Wikipedia:Deletion review Information & Wikipedia:Deletion review Links at HealthHaven.com

For simple image undeletions, try {{ImageUndeleteRequest}}

"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

Shortcuts: WP:DRV WP:DELREV

Skip to: Active discussions · Recent discussions · Archive

Deletion discussions

Deletion today AfD yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Files Categories (active) Stub types Redirects Miscellany Undeletion Deletion review
Wikipedia deletion policy
Attack page Criteria for speedy deletion Deletion policy Proposed deletion Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Tools
Process – Log – Guide – Images – Admins

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

Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.

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

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

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:

The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
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:

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).
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.


1.	Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 \|page= \|xfd_page= \|reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 \|page= \|xfd_page= \|article= \|reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in `page` with the name of the deleted page, `xfd_page` with the name of the deletion discussion page, and `reason` with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, `article` is the name of the article where the file was used. For example: {{subst:drv2 \|page=File:Foo.png \|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png \|article=Foo \|reason= }} ~~~~
3.	Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page: `{{subst:DRVNote\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
4.	Nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept should also attach a `{{subst:Delrev}}` tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

Click to create a log page for tomorrow (20 December 2009)

[edit] Active discussions

[edit] 19 December 2009

[edit] Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition

As the closing admin noted himself, the closure was a partisan action. The member should have simply commented like everyone else. Reopen the discussion (overturn speedy keep) and allow the MFD to reach a normal conclusion.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 18 December 2009

[edit] Tony Wang

Zelysion (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The article was previously deleted due to lack of notability and a lack of established sources. The article has been updated to match those criteria. See the current version of the page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zelysion/Tony_Wang

Eh The Seventeen source looks new since the deletion. The school paper is large enough it might count as a RS. I'd say restore as clearly not a speedy candidate for recreation as the sourcing appears to be new (from what I can tell from the AfD). But I suspect it won't survive AfD2 without further improvement. Hobit (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Yu-Gi-Oh!_The_Abridged_Series

I think this now counts as notable as the series recently won the Mashable Open Web Awards in the "Funniest Youtube Channel" category —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradox295 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 17 December 2009

[edit] Mike Corley (closed)

[edit] Laurance W. Marvin (closed)

[edit] Coccinella (software)

Why you remove all articles ? It is a good client which exist since 2002, still in development and one of first (or the first) with the Whiteboard.

It is in the official XMPP clients page : http://xmpp.org/software/clients.shtml
an article on Linux.com : http://www.linux.com/archive/articles/58326
It is on Linux distribution, Mac OS, Windows, and other OS...
It is not a program used by 2 people.
You can search on the Web ... — Neustradamus (✉) 08:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:ENN. I'm not commenting on the sources at the moment since I haven't evaluated them. Tim Song (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse – proper read of consensus of close. Reasons for deletion far outweigh the reasons for retention (mostly based on WP:ITSNOTABLE and ad hominem attacks). MuZemike 17:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse This is not AfD round 2. This spent several weeks between PROD and AfD and in that time nobody rescued it. We delete things for reasons: they don't meet our criteria. I suggest Neustradamus read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N before nominating more articles for Deletion Review, or he will spend his time beating a lot of dead horses. Once he understands our inclusion criteria he can go find the sources and re-write the article in his userspace. Undeleting articles for people that do not understand our inclusion criteria that didn't meet the criteria the first time is unhelpful to people trying to re-write them because they copy the same mistakes. Miami33139 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 16 December 2009

[edit] AMSN (closed)

[edit] Jabbin (closed)

[edit] Derek Michael Sheldon (closed)

[edit] 15 December 2009

[edit] 14 December 2009

[edit] File:Sst7.jpg

The image was speedy deleted for non-free use. However, the image is not replaceable. This was stated on the File's talk page in response to the deletion tag placement. There was no reply to my discussion entry prior to deletion. The article is about a band that has released two CDs, taken multiple national tours and does so no longer because members have left. Fair use applies because the image displays the entire seven-piece band and such a free image does not exist. The image was also low resolution. However, if the image is restored and resolution is an issue the image can be made smaller. - Steve3849 ^talk 07:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Support undeletion, as it appears no new photo can be taken of the full band performing, and there's no evidence of a free-use alternative from the Google Image search I just did. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Endorse - the Skerik's Syncopated Taint Septet group still exists, so a free image depicting the current line-up is possible. PhilKnight (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse. PhilKnight (talk · contribs) is correct, a free-use alternative could be obtained. Cirt (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Question [15] would seem to indicate the group might not exist any longer. Can someone show it does or doesn't (I'm fine if you all are going off personal knowledge here, I just want to know how you know it does or doesn't still exist.) Thanks! Hobit (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A site specific google search of a Seattle journal such as thestranger.com brings predominate appearances this passed year by "Skerik's Syncopated Horn Quartet". However I do see the mention in a forum of a "very rare show" of all 7 members in 2009. I still think a free image of the entire band is highly unlikely. - Steve3849 ^talk 16:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If there was one in 2009, I'd say it's not unlikely a free version can be found later. Send to XfD I don't think this is a clear-cut enough case for a speedy. Hobit (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] BS.Player (closed)

[edit] 13 December 2009

[edit] 12 December 2009

[edit] Google Watch

Here we go again, folks. Page was deleted, even though the consensus at the AFD was for a merge. Brandt requested that the redirect be deleted, and User:NuclearWarfare complied. The result of the AFD was a merge, and the deletion of the redirect was not agreed to anywhere in that AFD. The deletion of this redirect seems to me to be a violation of the proper procedure for deleting redirects, which would be to list them at Redirects for Deletion. I ask that the article be undeleted and posted there so that community can discuss the issue and decide whether or not to delete the redirect, as opposed to one admin unilaterally deciding the best course of action. It seems logical to leave redirect at Google Watch to point searchers to the current location of the information at Criticism of Google, so the reason given in NuclearWarfare's edit summary ("No reason to keep this redirect around") is not sufficient to account for this article's deletion.

