Administrator instructions

Skip to: Active discussions · Recent discussions · Archive

Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

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

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

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

[edit] What is this page for?

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

[edit] Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions

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

Deletion review is explicitly a drama-free zone. Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed.

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

[edit] Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:

1. The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
2. The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
3. The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.

Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

[edit] How do I do all this?

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

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

[edit] Instructions

Before listing a review request:

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

[edit] Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

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

[edit] Temporary undeletion

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

[edit] Closing reviews

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

[edit] Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.

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

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

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

[edit] Active discussions

[edit] 14 December 2009

[edit] File:Sst7.jpg

File:Sst7.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|restore)

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

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

[edit] BS.Player (closed)

[edit] 13 December 2009

[edit] 12 December 2009

[edit] Google Watch

Google Watch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

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

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

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

• Endorse. This is how I would've closed the debate. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Ditto. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Could the two of you indicate which debate you are referring to? As far as I can tell, the debate was closed as a redirect and then the redirect was later deleted. Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I thought it was clear: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (4th nomination). It was originally closed as "redirect" and then changed to "delete." I was saying that, had I been the one to close that debate, I would've just closed as "delete" originally. The votes in favor of outright deletion seem to pretty clearly in the majority. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah, that close still reads as "merge". Hobit (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Undelete the redirect to Criticism of Google, was deleted for no real reason, is a reasonable search term. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this debate is confusing regarding the question of the XfD and the question of the deletion of the redirect (after the history was moved elsewhere). I Endorse the XfD decision, as a fair reading of rough consensus, but !vote overturn on the out-of-process deletion of the history-less redirect. When someone does searches for "google watch", do we want them sent to Criticism of Google, or pointed to "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (n^th nomination)"? Try searching now and see what you see. The deletion of reasonable search-term redirects is stupid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion of the redirect. The redirect was deleted out of process without a discussion at RfD and without meeting any of the criteria for speedy deletion. NW's reasoning for ignoring the rules and deleting the redirect is, frankly, weak. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn as out of process since the AfD was foolishly closed as merge instead of delete, which was the supported outcome of the debate, and restart a proper AfD without the foolish canvassing to remove any doubt about the validaty of the outcome. What did I tell you about IAR and this AfD?[1]. I hope you learned something from this. People aren't stupid; you're hurting the cause rather than helping it when you do it this way. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn -- a request by the banned user Daniel Brandt is, by itself, an insufficient justification for any deletion. Andrea105 (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse and stop the drama queenery, since being banned does not prevent one from requesting such a deletion on BLP grounds. Some people here just need to let go. Tarc (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Overturn -- it's one thing to invoke IAR in the absence of a community discussion -- but using it to override/ignore a discussion that has already taken place goes much too far. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Overriding a community discussion? I'm not sure I ever did that. I closed an AfD as "the article should not exist as a standalone one." I merged it, perhaps not in the standard way of move content + redirect, but I still merged it in a way that was fine for our licensing. The AfD could have been even been closed as delete; there was a perfectly fine consensus to do so at the AfD itself... NW (Talk) 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• I fully support deletion of anything involving Daniel Brandt. The man has a long history of outing Wikipedia editors who say things he doesn't like, and there are children and vulnerable people who edit Wikipedia. We don't need to be leaving booby traps for our people.

  However, we should be more honest about the reasons why we delete Brandt-related articles.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  • S Marshall, I'm not really sure what you mean. I never hid the fact that I deleted a measly redirect per DB's request. Could you explain further please? NW (Talk) 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not accusing you of hiding anything, NW; nor in fact am I accusing you of anything at all. I just think this DRV will be read in conjunction with the previous one for Scroogle and editors who aren't familiar with Brandt may be perplexed at the outcomes which are not strictly consistent with normal Wikipedian custom and practice.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
    • (later) On re-reading that remark, it may not shed any light. I was trying to say that I think Wikipedia is officially oblivious to Mr Brandt, and I think that is as it should be. But I think the reason Wikipedia turns a blind eye has to do with a long, long series of dramas. MZM hints at this early in the discussion thread but didn't make it explicit.

      I've no doubt whatsoever that you, NW, fully understood what MZM was saying and gave his view appropriate weight. I think editors unfamiliar with the preceding drama may find this decision perplexing and more on the history would be helpful in the closing statement.

