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. Nominations which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias 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] 9 November 2009

[edit] Michael Panckridge

Michael Panckridge (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

This was deleted as A7 - temporary undeletion requested. I am wanting to see if I can resurrect the article. I don't know anything about the condition of the article; if the undeleting administrator thinks it is a hopeless case, do not bother. — This, that, and the other [talk] 06:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have restored per the request. It is a pretty bare stub that certainly would need to be sourced and expanded if kept. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• [1] seems to be the last good revision. Claims to have been published by HarperCollins and have written 20 books seem to be indications of significance. Tim Song (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alvin Fields

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

Please Consider "Alvin Fields" for Un-Deletion Thanks for the information Robert. Rhasheene (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Malformed DRV fixed. Draft article moved to userspace; available at User:Rhasheene/Alvin Fields. Tim Song (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Cirt (talk · contribs), Spartaz (talk · contribs) and RHaworth (talk · contribs) notified. Tim Song (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I see I only deleted this as housekeeping to allow a page move but there appears to have been a deletion discussion that could only have been closed as delete so I endorse this subject to proper sourcing being made available. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks - I wondered what the G6 is. Tim Song (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse the AfD close as a reasonable one, and keep deleted since the draft did nothing to address the concerns raised in AfD. Tim Song (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 8 November 2009

[edit] 7 November 2009

[edit] The 404 Podcast

The 404 Podcast (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Can we open this page up for submission again? I've created a legitimate article and would like to post it on the wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maynard_321/The_404_Podcast --Maynard 321 (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Unprotect. This is a wiki, and a user wishes to place a good faith article in that space; we should not stand in their way. I have not considered whether the userspace draft would survive AfD, nor do I think it necessary to consider that at this stage.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• I usually agree with S Marshall, but this userspace version clearly fails to address the notability concerns raised at AfD. Therefore, keep deleted and salted as there is no point moving this to mainspace and then immediately speedying it as a G4. Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Tim Song, the user space article as present doesn't seem to list any third party reliable sources (let alone those providing non-trivial coverage), restoring at present to be followed by either a G4 or AFD seems pointless (and perhaps counterproductive). Part of the value (in my view) of DRV is pointing out the gaps which need to be addressed, issues of good faith etc. are often secondary to that. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and salted. Per Tim Song and consensus rational stated in the Xfd. And the fact its clear copyright infringement.

The 404 podcast (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The 404 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The 404 Podcast (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 404

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_404_podcast

User:Maynard 321/The 404 Podcast

User:BlueCottonCandy/The 404 podcast

Maynard 321 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • 321 LinkWatcher search • Google)

BlueCottonCandy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)

Serial offender repeatedly Creating/Reposting of copyright violations^[2]. content that would fail G4 or AFD. --Hu12 (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, the material is licensed under the CC-BY-SA. MuZemike 04:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, checked and you are correct, I'll strike it out. --Hu12 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Unprotect. The podcast is much more notable than other wiki pages out there. The podcast is even mentioned on the following: Molly Wood, Clayton Morris, Natali Del Conte, Veronica Belmont, Alison Rosen, and CNET TV. And as of now, the show has done a total of 462 episodes. In regards to my previous copyright infringement. I had posted a Google Knol article which was licensed under creative commons, but the wiki copyright bot picked it up as "copyright material", so it got deleted and re-creation protected. Back then I was new to Wikipedia system, and didn't know how all this worked. I'm still learning the ways of the wiki, and would greatly appreciate it if you folks could reconsider.--Maynard 321 (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC) — Maynard 321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep deleted and salted for now. Having read through the AFD, the arguments for deletion outweighed the arguments for retention (which were mostly based on the other stuff exists premise more than anything else), and the closing administrator made an acceptable read of the consensus. As I noted above, the material doesn't violate copyright as it licensed under the CC-BY-SA. However, the notability issues must be addressed before bringing back into the mainspace. DRV is not AFD round 2. Also, Wikipedia is not Knol. Nobody owns articles here, like they do over there. MuZemike 00:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Joseph Cormier

Ray Joseph Cormier (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article had sources that are solely about the subject in Edmonton Journal, Ottawa Citizen, Vancouver Sun, Kansas City Times and the Halifax Daily News. The primary argument for deletion was that even though the letter of WP:N was met, he isn't "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". As those newspapers did find him to meet that critera I don't believe it is our role to dispute their evaluation. Other !votes to delete were IARs arguments or were delete per arguments citing an IAR !vote. I'd be fine with deleting via IAR were the !vote clearly in favor of deletion. However, the count was 6 to keep and 7 to delete (including the nom who went with "Totally NN individual" as the entire deletion rationale) and the keep !votes made it clear that they believed the sourcing was sufficient. I believe this should have been a no consensus close. Hobit (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse, with some misgivings. To the extent that this was no consensus, I would be very concerned about closing as delete, in light of other recent discussions. But the subject of the article engaged in blatant canvassing, and only three of the keep votes came from people who weren't canvassed (and one of those was "weak keep"). I was surprised not to see this as part of the rationale. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Hmm, I agree with Kevin that this was a difficult close. Kevin's job as closer was to evaluate the debate rather than the article, and as closer, by convention he has wide latitude to disregard canvassed !votes. He seems to have used this latitude here, and I can't see that there was a clear error involved.

  I might have closed that as "no consensus", simply because it was a third AfD after several previous "no consensus" closes and people should not be permitted to keep on AfDing the same material until there comes a time when the "keep" !voters fail to show up; but equally I would tend to think Kevin was within his discretion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I'll point out that the closer got the result by while specifically disregarding the canvasing (see his talk page, my recollection is that the closer doesn't have an issue with canvassing). Further, I believe those notices might be friendly notices (they want to pretty much everyone who worked on the article other than the AfD nom I believe). In any case, the closer disregarded the canvasing... Hobit (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I was less concerned with how editors got there than what they said. And I know you (and possibly others) would have made it there anyway. Kevin (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse closed well within reasonable discretion given the assorted AfD opinions. RMHED (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse I think this was in the range of latitude of this administrator to make the call. I too am surprised the canvassing wasn't considered but that too is within their discretion. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse – Looked like the closing admin made an appropriate assessment of the arguments. I don't think the recent BLP-related controversial AFDs had anything to do with this one, nor was this one determined in the same fashion. MuZemike 00:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ConceptDraw articles

ConceptDraw Office (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

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

ConceptDraw PRO (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

These pages were deleted by Hu12 (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD G11, after CSOWind (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked for spamming. The articles, however, do not appear to be blatantly promotional, but generally descriptive of the softwares. Especially given the no consensus close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConceptDraw Project, I believe that there is a substantial chance that the articles will be kept at AfD. DRVs brought by CSOWind evading their yesterday were speedy closed by JzG (talk · contribs) despite DGG's and my !votes to overturn. After discussing this with JzG I was minded to let things stay as they are for a while, but apparently those deletions are now used to justify deleting an article that has already survived an AfD. Therefore, as I consider the deletions here to be improper under G11, I ask that they be overturned and send to AfD. Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• No compelling reason to undelete these particular articles. Furthermore, the project was kept as "no consensus", making it unlikely they are sufficiently notable to have articles on their individual products. Furthermore, it is clear that these articles were created for promotion. Triplestop x3 00:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, the main "project" is ConceptDraw Office; ConceptDraw Project is a software in that "project". Promotional purposes aka WP:COI is not a reason for deletion. Tim Song (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Either way, it is clear they don't merit 4 separate articles. Triplestop x3 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Then they can be merged. Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Note: I'm withdrawing my vote after reviewing the articles themselves. I still don't see why we should have any obligation whatsoever to keep these spam articles. Triplestop x3 02:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • ConceptDraw PROJECT, was a recreation of a page that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ConceptDraw_PROJECT. To ignore that fact intentionaly(in nom above), yet base a multi-article DRV on a "no consensus " XfD is not very compelling rational to undelete. Additionaly, the term "Promotional purposes" does not imply "aka WP:COI", nor is "COI" a reason to keep, particularly when the deletion rational wasn't COI.--Hu12 (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The article was userfied and subsequently restored to mainspace after improvements by MuZemike (talk · contribs), who closed the first AfD. There is nothing improper here, especially when a later, well-attended AfD revealed no consensus to delete. The fact is that the text of the articles, though created for promotional purposes, are not blatantly promotional to be speediable. Tim Song (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Either way, this DRV is WP:NOTINHERITED, or should it be based on some other article's "no consensus" Sockpuppeted XfD. It would be a bit misguided to do so, as it suggests that Wikipedia has some inherent obligation to host innapropriate spam articles, which of course, we all know, wikipedia is WP:NOT.--Hu12 (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Sockpuppeted? Please list an example of votestacking during that AfD. I just reread it, and found none. WP:INHERITED is good and all, I cite it myself; but an AfD on the Mindmap software was closed as keep over notability issues - not the most stellar of debates, I'd admit, but that's indication of its notability nonetheless. And a software suite containing multiple pieces of notable software is likely notable. We certainly do not have an obligation to host spam - but IIRC, except for WP:CSD G5, dealing with banned editors, we do not delete an article because of the identity of its creator, but let the article stand or fall on its own content. My position is that speedy deleting apparently neutrally-written and verifiable articles on notable subjects simply because their authors wrote them to promote the products is against WP:CSD, which is policy, and our ultimate goal here, which is to build an encyclopedia. Tim Song (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Undelete all and merge I've !voted on some of these before and I believe there is plenty of notability for an article. I don't think we need 4, or 8 or whatever, but 1 should do. If after that someone wants to send them to AfD I've no objection, but it will clearly meet WP:N in my opinion. Hobit (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion.These are non-consumer software packages aimed at a very small technical market with "limited interest and circulation". Even if merged theres only trivial and paid product reviews, which won't be enough to establish notability. Obvious self-promotional creations and all are Spam.--Hu12 (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion at this time. These articles are admitted by the creator and his numerous "friends" to be the work of people in the company. The intersection of genuinely notable things, and things which are not documented on Wikipedia until their company comes along to create them, is as close to the null set as you can get. Also I am strongly opposed to rewarding spammers, especially block-evading sockpuppeting spammers. At the very least this should be left until someone provably not connected with the company can come along with a new article that is not the work of people with a conflict of interest. Did I mention that I despise spammers? Guy (Help!) 09:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Would you admins start to follow the bloody procedure now, please and thank you?

  The "delete" button is there for you to use when there's (a) a valid speedy criterion, (b) an expired prod, or (c) a rough consensus to delete at AfD. It is not for use just because you feel like it, and the sheer number of recent DRVs involving cases where admins are deleting material on their own authority "because it's obvious it should be deleted", is beginning to worry me.

  Send it to AfD where we can have a proper discussion lasting the proper amount of time so this material can be deleted properly, thoroughly, and finally. Out-of-process deletions cause unnecessary drama and they end up taking more of your time than in-process ones.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a truly disturbing case involving 15 WP:SPA accounts, actively 'gamed the system' through the use of Meatpuppetry and Sockpuppetry, for the sole and primary purpose if using wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and promotion for "ConceptDraw" software related products.

• See Spam case and Sockpuppet investigation.
• ConceptDraw Office
  

log

• 05:16, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw Office" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
• 07:48, 23 September 2009 . . CSOWind ←Created page
• 13:56, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw Office" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
• 10:08, 11 September 2009 . . NaumenkoSvetlana ←Created page

• ConceptDraw MINDMAP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  

log

• 08:21, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: "Computer Systems Odessa" Using Wikipedia for advertising purposes see spam case)
• 08:40, 23 September 2009 . . CSOWind ←Created page
• 13:53, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of :http ://www.conceptdraw.com/en/products/mmforproject/main.php)
• 12:45, 3 September 2008 . . Gi-ant ← Created page
• 00:26, 12 June 2008 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising)
• 15:19, 22 February 2007 . . Jusperstb ←Created page
• 20:53, 29 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" ‎ (closing prod uncontested since 24 July)
• 11:00, 25 May 2006 . . CSOWind ←moved
• 07:54, 25 May 2006 . . CSOWind ←Created page

• ConceptDraw MindMap (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  

log

• 12:01, 8 August 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MindMap" ‎ (R1 applies - content was: 'db-redirnone #REDIRECT ConceptDraw MINDMAP')
• 11:00, 25 May 2006 CSOWind ←moved
• 08:36, 24 May 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MindMap" ‎ (content was: 'db-copyvio|url=http ://www.conceptdraw.com/en/products/mindmap/overview.php')
• 07:36, 24 May 2006 . . CSOWind ←Created page

• ConceptDraw PRO (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  

log

• 05:19, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PRO" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: spam)
• 11:37, 15 September 2009 . . Danilsomsikov ←Created page

• ConceptDraw (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

log

• 05:21, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
• 11:38, 15 September 2009 . . Danilsomsikov ←Redirected
• 09:38, 15 September 2009 . . CSOWind ←Created
• 18:49, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 14:10, 21 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (Delete to make way for page move content was: '#redirect ConceptDraw V')
• 17:11, 26 April 2006 . . Csodessa ←created

• ConceptDraw V (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  

log

• 06:23, 12 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw V" ‎ (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)

• ConceptDraw 7 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  

log

• 06:23, 12 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw 7" ‎ (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)
• 08:31, 30 May 2007 . . Master-zzz41 ←Redirected

• ConceptDraw 8 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  

log

• 10:28, 10 July 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw 8" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G11, was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something. using TW)
• 10:27, 10 July 2009 . . Kozovaya ←created

As documented, Multiple instances of sneaky recreation attempts to circumvent Wikipedia policies and procedures, Use of tricks in creating NN Spam articles, creating a titles as a redirects, Creating a seemingly legitimate articles then changing them around in order to avoid and curcumvent legitimate deletions. Allowing confirmed sock/meat puppets to activly evading blocks, create DRV's, and to promote their own agenda is "Gaming the system" and an abuse of process, which is disruptive. These are nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article.--Hu12 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all of them. We do not reward astroturfing spammers. Miami33139 (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Which of those matters makes it so urgent to delete the article that it's necessary to disregard due process?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletions – If someone wants to recreate the articles in a neutral, non-advertorial way, then please go ahead and do so. Otherwise, I have to agree with Miami here in that overturning them would encourage such spamming in the future. MuZemike 04:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Undelete, merge, and watch. Alternatively, someone else remake & take responsibility for them, DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• No undeletion without a userspace version by someone not connected to the company. This company and its main product line probably do pass our notability threshold (barely, although as pointed out elsewhere by several people including me, the question of whether a few product reviews consitutes significant independent coverage is debatable). As DGG hints above and says outright in the November 6 debate below, one article on the whole line would make a lot more sense. But I do believe we have to err on the side of being draconian when someone is gaming the system to advance their own interests--we simply cannot allow CSOWind's tactics here to stand. If someone else wants to take this thing over, genuinely and neutrally, fine. But as they stand, these articles violate our policies because they constitute astroturfing, regardless of the notability of the products. Chick Bowen 03:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I'd be willing to merge the articles if they are undeleted and survive an AfD, and take out any residual hints of adverty-ness, but forgive me if I'm unwilling to start working from scratch when there's a neutrally-written version to start with; and when they may turn out to be non-notable in the community's view. I'm unwilling to devote my time to something when it may well be an exercise in futility. Tim Song (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 6 November 2009