Note: I have discussed this with the deleting admin. See User talk:NuclearWarfare#Deletion of Google Watch. He consented to a review of his actions here. Cerebellum (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Overturn (i.e. allow the redirect to be restored) , per nom. The closer is of course entitled to agree with Brandt, but should go through the proper venues to propose such a deletion. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, for pities sake. Are we to be Daniel Brandt's puppets? Restore the redirect and page history, that deletion was totally without justification. Fences&Windows 21:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Speedy restore come on, really? Hobit (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- To be clear, admins shouldn't be deleting redirects on their own that don't meet the speedy criteria. Hobit (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not see why the deletion is necessary, especially since it effectively prevented editorial overturning of the merge, the ground upon which the previous DRV was closed. Given the numerous serious irregularities pointed out during the AfD, I wonder if that debate is safe enough as a basis for taking action. Tim Song (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Deleting admin: I have already provided a copy of the Wikitext of the article to Cyclopia and will happily do so again to anyone who requests it, provided that they attribute it properly when merging information. The history of the article has been preserved. The redirect was causing an annoyance to the website operator and was not really necessary for us (really, what good does it do?), so I decided to exercise my judgment and delete the article. NW (Talk) 22:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Endorse. This is how I would've closed the debate. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse. Ditto. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Could the two of you indicate which debate you are referring to? As far as I can tell, the debate was closed as a redirect and then the redirect was later deleted. Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Sorry, I thought it was clear: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (4th nomination). It was originally closed as "redirect" and then changed to "delete." I was saying that, had I been the one to close that debate, I would've just closed as "delete" originally. The votes in favor of outright deletion seem to pretty clearly in the majority. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    - Ah, that close still reads as "merge". Hobit (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Undelete the redirect to Criticism of Google, was deleted for no real reason, is a reasonable search term. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think this debate is confusing regarding the question of the XfD and the question of the deletion of the redirect (after the history was moved elsewhere). I Endorse the XfD decision, as a fair reading of rough consensus, but !vote overturn on the out-of-process deletion of the history-less redirect. When someone does searches for "google watch", do we want them sent to Criticism of Google, or pointed to "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (n^th nomination)"? Try searching now and see what you see. The deletion of reasonable search-term redirects is stupid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Overturn deletion of the redirect. The redirect was deleted out of process without a discussion at RfD and without meeting any of the criteria for speedy deletion. NW's reasoning for ignoring the rules and deleting the redirect is, frankly, weak. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Overturn as out of process since the AfD was foolishly closed as merge instead of delete, which was the supported outcome of the debate, and restart a proper AfD without the foolish canvassing to remove any doubt about the validaty of the outcome. What did I tell you about IAR and this AfD?[16]. I hope you learned something from this. People aren't stupid; you're hurting the cause rather than helping it when you do it this way. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Overturn -- a request by the banned user Daniel Brandt is, by itself, an insufficient justification for any deletion. Andrea105 (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please note that this is the banned user John254. NW (Talk) 04:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse and stop the drama queenery, since being banned does not prevent one from requesting such a deletion on BLP grounds. Some people here just need to let go. Tarc (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, "being banned does not prevent" administrators from acting on a genuinely justified request for "deletion on BLP grounds." However, any deletion (or other administrative action) requires some articulated basis beyond the mere fact that a banned user requested the action. Andrea105 (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