      None of the above remarks are meant as criticism of you, in any way.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn This is unjustified. Deletion of the redirect was entirely outside and contrary to process. The AfD was closed as mere, not delete. The only grounds on which such a deletion of the redirect without specific consensus to do so could be justified would be as an office action, and if so it should have been stated. Tthis is to some extent compatible with what S Marshall just stated, about how it must be done if it is to be done; I do not however endorse his reason. letting outsiders dictate the contents of Wikipedia is contrary to NPOV; removing redirects because we do not like the person is equally so, and shows irresponsibility. Perhaps that what Brandt was trying to get us to do--prove that we were incapable of following our own principles. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, at RFD, redirects default to delete on a "no consensus" outcome; there's plenty of precedent for deleting a redirect without consensus. Whether that's as it should be is another question (and I think not one to be discussed at a Brandt-related DRV).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion.... (disclaimer: I participated in the AFD) Deleting the redirect of the name of the website has nothing to do with BLP reasons. It's about the owner of the website wanting to reduce the Page Rank of the name in wikipedia for his own personal reasons. There is no policy anywhere to do any such thing, and no consensus to abide to such requests. As other say, let's be clear here about the real reasons for deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion of the redirect. The AFD was not closed as delete, nor was there a DRV discussion to change that result. The redirect does not meet any CSD criterion, and there was no RFD discussion of it. The only justification for this completely out-of-process, IAR deletion is that it was requested by Brandt based on a supposed "BLP issue". But the destination article does not contain unsourced or critical material about Brandt, nor does it even mention his name. The "BLP issue" he raised: that Google might lead people to the Criticism of Google article when they searched for him! This "issue" is in no way a violation of the WP:BLP policy or any other policy, guideline or common consensus. We do not have a policy that we will help people manipulate the results given by third-party search engines. Searching for my name produces as a top result a WP article about an attempted Presidential assassin. That does not mean I should approach an admin with a request for an out-of-process deletion of that article as a "BLP issue". Absent this ridiculous pseudo-BLP complaint, it is hard to imagine what would justify the deletion of the redirect, since "Google Watch" is a reasonable search term associated with criticism of Google, and the destination article does discuss the site. Brandt is entirely within his rights to raise legitimate BLP issues when they exist, but that does not include a right to remove anything dislikes by trumping it up as a "BLP issue". --RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse The decision to delete the redirect was a good and proper one, and supported by the consensus on the AfD SirFozzie (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse The eventual outcome is the right one, and as SirFozzie notes is supported by the AfD consensus. Kevin (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse the deletion of this unnecessary and inflammatory redirect. *** Crotalus *** 15:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Inflammatory? There appears to be one person in the entire world who is "inflamed" by it. I understand the Endorse comments that think the AFD should have been closed as delete in the first place, but I don't see how a redirect that would seem perfectly reasonable under normal circumstances can be classified as "inflammatory" based on one person's irrational complaints. --RL0919 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse as Guy mentions, this is just stick poking for the sake of stick poking GTD 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • To me at least it is a matter of process. Do we really delete redirects to relevant articles because someone asks us to? Or even worse, because someone threatens us? Maybe that's process for processes sake, but I'm very uncomfortable with it. Hobit (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Keyes (closed)

[edit] Kairosis

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

Change in Reliable Sources policy since 2008 Fifelfoo (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Went to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Kairosis who recommended WP:DRV; statement from there was, Kairosis was deleted in circumstances where accepted PhD theses were not appropriate nor High Quality reliable sources. Sourcing policy has changed since mid 2008, and PhD theses available for consultation that have been accepted are RS. The grounds for the deletion of this article being overturned I requested that the deleting administrator reverse their deletion on 4 November 2009. I believe a sufficient amount of time has passed to allow that administrator to respond, and they haven't done so (they're on an extended leave). As such I would like Kairosis undeleted, as the deletion rationale is no longer an element of wikipedia policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Might be a good idea to relist this at AfD as the notability issue was not fully addressed by nom, but the change in WP:RS may justify a new discussion. Tim Song (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn because this article might not be deleted today given the changes to reliable sources policy. Relist at AfD if so desired. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Permit restoration in user space This needs fuller discussion. Sources are not either Reliable or Not-Reliable--there is a gradation. Though phd theses often can be RS for many purposes, they rank relative low in the hierarchy of academic writing, and the use of an idiosyncratic term in one does not make something notable--unlike the case of its use by a major author in the field. If the only author using it in the manner suggested here is Russell in his thesis, I would not say it was notable. If the application to Emma is in the thesis it can be quoted--the source is sufficiently reliable for that, though not for notability , but otherwise it is OR. On the other hand, if Kermode did use this word in this manner, it would probably be notable since he is a major academic critic, and his use of the term would be enough. But I'm not sure he did (I don't have the book at hand today) --he is more likely to be referring instead to the closely related term Kairos-- certainly that is the word and the meaning in all the GBooks quotes that refer to his use. [2]. (The adjective kairotic seems to usually refer just to Kairos). I would suggest the rewritten article try to give more of the context. I am by no means convinced. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Diana Napolis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Hobit: it's not up to the closing admin to decide which votes are "wrong" or "right", just to determine which ones present more reasonable and solid arguments. Yes, changing a policy unilaterally and then closing an AfD based on the new rules is an error... but I don't see anything like that in this AfD.