[edit] ConceptDraw Project

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

No consensus, closed as keep. A few days ago on DRV several of this companies products were all deleted as it was shown that the pages were made in an orchestrated campaign to spam Wikipedia. While they were at DRV, this was at AfD. In the interests of WP:RBI, I think as a unique case this AfD closure should have been no consensus, delete. (I have not notified the closing admin, but I will. I find no fault with their rationale.) Useful discussion to read User_talk:JzG#ConceptDraw_DRVs. - Miami33139 (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Both DGG and I opined in those DRVs that the G11s were improper before they were speedy closed. If you insist on using those speedy closes as precedent here I'll have no other choice but to bring a new DRV for those. Endorse. Tim Song (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• There is no such close, and there never should be, as "no consensus, delete". All such closes are not merely out of policy, but completely opposed to policy. Had such as close been made, that is what should have been appealed here. If you wanted a second AfD you should have asked for one, & if consensus remained the same as for the previous ones for the same reason, you might be able to get it that way--it would have been less complicated than trying it like this. My own view is that the close on this one is the correct close, and there is no good reason to delete the article no matter who made it. I am quite bothered by the early DRV close on the others, but I on my talk p. advised against pursuing it further on the grounds it would likely not be successful. My advice may have been wrong. FWIW, Tim and I make most of our joint appearances at AfD or DRV on opposite sides. The discussion of JzG's page shows the inadvisability of judging articles according to who wrote them. That and the present discussions shows the utter inadvisability of closing a contentious DRV or AfD early, or of assuming from the first few responses that no other response is possible. The simplest course, in any event, is for someone other than the sockmaster to make an article good enough to stand--a course JzG would apparently not object to (indeed, how could he possibly?) I'd adopt it myself except it's not really my subject. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse (unfortunately) Policy dictates COI is not a reason to delete. Triplestop x3 02:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per DGG and Tim Song (and even a bit of Triplestop!). Hobit (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, per. G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ConceptDraw_PROJECT. AlsoSpam case --Hu12 (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It was userfied then restored to mainspace by MuZemike. Maybe I'm missing something but I believe it's not a G4 because of that. Hobit (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I was not aware of the previous versions which were deleted, but after looking at those revisions I don't think WP:CSD#G4 really applies. The deleted revisions do not only describe the software, but also extolled the product's virtues, such as how easy it is to manage resources is with the software. That content was probably the type of content targeted by WP:CSD#G11. The current revision lacks the reviews which were brought up on the AFD, but the descriptive text is fairly neutrally worded. There was not a blatant violation of core policy which mandated deletion in this case. Regarding the closure, I saw several established and regular good faith contributors supporting retention, for instance Davewild, Eastmain, and DGG all made reasonable policy based arguments. JzG, and Chick Bowen among others made a reasonable case for deletion, so there wasn't much of a consensus. The deletion policy says that a rough consensus is needed for deletion, and I couldn't really see that here. If the current article were pure spam, I think the consensus would have been to delete. Do I agree that reviews are sufficient to establish notability for software products? I am actually somewhat undecided on the issue, and it depends a bit on the type of product. Many common products receive reviews or are covered in product comparison tests in consumer magazines, and not all those products are really all that interesting from an encyclopedic point of view. I think all Norwegian brands of orange juice have been reviewed, but I wouldn't support articles on all orange juice products for that reason. On the other hand, reviews of computer games and video games (which have an artistic element in addition to a mere functional one) are sources considered highly relevant in those articles, and do contribute to the notability of those subjects. In the end, I don't think the closer should be giving his/her own opinion much weight in determining the outcome. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a truly disturbing case involving 15 WP:SPA accounts, actively 'gamed the system' through the use of Meatpuppetry and Sockpuppetry, for the sole and primary purpose if using wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and promotion for "ConceptDraw" software related products.

• See Spam case and Sockpuppet investigation.

ConceptDraw PROJECT (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

log

• 05:54, 14 October 2009 CSOWind (33 bytes) (←Redirected page to ConceptDraw Project)
• 19:31, 5 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConceptDraw PROJECT) (view/restore)
• 14:40, 16 September 2009 protected ConceptDraw PROJECT [create=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Repeatedly recreated) (hist | change)
• 14:40, 16 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
• 14:30, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
• 11:52, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

ConceptDraw (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

log

• 05:21, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
• 11:38, 15 September 2009 . . Danilsomsikov (29 bytes) (←Redirected page
• 09:38, 15 September 2009 . . CSOWind (2,679 bytes) (←Created page
• 18:49, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 14:10, 21 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (Delete to make way for page move content was: '#redirect ConceptDraw V')
• 17:11, 26 April 2006 . . Csodessa (←created page

ConceptDraw Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Current

log

• 09:19, 16 September 2009 CSOWind (2,124 bytes) (←created page
• 05:18, 6 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" ‎ (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)
• 11:51, 30 September 2009 . . CSOWind (33 bytes) (←Redirected page
• 12:21, 11 September 2009 NaumenkoSvetlana (151 bytes) (←created page
• 11:40, 11 September 2009 NaumenkoSvetlana (1,170 bytes) (←created page
• 06:51, 13 June 2007 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" ‎ (CSD A7/G11; content was: '{{Infobox Software|name = ConceptDraw Project|caption
• 07:45, 23 May 2007 . Master-zzz41 (1,511 bytes) (←created page
• 18:33, 31 March 2007 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" ‎ (blatant advert)
• 10:14, 23 February 2007 . Jusperstb (←created page
• 20:29, 29 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" ‎ (closing prod uncontested since 24 July)

As documented, Multiple instances of sneaky recreation attempts to circumvent Wikipedia policies and procedures, Use of tricks in creating NN Spam articles, creating a titles as a redirects, Creating a seemingly legitimate articles then changing them around in order to avoid and curcumvent legitimate deletions. Allowing confirmed sock/meat puppets to activly evading blocks, create DRV's, and to promote their own agenda is "Gaming the system" and an abuse of process, which is disruptive. These are nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article.--Hu12 (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I share your concerns about the behavior; the solution is to let a single legitimate article be written and to watch it. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Closing admin of the 1st AFD – I felt that my interpretation of the consensus in the AFD was correct at the time. However, I did help out in userfying the page as well as helping the now-indef-blocked user in sourcing and establishment of notability. Having looked at the 2nd AFD and the article's improvement since the 1st AFD (i.e. removal of spam and other issues that distance the article from when it was before I deleted it the first time), I'm leaning towards endorse close on the 2nd AFD, especially given that other users beside those helped out in making it into what I think is an acceptable article. MuZemike 01:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cnit.jpg (closed)

[edit] Dub Police

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

Dub police (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Why was it deleted there on Dub Police the new page was nothing like the old page?(G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumbriandubsteper (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the second delete was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dub Police which was unanimous in asking for delete. The original delete was a speedy delete A7, Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc. Dub police was deleted with the G4, the only real difference was the introduction was slightly bigger and a slimmed down reference section (myspace only). None of the issues were addressed that the debate brought up. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion – I don't think I'm seeing anything out of process here. It was speedy deleted the first time and then recreated, which it was deleted again as a result of the deletion discussion. We can always provide you a copy of the deleted page for you to work on and improve, if you wish, so that the issues that led to its deletion are addressed. MuZemike 01:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed, endorse. Original AfD was closed properly; new article did nothing to address the notability concerns. Tim Song (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band)

User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the closing admin erred in closing the discussion as "moot" (keep) on the grounds that the pages were user-blanked prior to the end of the MfD. Rough consensus of the discussion was to delete all nominated pages. The policy basis of the delete arguments was that articles in userspace with no reasonable chance in mainspace in the foreseeable future constituted a violation of WP:UP#COPIES, "User space should not [...] indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia", as well as WP:NOTWEBHOST. Discussed with admin at [3] [4] Gigs (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure why the cited policies still apply after the pages are blanked. Tim Song (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • One concern is that anyone could then avoid consensus to delete by temporarily blanking. Gigs (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The MfD tags were blanked before the close time, so technically it never had a normal completion. It's rather concerning that we saying that people can avoid any consequences to leaving deletable material on Wikipedia so long as they quickly hide it for 5 minutes before a discussion period is over. Those kinds of absurd technicalities are what kill the reputation of the community and make patrol/oversight look laughable at best. It's still technically "on" Wikipedia; they can still give links to the old versions to friends or spam them out elsewhere. If it has a permalink to anywhere on Wikipedia, that means we're hosting it. We are not a web host. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

IFF the pages are re-established, you might have an issue. Precedent is that blanking makes deletion moot. Collect (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by closing admin - I'm not particularly stuck on the close but I stand by it. In the past we have (usually at the suggestion of User:SmokeyJoe) blanked user pages as an alternative to deletion at MfD. In this case there was no discussion of that option, but by the time the discussion closed the pages had all been blanked by the user and no one had commented on this (except User:Graeme_Bartlett, who only discussed the blanking of two of the pages and had supported keeping the remainder which had not yet been blanked at the time of his comment). The lack of discussion of the status quo was particularly significant in my decision.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. A permissible exercise of discretion. In the event that the pages are restored, they can be easily MfD'd again, and then it would be extremely unlikely that a blanking will still lead to the page being kept. Tim Song (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• I should think that if the pages were restored, we would then have a matter to consider (and I would certainly view that as an end-run around the XFD, and I would take a very dim view of it). However, at the moment the pages have not been restored and it does not seem necessary to devote any time to considering a purely theoretical case.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the blanked page history could be viewed as an "indefinite permanent archive of content intended to be part of the encyclopedia". I admit that while violating the letter of that prohibition, it might not violate the spirit of it if the pages stay blank. I do think it's a worthy discussion to have in any case, which is why I brought this here. Like Doug, I don't have strong feelings on this, but as well I do stand by my concern. Gigs (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn/Delete: Unless this gets stopped, we're leaving open an infinite process of article limbo status. The guidelines about self-blanking are pretty clear about their being only for articles where the author is the sole conributor. Once the MfD tag was put on, it's technically a disruptive/vandalism blank. Since the MfD tags were removed before discussion closed, it's subverting the deletion process and we're not the types to let that stand. There's only one reason we might let an XfD tag be removed from multiple pages was if it was self-blanked and it would get a CSD tag after that. Even if the end result pages are blank in userspace, you can't add up two wrongs that would have gotten an article deleted in either case (the MfD, or the CSD) and somehow magically have that synth together into a way to indefinitely protect yourself from having known deletable content in your userspace removed. Completely unacceptable. If it's up for XfD or CSD it's still "up for deletion", and all categories are theoretically equal reason for delete; or rather, letting this go is de jure approval of users publishing copyrighted material, uncited BLP content, and anything else that was to be deleted to live on forever in depths of edit histories. Details of it being userspace be damned, if we caught it while it was suitable deletion, that puts it in our jurisdiction wherever it runs until it reached a normal discussion conclusion. Articles shouldn't be able to escape judgment because they don't feel like showing up to sentencing. ...If people want to make a case that we should support articles running south of the border like this and growing a beard to avoid the cops until the heat dies down, go ahead and spill it out for me, please. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strongest possible delete - we've got a major problem with WP:UP#COPIES around here, and gimmicks like this just facilitate such gaming of the system. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Datheisen. Yeah, it was blanked, but still… Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, pretty much as above. Blatant myspacery, keeping it sets a bad precedent. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Further Comment by closing admin I'm sorry but I am much more bothered by the four !votes above than by the nom (which doesn't bother me at all); especially by !vote by admin Orangemike - DRV is the place to discuss whether to overturn or endorse my decision based on whether I properly read consensus and policy, including the option to relist. DRV has never been a place to !vote on the merits of the underlying pages.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A valid closing reason is "Moot"? I'm still not entirely sure why the MfD was closed despite the tags having been deleted off the pages in question, and that by itself is possible grounds to overturn. That is unacceptable in any case, ever. It seems to be a rather concerning lack of understanding of the specific situation. When we say 'delete' it's saying that we don't acknowledge the discussion close since it was done without regard for procedure and it's in line with Wikipedia style of such discussion pages. How do you overturn "Moot"? That's why it's awkward to say. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn closure and delete the pages. The consensus of the discussion was clear, and users should not be able to end run around the system simply by blanking the pages per Datheisen. I think it's reasonable to assume that my colleagues above voting "Delete" also believe the decision ought to be overturned. GlassCobra 17:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• endorse- close was entirely within policy and closer discretion, no reversible error that I can see. If it comes back, take it to MFD again, but unless someone has a crystal ball, there's no way anyone here can know for certain that will happen. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse these hysteric silly slippery slope arguments hold no weight. I am concerned about the whole WP:BITE aspect of this AFD. This was user space after all. Ikip (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• endorse the close can stand, but the pages should all then have been deleted by speedy delete, they still can be. If not for this review I would do so. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Additional Comment by closing admin - Ironically this DRV would now appear to be moot as another admin has deleted the pages (incorrectly citing Speedy G7 which doesn't apply to userpace).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• This raises the mildly amusing possibility that someone will ask for a DRV of Spartaz' G7. I rather hope not, but if they did, I suppose I'd reluctantly have to !vote "overturn" as an out-of-process speedy.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is this warning in WP:USER: "Blanking of user subpages is interpreted by some as a deletion request." While it might technically be outside of the normal bounds of G7, it's not an unreasonable action. It could have waited until this DRV finished, though. Gigs (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps the deleting admin meant U1 as opposed to G7. We can split hairs all day, but theoretically, anything in the "G" criteria is supposed to apply to any namespace. Then again, we also have inconsistencies with G12 (copyvio) and F9 (file copyvio), and perhaps this should be something sorted out at WT:CSD so as to avoid further ambiguities. I think the deleting admin was right and in good faith in deleting the page; it's not like he gave a blatantly wrong reason to delete the page a 2nd time. MuZemike 01:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting. It's not G7 because G7 explicitly excludes userspace blanking from the category of "blanking=request to delete". And I'd argue that it is not U1 either, for U1 requires a request from the user - and I would tend to think that this means an explicit request, or the G7 exclusion would be superfluous. Tim Song (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Janet Allison

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

• The following discussion has grown too long for transclusion. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Janet Allison for continued discussion. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 5 November 2009

[edit] Michael_Ruppert

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

The article on Michael Ruppert was deleted this past March. Now a documentary about him, Collapse has been released which has a Wikipedia page. Ruppert and the film are getting significant media coverage. It would be strange to argue that a biopic documentary is notable while the subject is not.