endorse - 14 afds and countless articles. Wikipedia treated this guy like shit, and keeping a needless redirect either out of spite or process wankery is contemptible. Move on folks, it is the right thing to do.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse - I am not seeing a problem with NW's decision. This is what I would have done. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse and move on already - I'm not seeing any problems with NW's decisions nor actions here. This time-wasting Brandt-hate needs to stop already, and everyone needs to move on (yes, myself included). Let it go already - Alison ^❤ 03:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me with a straight face how a simple redirect for a reasonable search term to an article that never, ever cites Brandt be "Brandt-hate". He doesn't want the link because of the quirks of Google ranking algorithms, but that's hardly our problem, and that's hardly "hating" him to maintain a simple redirect. Please. --Cyclopia ^talk 03:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I calls 'em as I sees 'em, Cyclopia. How many Brandt-related articles ended up at DRV in the last month or so? Personally, I'm no fan of the man - everyone knows that, especially given that his website informed a stalker as to my whereabouts. Old news now. But this nonsense needs to stop, once and for all - Alison ^❤ 03:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the memo where it said "We must delete all trace of Daniel Brandt from Wikipedia". What merits this treatment that means we must comply with his wishes to delete all articles about him and his enterprises, regardless of editorial judgement? You're all looking like his useful idiots. Fences&Windows 03:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not "regardless of editorial judgment" - that's already been made and the article has been rightfully deleted. But here we are again, at another pointless divisive DRV. The article quite simply failed WP:WEB, plain and simple. Yet somehow, these articles are so vital to Wikipedia, somehow, that we have to fight tooth-and-nail to keep them. Now why is that?? - Alison ^❤ 03:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Tooth and nail? I gladly accepted the merge outcome, despite my feeling that the topic was worth an article in itself. As you can see, at least I am quite open to compromise. But deleting the redirect is plain wrong. The close made no mention of that, the deletion happened only after and without discussing it, and no one can disagree that it is a reasonable search term. About the "why", however, it is maybe because, ehm, such subjects are actually notable? --Cyclopia ^talk 03:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Overturn. Wikipedia Review is quite honestly becoming the new IRC for arranging shady actions, and I really hope at some point to see something done about that, to whatever extent it can be. Aside from my own personal strong distaste for that, however, the redirect does not meet any speedy deletion criteria, nor is BLP of any relevance here (the title of the redirect has nothing to do with any living person, it's the name of a website!) It's certainly a search term someone might use, and there is interest in merging (which requires leaving the redirect intact). If Nuclear Warfare feels the redirect should be deleted, there's a place for that, but it's not speedyable, and I see no rationale for why an exception is warranted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Overturn and restore article history. This gamery has got to stop. If people want the article deleted, close the original Afd as delete, and we can have the deletion review of that extremely screwy debate, because NW either cannot or will not answer some simple questions about his closure as merge, as well as now deleting it outright after a bit of undocumented offsite negotiations. Any article other than a Brandt one and that's a desysyopping right there tbh. You simply cannot close something as merge, throw out a DRV because it was a merge, stick two fingers up at everyone and go and delete it anyway, and then claim you are somehow doing the right thing. MickMacNee (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion but restore the redirect. The game of poking Brandt with a sharp stick has long since lost its novelty. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hardly matters, but the admins who abuse their tools in this way should resign in shame.--Kotniski (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Over one redirect...? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Over the principle of the thing. If you take sides in a debate, you don't even close the debate, you certainly don't take administrative action in contradiction to what you know to have been the outcome of the debate. If you can't be trusted over the small things, you can't be trusted.--Kotniski (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:NuclearWarfare/Recall or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. If you want to call for my head, please do so through proper channels instead of dramamongering. NW (Talk) 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't you I necessarily meant... But it would be nice if admins who have done wrong would admit and reverse their mistakes instead of trying to justify them or blaming others for pointing them out. --Kotniski (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Overturn -- it's one thing to invoke IAR in the absence of a community discussion -- but using it to override/ignore a discussion that has already taken place goes much too far. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Overriding a community discussion? I'm not sure I ever did that. I closed an AfD as "the article should not exist as a standalone one." I merged it, perhaps not in the standard way of move content + redirect, but I still merged it in a way that was fine for our licensing. The AfD could have been even been closed as delete; there was a perfectly fine consensus to do so at the AfD itself... NW (Talk) 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I fully support deletion of anything involving Daniel Brandt. The man has a long history of outing Wikipedia editors who say things he doesn't like, and there are children and vulnerable people who edit Wikipedia. We don't need to be leaving booby traps for our people.
However, we should be more honest about the reasons why we delete Brandt-related articles.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- S Marshall, I'm not really sure what you mean. I never hid the fact that I deleted a measly redirect per DB's request. Could you explain further please? NW (Talk) 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  - I'm not accusing you of hiding anything, NW; nor in fact am I accusing you of anything at all. I just think this DRV will be read in conjunction with the previous one for Scroogle and editors who aren't familiar with Brandt may be perplexed at the outcomes which are not strictly consistent with normal Wikipedian custom and practice.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  - (later) On re-reading that remark, it may not shed any light. I was trying to say that I think Wikipedia is officially oblivious to Mr Brandt, and I think that is as it should be. But I think the reason Wikipedia turns a blind eye has to do with a long, long series of dramas. MZM hints at this early in the discussion thread but didn't make it explicit.
    I've no doubt whatsoever that you, NW, fully understood what MZM was saying and gave his view appropriate weight. I think editors unfamiliar with the preceding drama may find this decision perplexing and more on the history would be helpful in the closing statement.
    