  @Cyclopia: I'm sure you understand the significance of the BLP issue and the desperate need to resolve it. Yes, BLPs should unquestionably be dealt with differently than "normal" articles. BLP, like all policies and guidelines, merely describes the most common situations and how to deal with them; it is by no means fully comprehensive. That's why we elect admins—to decide how to best deal with the circumstances at hand. I'm not explicitly endorsing this DRV yet, because I haven't evaluated the AfD thoroughly enough to do so fairly, but just my $0.02. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• By "wrong" I meant that they claimed the article was in violation of a policy (BLP1E) that it clearly wasn't. So those !votes should be greatly discounted as they were neither reasonable nor based in policy. I think we agree on the idea that an admin should discount (reduce in value, not ignore) !votes that lack a policy-based reason for the action they suggest. With respect to the more general issue, we've also had closers "defaulting to delete" and one new admin who overstepped the bounds between !voting and closing. Those all certainly belong here as there were serious problems with those closes. Hobit (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Overturn and keep, it is clear that no consensus was established in this debate. Cerebellum (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• very weak endorse I personally think the arguments to delete were poor. If people want to delete an article due to a policy (BLP1E) they should explain why it applies when asked. I'm still unsure what the claimed "one-event" was. That said, this one probably hits the "do no harm" part of WP:BLP and while I'd have certainly closed it as no consensus to delete due to the weak !votes for deletion, I think it was within admin discretion to delete due to the BLP issues (mental health issues). Just because many of the !votes cited the wrong policy, doesn't mean the admin can't accept them for what they were trying to argue. Hobit (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Looks like a reasonable close to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• I hate those BLP DRVs. Endorse per Hobit, mostly. The BLP1E argument was fairly weak, but there are serious BLP concerns here independent of the BLP1E issue. Tim Song (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Comment. Whatever the close, the closer should have taken into account the canvassing at Wikipedia Review - but they themselves posted to that Wikipedia Review thread. This canvassing has been plaguing BLP AfDs lately and it needs to stop. That it involves admins who are !voting in and closing discussions is even worse. This is part of a campaign by a group of admins to delete marginal BLPs, and after they failed to get a change in policy they are instead proceeding to close AfDs as they see fit rather than by consensus. Fences&Windows 22:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Um, not. AfD and DRVs tell us if things are shifting or not. They are. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Na, a group of admins are just trying to get around a consensus they don't like, and are skirting WP:CANVAS to do it by doing their canvasing off-site. The next discussion at WP:DEL will be like the last half dozen. Hobit (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
      • If you call yourself, Cyclopia and a few others who always take up more than half of these DRVs a consensus... *coughs*. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
        • No, I call [4] a consensus. I'm pretty sure you are aware of it, as you commented there... Hobit (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion... as Julian says, it would be nice if every single BLP didn't get DRVed regardless of the outcome. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Probably would happen more if the admins closing the BLPs followed policy more often. Just saying. Hobit (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• overturn Clearly not a BLP1E. Not having every possible BLP concern fixed during an AfD is not grounds for deletion so closing rationale doesn't work. I also agree with Fences remark that offsite canvassing for the deletion of articles needs to stop. It taints these discussions to an extent that simply from that I'd be inclined to overturn. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure BLP concerns place this in the realm of admin discretion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse -- an article for the sole purpose of describing a living person's craziness is inconsistent with intent of the biographies of living persons policy. Andrea105 (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse BLP concerns are valid, I'm getting a little tired of Cyclopia and others using DRV as forum shopping. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Overturn and optionally relist, I don't see a consensus either way here, and no consensus as delete clearly did not have consensus to implement in the absence of a subject request. I also see the coverage being quite substantive and for multiple events here. BLP is intended to exclude unsourced or poorly sourced information. I don't see any evidence of source unreliability or lack of sources here, so it doesn't apply. Also, the closing administrator does not seem to have taken into account the fact that several of the editors appearing at the AfD appear to have been canvassed [5]. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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

• Endorse per Tarc. This is not AFD round 2. MuZemike 05:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn though the article needs to be written carefully and watched, she is nonetheless notable. BLP policy does not say that if an article is susceptible to BLP problems, we remove it. IAR applies to situations where the action is so necessary to improve the encyclopedia that essentially everyone who in in good faith will endorse it. It does not mean, do as you please, regardless of the consensus. If there is no consensus that it applies, then it does not.. There is no admin discretion to ignore the community, our discretion is to do what the community wants even though there is no specific rule provided. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. This close is well within the bounds of admin discretion. Kevin (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - I'm not seeing an issue with this admin's decision here - Alison ^❤ 21:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse (as original AFD nominator). I don't want to revisit the whole debate, but it's important to point out that the claimed academic source coverage consisted of a two-paragraph (one rather long) footnote (De Young) and a case study (Bocij), which could fairly be evaluated as insufficient to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to No consensus default to keep per noms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT#I_don.27t_like_it statement (because this opinion seems to be present even at this DRV and per DGG's persuasive argument. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• overturn - Subject known for 2 different topics separated in time and space (was an important figure in creating the 1980s SRA panic, and later became mentally ill): thus WP:BLP1E rationale cannot be applied. Closing admin misrepresented the level of consensus. Closing admin was also on a messageboard where votes were canvassed.- see final comment And most importantly, WP:BLP does not, last I recall, demand the complete deletion of articles on notable people - only that all defamatory information which cannot be sourced is immediately deleted. I agree with DGG and JoshuaZ above. Put the article back and delete all insufficiently sourced assertions, if that's what you feel is needed. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse perfectly valid close and I'm fairly sick of treating living people as a inhouse football.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Google Watch (closed)

[edit] 11 December 2009

[edit] Epona (IRC services) (closed)

[edit] Vladimir Correa

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

The majority of KEEP !votes do not appear to be based on policy or guidelines, in contrast to the DELETE !votes. More than one KEEP !vote explicitly notes that the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO ([8], [9]). When asked to review their closure, User:Cirt first appeared to agree that the article should have been closed as delete, but suggested that I give editors more time to find references. When asked to overturn their closure and delete, their response was "nope". Following this, they started a thread at BLPN "help you to get some more eyes on it" even though what I had asked for was the deletion of the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The nom misrepresents my comments. I will assume good faith that this was an honest mistake. This comment I made [10] suggested that I believe the AfD consensus to keep the article was a reasonable one, and that if Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) really felt like it he could re-nom for AfD at a later date. I was not endorsing his view of delete. Cirt (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I clearly misunderstood to what you were applying "seems pretty reasonable". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. :) No worries, Cirt (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse close Sorry, DC, but this diff says "The article as it is now makes a pretty good case for notability, too", which is not an explicit note that it doesn't meet GNG. The second note also fails to be "explicit". I see absolutely nothing wrong with starting a thread on BLPN when questions have been raised about sourcing, regardless of what has been asked for. I'd suggest taking Cirt's advice and looking at a renom in a couple of months, if the article hasn't been sufficiently improved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Explicit was clearly too strong a word. I have struck it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    • You should strike "not" as well, since "makes a good case for notability" is in no way, shape, or form a note that it doesn't meet GNG. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I understand your point, but we probably interpret the remark differently. The diffs are there and I'm sure people will note this discussion as well. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. I cannot seriously bring myself to say that the close is clearly erroneous. Tim Song (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse I think the close is correct. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• The sourcing is extremely thin... most of the sources just say Vladimir Correa appeared in a movie with a certain title. Almost all of the sourced prose in the article is just summarizing such sources. The best claim to notability, that "He was one of the first notable gay porn stars to also appear in a number of heterosexual and bisexual pornographic films" remains unreferenced. Looking at the AFD, it seems probable that some people were fooled by the fact that this "looks" like it's well-referenced. However, I can't view some of the best potential sources that are in books. This was not an easy close but I think it was good to err on the side of caution here. If you can actually show the sources are all trivial coverage, then I would vote delete in a new AFD... but I don't think a delete close would have been appropriate here. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Please see this diff from BLPN re sourcing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Please also see Delicious carbuncle's later remarks and use of the argument bullshit in the same discussion.—Ash (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse The closing was done properly. There are other ways to deal with sourcing issues besides DRV. --Jmundo (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete. I was about to close as delete when Cirt closed as keep. I think that many of the keep opinions are based on procedural issues or have no policy or guideline backing. The strongest keep argument by User:Dream Focus was refuted, and did not sway subsequent arguments to delete. In contrast, the delete arguments have a clear backing in the WP:PORNBIO guideline. Kevin (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Which is irrelevant if the GNG is met, yes? Hobit (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Except that no-one argued that the subject passes WP:GNG, unless you count the refuted argument I mentioned above. Kevin (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse I don't see an issue with Cirt's close. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 10 December 2009

