was the only sincere closing I could have done that takes into account both policy and the desire of the community. I feel to have closed it any other was would be disregarding consensus. The arguments Father Goose brings up in this DRV were all given consideration and were all responded to at the AfD by the other participants. These arguments failed to convince people of their merits at the AfD and I as the closer should not veto the fact that these arguments were not convincing to the community even if I happen to agree with them. I see no policy or procedural basis for reversing this closing. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse sound close that reflected both the numerical weight of argument and policy.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. Reading the discussion, I'm not seeing anything clearly erroneous in the close. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse. Clearly within the closer's discretion. Minimal encyclopedic value, nontrivial potential to expose mostly private people to ridicule. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse. I'm highly inclusionist and a proud, if new, member of the Article Rescue Squadron who came to the article hoping to help rescue it. But it's a hopeless subject IMHO. Also the point H.W. makes above is another valid reason for delete. A courageous but correct close. NBeale (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse. Closer's rationale is well explained and well within policy. WP:DRV is not AFD round 2, and there seems to be no problems with the way the closer chose to interpret the general scope of the discussion. --Jayron32 18:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Request. I'd like to request undeletion of the article for the duration of the DRV so that commentators can fully evaluate the situation.--Father Goose (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I personally decline from restoring this content due to the BLP issues raised at the AfD, however will e-mail the content to anyone who requests it. I don't object to another admin coming to a different conclusion than me though. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes please. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• • I would be willing to remove all unsourced entries and those regarding minors for the purpose of demonstrating that various BLP concerns are addressable through editing, not deleting the article. If, however, there is a consensus that repeating the mere fact that a professional writer considers a name to be unusual (of a well-known, or even dead person) is a violation of BLP, then indeed this article cannot hope to exist on Wikipedia.
    I don't think one can claim that a consensus for such a broad position was formed during the course of the AfD. I would be content to have the article relisted at AfD to test the consensus for that specific point, as that seems to be the sole basis on which any actual policy-based objections are being raised.--Father Goose (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• What's the problem with just viewing the Google-cached version linked in the DRV heading? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Answer: Ignorance.

How and where does one find "the Google-cached version"? What is "the DRV heading"? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's that little blue button at the top of this page that says cache. You manipulate your mouse with your hand until the cursor hovers over the little blue button that says cache. Once you're confident that the cursor is in the correct place, lightly apply pressure to the mouse button with one of your fingers.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't we the smart-arse! Don't you think you could have been ruder? It seems you weren't trying hard enough.