I personally came to Wikipedia after reading a news article and watching the trailer in order to find out more about this man.

I left a message on MBisanz's talk page, and he referred me here. Pisomojado (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Given that there's an 82-minute interview with him showing in New York theatres, and apparently audiences are paying to watch it, one can't help thinking Michael Ruppert is now considerably over the bar for notability.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• RestoreNow likely notable. Hobit (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Restore. Events have overtaken us. Kevin (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, restore. Hopefully MBisanz will short circuit this AfD, although I imagine he's busy at present. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done}

• Restore per the film. Obviously. Tim Song (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TOTSO

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

I would like a Deletion Review for the article entitled TOTSO. The basis for my request is that :

• The review conducted by user:Juliancolton (who is no longer active in Wikipedia) was erroneous to the extent once all such material was removed, nothing would be left.
• Five articles in Wikipedia reference the article (this was noted by user:ThaddeusB).

Principal findings of the review The principal findings of the review were:

• The word TOTSO was coined by Chris Marshall.
• This word has not been peer reviewed
• Alternative descriptions exist for road junctions.

My own research My research started at the website of "SABRE (The Society for All British and Irish Road Enthusiasts)". http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk. . The society is a web-based debating forum that has 1514 members. A search of the website revealed that the word TOTSO is mentioned 1664 times on its discussion forums. The society’s FAQ page is located in Chris Marshall’s own website and is maintained by him (Follow the Road FAQ link on the SABRE page). I therefore deduce that one cannot say for sure that Chris Marshall coined the word TOTSO, only that he catalogued it. Moreover, the fact that SABRE has endorsed Marshall’s website as its FAQ is an implicit peer review for whoever coined it. It should be noted that Marshall’s website is references 160 times within Wikipedia on other topics related to British roads. One must therefore discount the first two findings.

If one looks up TOTSO in the "CBRD Dictionary". http://www.cbrd.co.uk/reference/dictionary/.  (Marshall’s website) one will see – A situation where a continuous route number departs from the mainline of the road ahead. Totso is an acronym for 'Turn Off To Stay On', since this is what you have to do at one. For example ... . The through road at the junction does not retain one number. This demonstrates that a TOTSO is a feature of route numbering, not of civil engineering construction. The deletion review article failed to pick this up. As a result, one should discount the third finding of the review.

Conclusions Given that the review failed to assess the article properly, the speedy deletion was improperly carried out. While there are comments about a TOTSO being a neologism, the fact that it was used five times elsewhere in Wikipedia suggests that this particular view should be open to debate. I therefore ask that the article be reinstated, and its continued presence in Wikipedia be properly debated. Martinvl (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. The deletion was carried out properly, and the conclusion of a debate with a strong consensus for deletion. Kevin (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'm fairly sure Juliancolton is back after a brief break.

  This was not a speedy, but deleted after a full AfD. The debate was closed 90 minutes early, but it was not prejudicial, as it could not have been closed any other way.

  Even on the merits of the article, nominator has not provided any reason to doubt that the consensus was incorrect. A search of an online forum is not a reliable source by any stretch of imagination - it is, if anything, doubly unreliable. Nominator has yet to rebut the principal points of the deletion discussion, that the term is a nonnotable neologism coined by original research. So that would be a double endorse, both the close and the consensus. Tim Song (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominator:

I gave two reasons for reinstatement:

• The restoration of five red links. To my way of thinking, performing an activity without tidying up is wrong, whether it be in Wikipedia, projects at work or any other activity. Would those who advocate the deletion of this article please suggest how to tidy up those articles that are affected (ie how to deal with the red links)?
• In my nomination, I only dwelt on the reason of poor procedure. I did not argue for its retention - I planned to do that later. There is one simple argument for its retention - the Department for Transport has yet to publish a term that describes a TOTSO. At such time as they do so, then by all means replace the article entitled TOTSO with the new term, both as an article and in other articles in Wikipedia where it occurs. I have suggested using the Department for Transport as a reliable point of reference since as all the articles concerned refer to British roads.

This is an argument for common sense over strict legality. Which do you want?Martinvl (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is no poor procedure. The deletion process was properly followed. The answer to five redlinks is that we should remove them from the articles, not the other way around. The fact that DOT DfT did not recognize this term is evidence that it is not notable and therefore does not warrant inclusion, not the other way around. I can make up 200 terms that no authority has recognized. Am I entitled to create 200 articles? Tim Song (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I removed all of the backlinks. Tim Song (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Well, Tim, everyone's entitled to create 200 articles. If you did it on 200 terms no authority has recognized, then you might cause a little bit of drama, though.  :)

  I think the nominator here is under a misapprehension about what Wikipedia is.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Fine, "200 articles on them". My guess is that I'll probably get blocked for disruptive editing :)Tim Song (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominator (again)

user:Tim Song wrote “The fact that DOT did not recognize this term is evidence that it is not notable”. Tim, you are dealing with the British Government. (BTW it is DfT, not DOT). Until 1984 the British Government refused to acknowledge the existence of MI5 or MI6 even though they were the paymasters and every taxi driver in London knew where their headquarters were. They only acknowledged MI5's and MI6's existence when they passed legislation to prevent a repeat of the Spycatcher affair. IMHO, one of the reasons that the DfT have not published an official term for what "UK road geeks" call a TOTSO is to divert attention away from their policy of "building motorways by stealth" – a highly controversial topic within the United Kingdom (see NIMBY – does that have a place Wikipedia?).

S Marshall suggested that I was not familiar with the object of Wikipedia. My response is that I am working on a number of British road articles and I was planning to use the term in a few places. I was also planning to expand the TOTSO article to show why TOTSOs come into being (route renumbering being one such cause) using Junction 18 of the M60 as a case study (complete with diagram showing a “Before” and “After” situation). Such an article would have the same relevance as NIMBY. Martinvl (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I understand that, and I recognise your good faith desire to write about this subject. The reason I suggested unfamiliarity is that you posted an entire section about your own research concerning TOTSO. Wikipedia is, by definition, not a place for your own research.

  TOTSO would merit inclusion in the encyclopaedia if the concept has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and if the article was not basically a definition of TOTSO combined with examples of how it has been used (see WP:NOTDIC).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My research has one purpose and one purpose only – to cross-check Julian’s findings. Entering “Chris Marshall TOTSO” into Google and exploring the first site that comes up is hardly “research”, especially when the next step is to follow the link “Where do I start?” Maybe I should have rephrased my statement as “When I was cross-checking Julian’s findings …”.

The expansion of the term was part of my plan, together with identifying which user communities used it and which, (such as DfT) did not see the need for it. Martinvl (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse and strongly recommend speedy closure due to wall-of-text argumentation. It's a neologism with no obvious currency (I had to Google it, I have never even heard it, and I am in Britain). Yes, we know people love to promote their favourite neologisms (anyone here remember the Exicornt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) fight?) but policy has been followed here and most of the rationale above is simply misplaced. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Clearly process has been followed correctly here, and well done to Tim Song for removing the backlinks. GlassCobra 17:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse The analysis written by Uncle G (talk · contribs) (which I think the nom has mistakenly attributed to Juliancolton (talk · contribs) the highly active AfD closer) was, as usual, spot on. I simply don't see the recognition in reliable sources to merit an article at this time. Proper process was followed, and nothing has changed since July. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Collier Books (closed)

[edit] Allerseelen (closed)

[edit] ConceptDraw MINDMAP (closed)

[edit] ConceptDraw PRO (closed)

[edit] ConceptDraw Office (closed)

[edit] Murder of Somer Thompson

Murder of Somer Thompson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Page about a recent murder of a young girl. Several editors contributed to the article, and I do not think it should be deleted without discussion. In fact, I do not see any alternatives to an AfD for this article, as PROD was contested (twice), and CSD specifically prohibits deletion under WP:NOT. I appealed to the deleting admin here (their reply here). decltype (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and send to AfD. Deletion was plainly out of process. Tim Song (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Yup, that looks pretty clear cut. I can see no flaw at all in what Decltype says. Overturn and list at AfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now yes, technically this doesn't quite meet the CSD. However, (as I recall) the article breaches WP:NOTNEWS and involves a very recent murder. It seems both unnecessary and cruel to debate this right now. IAR deletions should rarely be used, but in this instance the admin did good. This article does not belong on wikipedia, but if people must have a debate about it, let's have it a little further away from the sad events. Undeleting merely on procedural grounds and forcing an unnecessary debate would be poor form.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  I think that we would be able to have a dignified discussion about the subject's eligibility for inclusion that would not cause unnecessary harm or distress. Especially if there is unanimous consent to delete. decltype (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• The main point of DRV is to ascertain whether the deletion process was correctly followed, and if it was not, to impose some kind of remedy. I do not see how we can endorse this. But I do recognise Scott MacDonald's concern. AfD discussions are, all too often, neither dignified nor orderly, and I would certainly not want to make Somer Thompson's family miserable over some user-submitted content on an encyclopaedia.

  I think an AfD could take place concerning a fully-protected, courtesy-blanked version of the article, with the history visible underneath. I also think uninvolved admins should be enjoined to observe the AfD closely and see that it is conducted sensitively.

  In any case, the deletion followed by this DRV has ensured a seven-day delay that will at least give a little distance.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is a body of opinion that this article should be kept, then by all means let's have a debate and keep it as dignified as possible. But if, as I suspect, the result is obvious, then overturning on procedural ground and risking the debate would be pedantic and pathetic. Does anyone here actually think this article ought to be retained, and can they make a reasonable case? If they do and can, then by all means undelete and list. If not, then let's move on and be sensible.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it's pedantic and pathetic to believe that a debate should happen in cases where someone wishes to delete and no CSD criterion applies.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep deleted for now. Scott's arguments are persuasive. There appears to be nothing unique about this tragedy beyond its general newsworthiness. Powers ^T 15:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• overturn and send to afd- deleting without discussion in when the article did not meet any speedy criteria (at least none that I've seen mentioned) should not be allowed. The article will likely not survive an AFD, but the community needs to make the decision in a case like this, not one person. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You agree this should be deleted, but want to force a deletion discussion when not one person is currently arguing the article should be retained, knowing that will both waste wikipedian time, and add an unneccessary and possibly distressing debate to a sensitive subject? You know, sometimes I despair that a community that is supposed to be noble and full of common sense so often descends into rule-mongering and pathetic inflexibility.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it will pass afd. But whether or not it does is not relevant. The decision in cases like this should not be made unilaterally. If the consensus of an AFD is delete, then it should be deleted. But "It would have been deleted anyway" should not be a reason, unless the admin has a crystal ball and can tell for absolute certainty what the outcome would have been. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn, restore. Preemptive speedy deletion under NOTNEWS is clearly out of policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, you are right. But no one is arguing that policy does allow deletion. The is an WP:IAR deletion. The question is it is justifiable. If you think there's a case for keeping the article, then let's relist and discuss that. Do you think there's a case for keeping? Otherwise, why restore poor content?--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The article was deprodded twice, and in the absence of contrary evidence, I'll presume that at least one editor believes in good faith that there's a reasonable case for keeping the article. How strong that case is can and should be discussed at AFD. I do not see a reasonable case for IAR deletion; this isn't by any means the first time an issue of this sort has come up, and the outcome is not unequivocably clear-cut. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
      • That may indeed be sensible grounds to go to AfD, much better than process wonking. But I do still think it is clear-cut and unnecessary personally.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment re WP:NOTNEWS, I'm relatively new so perhaps not familiar with how it's applied in practice, but reading WP:NOTNEWS it seems to me to be saying that something that's in the news shouldn't automatically have an article, but it's not saying that it definitely shouldn't? Wouldn’t most notable events have been in the news at the time they happened? (I won't mind being corrected if I've misunderstood.) Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the point for me is that an event doesn't get an article simply because it has news coverage. It needs more than that. News stories are not excluded, it is just that being a news story and having news sources doesn't automatically qualify. News stories may get a lot of press for a day or two and then be forgotten. To be encyclopedic something needs to have some deeper significance. It needs to be the type of case people will comment on or refer back to after the news cycle is over. Does it have some larger legal social or cultural consequence? If it being discussed beyond the time itself. The problem is that for recent events it is largely too soon to tell, it is usually easier 12 months or more later. WP:RECENTISM is also worth considering.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AFD. WP:NOT is not a speedy criteria. Period. AFD may delete it in a WP:SNOW but we won't know until we see it. WP:NOT is very subjective and CSD is very specific blatant cases. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD and advise the admin involved about the inadvisability of substituting himself for the community. Given the two deprods mentioned, this was an clearly wrong way to do this. Scott, your view of the articles may seem clear to you, but it is not quite so clear to others. And even if it were, we have no good way of preventing future incorrect deletions except to consistently overturn them. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't see deleted edits and had no knowledge of the prods. I've said all along that if anyone wants to make a substantive argument to keep it, then there ought to be an AfD. That's fine. However, if the article has no defended it would be disruptive to restore bad content and force a needless debate just to make some point about admins and rules. This is not a good way of "preventing future incorrect deletions" (whatever that might mean) as a) it patently does not work and b) replacing bad content is detrimental to the encyclopedia and should not be done is some warped attempt to "punish" the deletor for not following the letter of the rules. If an admin is acting in a way you don't like, then dispute resolution is the way to go, not damaging the encyclopedia for punishment. Has it occurred to you that many deleting admins simply move on and ignore such nonsense, rather than feeling chastised.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn Out of process deletion. It may very well be a valid topic for an article. Hobit (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion though technically deleted out of process, this was clearly a news story and not an encyclopedia article. So all in all a good use of IAR by the admin. RMHED (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. I have seen several similar articles deleted at AfD, so I think this was an appropriate use of IAR by the deleting admin. I don't think that restoring is an appropriate method of chastising an admin for deleting out of process. Kevin (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• overturn Out of process deletion. Needs to go through AfD where it can be discussed by the community. Speedy deletion criteria are narrow for a reason. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD where it will be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS and absence of any secondary sources. Or just slap the deleting admin for an out of process deletion. There was no need to rush the deletion of this article, and wherever possible the community needs to be keep involved in content decisions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:BURO — no one seems to have come up with any reasons why the article should actually be kept, so putting it through the process just for the sake of dotting the I's and crossing the T's would be a waste of time. Also, a case could be made that this deletion falls under WP:A7 as an article that "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." *** Crotalus *** 21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you really want admins just deleting articles because they think it shouldn't be kept? Further, the sources are more than enough to ward it from A7. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Just because the admin did wrong is no reason to go through needless bureaucracy just to confirm that the end result was correct. Powers ^T 15:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I think that would lead to admins speeding all sorts of things they shouldn't. Perhaps my normally rosy view of human nature is failing me, but I find that if you let people get away with something they are not supposed to do, they tend to keep doing it. That would create more work in the long run... Hobit (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I highly doubt it. This is a bit of a special case as it involves a sensitive news event. I think admonishment ought to be more than sufficient to deter any future maleficence. Powers ^T 02:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn Due process is sometimes inconvenient, but it's important. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but sometimes it's also pointless, as in this case. What due process we have must be in the service of improving the encyclopedia. Relisting this will just waste everyone's time. Powers ^T 15:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Skipping a trial just because you "know" the defendant is guilty wouldn't fly in the legal system, and I see no reason why it should fly here either. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Because we're not a bureaucracy, and articles do not have human rights. The subject of this article, however, did, as does her family, and there is is thus compelling reason not to undelete this article just so we can talk about whether it should be deleted. (Besides, we do sometimes skip trials. Prosecutors often offer plea deals to a defendant to avoid the spectacle of a trial, or to avoid forcing victims to testify. If we must analogize to the legal system, I think that's a much fairer comparison.) Powers ^T 16:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion It is pointless to send it to AfD just for bureaucracy then there are no good reason's for article's actual existence.--Staberinde (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• endorse deletion - Those of you asking for overturn on procedural grounds seem to be missing the point of Scott's argument, or perhaps you think process wonkery is more important than doing the right thing by the family of a victim. Deleting this article was the right thing to do. Endorse. ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - This is the very reason we have IAR. Why send a useless article to AFD just to get the same result in return? We don't need added bureaucracy when it was a reasonable use of IAR. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• 'Comment IAR requires the action to be such as the community will clearly support, and this does not have the necessary degree of support. I suggest we might do well to further limit it to it's original intent, when there is something not covered by the rules. The purpose of the rules is to to overcomplicate things, but to prevent idiosyncratic action by individuals. With 1000 active admins, each of them going their own way will produce an inconsistent chaos--if we are to produce an actual encyclopedia, instead of randomly selected fragments, which need to agree on what we do. We have a way to find out if an article is supportable, and we should use it. A practice that we delete any BLP to which one admin objects, is about the worst way or doing things possible. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • How can you say that deletion doesn't have the necessary degree of support? Not one person has stepped forward to say that this article should be kept. That tells me the end result is overwhelmingly accepted; it's merely the process that was incorrect. The admin should be admonished, but why overturn a clearly correct result just for the sake of going through a pointless and potentially upsetting process? Powers ^T 20:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn, relist - We'll just have to agree to disagree. I do think that the article should be properly deleted, but we gain nothing from avoiding proper procedures. Nothing about the article required emergency action, and by deleting it out of process, without even being able to articulate a reason that such action was needed, guarantees far more attention than the AfD would have done. The problem with endorsing this is that the suitability of articles of this ilk is being debated widely on BLP grounds right now. By not following process, we invite observations like the one above. I would much rather have the debate out in the open. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 4 November 2009