[edit] 9 December 2009

[edit] Matt Kassel

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

There was no consensus to delete Matt Kassel. The discussion initially centered around the lack of reliable sources. When sources were highlighted to establish notability, multiple editors agreed that WP:ATHLETE did not supersede WP:BIO / WP:GNG. As argued in the AfD, it does not matter whether or not Kessel passes the subject specific guideline, WP:ATHLETE; once he passes WP:BIO, he fulfills Wikipedia's inclusion requirements — "WP:ATHLETE is NOT an exclusive guideline".

The closer asks what makes Kessel notable. My answer is that an "unusual amount of national media coverage over an extended period of time, for a college player" (Washington Post, ESPN, and New York Post) establish that Kassel is notable per WP:N. An unremarkable soccer player from Maryland would not receive coverage from the Washington Post if he were truly non-notable.
The closer referenced WP:NTEMP, it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. However, these articles span the course of two years — certainly not the "short burst of news reports" to which WP:NTEMP applies.

I asked Black Kite (talk · contribs) to reconsider the close, and he responded, "No, I'd like it to DRV please, I think there's an important point at stake here." The closer is supposed to evaluate the consensus in the discussion, not make a casting vote. This close should be overturned.

Addendum: The article in the Google cache is different from the deleted article. In the article that has now been deleted, I added the reliable sources presented in the discussion. Cunard (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn WP:ATHLETE is one of the weakest SNGs we have and I'm not comfortable citing it as a keep or delete rationale at all. On the other hand, the GNG is the strongest and most widely accepted notability guideline, and this bio meets it, with the sources presented in the debate. At the least, there was no consensus here, and the admin's presumption that WP:ATHLETE takes precedence of WP:N is something that should be made as an opinion in the debate, but not as a closer. ThemFromSpace 23:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn- several valid sources were provided in the AFD showing that the member passes the GNG. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus WP:ATHLETE is a great argument for retention, but an awful one for deletion, especially if the article provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate that it meets general notability guidelines as is the case here. Alansohn (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment the article needs to be clarified if undeleted. The last version at deletion stated that Kassell played for the Red Bulls, but the sources linked say no such thing, only that he attended the team academy ("had been in the New York Red Bulls' youth system"). Obviously this is not inconsequential to the AfD, though there may be sufficient grounds for notability anyway, not sure. No opinion on overturning. Chick Bowen 01:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• When the article is undeleted, I'll reword that sentence to avoid any confusion/misinformation. Cunard (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus per Alansohn. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• The closer's point on whether WP:ATHLETE supersedes WP:N should have been made in the debate, a material procedural error. Overturn to no consensus at a minimum as I do not see that the WP:GNG argument was sufficiently rebutted. Tim Song (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus The point there is no consensus about is the relationship between these two guidelines. It is certainly possible for there to be a guideline that says that, for a particular type of article, even something that meets the GNG is not Notable, but this has to be generally accepted by the community as a whole, not justthe WikiProject. This probably needs a general discussion. DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus per Cunard. And a comment: Black Kite has evidently retired[13]--I hope xe will reconsider that, but in any event xe may or may not be planning to address any of the foregoing. I did not understand BK's close to assert that WP:ATHLETE overrides WP:GNG, but rather that the subject didn't pass WP:GNG because of WP:NTEMP. (Imagine any outworlder trying to work through the preceding jargon salad. And I was trying to make a clarifying comment.) Although I can see an argument for this, I disagree that there was a consensus for this conclusion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn Once sources were found the direction of the debate changed and everyone after that seemed to agree he passed WP:N. Hobit (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn. Meeting the GNG overrides failure to meet any potentially applicable specialty guideline. By closer's argument, no college athlete who failed to play professionally or in the Olympics/other top-level amateur events could be notable. Len Bias. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn, keep due to significant coverage in reliable sources over an extended period of time, meeting WP:GNG. Andrea105 (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn: BK's rationale would have been fine as a contribution to the AfD, but it isn't acceptable as a rationale for close given the views expressed at the AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn as I felt the AfD was no consensus, therefore default to keep. ArcAngel (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus per Alansohn. Deleting an article that meets WP:BIO because it fails WP:ATHLETE was not a good idea. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn He exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Okashina Okashi (closed)