And what's this crap about "curing ignorance (the chip on his shoulder i can't help))"? Get a grip sunshine! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• The cached version should be sufficient for anyone seeking to review the content of the article. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Only if they know what it is, where it is, and how to retrieve it. I've been an internet user for 20 years, a WWW user for over 15 years, and a WP user for approaching 5 years, but I don't know where to access what you're talking about. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who had actually been around that long would know what the word "cache" meant and how to easily figure out how it applied to what was being discussed here. You're only digging yourself deeper here. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• It isn't sufficient because it's uneditable. That makes it impossible to demonstrate that the BLP concerns, such as they are, are addressable through editing the article. The "subjectivity problem", however, cannot be addressed by editing the article, as it is a case of people simply not paying attention to this policy.--Father Goose (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• The deal is, there is no need to restore this, because this is no longer a debate over whether or not the article itself is to be deleted. That's what AFD is for. This is a discussion over whether or not the admin that closed the AFD interpreted the discussion itself in a way that was reasonable and within the scope of his role as a closing admin. DRV is specifically not about the content of the articles in question. Its only about if the closing admin judged consensus. If the closing admin was basing his decision on the content of the article, and was ignoring the points made during the discussion, you may have a case to restore here. However, the admin clearly based his entire decision on the arguements made in the AFD. I don't see where the actual content of the article is relevent any more. --Jayron32 22:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• A DRV is indeed about how the closing admin evaluated the arguments presented during an AfD. The evaluation should be take into account what actual specific policies are being violated, and should take into account whether such violations can be addressed through editing, not deletion. If those points are not adequately addressed during either the debate or the closure, then the appropriateness of the closure is thrown in doubt.
  It's not enough to say "well, this group felt that way and that group felt this way, and more felt this way than that, so they win". There always has to be a sound rationale for deleting an article -- because otherwise, it's "just a vote". Headcounts aren't enough. Unspecific claims of policy violations aren't enough. And actual policy-based problems that can be addressed through editing also should not result in the deletion of an article.--Father Goose (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't mind you trying to refute my points, but at least refute my points, and don't invent points I did not state and then refute those. I never once said that I believed the admin did a mere vote count, nor did I once imply that if he had, that would have been OK. What I said was that it was clear that he based his decision on the strength of the arguement, and that DRV is not about whether or not the article should be deleted. That is what AFD is for. DRV is to decide if the closing admin acted appropriately. --Jayron32 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn - essentially only one reason given, which was subjective, when it is clear that subsegments of the page are not so. Again, there are books on this sort of material in bookstores (has anyone had a baby and gone looking for baby names can attest). Reason two, i.e. "not encyclopedic" is not a reason. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• There was disagreement as to if the content was subjective, but the significant majority of people felt it was subjective. It is not really the place of the closer that make their own decision on if it was subjective or not, but to follow what the consensus on the matter is. If I had decided myself that is was not subjective despite the consensus that it was then I would be replacing the community opinion with my own. Just as the closer should not impose their own opinion on the AfD, DRV should be about the closure and not a re-examination of the opinions presented(ie a second AfD). "Not encyclopedic" seems to me to be a very good reason for not including something in an encyclopedia. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Historically, those two words have not been seen to be an adequate rationale unto themselves: WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. I'm sure you know that, so your engaging the same behavior does not help to increase confidence in your closure.--Father Goose (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn - The subject is clearly notable, and the majority of the list is (or was getting) cited. Individual problems can be cleared up. Not having Nardwuar the Human Serviette and Screaming Lord Sutch and Ima Hogg in a list, would be an obvious encyclopedic omission. It highlights the diversity of imaginative parents, or individual choices. There is no necessity to equate 'unusual' with 'ridicule', that's a subjective evaluation. Otherwise, per Casliber. Reclose as "no consensus", with specific problems highlighted for addressing by editors. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep deleted what's unusual is in the eye of the beholder and the closer got it right. I always thought it weird that there was a guy named Ham in the Old Testament when Jewish people aren't supposed to eat ham - does that make his name unusual? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse as an accurate reading of consensus at the debate. The nominator of this DRV is excessively dismissive of the arguments to delete by chalking them up to little more than WP:VAGUEWAVE; when a clear-cut argument is made that the inclusion criteria for a list is simply too subjective the judgement thereof may be subjective itself, but that does not invalidate the fact that a strong majority of participants agreed with that judgement. In the spirit of full disclosure, I argued for the deletion of this article in the AfD. Shereth 21:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, this is stated in complete ignorance of what the inclusion criterion of the list was: not "whatever Wikipedians think is unusual", but "whatever professional writers have commented on as being unusual". That not-so-small difference is the difference between original research and encyclopedia writing, and is what makes the inclusion criteria not subjective at all. The individual statements by the aforementioned professional writers are subjective, certainly, but an article that catalogs such opinions is not: reread WP:ASF to understand how an article of this type can be entirely factual and populated according to objective criteria. So you are again making vague assertions that policy is somehow being violated. Please offer me an argument that is actually drawn from any policy we have anywhere on the site. Point my attention to any part of policy that is actually in line your assertions. Please. Any part of policy. Be concrete. Otherwise you're continuing to make an open-ended assertion that cannot be refuted: "too subjective". It's that kind of behavior that makes AfD devolve from a supposed discussion of deletion rationales into an entirely, yes, subjective vote.