    None of the above remarks are meant as criticism of you, in any way.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Overturn This is unjustified. Deletion of the redirect was entirely outside and contrary to process. The AfD was closed as mere, not delete. The only grounds on which such a deletion of the redirect without specific consensus to do so could be justified would be as an office action, and if so it should have been stated. Tthis is to some extent compatible with what S Marshall just stated, about how it must be done if it is to be done; I do not however endorse his reason. letting outsiders dictate the contents of Wikipedia is contrary to NPOV; removing redirects because we do not like the person is equally so, and shows irresponsibility. Perhaps that what Brandt was trying to get us to do--prove that we were incapable of following our own principles. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Interestingly, at RFD, redirects default to delete on a "no consensus" outcome; there's plenty of precedent for deleting a redirect without consensus. Whether that's as it should be is another question (and I think not one to be discussed at a Brandt-related DRV).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Overturn deletion.... (disclaimer: I participated in the AFD) Deleting the redirect of the name of the website has nothing to do with BLP reasons. It's about the owner of the website wanting to reduce the Page Rank of the name in wikipedia for his own personal reasons. There is no policy anywhere to do any such thing, and no consensus to abide to such requests. As other say, let's be clear here about the real reasons for deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: the history has been posted in the other talk page for attribution, NuclearWarfare already performed a merge[17], and other content was merged by Cyclopia [18]. So, there is no problem with keeping the history deleted, I think that we can simply re-create the redirect. But I'll note that deleting the history was out of process anyways and that it wouldn't have been done if there hadn't been off-wiki pressure. All of these actions were just patches to fix the problems caused by having abided to external pressures that go against our policies on content. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Overturn deletion of the redirect. The AFD was not closed as delete, nor was there a DRV discussion to change that result. The redirect does not meet any CSD criterion, and there was no RFD discussion of it. The only justification for this completely out-of-process, IAR deletion is that it was requested by Brandt based on a supposed "BLP issue". But the destination article does not contain unsourced or critical material about Brandt, nor does it even mention his name. The "BLP issue" he raised: that Google might lead people to the Criticism of Google article when they searched for him! This "issue" is in no way a violation of the WP:BLP policy or any other policy, guideline or common consensus. We do not have a policy that we will help people manipulate the results given by third-party search engines. Searching for my name produces as a top result a WP article about an attempted Presidential assassin. That does not mean I should approach an admin with a request for an out-of-process deletion of that article as a "BLP issue". Absent this ridiculous pseudo-BLP complaint, it is hard to imagine what would justify the deletion of the redirect, since "Google Watch" is a reasonable search term associated with criticism of Google, and the destination article does discuss the site. Brandt is entirely within his rights to raise legitimate BLP issues when they exist, but that does not include a right to remove anything dislikes by trumping it up as a "BLP issue". --RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse The decision to delete the redirect was a good and proper one, and supported by the consensus on the AfD SirFozzie (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse The eventual outcome is the right one, and as SirFozzie notes is supported by the AfD consensus. Kevin (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The AFD consensus was to merge, not to delete. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the deletion of this unnecessary and inflammatory redirect. *** Crotalus *** 15:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Inflammatory? There appears to be one person in the entire world who is "inflamed" by it. I understand the Endorse comments that think the AFD should have been closed as delete in the first place, but I don't see how a redirect that would seem perfectly reasonable under normal circumstances can be classified as "inflammatory" based on one person's irrational complaints. --RL0919 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse as Guy mentions, this is just stick poking for the sake of stick poking GTD 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- To me at least it is a matter of process. Do we really delete redirects to relevant articles because someone asks us to? Or even worse, because someone threatens us? Maybe that's process for processes sake, but I'm very uncomfortable with it. Hobit (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment -- There surely are people who did not vote Keep in the Afd and will not vote Overturn here fearing repercussions.--M4gnum0n (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Repercussions? Like what, an ASCII horse's head left on someone's user page? Tarc (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Like being listed at Hivemind... –xeno^talk 14:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Overturn. The AfD resulted in Merge, so merge it. --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- It was merged... NW (Talk) 20:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Yes. But nowhere it has been decided consensually to delete the redirect. The AfD never, ever dealt with the redirect -obviously, because it had been set up by you after the closure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if the AfD was closed as delete, I think nothing prevents re-creating it as a redirect if it is a useful search term -see WP:DEL#Redirection for example. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Keeping the redirect is an important part of the merge. If the content of the Google Watch article is now in Criticism of Google, Google Watch should take you to Criticism of Google. --GRuban (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Overturn. "Merge" =/= "delete", even if you rearrange the letters. --Calton | Talk 02:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment The BLP question was at the AfD and was not accepted there. BLP as applying to the redirect is ridiculous as it amounts to saying that being associated with the criticism of google is a libel or untrue. BLP questions are resolved by the community, and the only ones capable of overriding that is Office. No one individual admin, is a better judge--and this out of process deletion of the redirect shows that very well. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Overturn Per DGG. Protonk (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Overturn Behind-the-scenes talk on Wikipedia Review, IRC, whatever shouldn't affect any potentially-controversial administrative actions on-wiki. If the redirect is problematic, put it up for deletion. Them From Space 12:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Overturn Very clearly against normal procedure for merge closes, and after an AfD where there were reasons for questioning the deletes, not the keeps. No reason based in policy or common sense for not having a redirect with history as usual.John Z (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion of redirect I think that the decision to delete the redirect was perfectly reasonable. In all honesty, from my quick reading of the AFD, the consensus was really to delete anyway. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Overturn deletion of redirect Clearly out of process deletion of redirect. This is an appropriate redirect per Wikipedia:Redirect#Sub-topics and small topics in broader contexts and there was no basis in policy or guideline for the unilateral deletion of the redirect after closing the discussion as merge. No one arguing for endorse above, or for delete in the AFD has provided any policy or guideline basis for why thie redirect is inappropriate and the arguments that are not on that basis should be ignored in making the closure. Davewild (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Keyes (closed)

[edit] Kairosis (closed)

[edit] Diana Napolis

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

AfD was closed as delete, allegedly for WP:BLP concerns. Problems I identify with the closure are:

There was no real consensus. Bare count shows 14 Deletes and 10 Keeps ; many of the delete !votes are one-liners that sometimes did not cite policy or guidelines at all (see first 3 ones for example); while keep !votes often brought sources relevant to the page notability and directly addressed the possible BLP1E concerns
Many of the delete !votes acknowledged nonetheless that the page passes notability guidelines, per links to academic books and by the fact that she is notable for several incidents
The subject did not request deletion
When asked on the talk page, the closer admin explained the closure with arguments that, in my opinion [20] basically amounted to "I don't like it": the line She was only known for "stalking" celebs, and an article like that would always have serious BLP issues. is especially worrying because (1)we are not here to judge why a subject is notable, per WP:NPOV (2)we do not delete for issues that are not yet present, and that can anyway be dealt with editing, per deletion policy