[edit] File:KPCKim.jpg

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

The outcome of the discussion does not support delete, instead the result should have been keep. I discussed this with the closing admin, but he did not agree. Dreadstar ☥ 02:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (original nominator). FFD is not a headcount. There was one keep argument, brought forward by a couple of editors, which was refuted by two experienced administrators; no arguments were then offered in response to those refutations. This makes Seresin's closure a reasonable reading of the result of the debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pretty sure that both Dreadstar (talk · contribs) and Skier Dude (talk · contribs) are "experienced administrators" as well...... Tim Song (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Contrary to the statement of the editor requesting review, the discussion does support deletion - a prima facie case was made that the image use did not satisfy citerion 8 and the attempts to refute this by those advocating retention were, to give the most charitable characterisation, unconvincing. CIreland (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Good admins understand how to weight policy-sound arguments instead of counting votes. --Damiens.rf 11:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and keep I disagree with the above that the argument was unconvincing. I stand by my original argument. RP459 (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn delete (as DRV nominator). Contrary to some of the comments above, no one has merely "counted votes" in this case, so that's purely a straw man. The prima facie argument given that the image does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 fails when one looks beyond that first appearance and sees that it was refuted by the keep comments which maintained the image was an alternate view of the character providing contextual significance for the alternate life, which is the underlying source of the character's abilities, and illustrates the alternate appearance of the character. It's a matter of opinion as to what it adds or doesn't add to the article, it's not as cut-and-dried as the delete comments would have you believe. And thanks, Tim Song, for your supportive comment...the entire "experienced administrators" business as mentioned by the endorser is just a red-herring argument, another straw man - and one that attempts to present an opposing opinion as a 'refutation', when it's merely a subjective difference of opinion, proving nothing. There were good arguments on both sides, and the result should have been at the very least "no consensus, default to keep" - if not outright keep. Dreadstar ☥ 01:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• The debate boils down to the question whether the image passes WP:NFCC#8. That question is one that should be resolved by the community on a case-by-case basis. In this particular debate at hand, I see no consensus on this question, and the closer's rationale basically picked one side that they agree with. This they cannot do. Overturn to no consensus. Tim Song (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: In NFCC cases, there is no "no consensus default to keep". Fair use rationales, like every other piece of content, are subject to conensus editing. You need a consensus for a fair use rationale in order for it to stay and be considered valid. No consensus here means "no consensus for fair use", hence no consensus to keep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    • My comment was in reliance upon the discussion cited below by Jheald (talk · contribs) and this DRV. If you want to default to delete on no consensus with fair use images, you are of course free to start a new discussion on that subject, on which I take no position at this moment. Tim Song (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (deletion) - Fut.Perf. has it correctly here. Where there is no consensus that an image passes the non-free content criteria, it is deleted (not kept), and there was no consensus that it did pass in this case. The foundation resolution on licensing makes it clear that the non-free policy here is intended to exclude all but a limited range of images. Looks like a normal and correct FfD closure. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This was discussed at length in August. It emerged that, historically, no consensus for NFC images had not defaulted to delete; and there was no consensus to change this. On the one hand, closing admins should disregard contributions which are incompatible with policy. But where contributions have been made on both sides that are compatible with viable interpretations of policy, so that there is no consensus that an image is incompatible with policy, then it should not be deleted. But there is latitude for the closing admin to weigh the strength of argument presented, not just the number of !votes. Jheald (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Drawing any form of consensus from that discussion is a long bow to draw. I see the result of that discussion as simply restating various editors already known positions but no clear consensus being formed - Peripitus (Talk) 00:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Weakly endorse deletion. It seems to me that were the two personae as distinct (and distinctive) as say Clark Kent and Superman, then there would be grounds for two images. But neither of the two character "looks" here seems so distinctive that additionally showing it would add significantly to user understanding. So I think it was a fair call by Seresin on the arguments presented; and I see no reason to overturn it looking at the fundamentals. Jheald (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to nc (keep) There is general agreement that if the picture illustrated significant differences between her normal self and secret self the picture would stay otherwise it should go. Our NFCC rules support that. The majority felt that was the case. So as this boils down to a matter of opinion, not a reading of NFCC, I don't see a consensus to delete. And NC in image discussions defaults to keep as far as I know. Hobit (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Besides the nominator, only Peripitus had an argument that didn't make my brain hurt to read it. I'm not sure why anyone wasted time writing WP:NFCC if three editors in a darkened room hidden down in the basement can vote to ignore it whenever it suits them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • A simpler answer then, is that the decision to delete wasn't based on WP:NFCC, it was based on opinion, an opinion in the minority. Therefore, the proper decision was no consensus, default to keep. Dreadstar ☥ 22:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. It would be helpful if the image could be temporarily undeleted. That way everyone here could make an informed judgment as to whether there's enough difference between the two images to make this a matter of opinion or a slam dunk by the closer. Incidentally, I'm uneasy about the fact that the image lacks an identifiable source; if it's good fan/fake artwork, or has been modified from the actual screenshot, it would probably be unsuitable regardless of NFCC issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - closing discussions at WP:FFD should be about upholding WP:F, not making a head count. In the main image the character wears a sweat shirt and combats, while in the deleted image she wears a short sleave top with skirt, while holding pom-poms. Consequently, the arguments for keeping the image weren't plausible, the image merely depicts the character wearing some different clothes, and so could easily be replaced with text. PhilKnight (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but not closure This FfD shouldn't have been closed as "delete," per se, as there was no obvious consensus to delete, with experienced administrators split over whether deletion was warranted. However, I agree with some of those above me in that a no consensus close at FfD in cases of disputed fair use rationales should default to delete. In other words, this ideally would've been closed as "no consensus, default to delete." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• overturn If anything, consensus in the discussion suggested that there was sufficient reason to show the different versions of the character. No consensus does not default to delete for fair use images. There's no compelling policy reason to have deleted this image. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn Consensus was obviously for keeping it, and the delete argument does not seem enough compelling to trump the keep ones. --Cyclopia^talk 01:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Consulate-General of Switzerland in Houston and Consulate-General of Pakistan in Houston