--Father Goose (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, I am quite aware of what the inclusion criteria on this list was, your assertion notwithstanding. I also enjoy how you insist that it was based upon "professional" writers. Here's the thing of it: even if we conveniently ignore the fact that the bulk of the entries were "sourced" by autobiographies, blogs, personal websites and opinion writers, you still run in to the issue that the criteria is, in essense, "Names that someone considers unusual". Who that someone is, is ultimately subjective. I'm not going to rehash the debate with you, but will stand by my original statement: the closer made an accurate reading of consensus. Shereth 22:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I was in the process of removing entries sourced from blogs, personal websites, and gossip websites. The "professional writers" I speak of were those writing for the BBC, CBS, Time, Guinness Book of World Records, the Guardian, the Independent, and so on. The opinions of such authors are very much valid material for Wikipedia. The other sources are not. I don't defend the use of non-reliable sources, and would continue to remove entries based on them, had the article not disappeared in a flurry of snap judgments.--Father Goose (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse correct closure both by headcount and argument strength, indeed no possible way this could have been closed as anything else. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• By headcount, one would have to close as "no consensus". I invite you, or anyone else, to actually explain what parts of policy the article actually violates. No vaguewaves. No subjective pronouncements on "argument strength". Point to any actual words in any actual policy to underscore the claim that the arguments were policy based.--Father Goose (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have placed a link to my talk page where I have gone into detail about the relevant policy. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's true, you are the only person so far to actually be specific about what portions of policy you felt were involved. But you only did so for the BLP issue, not the "subjectivity" one, and I'm not convinced that there was consensus during the deletion debate over how much the BLP issues came into play, or whether they could be addressed by trimming or otherwise editing the list.--Father Goose (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'll readily grant that the article, falling at least in part under the auspices of BLP, has to be sourced impeccably: every entry about a living person has to be cited to a reliable source. I'm prepared to ensure that it complies with that. As for whether we should even be allowed to mention that the BBC or some similarly reputable media source has commented on the "unusualness" of someone's name, I have serious doubts about whether that should automatically be considered "harmful", or that such information can be considered private, having been disseminated by said media source. A very great number of the entries are famous for more than just their names, or are deceased, or are individuals who deliberately chose attention-getting names. I would be willing to discuss whether any individuals under the age of 18 should be reflexively omitted from the list.--Father Goose (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• endorse close, allow Father Goose to recreate And now the TL;DR part. I've gone back and forth on this. I think the closer's rational is well stated, though I do think that at some point sending things to AfD over and over again is a good reason to oppose deletion. While consensus can change, we also shouldn't be nominating things for deletion until they gets deleted. I think that second notion is important enough those !votes shouldn't have been entirely discounted (though I agree they aren't strong). In addition, as it is possible to source the fact that reliable sources find a given name to be "unusual," I think the"subjective" arguments should be significantly discounted as being factually incorrect. The BLP arguments are strong enough I think we should prune all unsourced information. I trust Father Goose to do so. So while I'd have closed this as "no consensus", and believe it should have been closed that way, the closer's view of things isn't unreasonable and is within discretion. All that said, (and realizing this isn't AFD2) my reading of the debate doesn't turn up a single valid reason not to let Father Goose recreate this. Hobit (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• overturn sufficient arguments were given for why there are sources and what the sources were. those who continued to vote for deletion were engaging in IDINDTHEARTHAT, which is a polite way of saying that they had made up their minds from the start, either on the basis of inspection of the article, or merely the inspection of the title, and did not pay any regard to arguments. A close based on uninformed bare opinion is an incorrect close. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse: the arguments for deletion are much more persuasive, for example, Maunus'. Speaking about the article itself, we'll either have an V, NPOV, or NOR problem. The verifiability problem is that just calling a name unusual doesn't make it. We have an NPOV problem if we make this list useful by giving one definition of "unusual" above all others. And we have a NOR problem if we define for ourselves a name to be unusual by using the criteria given with an NPOV-problmeatic definition. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse closure The nominator here is overly dismissive of valid arguments; WP:VAGUEWAVE is being cited incorrectly here. The argument that a list's criteria for inclusion are inherently subjective is not a vague one, as Shereth wrote above. The subjectivity argument comes straight from WP:SAL, which states: "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should be based on reliable sources." Reliable sources, of course, must not be one writer's opinion that a name is unusual; there must be proof that a name is broadly considered unusual, or WP:NPOV is violated. In addition, there was the WP:BLP issue raised in the debate. All things considered, this was a sound close and I see no reason to overturn it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse and award barnstar to closer for a courageous and correct closure. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Shudder - Wiki-bullies give me the runs. Why does it have to be that "he who shouts loudest for longest" is the "winner"? Why does there have to be "a winner"? Why is it that a single editor trying to present a reasoned POV supported by a logical arguement gets shouted down by a pack of wolves, rather than people reading and considering the points he has raised, and addressing them? There's supposed to be a policy of WP:AGF. People are supposed to be polite and considerate. I'm unimpressed, and somewhat fed up. I would engage in this debate, but I just can't be bothered putting up with the crap. I hope you're all ashamed with yourselves. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? There was a debate and it reached a result, I don't see any "winners", or "bullies". Who is being shouted down, who is being a wolf? Who is assuming bad faith? Why on Earth should be be ashamed of ourselves? While your comment is rich in judgment it fails to explain itself in the slightest. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's what "gets you through the night", go for it.