[edit] Thomas Ricciardi

Thomas Ricciardi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Disambiguation page unfairly deleted by DurovaJake Wartenberg for being an attack page. The page consisted entirely of this: Ted87 (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

How this constitutes an attack page I will ever know. Nothing was in the page that can not be found here: [5] [6]

• It was not deleted by Duvora as far as I can see. Tim Song (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. My mistake. --Ted87 (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Negative unsourced BLP. Crime family membership is a negative claim. Tim Song (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I remain convinced that the original deletion should be endorsed. No objection to recreation with DGG's sources. Tim Song (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: He deleted the page, less then 10 minutes after I created it. Can't I make 2 edits before a page is considered for deletion? --Ted87 (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest using the {{undercontruction}} template next time. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Or even adding sources to it as soon as you create it. But if neither has a page then we dont need to disambiguate this anyway. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, doesn't the standard say that redlinks stay if real articles link to the article redlinks get to stay? Geo Swan (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't do that now. The page has been protected from being recreated. --Ted87 (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. Deleting negative unsourced biographical material is entirely appropriate. Kevin (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation if sources are available--and they certainly are NY Times . LA Times , etc etc in google News Archive, where there are over 100 RSs Took me 30 seconds. Why have none of the people above actually looked? Wikipedia, the place where people pretend to require sources, but never look for them. But Ted, the primary responsibility was yours'. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• I have unsalted the page. It might be wise for Ted to create this in userspace first. — Jake Wartenberg 03:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn -- Close to a dozen articles refer to a "Thomas Ricciardi". I disambiguated those who referred to a Los Angeles individual, and those who referred to a New Jersey individual. I too am amazed that DGG was the first person to look to see if there were sources. Geo Swan (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn per Geo Swan (though I am less amazed).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse close and deletion per the fact that at this time both mentions on the dab are redlinks. No prejudice against creating an article which doesn't violate any of our BLP policies, and is supportable via notability with reliable sources especially if it's presented in a WP:NPOV fashion. — Ched :  ?  19:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse close, but not salting, as the characterization of the page as an unsourced negative BLP was appropriate. It would have been far better to create sourced articles with hatnotes, even if the initial versions were little better than stubs, then expanded them as time permitted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Human disguise

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

I believe that there was sufficient oddity surrounding the nomination and the way the debate was pursued, and the odd result ("no consensus - default to delete" - as far as I know unprescedented) that the result should be modified to a more regular "no consensus" so that improvement work that was already underway on the article and making significant progress can be continued. A follow up AfD with less drama could easily be carried out if that improvement work proves to be insufficient. I have made this request previously to the closing editor and they have declined, so I bring it here. Artw (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse no consensus close, but overturn to default to keep. DRV would not have overturned the speedy and listed at AfD if it found the previous AfD applicable to the article. We do not overturn simply based on a harmless technicality. Therefore, there is no status quo to delete. Tim Song (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I see this argument in a few places, so I'll respond to the first instance. Although the general confusing situation played a role, the timing of the G4 – prior to the AfD close – was a major point in the previous DRV. If the G4 had followed the AfD, the DRV may have looked more like Alan Cabal at WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 30, with discussion of G4's "substantially identical" and whether the "reason for the deletion no longer applies". This expansion would have been examined in detail. Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Endorse and delete: The article got relisted almost immediately because it was recreated from an article that had just been deleted (through a normal AfD discussion with a trivial name change only (from Human suit to Human disguise. Therefore, the subsequent AfD got treated as a DRV, with a no consensus being equated to the precedent verdict, which was to delete. Unusual, but perfectly logical interpretation.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Overturn and restore: Although the references now supplied still need beefing up, I'll eat my words and say that notable, reliable references touching the subject of human disguise as a subject have been supplied at this point, even though this was a remarkably unorthodox AfD.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AfDs are AfDs. DRVs are DRVs. If one is too be considered the other then it should be disclosed up front, which would probably mean the AfD stopping the moment it start. As it was it ran it's full course as an AfD and that is what it should be considered as. Artw (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There was more than a name change that occurred. There was also an expansion on the number of references that were included in the article after the original AfD close. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse no consensus close, but overturn to default to keep; I reprise my comments from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Human disguise#Disagree with closure reasoning:

  • «Therefore, no consensus is the only correct outcome.» — Agreed.
  • «However, this article is unique in that it was previously deleted,» — Disagreed; present article is substantially different from "Human suit", for one thing, it's better developed.
  • «and that the 'status quo' is for the article to not exist.» — Disagreed; present article is not in the "status quo" of another article altogether. This is a de novo review, so "no consensus" means "no consensus", not "consensus to delete".
  • After all, presumably that other article was deleted because there was consensus to delete it, right? (Or wasn't there?) So surely it is significant that this time the consensus has shifted.
  • "In any XfD (WP:AfD, WP:TfD, etc.), 'no consensus' defaults to keep. Keeping an article preserves all options and the possibility of future discussions."

  This has been the strangest closure basis I've seen, to delete an article precisely because there wasn't a consensus to delete it! Should we see the practice spread across Wikipedia? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus to keep it either - and given the history of the article I think it is quite logical. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Wikipedia policy is "'no consensus' defaults to keep." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, yes. While default-to-delete is still being discussed inre BLP's, and while I might understand a deletion in cases where default-to-keep of a BLP might act to harm a living person, a no-consensus default to keep for other types of articles is per guideline and has been accepted and practiced for years. While I respect the closer being "logical", guidelines inre consensus are there for reasons which have themselves been hashed out... with a non-consensus default-to-keep being part of guideline for logical reasons. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the sort of "logic" that takes us from «If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept.» to "No consensus, so the article will be deleted" could as easily be applied to any other Wikipedia policy, or the US Bill of Rights, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There's a cheerful thought for you. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting, perhaps, that that page is an essay, not policy. That particular section is unchanged since one editor created it two years ago. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting, perhaps, that the same provision was cited both from WP:No consensus and from WP:AFD. Here it is also from WP:DPR#AFD: "If no consensus was reached, then the article is kept by default unless it regards a living person (see below). The decision should generally include a reference to the lack of consensus, such as No consensus - default to keep, in order to minimize ambiguity." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Not disagreeing, just replying to your second comment that no consensus has different meanings in different places/circumstances, and here needs to be defined in terms of AfD, as you kindly did above. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by previous DRV closer. There is relevant history in this deletion review discussion and this AfD as well. As an objective observer to the content of the article itself and as an objective observer to the content of the second AfD discussion, the base assessment of "no consensus" seems accurate. That was not what happened here, however. The AfD closure was less a closure of the merits of the AfD itself as it was a unilateral reversal of my deletion review closure. I take offense to this, and I feel intent of the closure borders (philosophically at least) on wheel-warring of my DRV closure. If this was not a referendum on my DRV closure, then "no consensus defaults to delete" is patently absurd. Endorse no consensus and Overturn deletion itself. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I apologies if you consider my actions to be overturning your DRV decision. CSD G4 only covers when the article is not substantially different, it says nothing about whether the notability must have been improved. An unfit article shouldn't get a free pass just because it was identical. My reasoning is that the article was deleted initially for unfitness as an article, and that while the article was not G4-able due to a technicality, the consensus still was that the article shouldn't exist, and it the onus was on the keeps to demonstrate why the article should have been kept. Your DRV closure was not incorrect, nor is my AfD closure incongruous to it. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate your remarks and your comments towards my DRV close. As a point of clarification, however, you say "[a]n unfit article shouldn't get a free pass just because it was identical." Are you sure you don't mean that "an unfit article shouldn't get a free pass just because it wasn't identical"? In any case, while your assurance makes me feel better about your motives in the close, I frankly think it demonstrates an even poorer understanding of deletion policy. You can't just make up these rules about defaulting to deletion just because they seem "logical" to you. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• The basis for my entire close was that the DRV didn't change the standing consensus from delete to keep. No consensus isn't the same as writing 'keep', it's just saying there isn't a change in the standing consensus - I think some people here don't understand that. I'm happy for you to do disagree with my logic; as long as my closure is understood I'll see merit in whatever conclusion this DRV creates. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• There was no "standing consensus" to delete this article, and never had been, despite a determined attempt to keep cramming it into a tinier suit. A different article was deleted, and this one was subjected to Procrustean editing to make it seem the same article. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• (several edit conflicts) I recuse from saying any of those words in bold, because I participated in the AfD, but I want to say that I do not wish to see a future in which admins are permitted to decide whether "no consensus" defaults to "delete" or "keep". Admins should be clerks to the consensus, not masters of it, and their tools should be a mop, not a gavel.

  In this particular case, BackslashForwardslash appears to have treated this as if it were a DRV of the previous G4, by treating "no consensus" as "endorse previous deletion". But DRV has already considered this matter and decided that the G4 should not be permitted to stand.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I endorse S Marshall's view completely--if we go by our own individual opinion on an article, how do we deal with the fact that there are about 800 active admins, each of them with their own individual opinion? That's the reason we have process--the alternative is anarchy, it which we each delete what we think ought to be deleted. I have a few dozen hundred articles in mind, personally. I do not nominate them because I think consensus would not support deletion, but that does not change my opinion that they ought to be deleted for the good of Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• No consensus to delete, defaults to keep. Anything else, is simply madness. And this article is far different than human suit, much larger, dozens of references, including things the other did not have. What happened at an unrelated article, is not relevant here at all. This article was around since 00:51, 24 March 2006. It wasn't created simply because the other was getting deleted. Dream Focus 23:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse no consensus, but default to Keep, I argued for delete in the AfD; but I disagree with the close of the AfD claiming that "no consensus - default to delete". That is simply wrong, and a poor interpretation of Wikipedia policy and inconsistent with precedent. Yes, I believe the article is predominantly a trivia collection with only a small portion being of encyclopedic value to merge elsewhere, but that's a different debate. For purposes of the DRV, I believe the deletion should be overturned as "no consensus" defaults to "keep"; anything else sets a dangerous precedent. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse no consensus but overturn deletion. An AfD ending with "no consensus" should never result in the article being deleted. DRV overturned the speedy deletion, saying that it did not meet the speedy deletion criteria and thus it could not be deleted without a community consensus to do so. There was no community consensus to delete the article, therefore the deletion was improper. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse delete and stop wikilawyering technicalities. The recreation of the entry was itself immensely disruptive. It should have been deleted from the beginning. There should have been no need to speedy it after the AfD and there should have been no need for the DRV. The only bad precedent that was set here was to allow this mess to get to this point in the first place. If everyone decides this is what we have to go through every time someone tries to circumvent established deletion processes then we're really in trouble. Put this nonsense to bed.PelleSmith (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn to "no-consensus default to keep". As DRV is not to re-hash merits of the AfD itself, I will not revisit the varous pro and con arguments, nor the comments at an earlier AfD, as this AfD was about THIS verision of an article and not some earlier version. The closer himself stated "Both sides made good (and bad) arguments. Therefore, no consensus is the only correct outcom." Per WP:AFD, " If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn per above. Ikip (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse "no consensus", but overturn to "default to keep" per precedents and policy laid out by Artw on closing admin's talk page. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly you mean Sizzle Flambé? Artw (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(Not that I didn't initially raise the matter on the closing admin's page, but it's Sizzle Flambé that has done the heavy lifting work on quoting appropriate policy. Artw (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC))