Consulate-General of Switzerland in Houston (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Consulate-General of Pakistan in Houston (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

The discussion is at User_talk:Karanacs#Consulate-General_of_Switzerland_in_Houston

User:Karanacs speedily deleted Consulate-General of Switzerland in Houston and Consulate-General of Pakistan in Houston - He had previously filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of Indonesia in Houston, which ended in the keeping of the consulate articles. There was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Houston, filed by another user, which ended in a no consensus. Likewise there was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston, filed by another user, which ended in the deletion of the subject consulate article.

I asked Karanacs to restore the two articles and file an AFD. Instead he told me to make a DRV on his page. I believe that saying X is a consulate is, in and of itself, a sufficient assertion of notability, and that a user challenging the notability of a consulate should use AFD. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• An article with (decent or better) references should never be deleted via A7. On that point alone I advocate overturning and restoring both of these and let users take them to AfD as they wish. Taking them on their merits, it might be worthwhile to condense these (and any other consulates in Houston) into one article, but that's merely one option to explore, and not really the point here. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 06:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD. It cannot seriously be argued that, while a high school in a small town is presumptively notable, a consulate of a sovereign country is not even an indication of importance. Tim Song (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD. I suspect some high schools are larger and more influential than a regional consulate, but these definitely weren't speedy candidates. Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • My point is that if high schools are considered presumptively "notable", consulates should be at least an "indication" of "significance", which is a much lower threshold than notability. Tim Song (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn. I'm not even sure such subjects could fall within A7 and there's certainly enough of an indication of significance to take the specific articles out of it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Endorse deletion (I was the deleting administrator). The previous AfD on Consulate-General of the UK in Houston rejected the idea that there is inherent notability for consulates. The Switzerland article does not even discussn an active consulate. Neither of these articles had independent sources that provided significant coverage of the topic; at best the sources verified that the consulate exists/existed but provided zero assertion of notability. Before deleting I checked Wikiproject International Relations and its talk page archives, and they have given no guidance that consulates hold any special presumption of notability. Karanacs (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to belabor a point, but how does this analysis bring the subjects under A7, especially since there's consensus in the discussion cited by the editor who started this discussion that such consulates can be notable? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn These are not valid speedy deletion candidates. Alansohn (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment there have been previous examples of deleting articles via speedy on analogy with the result in afds. This is rightly not a speedy criterion, because the particular case might be different. Even if there should be a general guideline made of it, that would still not justify speedy unless the particular case were made a speedy guideline, which almost never happens, . DGG ( talk ) 14:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn, consulate-generals aren't speedable. Andrea105 (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD I'm not sure if these would be deleted at AfD, but there's definitely an assertion of notability here. A misapplication of A7, in any case. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AFD - The deletion was not within the admins discretion. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 8 December 2009

[edit] Rachel Uchitel

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

Closure rationale is "no fully unanimous consensus, default to delete". The "no consensus BLP default to delete" has recently been discussed to death here, and clearly the majority of the community thinks, from that discussion, that no consensus BLP should default to keep like any other article, unless an explicit request of the article subject comes out. The current policy wording has been discussed and ultimately changed to reflect the outcome of the previous discussion, and now says: "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate.". The deletion should therefore be overturned per policy, as no consensus-default to keep. Cyclopia^talk 15:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• endorse deletion This is slippery wording here. I DO NOT believe that the deletion closure here is inconsistant with the fact that the community has not (yet) supported a "default to delete". Firstly, the closer said "no unanimous consensus" - well we don't need unanimity to see a debate endorsing deletion. IN this case the delete supporting arithmetic was over 60%. If you read the rest of the closer's statement he has not just "defaulted to delete" he's actually weighed the !votes and concluded that the delete case is not only numerically but also in policy the stronger - which is perfectly within the closing admin's normal discretion. His wording here may not please everyone, but the result is quite within normal practice. Further when BLP concerns are expressed, whilst we don't default to delete, we do need to err on the die of caution - a 60+% vote and the closer's view that the majority had the better arguments is certainly enough.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse no consensus finding, overturn to keep: In addition to Cylopia's comments re the BLP-default-to-delete idea already being sunk recently, two attempts at a "no consensus, default to delete" outcome have been overturned at DRV in the last month., i.e., DRV for Human disguise and DRV for Wendy Babcock.