I think what I've said is pretty obvious. If you don't already understand it, then me explaining it to you is almost certainly not going to help, because you almost certainly don't want to consider that POV.

Quite simply, I don't care. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• That is fine, just don't expect to be very convincing if you are not going to explain yourself. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough.

However, as I've said, I think what I've said is pretty obvious. I'm rather surprised that it isn't obvious to someone of what appears to be your level of intellingence.

Well, if it isn't obvious to you, never mind. The world won't end; after all, it's only wikipedia ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• In my personal opinion, "delete" was the most appropriate outcome, considering that such an article is never going to have objective inclusion criteria.

  But. Closers are supposed to assess the debate, not the article. The process is not "everyone has a discussion and then some admin comes along and does whatever they personally think is right". The process is "everyone has a debate and then some admin comes along and decides what was the rough consensus". And from the debate before us, no matter which way you slice it, there was insufficient consensus to delete that article.

  In my opinion, that debate was one in which the weaker arguments gained the majority support. In that sense, I find the debate itself defective. I would prefer to relist this matter in the hope that we can have a further debate in which the strongest arguments carry the day.

  I expect someone will ask, if I feel like that, why don't I just endorse the close? And my answer is, because that's not FairProcess. It is not enough that we reach the correct conclusion in these things. Importantly, we must also show that we reach the correct conclusion in a fair and transparent way.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse close as a correct interpretation of the discussion. There were good arguments on the "keep" side, but the "delete" side also had good arguments and were the clear majority even without discounting those who argued "keep" based on the repeated AFDing of the article. If Father Goose wants to create a userspace draft that addresses the BLP concerns, I think that would be fine, and if there is a version that achieves that then recreation should be permitted. --RL0919 (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse as a valid closure within policy. JBsupreme (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse as "I didn't like the outcome" is not a valid reason to initiate a DRV. There were no administrative missteps or wrongdoings that need correcting here. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Allow re-creation with stricter adherrence to WP:PSTS. Sufficient sources exist for such a topic. however, a name is unusual only if a reputable secondary source says so. I get no sense of actual WP:BLP issues serious enough to prevent undeletion of the history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Nimi Visuals

Nimi Visuals (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

"Speedy deleted per CSD G11, was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something. using TW" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiwieciekto (talk • contribs)

• I presume that you are disagreeing with the speedy deletion? However, looking at the article I would have to agree with the deleting admin that it met the criteria of WP:CSD#G11 as being unambiguous promotion, so I endorse the deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to think that this is not G11. It may be true that the article contains some spammy content, but it seems descriptive to me most of the time. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn per my comment above. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse The article as it was read like a pamphlet, it was clearly promotional. Any article we do have on the subject would be better written from start than adapted from the promotional prose that was the prior content of this article. Even though now reason to dispute this deletion has been presented, I affirm it is a valid CSD G11 deletion. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• While I agree that some of the prior content is informative and can be used as a starting point for a proper article I cannot bring myself to say the deleting admin made a mistake as the tone of the article is that of someone attempting to show how great their product is. I do not object to the undeletion of the article for the purposes of creating a derivative work that is encyclopedic in style but it should not be undeleted and left in its current condition. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly to say I don't see why information like features list is different from those in Beryl (window manager) or Compiz - I would understand removing paragraphs or something. Reporting(seen that while using Wikipedia) that this section requires rewrite - but deletion without restore option is kind of uncommon solution for me. Especially as person(from administrator questions page it was something like this) from what I recall also wasn't sure whether there was this G11. I would at last like to know if/how I can rewrite this article not to be deleted again. Is there possibility to protect article for deletion if it will be accepted by administrators?