You do deserve the credit for saying it first. *I* only keep repeating it, loudly, because someone keeps saying "I didn't hear that!" — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, no matter what route we take to get there. But then, given that the keep !votes were primarily ILIKEIT or claims that allowing only 99% of the universe (known or unknown) into the article meant it wasn't INDISCRIMINATE, my impression was that there was a consensus to delete. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I put this poorly, so I've clarified my thoughts and re-phrased them below (although with the same !vote result). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, no, the observation that the concept of non-human beings disguising themselves as human beings is wide-ranging in cultures and times — covering fields as separate as folklore, mythology, fantasy, and science fiction, and entities as disparate as gods, demons, robots, and aliens — was pretty much the point of the article, not "indiscriminate" at all, but rather part of its notability, since it's a worldwide and age-old theme. Many stories, artwork, books, and movies have been based upon it, some of which the article cited and linked, demonstrating the concept's notability. Against this, there was, what, IDONTLIKEIT? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• That's the point, exactly… I didn't see it as ILIKEIT versus IDONTLIKEIT. I saw it as ILIKEIT versus INDISCRIMINATE, SYNTH, NOR, RS, PRIMARY, NOTE, GNG, TRIVIA, etc. Closing admins can disregard non-policy based !votes (such as do/don't like its), and when I look at the AFD that way, I see a clear consensus to delete.
• Here's a request to any interested editors: go through the AFD, and look solely at the !votes that directly refer to policy. Not the comments or replies, and definitely not the challenges or badgering—just the !votes with solid rationales. Having done that, do you see a consensus? No, I am not asking for replies to this (please no!), just for editors to take a little time & do a quick reality check themselves. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, look right here, right now, at the people who IDONTLIKEIT the "No consensus - default to keep" standard, but really, really ILIKEIT throwing that rule away on the fly right now. Are those !votes in accordance with policy? And, sayyyy, all you admins, is there consensus right this instant for you to keep your admin bits? Of course not! So by \ /'s rule, they should be removed! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn the no consensus, as there was a clear consensus to delete - I've done a full breakdown at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Human disguise#Was there a consensus.3F, and honestly looking at the results: I do not see how an unbiased observer could read through the !votes, eliminate those without rationales based on policy, guidelines, or essays, and still believe that there was no consensus. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dori's revision of history to create a consensus (where Backslash Forwardslash correctly saw none) involves reclassifying the !votes so the pro-deletes all fit policy, and the pro-keeps don't. My own pro-keep, for instance, argued that the broad theme was clearly notable, but Dori summarized it and many others as "inherited", which is of course an invalid "keep" argument, shifting consensus to the "delete" side, a nice bit of self-dealing. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see as it makes any difference, but it appears that it might make you happier, so I moved your !vote from INHERITED to ITSNOTABLE. Anyone else want their !vote to be re-categorized? Just ask (it'll get done faster if you skip the crap, though). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 10:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• The difference it makes is the difference card stacking usually makes, Dori. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dori's point on your !vote was that it amounted to WP:INHERITED, which is one of the arguments not to use in a deletion debate. It consists of arguing that the elements of an article in this case, the separate appearances in fiction and lore of creatures in human guise are notable when it fact what needs to be found notable is the analysis of the common points between those appearances (which still lacks to this day). So, no self-dealing here, just a personal assessment that looks to be in absolute good faith.--Ramdrake (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the "elements", "the separate appearances in fiction and lore of creatures in human guise are notable", as you say, and those can be found and cited in the existing sources as is. What you're asking to be found notable, "the analysis of the common points", is another matter. We needn't quote this entire article from a single existing article elsewhere — in fact, we couldn't, it would be copyvio! But where multiple other articles touch upon this subject matter, we can use them to construct an article on it. That's still not "inheriting" notability from the analysis; the notability is based directly on the subject matter itself. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• endorse the no consensus, but overturn to keep. Last I knew, aside from the afd/drv that shall not be named, no consensus decisions should result in a default to keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Although the bolded wording "no consensus - default to delete" provokes a strong kneejerk reaction that it was a bad close, the closer's actual logic is pretty good. He's not saying "no consensus" should default to keep in every case, just in this one case. There was a "delete" AFD, the article got recreated and sent back to AFD on a technicality... so it just seems like the status of the article is deleted and there needs to be a keep consensus to overturn it. I would suggest you never bold such a phrase again though, closer :-) --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry to contradict you, Sancho, but that's not what happened at all. There was an AfD on one article that was closed early as a G4 speedy deletion. DRV then overturned the speedy deletion. A more expansive version of that article, renamed with more references, was then AfD'ed, and we're now reviewing the second deletion. And I'm a little tired of seeing it get deleted out of process, to be frank.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Uh, you're not contradicting me. Maybe you misunderstood me, but your version of events is the same version of events I was trying to describe. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oh good.  :) I was confused by the words "a delete AfD", I think.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• What happened, according to my understanding, is:

1. Human suit is nominated for AfD.
2. ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) tried to expand the article during the AfD, but was reverted.
3. ChildofMidnight subsequently created human disguise, which contains a version substantially expanded from human suit. It was unclear whether most of the AfD participants evaluated CoM's expansions, as they were reverted. The article was speedy deleted as G4 before the AfD even closed.
4. The human suit AfD was closed as delete.
5. DRV overturns the G4 of human disguise and sends to AfD.

• As I noted above, DRV's overturning implies that G4 would not apply even if Human disguise were created after the Human suit AfD closed. To suggest that the DRV participants collectively ignored WP:BURO is absurd. That implicit determination means that there's no consensus applicable to human disguise, and the status quo is, as it always has been, to keep. Tim Song (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You know as someone who came to the second AfD having missed the dram of the first that is the first time I've seen a clear and concise explanation of events. I am further convinced that any handwaving to acheive " adeletion no matter what route we take to get there" per DoriSmith should be ignored and that the AfD should be treated as freestanding. Artw (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• The "delete AFD" I referred to, and the one the G4 deletion was incorrectly based on, was the human suit AFD. I guess I should actually pipe in the links first time around rather than assume people know what I mean :-) --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse no consensus, but change to default keep - WP:AFD states: "If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept". The people here who say this is an exception to the rule need consensus on the policy page; we can not go around declaring arbitrary exceptions to policy. (OK, that's what WP:IAR is for, but I do not think this should be applied in closing an AfD.) Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus, with result of keep, per current policy on no-consensus AfDs. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Change to no consensus, keep. But the closing admin needs a chance to express his views--and I hope he will use that chance to acknowledge his error and undelete the article himself. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus closure, but overturn actual deletion – at first, I thought this was something akin to the premise that closing admins need to look at each deletion discussion in a vacuum without considering previous nominations (while, on the other hand, another person can argue that consensus has changed within the past couple of weeks). But anyways, here's what basically happened:

1. Human suit was deleted, rightly so, at AFD.
2. Article was renamed to Human disguise and, shortly after, deleted, rightly so, per WP:CSD#G4.
3. Deletion of Human disguise is taken to DRV, in which the consensus is to overturn the deletion an list at AFD.
4. Human disguise deleted at AFD with the "no consensus - default to delete" decision, which is why we're here again.

Number 4 is where the problem is at. It's not about overturning a G4 deletion as the last DRV result nullified that. In this case, we're forced to go back to the first AFD to see what's going on. Given, we are looking at a different article than it was when it first was nominated for deletion. It's a combination of the previous AFD being given less weight because of those circumstances, and the fact that consensus can change (which I mentioned above). With that said, closing admins should not be looking at deletion discussions in a vacuum, but instead, they need to look at the circumstances and determine what roles the previous deletion discussions has had on the article's current state. Of course, this is easier for me to say, as this is the first time having participated in this discussion. MuZemike 04:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I wrote a timeline on the talk page. Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, that's actually really helpful.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 04:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• That timeline is misleading. 99% of the content on Human Disguise was NOT at the Human Suit article. Dream Focus 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  I replied to Dream Focus on the talk page. Flatscan (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse no consensus close, but overturn to default to keep; per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse delete duplication of previous article by copypaste and previous DRV was an abuse of process. Verbal chat 07:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In fact the closure should have clearly been delete per the previous AfD and per this AfD, as has been shown at WT:Articles for deletion/Human disguise#Was there a consensus? by Dori. Verbal chat 11:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The previous AfD applied to "Human suit" (which was and remains deleted), not to "Human disguise" (the present topic). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ignore the process We can't even close the deletions in moderately predictable ways? What has become of us? I'm sure the article can be fixed until this debate blows over, but I'm not sure if these deletion debates are going to help any. I believe the deletion discussion surrounding this article is sufficient proof that our processes are no longer up to the task and we spend way too much time debating the process rather than fixing the articles in question. Seriously. I'm not sure how to say this nicely, but I'm concerned. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome (deletion). Reasonable reflection of the state of play on that mess of indiscriminate original research.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - well within admin discretion to consider this a recreation of a previously deleted article. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Except it hadn't been just that; from the very first, it had incorporated additional material, despite repeated attempts to delete that and reduce it to a clone of "human suit", it kept being developed far beyond that; and even now in its userfied copy, further text and illos (like the above) are being added. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 15:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe the additional material made it substantially different from the previous incarnation, and apparently neither did the closing admin. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• comment If the article is as horrible as it detractors say then surely sll they have to do is wait a little while and start a new AfD, untainted by spurrious claims of some kind of policy breach , dealing with whatever issues the article has at that point? I simply do not understand the rush. Artw (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• If the article were allowed to stand unmolested, then people could keep contributing more text and examples and illos and citations and corrections and cleanup, and it would be harder to justify "deletion, no matter what route we take to get there." Understand now? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• 'Endorse both closure and deletion, per Verbal and Bali Ultimate. This was a recreation as an endrun in lieu of a DRV. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• How could it be "in lieu of a DRV" when there was a DRV? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Restore per accurate determination of no consensus. Closer's logic doesn't make sense; current community opinion, even one resulting in a lack of consensus, should supersede older outcome, especially given the intervening DRV. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn "no consensus" to "consensus to delete" per Dori. Also, recognize that the recreated article kept all the weaknesses of Human suit, while making additions that only aggravated the offenses against WP:SYN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The topic itself is original research and cannot serve as the basis for a verifiable article in the true and accepted sense of that term (reliable sources that identify an object of knowledge that matches the scope of the article). Wareh (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion It was a train-wreck of an article full of OR and Fancruft. Furthermore attempts were made to disrupt a previous article by cloning the article under a different title, leading us to this to begin with. Simonm223 (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus, but overturn delete I did !vote in this AfD to keep, but irrelevant of that, the default is to keep and I'd argue with any attempt to default to delete outside of the very narrow case of BLPs where the subject requests deletion no matter how I !voted in the AfD. Hobit (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete I endorse the result but not the process taken. The admin was within his interpretive leeway to delete the article, as all the keep opinions were either weak or refuted and a recently closed similiar debate ended in a delete, but I'm not sure why he chose the awkward "no consensus" close which practically asked the article to be brought here. Also, per Wareh. ThemFromSpace 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: read the admins full rationale; in his opinion at least, all of the keep arguments were not refuted, as he said both sides had both strong and weak arguments, which lead to the no consensus. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse no consensus, overturn delete and default to keep. Deleting no-consensus articles is usually a breach of current WP:DEL policy -only known exception is for no-consensus BLP articles where the subject explicitly asks deletion. Paraphrasing the AfD closing admin, the "status quo" for the article was it existing. The fact it has been previously deleted is irrelevant: we cannot cherry-pick the "status quo" that we prefer. We should refer to the existing condition before the closure of AfD. --Cyclopia^talk 14:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: With all the "endorse but restore" and the "overturn and keep deleted" comments, I can't help but realize this DRV is turning into a second AfD. Editors aren't here to say whether the article should be kept or deleted but whether they endorse the closer's verdict or want it overturned. Geez, people! :) --Ramdrake (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, we are arguing that the admin read consensus correctly (specifically that there was no consensus), but was mistaken in the action taken in light of that lack of consensus. The policy is that we keep things there is no consensus to delete. The closer made a good faith closure that argued that in this case we should default to deletion. Those !voting to endorse and restore are claiming that the closer's argument if flawed. It's exactly what DrV should be doing. Hobit (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Then, if an admin did the wrong thing, shouldn't this be at WP:ANI? A DRV is to state whether we endorse or want overturned an admin's verdict. It's not made to pick and choose which parts of an admin's assessment we want (no consensus vs. deletion). My point is, this argumentation should not be taking place at a DRV.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • If the admin had done it to make a point or otherwise disrupt things, ANI would be the right place to hold this discussion. Instead folks are arguing that the close is flawed and are seeking to correct it. That' pretty much the mandate of DrV. There is no reason why the outcome from DrV needs to entirely overturn or endorse. Hobit (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, no. From WP:DRV:

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

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

• Nowhere does it says it is the place to argue if the closer interpreted the debate correctly but we disagree with what he did with the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If he is saying there is no consensus and then deleting the article despite that, it becomes a de facto ignore-all-rules speedy. That is definitely in the purview of DRV. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with the majority here who endorse the no consensus closure and request an overturn of the deletion so as to be consistent with our guidelines, as determined by community consensus. This is not the same article as human suit; was subject to a DRV after an improper G4 deletion; and was subject to only one AfD where the clear outcome was no consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn finding of 'no consensus' (per WT:Articles for deletion/Human disguise#Was there a consensus? & Dori) and endorse deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dori's "Was there a consensus?" is a table by a partisan of one side of the debate which declares all !votes from the other side invalid as contra-policy, and therefore consensus favors her side, huzza huzza. That's self-dealing in its most blatant form. And you're urging us to adopt it???! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: that I've re-characterized Sizzle Flambé's !vote to try to make him happier. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 10:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't want you to "re-characterize" my !vote, or anyone's at all, especially in a false light. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn No consensus should default to keep for practical reasons. Because there is no consensus for deletion, there is no bar to immediate recreation of the article and so deletion will achieve little but disruption. It is better in such cases to keep the article in mainspace so that editors may more easily discuss and improve it. Either the article will be improved further and the pressure to delete will subside or it will not and it will be renominated for deletion after a reasonable time for improvement has elapsed. Defaulting to delete is therefore both impractical and improper and this is emphatically summarised in the deletion guidelines for administrators: When in doubt, don't delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to Delete (thus, endorse outcome) as above. Eusebeus (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Creating a table detailing your contentious opinions on which votes do and do not count (while handily sweeping other discussion under the carpet) would seem to go against the drama-free zone rules of DrV. I suggest it be deleted immediately. Artw (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment "Assume Good Faith" is such a basic requirement of the collegiality of Wikipedia that acting in good faith should also be an obvious requirement. With this in mind, I am baffled by the recent events of this issue. "No consensus - default to delete", followed by card stacking to toss all the "keep" !votes and revise the results as a delete consensus (by one of the delete partisans, not an impartial 3rd party, of course). Is this a trend at Wikipedia? Is this becoming acceptable behavior? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Based on the above analysis, it is pretty clear that the keep arguments were far stronger and thus if we went by strength and accuracy of arguments, it should actually be overturned to "keep," as the article is clearly discriminate, non-trivial, unoriginal research, that passes multiple guidelines, policies, and essays. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Undelete I don't care whether the analysis was no consensus or keep. What was obvious was that there was no consensus to delete. My discussion also made plain that the term "disguised as a human" is clearly discussed in academic literature on any basic 30 second source search on scholar.google.com. These claims, being repeated at DRV, that there are no sources for the analysis of this theme in the global history of literature is plainly falise. There are entire books on the subject. Miami33139 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please provide a link to one such "entire book on the subject", or at least a reference. I know of none, and that is my only problem with the existence of the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology has repeated and recurring discussions of the commonality of gods and monsters appearing in human form across cultures and into modern representations in film and literature. Joseph Campbell is not even obscure. Miami33139 (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Or lesser journal articles like "Divine Disguisings"; "The Disguises of the Gods in the Iliad"; and "The Folklore of the Stranger". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
        • (And Ramdrake was good as his word!) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and reclose - in my opinion the current close - whilst undoubtably well meaning - is not acceptable per the current practices and norms of the AfD process. Guest9999 (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This is a perfectly plausible interpretation of "no consensus". Furthermore, the arguments for deletion were more valid, as noted above so there is no need to argue technicalities. Triplestop x3 02:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please see WP:DPR#AFD and WP:AFD#How an AfD discussion is closed for what is the "perfectly plausible interpretation of 'no consensus'". Thanks. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• And please read my words above more carefully. Thanks. And by your logic articles should not default to delete due to BLP concerns. This close was within admin discretion. Triplestop x3 04:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• To date no gods, demons, aliens, or robots, disguised as humans, have filed article deletion requests on BLP grounds, as far as I know. That would drastically change the situation. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Carol Heifetz Neiman (closed)