For all these reasons I believe the correct closure should have been no consensus and, per our deletion policy, default to keep. Cyclopia ^talk 13:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Why has it become increasingly apparent that DRV is being used as a vehicle for forum shopping? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there an increase? Looks about like the same level of attempts to make Drv Afd2 as always, although I have not made a study of it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton and KillerChihuahua, I would appreciate if you can withdraw, or at best explain, your comments. My intention is not that of doing forum shopping or Afd part 2. This is a problematic close, at least in my view, because it does not comply properly with policy and the debate, and DRV, as far as I understand, is meant exactly for this kind of concerns. There are many AfD I participated where I was against consensus and I gladly accepted the outcome without further questioning. This is not one of these cases, and, in my own opinion, for good reasons. If you have problems with the existence of DRV per se, that's another question. Thank you. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm supporting the close (if just barely) and I see plenty of reason to bring this here. Certainly reasonable for DrV to look at. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As of late, any non-straightforward BLP-related AfD is brought to DRV by someone who happens to disagree with the result. Then there's a long, drawn-out debate, with all the usual suspects, and the admin barely scrapes by with his head intact. DRV should be used only if there's a real reason to believe the closing admin made a blatantly erroneous closure, not to try to get the desired result by starting a new thread—which, with all due respect, is what I believe is happening here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the delete !votes were frankly wrong. Claiming BLP1E and not being able to cite what the one event is indicates a serious problem. Those !votes probably should have been greatly discounted. Getting the "delete" close required a fair bit of IAR. Plus we have admins who are trying to change policy via their closes (and in many cases admit it). Those clearly need to come to DrV. As does the one where a new admin made a pretty wrong-headed closing statement. Hobit (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton, my personal guess is that if any non-straightforward BLP-related AfD is brought to DRV by someone who happens to disagree with the result. is not for mere disagreeing with the result, but because BLPs are often being treated by a small subset of admins very differently than other articles: what I mean, more differently than allowed by WP:BLP or other policies. I guess that if BLP articles are deleted correctly following consensus and policies, there will be a sudden drop in such DRVs. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

@Hobit: it's not up to the closing admin to decide which votes are "wrong" or "right", just to determine which ones present more reasonable and solid arguments. Yes, changing a policy unilaterally and then closing an AfD based on the new rules is an error... but I don't see anything like that in this AfD.
@Cyclopia: I'm sure you understand the significance of the BLP issue and the desperate need to resolve it. Yes, BLPs should unquestionably be dealt with differently than "normal" articles. BLP, like all policies and guidelines, merely describes the most common situations and how to deal with them; it is by no means fully comprehensive. That's why we elect admins—to decide how to best deal with the circumstances at hand. I'm not explicitly endorsing this DRV yet, because I haven't evaluated the AfD thoroughly enough to do so fairly, but just my $0.02. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
By "wrong" I meant that they claimed the article was in violation of a policy (BLP1E) that it clearly wasn't. So those !votes should be greatly discounted as they were neither reasonable nor based in policy. I think we agree on the idea that an admin should discount (reduce in value, not ignore) !votes that lack a policy-based reason for the action they suggest. With respect to the more general issue, we've also had closers "defaulting to delete" and one new admin who overstepped the bounds between !voting and closing. Those all certainly belong here as there were serious problems with those closes. Hobit (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton: First, if BLP is not comprehensive and if there is a systematic need for more guidelines and policies, let's propose and discuss them. Admins should decide "how to best deal with the circumstances at hand" by following policy and guidelines. They are, nor should be, demigods acting against community consensus and consensual guidelines. If policies and guidelines need to be implmented or changed, they have to be extensively discussed before with the community, otherwise this becomes an admin-based oligarchy, and for sure it's not what we want.