Oh and thanks Metropolitan90 for helping me navigate here - Wiki system is really too complex for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiwieciekto (talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn Had I seen it, I would have made a rather drastic cut, and it would not then have looked so promotional--I would have called it sufficiently descriptive and declined G11. G11 is not to be used as an excuse for A7 when it's a class of article not covered by A7, and that may possible been part of the thinking here. The admin deleted the article without previous tagging. This is permitted but discouraged--one of the reasons it is discouraged is that it leads reasonable people to question the decision, and this is an example. At the very least, if a one-handed deletion is challenged, the admin should revert, and send to AfD; or any other admin could simply do that for them. I admit I sometimes do one-handed deletions myself, but if reasonably challenged, I would undelete and send to AfD--I prefer community decisions to my own if there is any doubt. In practice, since the article is unsourced and there is sure to be questioned notability, it would probably be wisest to rewrite it first, and then resubmit. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn not so promotional as to be a speedy in my opinion. Also per DGG. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD, mainly per DGG. I believe this was a misapplication of G11; a case could be made that this article was WP:ARTSPAM at AfD, but was it "unambiguous advertising"? Looking at the cached version of the page, I think it wasn't unambiguous. Like DGG, I'm uncomfortable with an overly liberal application of G11 to software articles just because attempts to add software to A7 have failed to gain traction at WT:CSD. (For the record, I supported adding it.) This may well be deleted at AfD, but it's definitely not the obvious type of case for which speedy deletion is reserved. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy and list at AFD. I agree with DGG's assessment that this could have been made non-promotional through simple cutting, so the CSD criterion of needing to be "fundamentally rewritten" to avoid promotion does not apply. It may not be notable enough to survive AFD, but speedy deletion was not the right choice in this case. --RL0919 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Restore, at least temporarily. I cannot even see what we're commenting on. JBsupreme (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You can see the last Google cache of the non-deleted article by clicking the "cache" link near the top of this section. Admins can see the final version that was deleted, although I don't think there is any significant difference in this case. --RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    • If there is no substantial difference I would have to agree with the deletion (for different reasons) but would prefer it being deleted by way of consensus rather than unilaterally. I'm not a process wonk but I think the best way to handle this one is to overturn the deletion and give the community the opportunity to provide feedback (and possible improvement) and see what happens. JBsupreme (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn - Excessively-detailed description of product features does not qualify as "blatant" or "unambiguous" advertising when the text itself is not promotional. I don't see anything wrong with a sysop applying speedy deletion without previous tagging—the practice is neither prohibited nor discouraged, to my knowledge—but none of the speedy deletion criteria seem to apply in this case. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  it is mistakes like this which show why it ought to be prohibited, or at least very strongly discouraged. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  I recognise the value of tagging a page for deletion for review by a second sysop in cases where some subjective evaluation is required or there is any doubt, and I have done so myself on multiple occasions, but the practice is unnecessary, in my opinion, for most of the speedy deletion criteria. With the exceptions of G11, A7, A10, and F7 (and possibly also G10 and A9), the speedy criteria are essentially unambiguous. Was your comment perhaps aimed at those few speedy criteria specifically? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 3 January 2010

[edit] MacFamilyTree (closed)

[edit] User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1

User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was told by the person who nominated the page for deletion (User:Equazcion) that if I removed certain text from the archive that it would not need to be deleted. I complied and the page was deleted without regard. I have also tried to ask the admin who performed the deletion (User:Killiondude) why it was done and was told that it was done due to consensus and if I didn't like it to come here. SkagitRiverQueen 05:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm the nominator. The problem with the page was that it violated WP:UP#What may I not have on my user page?, item #10. I told Skag that she could fix the page and likely save it. I also left a note, as what turned out to be the final comment in the MfD, that Skag claimed to be in the process of fixing the page. I kept tabs on the page afterward, but in the end didn't feel comfortable making any determination on whether it was sufficiently fixed. I don't know if Killiondude noticed the comment, or made an attempt to check the page to see if the issues were taken care of (from his simple closing remark and response to Skag, it looks as though he didn't).