[edit] Doug Fields

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

I believe User:NuclearWarfare prematurely deleted this established article, which had been posted for nearly a year, without establishing clear consensus. I and other users had repeatedly added legitimate sources, Field's published books, etc. to show notability, yet most of these were deleted by other users for no clear reason. Then someone nominated the article for deletion with only 5 or 6 people voting (4-2 or something), and because most of sources were deleted by then, User:NuclearWarfare decided to delete the article within a week, even though only 6 people had voted. A simple Google search of Fields yields dozens of sources, clearly confirming his notability as one of the world's premier youth ministry experts, authors (he has over 50 published books), and consultants. I did discuss the situation with User:NuclearWarfare prior to appealing his decision here. Flavius Constantine (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please could an admin restore the history of the article so that we may verify Flavius' words.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per my rational here. I will, again, suggest the article be userfied and sources be added before the article is reinstated into mainspace. The deletion has a clear consensus for Delete, hence my endorse. However, it is debatable whether an article should exist; this is not the correct forum for such a discussion sans a draft. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The nominator's allegations mean we need to look further than just at the AfD, NocturneNoir. Effectively, the case being presented is that reliable sources were provided, but were removed prior to the AfD. If true, this would indeed fall within DRV's purview, because it would suggest that the consensus was unsafe, having been grounded on a poor version of the article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Seeing as the page has been restored, I've taken the liberty of looking at the article's history and examining the references added. This edit does not add a single reliable source that establishes notability; three are affiliated with Mr. Fields; Amazon does not establish notability; newreleasetuesday is user-edited. This edit adds several more Amazon sources, a blog (not reliable) and what appears to be a reliable source. These sources are as follows: this does not seem reliable. This is a Barnes and Noble search. This is reliable. Now that we've clarified these sources, it seems the AfD was done in good faith and was properly conducted.
      Back to my original point; He seems notable. Sources provided point otherwise. Result? A legitimate deletion. My suggestion? Ignore sourcing requirements for notability guidelines. We know he's done what he's done. The only problem is that his actions are not verifiable with reliable sources. Frankly, I agree with Sphilbrick. Endorse deletion but support recreation. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 22:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• I participated in the Afd, so while my view is that the article should not have been deleted, this is not additional input beyond that of the original Afd. In the interest of full disclosure, I have corresponded with Falvius on talk pages, but I had not interacted prior to seeing the AfD. (I also !voted on another article created by Flavius, but that occurred later.) I asked him to notify me if he filed for wp:DR, so his note to me should not be viewed as canvassing.

I've read the Notability rules, and understand this is a close call. The Google search material is surprisingly light for someone whose claim to notability seems so solid.

In the case of close calls, I think it is useful to think about the thought process behind having any limitations. Despite the fact that space is not a real constraint, we've (sensibly) decided not to be an indiscriminate collection of everything. You may be Suzie's bff, but that doesn't warrant an article. If you and your buddies jam in the garage, and actually had a paying gig once—not enough. In order not to be arbitrary, we insist that articles cover notable subjects. In the case of people, I interpret that to mean, not god enough if the people that might want to look you up are your friends, family or colleagues. However, if there's a decent chance people outside that list are likely to turn to an encyclopedia to find out information about you, then perhaps you belong.

I think someone who has been one of the major pastors at one of the largest churches in the US qualifies. Someone who has 50 published books is not fringe.--SPhilbrickT 20:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you to Nuclear Warfare for restoring the article temporarily.

  A key factor in my assessment of this is that we're dealing with a biography of a living person. The mood on Wikipedia is swinging against those at the moment. I think the swing is going too far, but I also need to recognise that there really is a widespread feeling that articles about living people need to have absolutely impeccable sources if they're to be kept.

  I can see that EEMIV removed a number of references from the article during the AfD,and so did Orlady. I think they gave clear reasons for removing those references, and if they had been left in, I just don't think those references would have been enough to swing the debate in favour of "keep".

  In this instance, I'm going to endorse NuclearWarfare's closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. The arguments revolved around whether Fields passed WP:BIO, and NW appears to have correctly ignored the numbers and based the decision on the strength of the arguments. Kevin (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Reccomend Incubation at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Doug Fields without prejudice toward article's return to mainspace if the article is improved enough to address the concerns of the AfD. If not, it will go. If improved, the project will benefit. Its a win-win. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. As a participant in the AfD, I think NuclearWarfare made a valid decision, although it might have nice to have had more participants in the discussion. FWIW, my "delete" statement in the AfD was not based on WP:BIO, but rather on not meeting the General Notability Guideline. Considering the number of copies that his books apparently have sold, I have a hunch that he probably would pass WP:BIO -- if only he passed the GNG. I spent a fair amount of time searching for third-party WP:RS coverage that could be considered substantial, and I found none. The only content about him that I found in third-party RS sources was the brief item saying that he had left the Saddleback Church. Multiple publications of a press release saying that a person left his job aren't enough to make that person notable.
  Also, FWIW, I did not delete any references from the article. My only edit to the article was to delete details about his kids, which I did on WP:BLP grounds. --Orlady (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Apologies to Orlady: you're quite right. I was mistaken.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Orlady, a person has to pass either BIO or GNG, not both. Tbat's why we have the specialised guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not either-or. Passing the GNG is necessary (for one thing, when there are no sources independent of the person who is the subject of the article, there is no basis for assessing WP:BIO), but not sufficient to qualify a topic for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not publish articles about people merely because they pass the GNG. I have been the subject of multiple published articles written by third parties, but I am not notable according to WP:BIO. The same is true many high school and university athletes who have been profiled in local news media, but do not pass WP:ATHLETE. --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

yes it certain is either-or, except to the degree limited by WP:NOT, WP:BLP and other policies. We do not require an athlete , for example, to both have competed in the Olympics and meet the GNG, as long as we can verify that he competed. At the moment we exclude local athletes by a special interpretation of WP:LOCAL requiring more than local sources for notability. This is an inconsistent special policy that I think justified, but we will sooner or later have to do something better than the practice of inconsistently piling on special rules to correct inadequate generalities. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• comment2 if recreating the article, it will need to be rewritten from scratch--the deleted articles is a very close paraphrase of the subjects website--so close that it's close to a G12 speedy for copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closure was correct. When notability is in question, with limited exceptions, sourcing is key. Neither the sources removed from the article nor those not removed demonstrate notability. Arguments for deletion was not sufficiently rebutted. Therefore, closure was in line with consensus. No objections to recreation if it can be demonstrated that the subject passes WP:AUTHOR. Tim Song (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Alleged bomb-maker instructing recruits.jpg

File:Alleged bomb-maker instructing recruits.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

This file was a screenshot from a 60 minutes broadcast. During that 60 minutes segment CBS broadcast clips from several videotapes. One videotape was taken by GIs who had destroyed and captured a compound used by militants. Another videotape, the one this image was taken from, was found in the rubble of the destroyed compound. The clips from this tape showed the construction and placement of IEDs. At the time I uploaded this image I did not realize that the CBS logo was itself copyright, and should be blacked out from otherwise free images we upload. At the time I uploaded the image I did not realize that Afghanistan had no domestic copyright law, and was not a signatory to any international copyright law. If I had known that I would have uploaded this image directly to the commons. This image was speedy deleted by an administrator who did not take any steps to inform anyone that the image had been deleted. When asking about this image I suggested to the deleting administrator that the logo itself was an insufficient reason to delete the image, when blacking out the CBS logo from this otherwise PD image was so trivial. The deleting administrator has made several inconsistent claims about their deletion. They have claimed it made invalid use of Template:Non-free USGov-IEEPA sanctions. They have also claimed it made invalid use of Commons:Template:Archive-Mujahideen. I requested the deleting administrator tell me what text I had supplied for the image when I first uploaded it. You can see our discussion here. What I would like would be for the image, and its revision history, to be restored long enough to review whether it really should be copied to the commons under Template:PD-Afghanistan. Geo Swan (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• An admin may be prepared to email it to you. Where there's a copyright concern, an image would not normally be restored to Wikipedia, for reasons that I think you'll understand.

  Is it strictly necessary to hold a full deletion review discussion here? You don't seem to be asking for one.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• It will be more useful at Commons in any case. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I too believe it would be more useful at the Commons. I believe it is eligible for inclusion at the Commons. We know the image's provenance. If the image can be moved to the commons without going through a full deletion review here, I have no problem with that. If, however, the fact that it was deleted here, and the deletion review was not completed, is going to pose a problem for the image's inclusion on the commons I would prefer that full deletion review to happen.

  Brief review of the provenance. The OC-1 CITF witness report says an incriminating videotape was found on 2002-07-28 in the ruins of a compound in Gardez, Afghanistan, destroyed by American aerial bombardment on 2002-07-27. The OC-1 CITF witness report says that American forces who were on site who reviewed the videotape confirmed that landmarks visible on the tape confirmed it was shot in the local vicinity of the destroyed compound. Five or so years later the CBS show 60 minutes did a segment on the firefight, and that segment included clips from two videotapes -- one made by the GIs, for their after-action report, and the other identified in the 60 minutes segment as the one captured in the ruins of the building. The DoD had released these tapes to the media. I interpret this release to the media by the DoD as the tapes' first publication. This image was a screen-capture from the tape unearthed in the ruined compound. Geo Swan (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • • If no admin comes back to indicate that either (a) they have sent a copy of the image to Geo Swan or (b) they have judged it inappropriate to do so, then please would the closer relist.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have sent the text associated with the image to Geo Swan. The image itself is a scrawny little thing 194 pixels wide so I am unconvinced it is very useful. The 60 minutes logo would be too simple for copyright. Can geo swan take uuencoded files? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] template:$

template:$ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Head count rather than an examination of the arguments. This diff also seems to have messed up the primary keep argument, which meant the closing admin might have missed it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Relist, solely on the ground that the result of the debate is unsafe when, in the middle of the debate, both the nomination statement and the principal keep argument were changed dramatically without either user's consent, such that a significant part of the nomination is removed and replaced by the keep argument. Tim Song (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'm sure Killiondude will be along shortly, and perhaps at that time he will be able to tell us whether or not he considered the entire argument as presented by thumperward. If he can confirm this, then I think we have an endorse, since there was consensus to delete. I do recognise the logic behind assuming that "$" should default to the US currency on the English Wikipedia, but it appears to run contrary to WP:CSB, and if I were a Canadian, Australian, New Zealander or whatever, I should think I would find such a default a little irritating.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Problem is that the change made the nomination statement artificially weak - indeed, it appears to be supporting keeping rather than deleting. It is impossible to tell if other people would have commented but for the change, which is the basis of my !vote. But I fully agree that if we have to judge the debate as it stands, the close should be endorsed. Tim Song (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Ugh. Yes, I do see that. It's a fair point. I would still tend to think Drilnoth's argument ought to have been strong enough to carry the day, but there's a definite procedural irregularity to consider. I'd still like to hear from Killiondude before I commit myself to any words in bold face.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• I wasn't aware at the time of closing that others' comments had been modified, no. I was slightly confused by the nominator's rationale, but I didn't consider the fact that it might have accidentally been altered. I'm not too entirely familiar with the DRV process, but I wouldn't mind if you guys wanted to relist the debate. Killiondude (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Relist, then, is pretty much the only outcome available to us. Thanks Killiondude.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Relist; the rationale alteration is pretty disconcerting and by itself a good enough reason to relist. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 21:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm surprised {{dollarsign}} wasn't mentioned. It does what both templates would do. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Relist Like Tim song, I think I would !vote to delete, because of the use of "$" in many non-US english speaking countries, all of which are part of our primary constituency. But the discussion needs to be done over--it's simple enough. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Relist per Song.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Game Show Congress

Game Show Congress (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Testing Recall About Strange Happenings (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Improper speedy delete. This and another page, Testing Recall About Strange Happenings, were zapped today through improper A7ing. A7 is to be used for "an organization... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." Game Show Congress is the industry/fan trade show, and A7'ing it is like A7'ing E3 or Comic-Con or SIGGRAPH. TRASH is one of the four major national quiz bowl organizations, along with CBCI, NAQT, and ACF (see, for example, Chapter 3 of Ken Jennings's book Brainiac). As best I can tell, User:TenPoundHammer decided to wipe both of these notable organizations from the encyclopedia today, and was aided by administrator User:Jéské Couriano. In the case of the latter article, TenPoundHammer posted the speedy nom notification to my talk page on the latter article at 15:21, and I promptly placed a {{hangon}} tag sometime before the article was deleted at by Jéské Couriano at 16:00. In the case of the Game Show Congress article, TenPoundHammer nominated the article for deletion at 16:02, Jéské Couriano deleted it at 16:03, and by 16:06 TenPoundHammer removed the deletion notification from the article's creator's talk page. [9] Speedy deletions are supposed to be speedy, but this is a subversion of the process, especially when both articles clearly indicated the importance of their subjects. Even if either article had sourcing problems, poor sourcing does not make for a prima facie case of A7 deletion (see above). I made attempts to resolve the issue with the administrator Jéské Couriano, but was unsuccessful. I contend that the subjects are notable, but that is not the instant issue here. The issue is whether the articles were properly deleted by A7 and whether they deserve to be discussed in an AfD. Thanks. Robert K S (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• User conduct issues are outside DRV's jurisdiction. While I understand nom's understandable frustration, I respectfully suggest that the nomination be refactored to remove the statements not directly related to the actual merits of the deletions at issue. DRV is explicitly a drama-free zone.