Furthermore, if you look at the exact close language, "no fully unanimous consensus" -- such a creature is rare indeed in any active AfD discussion, and that standard (anything less than unanimous keep) would result in the delete of most any BLP brought to AfD. E.g., I could nominate Glenn Beck, and he would surely draw some delete !votes. So this is far from normal pratice, and bad wording to endorse. Lastly, I added a fair number of references to the Rachel Uchitel article while it was in AfD, most of which predated October 2009. I was blown away at the amount of coverage she has received since 2001 -- I was at first skeptical about the article, but when I actually researched it, I moved away from the knee-jerk "oh this tiger woods B.S. has gotta go" reaction. Sadly, many of the delete !votes did not investigate the subject matter.--Milowent (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Let's figure out first what the closer meant. "No fully unanimous consensus" to do what? Tim Song (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn to keep. Some admin discretion is fine, but this is too important a matter to leave up to individual opinion. Previous discussion: User_talk:Coffee#BLP_defaults_to_delete. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, and an earlier close.[14] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion — we don't have a specific numeric standard for deletion; administrators are expected to use some level of judgment in closing discussions. *** Crotalus *** 17:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if after a widely participated, month-long discussion, that kind of judgement has been explicitly rejected by the community, so far that policy has been clarified to reflect that? I agree that "some level of judgement" is to be had, but here we talk of an option which has been just explicitly rejected by the community. --Cyclopia^talk 17:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• its not about numbers, "default to delete" is almost never never a valid close.--Milowent (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• (Since I know someone will bring it) To be precise, is almost never a valid close. There is one specific exception, when the subject has explicitly requested deletion, where it may default to delete. It is not the case here, however. --Cyclopia^talk 17:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• But whenover 60% favour deletion and (in the closer's view) the deletion arguments are far stronger, if has always been in the closer's discretion to close as a delete consensus. Hasn't it? There's nothing new here, except perhaps a badly worded close.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• The closer has agreed the discussion a "no consensus". If it is "no consensus" (and it seems almost everyone agrees on that), it defaults to keep, per policy and per precedent thorough discussions on this very subject. It is simple as that. If you personally think it was a consensus to delete (which most probably isn't), fine, but that's not your closure we are debating. --Cyclopia^talk 17:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

to Scott Mac (Cyclopia must type faster): *Perhaps it could have been closed that way, but it wasn't. It was closed as a "default to delete", which I think would set a bad precedent if endorsed. Assuming good faith, it wasn't closed as a straight delete because it really was a no consensus in the mind of the closing admin.--Milowent (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Question- The AFD mentioned some information on the person that was in connection to 9/11. Anyone have anhy sources they can bring to the table for that? If so, that would be an indicator that there was notability prior to this information with Tiger Woods, which would severely undercut the BLP1E arguments in the AFD. If nothing about that, or information regarding notability prior to this Tiger Woods stuff can be produced, then the BLP1E arguments are correct. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not AfD part 2, umbralcorax. Closer closed wrong, bottom line. That is being decided on, not the notability or lack thereof of this lady (and let me go on record that it is sad and horrible this article is on Wiki, it makes me puke, I do not think it should be on the project. But, if it meets policy, who cares what I think?Turqoise127 (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Turquoise that this is not AfD part II, but the question of Umbralcorax is meaningful. I hope to create no problems if I copy the relevant part from the Google Cache copy of the article: Her fiance, investment banker James Andrew O'Grady, was killed in the September 11 attacks of the World Trade Center.[8] A few days later, she appeared on the front page of the New York Post holding a picture of O'Grady.[9][7] [10][11] Uchitel and her fiance's family subsequently debated the disposition of his estate.[12][8]. --Cyclopia^talk 18:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In short, umbralcorax, Uchitel received signifigant coverage after 9/11 because her fiance died in the attack. The NY times and other papers did followup pieces, as 9/11 fiances received nothing while wives were compensated. In 2004, the NY times covered her wedding. In 2005-06, various sources covered her new job as a VIP host for celebrity nightclubs. Other articles over time, in U.S. and foreign papers, would revisit her 9/11 story on 9/11 anniversaries. There are no doubt tons of BLP articles on wikipedia for people who have done far less, not including allegedly sleeping with tiger woods.--Milowent (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Milowent, that clears some things up for me. The fact that the person in question is not notable for just one event, for me at least, means that BLP1E arguments should have been given less weight in the AFD, turning a "no consensus", into a "keep". So in this case, I vote to Overturn. In response to Turqoise127, I asked the question because I wanted to know how much weight I felt the BLP1E arguments should have been given. If her only source of notability was the affair with Tiger Woods, then a delete outcome would have been a valid one (but not as a no-consensus default to delete... I am getting really tired of seeing those). Umbralcorax (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] break 1

• Overturn to No Consensus defaults to Keep, per Cyclopia. Frankly, these attempts to create precedents and change policy so that no consensus defaults to delete are becoming bothersome. As Cyclopia stated in the nom, this had been discussed at length and community showed in huge numbers that this policy was NOT to change. The blatant disregard of certain admins in still attempting to change this thru precedents and thru misuse of admin rights by closing against policy is troubling and must be addressed somehow. There is nothing much to discuss on this DRV. AfD was clearly no consensus, regardless of the weight of the argument being slightly stronger for the delete side. There were numerous votes on each side, and most were reasonable, that is enough to create no consensus; because any other decision disregards and disrespects the numerous editors on the opposing side (whether it is keep or delete). The AfD is, in fact, a classic illustration of a no consensus, and the closer sees this, states so in the rationale, yet closes default to delete against policy. Ridiculous. Turqoise127 (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment – I'm a bit confused here. The closing admin says there was no unanimous consensus for deletion, and he says in his close that the arguments and volume of the reasons for deletion outweigh the reasons for retention. Maybe there was some sort of rough consensus for deletion here? Perhaps the closing admin can clarify this better? MuZemike 17:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No matter how you skin that cat, AfD was classic example of no consensus. Many on one side, many on the other. No consensus defaults to keep. Sorry I am WP:Bludgeoning every commenter, I will stop now.Turqoise127 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but there was a consensus to delete (all be it not unanimous). A closing admin is quite entitled to rule a 60/40 split where he thinks the 60 have the best arguments as delete. This happens all the time.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The closing admin "defaulted to delete" - you don't default to anything if consensus actually shows keep or delete. There's no need to re-interpret what the close really meant. An endorse on this close is endorsing "default to delete" as a valid rationale for closure.--Milowent (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