• The issues with the page could be divided in two: content and organization. The content included exchanges not from her talk page, but from other pages; it consisted of warnings and comments made regarding User:JoyDiamond. After Skag's attempted fix, I noticed much of this was gone. It was difficult to determine if what remained actually came from her talk page. Nevertheless, the second issue, organization, was still present at the time of deletion. The sections were named "JoyDiamond 1", "JoyDiamond 2", etc, which is still skirting the bounds of "listing of perceived flaws" (from WP:UP). I would say the page can be restored so long as Skag is bound to reorganize it, renaming headers and so forth, so that it no longer carries this issue. A straight copy of the past discussions from her talk page history, including the original section headers, and minus any comments added after archiving was done, would be best. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:21, 3 Jan 2010 (UTC)
  • I did notice the last comment, and I compared (before deleting) the version of the page before the MFD was initiated and the last version of the page. While SkagitRiverQueen did make modifications, it was not a straight archive from her talk page. Because of that and that there were no further comments from the participants in the MFD, I decided that there was consensus to delete it. I have no personal stake in this situation, emotionally or otherwise. I was just trying to carry out what I believed the consensus to be on the MFD. Killiondude (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah okay, sorry for my erroneous assumption. I didn't mean to suggest you had any personal stake though; I just thought you might've overlooked the comment. I didn't make any extensive examination of the page prior to deletion myself, so if you did then I'm fine deferring to your judgment. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:44, 3 Jan 2010 (UTC)
    • Well...I beg to differ. Everything left in the archive was (as far as I remembered it) from my talk page and nothing (again, to the best of my recollection) was from anywhere else. If the page is restored, I will have no problem re-categorizing/renaming the sections. I do want to point out, however, this is the first time anyone bothered to point out to me they felt the categorization/section naming was a specific problem which also needed to be rectified. What I see being claimed now is that I did what I was told would save the page from deletion, but the rules were changed (without informing me as such) and I was still out of compliance so the page should have been deleted. Not very fair. --SkagitRiverQueen 07:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Given the nature of this DrV, can we get a history-only undeletion? At issue at this point is if the modified page violates policy at the time it was deleted. Given the various claims above, that can't be judged without seeing the page. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This is a complex MfD that I specifically chose to avoid due to the ad hominem attacks and allegations of sockpuppetry that were flying around. Setting all that aside, I think the first question is whether Killiondude interpreted the consensus in the debate correctly. Reading through the debate (some of which is on the talk page), my impression is that the consensus was to delete. Most of those favoring deletion cited WP:UP#NOT #10; however, one editor, Collect, argued that the "evidence" element of the page could reasonably be used in a forthcoming WP:DR process. Collect contended that all such "evidence pages" should be allowed for six months, as a rule of thumb; the nominated page was two months old, and was not going to be used in DR for at least two months, if ever. While Collect's arguments was not unreasonable, I do not feel he backed it up with sufficient precedent to show that this page should in fact be kept. The voters at the MfD rejected his argument altogether. The second question, of course, is whether SkagitRiverQueen changed the page enough to nullify all the reasons for deletion presented in the discussion. Killiondude compared the two versions and said that the problems were unresolved. (Skag may of course re-create this as a straight talk-page archive, presumably from the page history of his user talk page.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. I'm not seeing anything clearly erroneous in the close. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Canberra Kangaroos (closed)

[edit] Kangaroo attacks in Australia (closed)

[edit] 2 January 2010

[edit] 1 January 2010

[edit] 31 December 2009

[edit] Dave Elitch

Dave Elitch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

I believe that Dave Elitch is notable as he is well known for being the replacement of Thomas Pridgen and for touring with Mars Volta, and for other reasons I am willing to bring up if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iminrainbows (talk • contribs) 01:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please could you list the sources you propose to use for your article?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse for now. Our Thomas Prigden article states, "In late 2009 rumours of Thomas Pridgen parting ways with The Mars Volta circulated the internet. As of December 2009 the band has still made no official statement, however, in their most recent shows they have been performing with drummer Dave Elitch. Whether this is permanent or not has yet to be confirmed." There is absolutely no harm in waiting until it's actually known if he's a member of the band or just filling in for a show or two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Thomas Pridgen article is not up to date. Since then Pridgen has said that he has left and Dave Elitch has said that he has joined. My sources will be:

• http://www.myspace.com/davidelitch
• http://www.antiquiet.com/news/2009/11/mars-volta-new-drummer/
• http://thebrokengstring.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/rumors-confirmed-dave-elitch-is-tmvs-new-drummer/

Iminrainbows (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

None of those are acceptable sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say David Elitch's personal website is a reasonable primary source. Hobit (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. This doesn't need to come to DRV; the speedy doesn't prevent creation of a new article with a sufficient claim of significance. Just do it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  Agreed, though a restoration of the article would probably be helpful (I can't see it as the cached article I'm seeing is of the band). userfy for now. I think we need to wait until an independent reliable source covers that he's now in the band. No objection to recreation as him being in the band (even for a short while) would be a reasonable claim of notability and not allow an A7 deletion, but it's probably easier to wait and get the closing admin to restore once notability is established. Also, question for an admin: Did the article deleted on Dec 29th claim he was in the band? Hobit (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  Yes and no. It indicated that he "is currently" a member of the band, but also noted that he "will replace" Pridgen on one leg of a particular tour. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 00:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  I concur with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz- a speedy deletion doesn't prevent creation of an acceptable article- if you have the sources, write it. An admin may provide you with a copy of the old article, or even put it in your userspace at their discretion. The new article will be subject to our normal deletion policies, but as the article was not deleted after discussion, speedy deletion criteria G4 would not apply. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  Would saying that he is well known for being rumored to be in The Mars Volta be a significant claim of notability, even if there is no solid source saying that he is in the band? Because I think he's become pretty well known for these rumors, even if it turns out that in fact he isn't an official member. Iminrainbows (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion under criterion A7. An article does not need to prove the notability of its subject in order to avoid speedy deletion, but it does need to indicate the significance of its subject, which is a much lower threshold. Being rumoured to be a member of a notable musical group is not really an assertion of significance as anyone can spread any rumour about anyone. I suggest waiting for confirmation of the rumour in a reliable source before recreating the article. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 00:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn not a valid A7 as importance of the subject was asserted in the article (per Black Falcon's comments). It's not up to the admin doing A7 to verify if the facts are true. Just that importance was asserted. A claim to be in a notable band is an assertion of importance. Hobit (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Recent discussions

[edit] 30 December 2009

[edit] File:HMS Ambuscade (F172).jpg

File:HMS Ambuscade (F172).jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|restore)

Was speedily deleted by User:SchuminWeb on the basis of (F7: Violates non-free use policy: Not different enough that the idea could not be conveyed by a current free image). The criteria has not been correctly applied in this case as it is no longer possible to create a free image of the vessel in its Royal Navy form. The vessel was sold to the Pakistan Navy and has been extensively modified by that service. The Pakistan Navy uses a different colour scheme, the quadruple Exocet launcher in B position was removed, a Harpoon launcher replaces it, the Sea Cat launcher has been removed and the hangar modified to take a larger helicopter. It is not possible to replace the none free image with a free equivalent. Justin talk 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Endorse - Because the ship looks different is not a good enough reason to toss the decision aside. — The Hand That Feeds You^Bite 04:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What? The image cannot be recreated so we should ignore the free use justification and use some utterly unrelated image just 'cos its free. Sorry that argument is utterly illogical. Justin talk 13:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that, as you point out in the nom, it's not "an unrlated image," it's the same ship with modifications. We can use a free image of the current version of the ship. You said it was sold to the Pakistan Navy and has been extensively modified by that service. So it is the same ship, it just looks different. Your argument is akin to saying we can't use a modern picture of an actress because now she's 80 and had three face-lifts, so she doesn't look the same as her Oscar-award winning performance 60 years ago. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Err no, the article is about HMS Ambuscade in Royal Navy service, on ship articles where ships have seen service in several navies, each service has its own article. e.g. ARA General Belgrano and USS Phoenix (CL-46). So your analogy doesn't reflect the situation here. Hence, my comment about the logic in your argument; it doesn't reflect the situation here. Justin talk