  On the merits, overturn both speedies, and send to AfD. Each article contains a plausible indication of significance, sufficient to pass A7, crappy sourcing notwithstanding. Testing Recall About Strange Happenings is, according to the article, national in scope and also includes multiple regional tournaments. Game Show Congress is attended by multiple notable people each year. These assertions cannot and do not establish notability, of course, but they are sufficient to clear the low hurdle of A7. Further debates of sourcing issues should occur at AfD. Tim Song (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Taking your suggestion on refactoring into account (thanks), I have reworded one portion of the above; the rest remains to indicate that the DRV request is proper insofar as it follows the prerequisite step ("Before listing a review request: discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first"). Robert K S (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AFD. I asked other administrators, both of whom agreed that these met A7 at the time, but given some flak I have taken at another message board, I will be willing to ask for the A7 to be overturned. I still don't think either one would survive here, but you never know. On the other hand, I don't think that using instant messaging to ask for an admin to delete something is any more out of line than, say, asking the same thing of an admin via IRC (which happens literally all the time). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 06:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn Asking for deletions on IRC or instant messaging are equally out of line except in clear G10 cases or BLP vios. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Whoa, Spartaz, hold your horses. There's no reason at all why a user should not communicate with an administrator off-Wiki, nor make requests of that administrator off-wiki; and even if we did have a rule that said that, it would be totally unenforceable. I do not think there is any respect in which Ten Pound Hammer is at fault. The administrator who replies to the request is supposed to consider it carefully and follow due process, and I think we should await Jeske's explanation of his actions before deciding to overturn. There may be some factor of which we were not aware.

  However, if Jeske chooses not to appear here, my default position in the absence of an explanation is overturn per Tim Song.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  • (later) The answer having arrived, I see that a "hangon" tag was placed on TRASH but Jeske did not see it. This seems sufficient to say there is some doubt over the speedy, so my position must be overturn and list at AfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sure TPH meant no harm and I know that they have the best interests of the project at heart and I generally agree with their view of deletion but this really is a red line for me. If this was a request for someone to support a discussion it would be canvassing. It it were a request for a block it would be against the express findings of the arbitration committee that requesting blocks off wiki is unacceptable. Frankly CSD is supposed to have a safety valve of an independant admin checking the requests but if you request an admin of your own choice to review it then you are introducing a degree of predetermination that bypasses the only check that there is on CSD. This isnt meant as criticism of either party as I have great respect for either but I genuinely feel for the reasons I gave that soliciting speedy deletion off-wiki is unacceptable except for G10 or BLP cases. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I can understand that position, and I have some sympathy with it, but I wonder to what extent there's any point in making a rule that we really couldn't enforce. I also wonder whether establishing such a rule would be within DRV's scope.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • DRV clearly isn't the place to establish any rule, its a place for appeal nor a policy forum but enforceable or not its still the right way to approach these things in my opinion but I'm definitely not having a go at either the tagger or the deleting admin over this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Another contributor asserts: There's no reason at all why a user should not communicate with an administrator off-Wiki, nor make requests of that administrator off-wiki; and even if we did have a rule that said that, it would be totally unenforceable. I couldn't disagree more strongly. While there are exceptional circumstances when someone should make a request off-wiki, in general complying with off-wiki requests seriously erode the principle that administrators exercise the authority entrusted in them in an open, transparent, responsible manner. My advice to administrators who receive off-wiki requests is that if the request does not contain a credible explanation as to why the request is delivered off-wiki, the administrator tell the requester how to make the request through our ordinary channels. When the requester thinks an article is a candidate for speedy deletion the administrator should direct them to WP:CSD, and suggest the requestor apply an appropriate tag. Some inexperienced contributors email administrators with requests. Telling them of the proper channels helps them become better, more experienced contributors. And if the requester follows WP:CSD then it will be their responsibility to leave the heads-up on the article creators talk page. Some experienced contributors make their requests off-wiki because they are gaming our system, and wish to avoid establishing an audit trail of activities that would otherwise show a pattern of vandalism, harrassment or POV-pushing. Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn due to failure to follow established procedure, and improper use of the WP:CSD#A7 clause. Geo Swan (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• I took a look at the deleted TRASH article after seeing a thread on TPH's talk page; my view was that the A7 was in fact reasonable; no sources, no claims of notability other than taking place in a few different places around the country, and the article suggests they use an old Extreme Championship Wrestling title belt as their trophy. It all added up to a big "wtf?" from my point of view, and to me the tagging was appropriate. I quite honestly have no problem with the process that was followed afterwards; it's not like TPH pinged Jeske off-Wiki and said "hey, delete this, willya?" without tagging it - he just sped up the process by pointing it out to someone he was in contact with. Stuff can linger at CSD sometimes - I've had it happen many times. Had I come across it tagged as an A7, I likely would have deleted it as well. So, endorse its deletion. As for Game Show Congress, TPH asked me to review the article and determine whether his request on that was appropriate; I looked it over and felt that it had some indications of notability that should probably be discussed at AFD, but with a lack of sources I don't think it will go very far. Overturn and list at AFD on that one. Again, I feel that as TPH tagged the articles appropriately as he felt it, his discussions with Jeske could be considered similar to someone posting to the Admin Noticeboard saying that CSD is backlogged - it puts the information into an admin's hands, and it's then up to the admin to decide whether the deletion is appropriate or not. I don't see an actual failure to follow procedure here. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn Game Show Congress, no opinion on the other. The fact that the Game Show Congress is attended by major industry figures (Bob Barker, Betty White, Dick Clark) pushes it well out of speedy range. No strong opinion on TRASH, though I'd likely vote to delete if I saw it at AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• I deleted both of them after assessing them myself and felt that neither passed muster as far as notability went. In the case of TRASH nom yelled at me for ignoring a hangon tag which I never saw because I was at the deletion page when he posted it (TenPoundHammer reverted it) and he never used the talk page to give the hangon rationale; just stated that the article couldn't be deleted via A7. As far as Game Show Congress, the only sources I saw were primary ones on that page, nothing really there establishing notability. I specifically have told TenPoundHammer never to bring me stuff he wants deleted unless he has a legitimate rationale (legit CSD tag or an AfD ending "delete"), and I'm not averse to telling him to take a deletion attempt elsewhere. No comment on the articles. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 21:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • As stated several times before (and not acknowledged by the deleting parties), notability and verifiability are not part of the A7 threshold. Speedy should be for spam and articles created by teenagers for their personal amusement and vanity BLPs with no credible claim of significance or importance. Speedy ought to be like the rollback of deletions--it shouldn't be used unless it's prima facie clear to anyone why the deletions ought to have been made. Also, I don't see what the need for being quite so speedy is unless the articles are clearly detracting from the encyclopedia. Only in cases of emergencies should we really be seeing speedies that have a 4-minute turnover. That's not due process. Robert K S (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn both. If anyone objects to the speedy delete, you should send it to an AFD. Dream Focus 23:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• So when some putzfuture contributor slaps a 'hangon' onto his article about his buddy who's "so awsum lol" and who's the school champion at "doin gurlz" I should refuse the speedy and go to AFD? One word: No. The "hangon" tag is there as an indicator that someone has a reasoning for the speedy to be halted; it's not a get-out-of-deletion-free card, and never has been. If I see a hangon on an article that doesn't meet guidelines, I delete anyhow. These deletions were within policy, AFAIK. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• The meaning of "hangon" is clear: "please hang on for more to be posted to the talk page". The encyclopedia is based on consensus and it is possible that an administrator may miss the significance of a subject. Robert K S (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I never saw the hangon tag for TRASH, Dream Focus. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 00:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion of Game Show Congress. I am able to see the article as it has been userfied and so can also see that the 2-year-old article does indeed have assertions of notability. So, with respects to TPH, I do not feel A7 applied in this instance, as CSD:A7 specifically "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." I am unable to see the TRASH article, so am currently unable to opine as to whether or not that one qualified as A7 or not. Anyone care to return it temporarily? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Restored for DRV purposes per Schmidt's request. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 01:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Recently deleted articles are often in the google cache. There's a handy link up there. Tim Song (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ahhh... Overturn TRASH as well, as it also makes assertions of notability and CSD:A7 does not apply to it either. While I'm happy to see that User:Jéské Couriano deleted in good faith, and while both might yet be sent to AfD for sources, the tags were in fact incorrect. And also accepting the good faith of TPH in his tagging, again... the A7 tags were not applicable. The articles should have been sent to AfD if not thought notable. And thanks very much for restoring it so I could look. NOTE: I left a note on User:Robert K S's talk page indicating that The GSC article can and should be sourced to prevent a deletion if AfD is sought. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn. As someone who has attended TRASHionals competitions, I can say that they do have a national scope. The three I participated in had over 60 teams from across the country. Admittedly, the number of people interested is relatively small, even among the quiz bowl community, the nature of the topics covered (music, movies, sports, popular literature, video games) makes it appealing to many. The article clearly needs improvement, but being poorly written and sourced doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted. It is, after all, still operating, unlike CBI. As noted above, Ken Jennings mentions it in his book about competitive trivia. And I know that someone at the 2002 competition in Ann Arbor was filming a documentary about it (though, I don't know what became of that).--Jdhutch (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Upcoming TRASH Regional Tournaments, and similarly-formatted, unaffiliated tournaments can be found here[10].Jdhutch (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn, per Swan Song (sorry about that guys--had to do it).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Can't you do better? That's not even funny. Tim Song (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I can't. That's the reasons for the apology. Which I repeat.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn deletions of both articles. I see at least three procedural problems that occurred in regard to these deletions. First, editors should normally not make off-wiki requests, on IM, IRC, or anywhere else, to administrators to perform a speedy deletion; rather, the editor who places a speedy delete tag on an article should wait for any admin to review the speedy deletion and make the decision to speedily delete or not. These articles did not involve threats of violence, libel, or any other type of content which had to be rushed off of Wikipedia. If I had been the reviewing admin, I might well have removed the speedy tags with an edit summary of "Article asserts notability; if deletion is still desired, use WP:AFD instead." Maybe we can't stop editors from making off-wiki requests for deletions, but we can still discourage them. Second, the editor who places a speedy deletion tag on an article should not remove any "hangon" tag that is placed there, as happened with the TRASH article. Rather, the editor who placed the speedy tag should allow the reviewing admin to consider whatever the reasons for the hangon were. Those reasons may be good or bad, but that is for the reviewing admin to decide. (Note, however, that I agree with Tony Fox that the reviewing admin can speedily delete an article if they believe there is insufficient justification for the hangon.) Third, I don't understand why the editor who requested speedy deletion would notify the article creator on their talk page, but then remove the notification four minutes later. What was the chance the article creator would have had time to see the message during that four-minute period? If the notice had been kept, at least the article creator might eventually have seen the notice and found out that Game Show Congress had been deleted through the speedy deletion process. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

*Overturn both per procedural snafus.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Now you are double voting :) Tim Song (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wow -- how did I do that? At least I voted the same way! Thanks Tim. Sorry all.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jealousy Curve (closed)

[edit] 3 November 2009

[edit] Nemu64

Nemu64 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

There were far too few editor involved in the afd. Emulator notability can be confusing at times due to the lack of "reliable" sources. However, sources such as emulation zone, emulatorpro, and VG Network are reliable in this area. This was not taken into consideration. Also the creator of the page was not informed of this AfD which means I was not able to defend my article. Overturn and relist this subject AfD need to have direct input from people who are members of the video game project. Finally this emulator was among the first emulators and is apart of N64 emulation history. This emulator is no less notable than Mupen64, Project 64, and Ultrahle. Please relist Valoem ^talk 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. The debate was closed 171 hours and 24 minutes after it was listed. Nothing suggests that the deletion process was not properly followed. On the merits, the debate could not have been closed any other way. While it might be optimal to notify the creator, it is not required, and a failure to notify does not invalidate the AfD. As to notability, is there a WP:EMULATOR? I don't think so. WP:GNG is the relevant guideline here, and nothing suggests that it was not properly applied. Tim Song (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Response You are correct however I was not informed of the AfD and was therefore unable to successfully defend my article which was written over 2 years ago. If we could restore the article I can assure you that in the scope of emulation, this emulator is notable. Did you view the other emulation articles? This emulator is no less notable than those. There were serveral citations on the page prior to deletion. The sources for the article can be found on emulation zone and other emulation pages independent to the creators of this software. To find sources from NYTimes, CNN, etc., for such an esoteric genre is hardly expected. Valoem ^talk 20:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse – correct read of consensus by closing admin. Also, it was listed at WP:VG/D. Also, what "different set of notability criteria", because I haven't heard of it. MuZemike 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Could you please show me where is was posted in WP:VG/D? Also no emulator pass the official criteria for WP:N. They pass through sub sources specific to their genre i.e. Emulation zone. Therefore all emulator articles should be deleted according to GNG despite the fact that the sources are reliable albeit trivial. We would be removing massive information what is wikipedia for if not for information? Valoem ^talk 20:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • [11] MuZemike 21:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse close but userfy and allow for improvement. User:TTN redirected a ton of these articles while using an edit summary implying he was "merging" but he didn't actually merge anything. When many of the articles were unredirected by various editors (a reasonable course of action as far as I'm concerned) he would nominate them for deletion. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • See [12] and [13] for just a couple of these. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Juliancolton did read the consensus correctly as far as I can tell, but the discussion itself certainly left a lot to be desired. The nomination was about "assertion of notability". "Assertion of notability" is a CSD criterion and not a reason to delete at AfD. Two of the three !votes should be disregarded because they referred to CSD criteria and do not seem to have made any attempt at all to evaluate the sources. This leaves the third !vote, which appears to have been entirely valid within Wikipedia's criteria, and no doubt was the sole basis of Juliancolton's close.

  It would be possible to argue that this article should have been relisted on the basis of only having one valid opinion, but I think Juliancolton was within his discretion here and it would not be appropriate for us to overturn him.

  I endorse this decision, but I also want to say specifically that I do not object to Tothwolf's suggestion that the article should be userfied for improvement.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• The article I wrote was wikified and cited by several sources. It was as well written as any other emulation article. However it is hard for me to defend my position without my article restored. Does anyone not see the flaw in DRV? Valoem ^talk 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If you need to see the article, an admin will temporarily restore it for you for the duration of the DRV; you need only ask. (Exception: Certain kinds of copyvio, or material that could cause harm to living persons, would not typically be restored, but that doesn't apply here.)