Second, I frankly see no "desperate need to resolve it". I personally think that, while for sure BLPs have presented problems, the whole BLP issue is way inflated and that the so-called BLP problem, while important, is not as huge as thought by several editors. Now, I for sure understand that BLPs need special attention, but I see no BLP issue solved through deletion. If an article is not neutral, is defamatory, subject to vandalism etc., all of this can be solved by editing and protection levels. If the BLP is really in truth describing a single event (BLP1E), usually a rename/redirect and merge, or a refactoring of the article to address the event are more than enough. I see the BLP issue as a need to have better quality control, but there is no way in which deleting articles here and there will be useful. Once notability is established, we should not decide further what is worth of inclusion and what not: we should just follow the sources. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Second, I frankly see no "desperate need to resolve it". I personally think that, while for sure BLPs have presented problems, the whole BLP issue is way inflated and that the so-called BLP problem, while important, is not as huge as thought by several editors." All due respect, as always, but if that is really your view than I suggest it's probably best to avoid BLP-related discussions, since you clearly don't comprehend what a big problem they present. Wikipedia articles routinely ruin people's lives and reputations. Vandalism and libel inserted into BLPs has the potential to get someone fired. OTRS regularly deals with requests from individuals to delete their articles. And yet here we are, hiding beyond our pseudonyms, deciding whether marginally noteworthy people who might have, at best, received to a couple passing mentions in newspapers should be subject to that. Surely you can agree that's a bit of a problem? Surely you can agree it's downright rude to let people be miserable in real life because they happen to meet some arbitrary notability guideline? Surely you can agree that Wikipedia is a real-word entity that causes issues every day? This is very disappointing Cyclopia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't avoid BLP-related discussion precisely for my view. I expect WP to be a thoroughly comprehensive encyclopaedia. That is, the goal should be that everything which has been covered by WP:RS should be included in some form. In the case of BLPs, it seems this goal is actively repudiated, and this is a form of self-censorship I cannot accept. Because if in the short run we maybe make a couple of people happier, in the long run we make this project a laughable self-censored caricature of what it should have been, and we lose forever a collection of information which is valuable to all mankind. No reputable journalist ever restrains her/himself from freely reporting public and reasonably widespread information about a subject like we currently do. No reputable journalist retires a factual, non-libelous article from circulation only because the subject doesn't like it. If there is public information out there, good or bad, it is our duty to report it for the sake of building the encyclopedia. There is nothing "rude" in that; if you happen to be notable and already covered in public sources, everyone has the right to report such information -unless you think that reporting public facts is somehow rude. Now, I understand all what you say about BLPs, yet it doesn't make a case for deletion of any biography covered by RS. It just makes a case for being more careful about them (for example, I would endorse semiprotection-by-default of such articles). And again, yes, all what you say happens, yet when attempted to quantify it (see this thread for an example of a rough back of the envelope calculation), estimates are that ~0.1% of all ~500.000 BLPs ever presented some kind of trouble. Which is not irrelevant, given the huge amount of biographies, but for sure not as troubling as it could be, given the nature of WP. But again, that's not the point. The point is that none of these problems will be solved by deletion, unless you want to go the tough way and delete every BLP from here (I know of people who would like so). To do so, however, you need to change policy in such direction. And to change policy, you need consensus of the community. And such consensus should be firmly established and consolidated into explicit policies and guidelines. When this will happen, I will acknowledge that. If it doesn't, admins should refrain from pushing by force what they can't obtain by consensus, and live with that. If this disappoints you, well, sorry for you. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me try this again. No website is worth ruining people's real lives for. Wikipedia was largely initiated as an experiment, to see what would happen if a bunch of nobodies with computers started editing a website together. I love Wikipedia; I use it every day, I've been a contributor and sysop for years, and I think it's a great example of what the Internet is capable of. But I think we're taking ourselves far too seriously if we think deleting content on utterly non-notable people reduces our potential to be "a collection of information which is valuable to all mankind".

Obviously, public figures such as Tiger Woods should know they're going to be subject to extremely close scrutiny, and thus it's not unreasonable to include information on their controversies and issues. But the vast majority of all BLP subjects are not public figures, nor are they even to be considered "noteworthy" in any legitimate sense of the word. Notability is a term that WP has frankly FUBAR'd. We have hundreds of thousands of articles on non-public figures who have been mentioned in two or three websites, and those are the articles we need to be particularly careful of, and delete if we deem appropriate. Of course, it will take years and thousands of kilobytes of discussion to get notability guidelines changed; but again, this is why we have AfD, to decide which articles aren't worth of inclusion. It's not "self-censorship", it's a matter of common sense. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No website is worth ruining people's real lives for. -You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. If we want a right to free speech , including the right to report factual information for knowledge purposes, we have to accept the risk that something goes awry here and there. To make an analogy: Cars kill a lot of people. I suspect no Saturday night with friends, or no puntuality at the dentist are worth ruining people's real lives for. Yet we continue to use cars for these purposes, and even more frivolous ones, and I'm sure you would not like if tomorrow someone obliges you to take a car only for life-or-death things. We simply accept a compromise, and live with that. I can't see why here it cannot be the same.

Notability is a term that WP has frankly FUBAR'd. - I happen to think instead that the WP definition of notability is the best one, because it is as objective as possible. It requires little opinion or guessing: if you have been covered in RS, it means one can derive material for an entry; therefore you deserve an entry. If we should write only about "notable" subject in the meaning of "known to the layman", you realize this project would immediately become worthless.

But I think we're taking ourselves far too seriously if we think deleting content on utterly non-notable people reduces our potential to be "a collection of information which is valuable to all mankind" - We should take ourselves seriously. This can seem a wacky website, but it is actually one of the most thorough and gigantic (even if flawed and idiosyncratic) structured compendia of information ever built by humankind, and it should be preserved with care. Now, deleting what you call "utterly non notable people" is far more worrying than deleting Barack Obama or Julius Caesar. Because even if WP disappears tomorrow, on these subjects there will be always thousands of books, essays etc., and we are superflous to document them for the future. But obscure subjects is exactly where Wikipedia shines. We can thoroughly document and collect information about subjects whose knowledge could be otherwise forever scattered among dozens of sources, often to the point of being, with all our shortcomings, the best source available on such subjects. I cannot imagine how valuable will be such a thing only 100 years from now. Imagine magically having a Wikipedia coming to us from the Roman empire: We would be reading their articles on Cicero or Nero, but we would be much more busy discovering about people whose name we would have otherwise forgot forever, to understand fully that society.