Just because it's got articles on each separate service doesn't invalidate our image rules. The boat still exists, so a free image can be made. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a question of invalidating image rules, it is perfectly permissible within the image rules. And no a free image is not possible in this case and your suggestion that an unrelated image will do is utterly specious. Justin talk 22:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never said "an unrelated image will do," so I don't know where you're getting off calling my argument "specious."If your argument is that the boat currently doesn't look like it did when it was designated HMS Ambuscade, I don't think you'll satisfy the image rules. The ship still exists. We can still make a free image of it. Therefore, a non-free image is not necessary. The fact that it has been modified doesn't change that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Its specious because it is an unrelated image. The article is about HMS Ambuscade, the image is to illustrate her in the service of the Royal Navy. There cannot be a free image as HMS Ambuscade no longer exists. To shove in an image of the ship in Pakistan Navy service is to use an unrelated image. A non-free image is impossible because HMS Ambuscade no longer exists. Justin talk 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Relist - If you'll look through the admin's talk pages, there are quite a few similar instances - quick skim through his contributions over the last few weeks there's several "oops I was too quicksI over stepped" - itchy delete finger? --71.54.72.13 (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Overturn - As the lister says, no free image can now be made, so it's explicitly allowed under the non-free content guideline, just like a person who is dead or a hermit, or a band that no longer exists. The closing admin's suggestion of using a picture of some other ship is ludicrous; if we adopted that line of reasoning we could get rid of all free-use pictures of people by using a free picture of somebody else! -- Zsero (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Overturn, list at FFD. Closer's summary ("not different enough") and Justin's argument indicate enough of a substantial content issue is involved to require community discussion rather than summary action. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at FfD. Not clear-cut enough for a speedy. Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• overturn Not a speedy case as it isn't clearly replaceable. Hobit (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• overturn - whatever else may be decided, this was an inappropriate speedy delete Thparkth (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy deletion and list at FfD if desired. WP:CSD states that "administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." This is clearly not an obvious case, given the strong contention that no free equivalent can be created. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Clearly it was and is replaceable by other (non-free) images such as File:HMS Amazon (F169).jpg. Why waste anyone's time at FFD? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  Huh? How can it be replaced by a picture of a different ship?! Would you also say that a picture of a deceased person may be replaced by that of somebody else of the same sex, age, race, and general build? -- Zsero (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  No, but ships aren't people. These ships were all built to one plan and - so far as I can recall - all underwent the same visible changes. Apart from the pennant number, which is all but illegible in these shots, they were visibly identical. Only a total anorak could possibly tell the difference and anyone that obsessive should have pictures of these which they took at some Navy Day which they can release under a free license. We can't lose. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  So if a famous dead person had an identical twin who was still alive, and someone wanted to upload a photo for fair use, you would suggest taking a photo of the twin instead, on the grounds that nobody would know the difference? -- Zsero (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  It was not a really great analogy the first time you tried it out and I don't find that fine-tuning is helping. The subject here is a big inanimate steel thing. If it is analogies you want think cars, not people. Do we insist on picturing every possible trim level and engine variant in an article? Every little detail change? Or do we say "here's a three-door VW Golf Mk2" and "here's a four-door Ford Escort Mk1"? You're asking for a picture of the "three-door VW Golf Mk2 1.6 GLi automatic with the optional five-spoke alloy wheels and metallic paint". Even the Volkswagen Golf Mk2 article, dealing with a subject where there are enormous numbers of free pictures available, doesn't depict that level of detail. It settles for representativeness. So too can the article where this image was used. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  The article isn't about the type of ship, it's about the ship itself. If we say "here's a picture of the car Kennedy was shot in", we don't put up a picture of one just like it if we can get one of the car itself. We don't put a picture of Apollo-12 in an article about Apollo-11, just because they looked alike (if they did). -- Zsero (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  Aside from the argument that it is a completely different ship none of the Type 21 had exactly the same build standard, there were differences between members of the class. HMS Antelope for example was never fitted with Exocet. Justin talk 09:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn argument for fair use negates possibility of speedy deletion. Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] File:RebShimon.jpg & File:RavYosefLeibBloch.jpg (closed)

[edit] Template:Xavier bowl games (closed)

[edit] Students for Economic Justice (closed)

[edit] Malvern_Instruments (closed)

[edit] 29 December 2009

[edit] 28 December 2009

[edit] 27 December 2009

[edit] 26 December 2009

[edit] 25 December 2009

[edit] 24 December 2009

[edit] Archive