    For the avoidance of doubt, I hereby request temporary restoration of the article for DRV purposes so that Valoem can defend his position.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  • It is not your article. Once you hit that "save page" button, it becomes the community's article. MuZemike 19:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • I did ask [14], but it was ignored. Valoem ^talk 19:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Just a note to say that though the article is now a bluelink, the history remains invisible.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
        • ... and the history is still invisible, which means Valoem's complaint is starting to look rather justified.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Requested undeletion for userfication and review at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. [15] --Tothwolf (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Thank you for the restore I will be working on this article later in the day once i get home. Valoem ^talk 19:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
            • I've added 3 more sources and wified a bit ill continue to work on this article. Valoem ^talk 17:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lindy Scott

Lindy Scott (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Subject is notable per [16] and [17] Subject is a defeated candidate for a congressional primary and I would like to recover the deleted content before re-creating article. — goethean ॐ 17:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• If you just need the original text, you'll probably get better response time at WP:REFUND. Tim Song (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Restore Not a candidate for speedy A7 . A claim that someone is a professor at a college is a claim of possible importance; whether it will hold by WP:PROF will depend upon the publication record--and whether the candidacy will hold on WP:BIO depends upon the sources found. But either of these is enough to make it an invalid speedy. Perhaps the deleting admin would have restored it had you asked, because they seem to have been going under the assumption that a defeated candidate is never notable, or else that sources for notability have to be present, whereas there just has to be an indication of it. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Restore. I'm unclear as to whether this would survive AfD, but I do see an assertion of notability such that I would have declined the speedy deletion. Kevin (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Banhammer (closed)

[edit] World Club Challenge winners templates

Template:Melbourne Storm - 2000 World Club Challenge winners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Template:St Helens - 2001 World Club Challenge winners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Template:Sydney Roosters - 2003 World Club Challenge Winners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Template:Leeds Rhinos - 2005 World Club Challenge Winners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Template:St Helens - 2007 World Club Challenge winners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Template:Leeds Rhinos - 2008 World Club Challenge Winners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Templates detailing the team that won the World Club challenge.Lando09 (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Links fixed. Deleting admin notified. Tim Song (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• What is the rationale for bringing this to DRV? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That they were deleted and as the biggest club trophy available in World Club rugby league that it deserves to return, I'm frankly a little shocked that someone would delete it.Lando09 (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You need something a little more explicit then "I don't like it" for the deletion to be overturned. Is there a reason why the deletion was out of process? Was there a discussion somewhere you can point us too? Maybe you were courteous enough to discuss the deletion with the admin that did it to find out the reasons for the action? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hum. Nihonjoe deleted those under G6 ("Uncontroversial deletions"), and the act of raising this DRV is in itself sufficient to show that the deletion was controversial. Therefore, the speedy deletion cannot stand. QED.

  There may be a discussion to be had about whether these templates are appropriate, so we should also specify that this is a procedural overturn and there is no prejudice against a subsequent TfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn That these were deleted speedy is just plain wrong, and unless we overturn such deletions we have no hope of getting admins to do things right. I see the admin has been just now asked, and he does need time to respond, because I would expect he would realise that himself: G6 is not intended for this sort of use. It is limited to uncontroversial maintenance, and he might possibly have thought it uncontroversial, but I do not see how he could have thought it maintenance. We admins do--all of us-- make errors, but we're usually glad to fix them. . DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at TFD – Let's build a consensus as to whether to keep or delete these templates. MuZemike 23:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: All of the templates were listed as deprecated by User:Skier Dude after being blanked by User:Jeff79 with the comment "deleting redundant template". Based on that, it appeared that they had been combined into another template or the information was merged, so the G6 deletion was general housekeeping. I suggest contacting them and finding out why they tagged them. Please keep in mind that these were deleted well over a month ago, so my memory beyond what I put here is pretty foggy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Skier Dude (talk · contribs) and Jeff79 (talk · contribs) notified. Tim Song (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Puzzled. I'm having trouble reading the history here. TFD templates seem to have been added on April 30, but they were never actually listed at TFD--is that right? In regard to DGG's comment, I think he fails to assume good faith here--assuming that a template that had been blanked for months without anyone noticing was genuinely deprecated seems reasonable. If there is a problem, though, it may be with {{deprecated}}--I'm not sure this template, as currently worded, actually matches policy. Chick Bowen 03:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've modified my comment--it may be a mistake, but its not a wholly unreasonable one. My apologies. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• comment I marked them as deprecated in a semi-regular 'sweep'/survey of User:RussBot/Orphaned templates/001. It appeared at that time that they had been unused for about 3 months, so they were marked as {{deprecated}} on 9/11 and deleted 16 days later as they still weren't being used - no other reason/motivation - just regular cleanup stuff. Skier Dude (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I deleted these. Sorry for not following the procedure. But as I expected, and as mentioned above, no one took any notice because they shouldn't exist. The only person who cares is chronic sockpuppeteer/canvasser User:Londo06 as he's the one who created them. Now he's back as Lando, hence this discussion.--Jeff79 (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• As I understand it you blanked them rather than deleting them? Nevertheless, in view of what you say, I can see no other course for DRV but to confirm that the circumstances surrounding the deletion were irregular, which in turn means the deletion was unsafe and should be listed at TfD. I move for speedy closure on this basis.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, Jeff79 blanked them; he did not delete them (though he may not understand the proper procedure for deletion, or how to delete something and how it differs from blanking). I'm fine if someone wants to speedy close this, undelete them, and then list them at TfD. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Right you are. My understanding of the deletion process wasn't as good then as it is now.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy close and send to TfD per the deleting admin's consent. Tim Song (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Sanderson (closed)

[edit] Jaicko

Jaicko (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

I edited the article to include more prominent information related to the artist, and deleted information that was not referenced on other Wikipedia articles (i.e. "non-notable" producers, and songwriters). Also removed the list of influences as it is debatable if this is relevant to an article about a developing artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewsilb (talk • contribs)

• Comment: malformed DRV fixed. Tim Song (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: userspace draft seems to be at User:Andrewsilb/sandbox. Tim Song (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: this looks like a reliable source. Also this. Tim Song (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion at least until proper references are provided. I said I would abstain from commenting but attempting DRV at this stage is an insult. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hi, not sure which information you think needs further references. All the information in the article can be found at the source link provided in the article. 09:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewsilb (talk • contribs)
• What RHaworth means is that Wikipedia asks for articles to have reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Tim Song has, arguably, provided them, but it would be more orderly for such a discussion to take place at AfD than here.

  An article that includes Tim Song's sources would probably not be speediable.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Restore There is in any case a claim of importance, as having been nominated for awards, so, while it may not not have met WP:N, it did not meet speedy A7. RHaworth, in the state it was in I would either have looked for references, asked for references, or sent to AfD, but not speedy deleted. It never qualified for that. Passing CSD A7 does not require actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thank you DGG for clarifying this. In any case, I have updated the sandbox article for Jaicko, which is located at User:Andrewsilb/sandbox. I have referenced two reliable resources, and added his controlled web sites to a different section, to distinguish between reliable third-party resources and his self-controlled online properties. Would like to see if this now meets Wikipedia standards. Andrewsilb (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Permit recreation. I have no idea whether the deleted version is A7. Doesn't matter here. This version is not speediable. Further sourcing concerns should be discussed at AfD. Tim Song (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Permit recreation per Tim Song. I'd bet it will be deleted at AfD (and the creator needs to be aware of that), but it certainly isn't speedable at this point. Hobit (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quiet Internet Pager

Quiet Internet Pager (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was restored and userfied following a request at WP:REFUND, the author wishes it returned to the article namespace, and the deleting administrator requests community review. Please judge the userspace draft at User:Elk Salmon/Quiet Internet Pager.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted by just 4 votes. 3 never heard of it and 1 was "smooth" reason. It's was proposed as ostensibly non-notable software. But the program de facto holds over 70% of IM market in CIS[18]. It's just market-specific and not known outside of the market. There might be no any more public polls on IMs, but Alexa rank makes it enough clear. Program's official site is 25th in Russia with the worldwide rank of 549. Far ahead, as example, of Trillian (26,464), Miranda IM (20,718) or Pidgin (13,976). We have an article about market-specific Baidu, about market-specific Yandex. We have articles on Trillian, Miranda or Pidgin. But CIS is all up to ICQ, MSN is not present on CIS market at all, Same as like Google is not popular in Russia, Yandex is. Or Firefox and IE are not popular in Russia, Opera is. That's a very specific IT market. And QIP program has very large share worldwide, but just almost no share in west states due to MSN. I find the notability as very high. Elk Salmon (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why there are users that don't understand that we don't need to have previously heard of it. That is what the guidelines are for. Joe Chill (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the current article is enough to satisfy WP:N. You might want to use Google Translate on the non-English sources. Joe Chill (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• It looks pretty marginal to me, and it needs a detailed discussion of the sources. But the proper place for such a discussion is not DRV; the basic purpose of this page is for challenging deletion decisions. Sources should discussed in detail at XFD, not here. I shall say permit re-creation with no prejudice against an AfD if notability is in question.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ugh. What is the proper community forum for judging userfied versions of deleted articles? They're not wanted at WP:REFUND or WP:RM either.  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Now that's a bloody good point. If there's no proper forum, and discussion is needed, then per IAR, any forum will do. Striking my remark and reconsidering.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • The Softpedia and Lenta sources (references number 3 and 4) look good to me. The others, not so much. At the moment I'm tending towards "permit re-creation", but I also feel the article should be trimmed down to those things that can unequivocally be sourced to Softpedia, Lenta or any other reliable source that can be unearthed. In taking this view I had a certain amount of regard for countering systemic bias.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Permit restoration Yes, you could restore it without asking us, see if it was speedy deleted as G4, and then appealed it here, which is the correct formal procedure, but you might as well get the decision now. We are NOT A BUREAUCRACY ` DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Permit restoration I had planned to improve this article myself as I've already done with a number of these that were part of a mass-AfD campaign but if someone else beat me to it, so much the better. This article was part of a mass-AfD that was actually directed at me personally in revenge for tagging prodded articles for the WP:COMP workflow and for sourcing a number of other articles and having them kept at AfD. The irony with this specific article is that it was only loosely related to articles that I had been working on and was merely listed in the same navigational template. The details can be found on a subpage of AN/I here. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You can still improve it. I'm not a proffy of large texts myself. Mind there are also BayanICQ and Ya.Online messengers have no articles at all. First one is among most popular S60 non-MSN IM clients, seconds is Yandex analog of Google Talk. Elk Salmon (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I probably will work on the article at some point. I have a lot of ongoing projects at present and the individual who nominated these for deletion is still initiating more AfDs to "get at me", albeit at a much slower pace. Their most recent AfD nom that they directed at me can be expanded and sourced easily but I have no intentions of participating in that AfD or improving the article while it is at AfD as it will only lead to them canvassing for meatpuppets like last time. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tothwolf, we're here to decide about this particular article. DRV basically makes rulings on whether a particular deletion discussion was closed appropriately. By convention, it's not absolutely restricted to such things, and there have been times when DRV has decided to go beyond those bounds, but it's certainly true that DRV is about content and not conduct. In other words, we can help reverse a particular decision if appropriate, but we cannot help you with any issues with a particular editor. Sorry.

You'll see people opine from time to time that "DRV is explicitly a drama-free zone". What this means is that conduct disputes are best not raised here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a newbie either and I know how both AfD and DRV work. The original AfD itself wasn't done in good faith and I have absolutely no issue at all with someone picking up the pieces from that AfD and fixing that needs to be fixed with the article in question. I won't however remain silent about the larger issue and allow it to slip through the cracks as absolutely nothing has been done to address the AfD nom's behaviour (which is ongoing) and with what originally happened with those mass-AfDs. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• • You sound paranoid. Joe Chill (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• I have insufficient familiarity with software sourcing norms to comment on the article, but I agree with the filing here. A successful DRV would inoculate the article against a G4 speedy. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Stronger sources first, please Lenta and Yandex would suffice our "multiple" and "reliable" requirement, but the mentions there are very small. Miami33139 (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikistalker be gone! --Tothwolf (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It looks to me you won't accept any sources at all. Yandex finds over 10 million pages by QIP request with over 680000 monthly requests[19] comparing to just 77000 monthly requests on Miranda[20], Lenta with a refer to TNS says RBC services has got 14,4 million of unique monthly users, with QIP most popular among them. Just third to Yandex and Mail.ru services. Alexa says qip.ru has got 545 rank worldwide and 24 in Russia. And KanICQ has a massive public poll with over 60000 users voted from Russia, over 70% of them voted for QIP. If this is not strong for you than i guess you won't accept any sources at all. Same goes to S60 phone clients. Agile has got 2900 requests, Nimbuzz 2800 and BayanICQ+БаянICQ has got 5600 close to fring's 8400. Elk Salmon (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:POPULARITY. Numbers and statistical data are great things to have in an article, but they do not establish notability. Notability is the criteria under which the article was deleted and significant sources should be found before it is recreated. Yandex and Lenta are good sources, but they do not provide significant coverage. I have changed my mind in AfD discussions multiple times when new sources have arisen. This isn't one of them. Miami33139 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter what sort of information you present, User:Miami33139 will argue against product reviews and even books that cover the subject no matter what [21] [22] [23] Miami33139 does not like software articles at all (especially articles about multimedia software) and they seem to rather enjoy targeting them for deletion. I found the exchange in the ConceptDraw Project AfD enlightening with regards to Miami33139's tactics.
      The BitchX, PIRCH, and WeeChat AfDs which were part of the mass-AfD campaign Miami33139 and JBsupreme initiated to "target" me are also worth reading. The WeeChat article actually had plenty of references already present in the article when Miami33139 nominated it for AfD while making claims such as "contains only self-published sources".
      And hey, when all else fails (i.e. "no consensus to delete"), [24] Miami33139 will simply gut the article. [25]
      WP:DUCK
      --Tothwolf (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • This applies to statements with no backup statistics. With QIP and further BayanICQ statistics of actual popularity is provided. Moreover, a bunch of statistics provided above does not show only popularity, but also significantly large coverage on the web. The last is the indicator for WP:N. Elk Salmon (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Permit restoration - Article is not too promotional, is reasonably balanced, and includes sourced criticism of their inadequate Unicode support! I would still be good if the article creator would provide English translations of all the references. A quick look shows 1.2 million Google hits, though this is not decisive until someone studies the hits. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Permit recreation. If there are still sourcing concerns, AfD is the proper venue. This is not a G4. Tim Song (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2 November 2009