Finally, where can we move this discussion? It is going to be waaay offtopic. My place or your place? :) --Cyclopia ^talk 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Of note, there is no "right of free speech" on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Overturn and keep, it is clear that no consensus was established in this debate. Cerebellum (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
~~very weak endorse~~ I personally think the arguments to delete were poor. If people want to delete an article due to a policy (BLP1E) they should explain why it applies when asked. I'm still unsure what the claimed "one-event" was. That said, this one probably hits the "do no harm" part of WP:BLP and while I'd have certainly closed it as no consensus to delete due to the weak !votes for deletion, I think it was within admin discretion to delete due to the BLP issues (mental health issues). Just because many of the !votes cited the wrong policy, doesn't mean the admin can't accept them for what they were trying to argue. Hobit (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Bah, I'm moving to overturn honestly per Protonk. Counting and looking again, the arguments to delete were weak (as I said above) and while I would likely !vote to delete this by IAR (as "icky") I don't really see consensus to delete. I'm quite sympathetic to the desire to delete this, but don't see any justification in the AfD or policy to support it. Hobit (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Looks like a reasonable close to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I hate those BLP DRVs. Endorse per Hobit, mostly. The BLP1E argument was fairly weak, but there are serious BLP concerns here independent of the BLP1E issue. Tim Song (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns that cannot be addressed with editing, protection etc.? Which ones? Neither the closer nor you ever explained why such "concerns" qualify for deletion. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I rarely do this, but I think this is just one of the subjects on which we should not have an article, not because she does not pass WP:N or WP:1E, but because it's just unseemly, in my view, to have an article on a mentally disturbed person whose only claim to notability is due to her mental disturbance. This is not a biography that we absolutely must have. If necessary, consider this an explicit invocation of WP:IAR as a basis for my !vote. Tim Song (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, really. I think that cherry-picking subjects that you personally deem unfit ("unseemly") for an article, despite notability, is a WP:NPOV violation: it brings, at least, a substantial bias on our scope. However thanks for your clarification. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Whatever the close, the closer should have taken into account the canvassing at Wikipedia Review - but they themselves posted to that Wikipedia Review thread. This canvassing has been plaguing BLP AfDs lately and it needs to stop. That it involves admins who are !voting in and closing discussions is even worse. This is part of a campaign by a group of admins to delete marginal BLPs, and after they failed to get a change in policy they are instead proceeding to close AfDs as they see fit rather than by consensus. Fences&Windows 22:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Um, not. AfD and DRVs tell us if things are shifting or not. They are. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Na, a group of admins are just trying to get around a consensus they don't like, and are skirting WP:CANVAS to do it by doing their canvasing off-site. The next discussion at WP:DEL will be like the last half dozen. Hobit (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    - If you call yourself, Cyclopia and a few others who always take up more than half of these DRVs a consensus... *coughs*. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
      - No, I call [21] a consensus. I'm pretty sure you are aware of it, as you commented there... Hobit (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion... as Julian says, it would be nice if every single BLP didn't get DRVed regardless of the outcome. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Probably would happen more if the admins closing the BLPs followed policy more often. Just saying. Hobit (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
overturn Clearly not a BLP1E. Not having every possible BLP concern fixed during an AfD is not grounds for deletion so closing rationale doesn't work. I also agree with Fences remark that offsite canvassing for the deletion of articles needs to stop. It taints these discussions to an extent that simply from that I'd be inclined to overturn. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse closure BLP concerns place this in the realm of admin discretion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse -- an article for the sole purpose of describing a living person's craziness is inconsistent with intent of the biographies of living persons policy. Andrea105 (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse BLP concerns are valid, I'm getting a little tired of Cyclopia and others using DRV as forum shopping. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Again? If you think this is forum shopping, all of DRV is. I listed several points which made the closure problematic. As I said above, I accepted tons of AfD where I was against consensus without blinking, when the closure was correct. Now, you're more than entitled to disagree with the DRV and endorse the closure, but please avoid such poor attempts at reading my mind. It is a shame I have to remind an admin to assume good faith. That said, could someone please, please explain everyone with some detail what are such vague "BLP concerns" that absolutely require deletion instead of editing or protection? --Cyclopia ^talk 02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what AGF says, I'm also well aware of what policy wonkery is. You need to stop citing that one page as a reason for why admins can't close these AFDs per IAR. Things can change, even if you don't think they are changing the way you want them to. I don't understand why some of you want to keep an article, no matter what problems arise from it. We have to protect Biographies of living people, more than other articles. I just don't get why there's so much fuss about something that should be uncontroversial. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If they were indeed "changing", it would be apparent from the consensus in that WT:DEL thread. But that page shows that consensus on that matter is pretty the opposite. So, you can delude yourself that "things are changing" but fact is, they aren't. At least not as fast as you would like. The fact is that there is a small group of idiosyncratic admins which happen to be paranoid with respect to BLPs, to the point of deleting them against consensus, and since these people call up to arms at once when these articles are concerned, they manage to skew individual AfD's/DRV's consensus with narrow margins sometimes. But that thread pretty much showed that this kind of decisions are not really endorsed by the community. Oh, and if you don't get why there's so much fuss about something that should be uncontroversial. maybe it means that it is controversial, what do you think? --Cyclopia ^talk 22:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Endorse - Given the nature of the page, deletion falls within the realm of admin discretion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse as nominator is either unable or unwilling to articulate a valid reason for a review of the closing administrator's actions beyond "I don't like it". Simple disagreements make this a 2nd chapter of the AfD, which is not what the venue is meant to be. Tarc (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The (main) reason is: the closer appealed a non-existent consensus. And no, again, this is not meant to be AfD part 2, this is meant to debate the outcome of the AfD. Would you all please put your straw men down? --Cyclopia ^talk 03:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, this isn't a strawman; don't use terms you do not understand, pls. You disagree with the closer about consensus. That is all this is, there is no assertion that the closer did something wrong. Tarc (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand perfectly what is a straw man argument, thanks. It will surprise you, Tarc, but people who disagree with you are not necessarily dumb or disingenous. Now, one thing is disagreeing with the outcome; another is disagreeing about consensus. DRV is for sure not the place for the first. But it is the venue for the second: If a closer reads consensus where there is none (or v/v), I'd call it something wrong. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you really don't, but whatever. This is a flawed and disruptive DRV brought for no other reason than you disagree with the close. That is abuse of the process, and should be dealt with accordingly. Tarc (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Dealt with accordingly"? Is it your habit to intimidate everyone who happens to disagree with you? But let me quote WP:DEL just for the sake of argument: If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review.. I followed these steps, the closure is far from being obvious, and what is disruptive, if anything, are your attempts at misrepresenting the opinion of people who disagree with you, and intimidating them. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Overturn and optionally relist, I don't see a consensus either way here, and no consensus as delete clearly did not have consensus to implement in the absence of a subject request. I also see the coverage being quite substantive and for multiple events here. BLP is intended to exclude unsourced or poorly sourced information. I don't see any evidence of source unreliability or lack of sources here, so it doesn't apply. Also, the closing administrator does not seem to have taken into account the fact that several of the editors appearing at the AfD appear to have been canvassed [22]. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, please read the final comment in that thread. The closing admin was part of that discussion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Endorse per Tarc. This is not AFD round 2. MuZemike 05:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Overturn though the article needs to be written carefully and watched, she is nonetheless notable. BLP policy does not say that if an article is susceptible to BLP problems, we remove it. IAR applies to situations where the action is so necessary to improve the encyclopedia that essentially everyone who in in good faith will endorse it. It does not mean, do as you please, regardless of the consensus. If there is no consensus that it applies, then it does not.. There is no admin discretion to ignore the community, our discretion is to do what the community wants even though there is no specific rule provided. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse. This close is well within the bounds of admin discretion. Kevin (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse - I'm not seeing an issue with this admin's decision here - Alison ^❤ 21:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse (as original AFD nominator). I don't want to revisit the whole debate, but it's important to point out that the claimed academic source coverage consisted of a two-paragraph (one rather long) footnote (De Young) and a case study (Bocij), which could fairly be evaluated as insufficient to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Overturn to No consensus default to keep per noms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT#I_don.27t_like_it statement (because this opinion seems to be present even at this DRV and per DGG's persuasive argument. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
overturn - Subject known for 2 different topics separated in time and space (was an important figure in creating the 1980s SRA panic, and later became mentally ill): thus WP:BLP1E rationale cannot be applied. Closing admin misrepresented the level of consensus. Closing admin was also on a messageboard where votes were canvassed.[23] - that alone taints the AfD (and this DRV) with WP:MEAT and WP:TAGTEAM. And most importantly, WP:BLP does not, last I recall, demand the complete deletion of articles on notable people - only that all defamatory information which cannot be sourced is immediately deleted. I agree with DGG and JoshuaZ above. Put the article back and delete all insufficiently sourced assertions, if that's what you feel is needed. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse perfectly valid close and I'm fairly sick of treating living people as a inhouse football.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Overturn, restore - clearly passes notability, clearly not notable for just one event, clearly covered in many, many sources that focus specifically on the subject and the article was not disparaging, mocking, cruel or otherwise abusive of the subject. Everything was sourced to a reputable news outlet, there was no original research and neutrality was never brought up as a concern. Remove the BLP1E and there are a lot of "do no harm/I don't like it" !votes that don't really make sense - no harm was done, and there are a lot of people who "like" the article, as in think it is informative and encyclopedic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Overturn per "no consensus defaults to keep" and DGG's poignant commentary on "admin discretion". Per WLU, notability was clearly established and BLP1E does not apply. While I appreciate the sentiment behind the various "do no harm" arguments these are knee jerk reactions to content editors don't like unless the nature of possible harm can be explained, bare minimum. No one was forthcoming with such an explanation. People just believe in their gut that its wrong to have an entry about this person, but that needs a valid policy rationale or else its just "i don't like it". If BLP policy needs strengthening this nonsensical application of current policy is not the way to go about doing so.PelleSmith (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse this was a proper close. Do No Harm and BLP concerns override many other potential objections. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment The closing admin himself said he was not convinced by the allegations of BLP violation. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Overturn This business of picking and choosing what are "icky subjects" is disconcerting. There are BLP concerns and were this the AfD I could be convinced that the subjects marginal notability wasn't enough, but I can't justify counting numbers in that debate and coming up with "delete". Protonk (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse. I agree with Alison (talk · contribs) on this one. The close by admin Secret (talk · contribs) was appropriate. Cirt (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Question - could someone clearly articulate the harm that was done by the article as it existed before deletion? I don't see it as it read as neutral, well-sourced and free of original research, disparagement and other reasons to !vote delete. We have articles on John Hinkley and Florentino Floro, both of whom are very, very comparable - mentally ill and allegedly mentally ill subjects who did one big thing that got them in the press. If we're applying standards evenly, those pages should probably be deleted as well (certainly Floro), but if I were to nominate it for deletion, what would I write? "I think this page is harmful to its subject, please vote delete"? If "do no harm" is a standard that can be applied to justify deletion then we should articulate it in a more substantive way so it can be referred to with clearer criteria. I don't edit many BLP pages, if there is a clear rationale that I just don't know about, please refer me to it using my talk page so I don't miss it. I'm trying to learn a general principle here, and so far all I'm seeing is opinions that can't be extended and seem to be arbitrarily applied. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse both sides said their piece, and here they're just repeating it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Contents