TO SCOTT MAC: I respectfully disagree. Maybe so if the split is closer to 80/20, and if there were not sooo many editors opining on each side. This arbitrary decision has hung all the keep voters out to dry and has disregarded their opinions. Is that an admin job well done? Clear cut case no consensus.Turqoise127 (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - largely per Scott Mac above, who sums it up better than I could. Given the numbers and given this is a contentious BLP, I'm not seeing an issue with the closing admin's decision here - Alison ^❤ 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn. No consensus AfDs, including BLPs, default to keep per current policy, and attempts to change this policy (something that I would be cautiously sympathetic to) have so far failed. Until policy is changed, AfD closures must follow it. I have not evaluated, however, if the "delete" closure would have been defensible had the closer simply found consensus for a "delete" closure on the basis of strength of argument.  Sandstein  18:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• "no fully unanimous consensus" != "no consensus". The closer's rationale sounds like he found a rough consensus to delete. But then the "default to" language is normally not used if one found such a rough consensus. Taking into account the closer's actual reasoning and the debate, endorse deletion solely on the ground that the closer was justified in finding, in effect, that there is a rough consensus to delete, but troutslap closer for the contradictory and unclear closing statement. I emphatically note that this !vote is limited to this particular debate at hand, and does not have anything to do with the "no consensus BLP default to delete" business. Tim Song (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, in this case "no fully unanimous consensus" was meant as a proxy for "no consensus", as the closing admin originally closed the mater a day early as "no consensus, default to delete"[15]. After reopening, there were 4 more keeps and 4 more deletes added. --Milowent (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Making it clearer. Endorse the closer's conclusion that numerically the arguments for deletion is more numerous as clearly correct. Endorse the closer's conclusion that the arguments for deletion are stronger as reasonable. As a result of these two conclusions, it follows necessarily that there is a rough consensus to delete. Therefore endorse deletion in accordance with that rough consensus and revise the closure to delete. I note again that this !vote has nothing to do with "no consensus to keep, defaulting to delete". Tim Song (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus, keep. This string of "breaching experiments" has become disruptive and should stop. The community has conspicuously rejected the principle the closer advances. Given the requirement that the closing admin be "disinterested," I think it's inappropriate for an administrator who's been actively pressing the issues involved (on either side) to close a contentious AFD in a matter which promotes his or her position, and the disruptive consequences of such closes are becoming increasingly clear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If the discussion is clearly trending towards delete, but the consensus is not 100% strong as one would wish. The closure was correct, if worded poorly. I agree with Tim Song when he says "The closer's rationale sounds like he found a rough consensus to delete. But then the "default to" language is normally not used if one found such a rough consensus." The consensus was not 100% firm, but what discussion on Wikipedia ever is? A "medium" consensus of sorts instead of a strong consensus does not automatically imply no consensus at all. Scott Macdonald expresses my feelings pretty well. NW (Talk) 20:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn, exactly as per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I particularly endorse the comments about disruption. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Procedural endorse - I'm not a big fan of this "no consensus, default to delete" business. AfD is run by consensus, and it's important to respect that. If there is truly no consensus, it should be closed accordingly. If, however, there is consensus to delete—which I believe may very well be the case here—then just say that and provide a rationale. So, I endorse this close, but on procedural grounds since it should stay deleted in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not understanding well what you mean. Do you endorse the deletion or not? And what do you mean by "on procedural grounds"? Because your wording seems to state that you want it to be overturned, but... --Cyclopia^talk 20:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion, just not the means by which is was deleted. (Hopefully that makes sense. :) ) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] break 2

• Closing Administrator's Comment - I closed the AFD this way for a reason, the main argument for the inclusion of it was that she was notable before the Tiger Woods incident. This argument, while it sounds good, is in no way true. She had been on the New York Times front pages, after her fiance died on 9/11. This wouldn't have made an article by itself, and adding another BLP1E on top of it, doesn't make the subject any more notable, even if they are in the news. The majority of the delete !votes were citing the BLP policy and the COATRACK policy, both which are applicable with this article. The majority of the delete !votes were strong and well based in policy, and (in case you didn't notice) made up the majority, by 20 more !votes. I find it amusing that some of you here are trying to game the system, just because I used the extremely accurate term "no fully unanimous consensus". This term, while thought provoking, makes sense and isn't as deep as it sounds. If you need me to break it down, I'll gladly change it to: no consensus to keep, default to delete, which practically means the same thing. This isn't a second AFD, you can't act like the majority of the consensus wasn't for deleting the article. So please stop trying to game the system by hanging over the words on how it was closed. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I changed it to: no consensus to keep, default to delete. Now try to argue with that reasoning... --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay: "no consensus to keep" is not a reason to delete. Deletion requires consensus to delete. I assume that the reason you didn't close it with "the consensus of the discussion was to delete" in the first place (or even now) was that there wasn't such a consensus. I'm also puzzled by the words "adding another BLP1E" -- doesn't that make it WP:BLP2E? And by the way, coatrack is an essay, not a policy (not even a guideline). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
      • There is nothing to argue with Coffee. As I noted on your talk page yesterday, "no consensus, default to delete" has been roundly rejected as a valid close rationale; I appreciate you clarifying that your rationale for deletion here was that you didn't find a consensus to keep, so you "defaulted" to delete, as you have advocated in favor of at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Default_to_delete_for_BLPs, which didn't go anywhere.--Milowent (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
      • @Nomo: Thank you for trying to read my mind, you sadly failed. The reason I said no consensus to keep, is to provoke thought, which it evidently did. Having 2 completely unrelated events to your name does not make you notable, so yes, it's a BLP2E, but it still means the exact same thing. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
        • @Milowent: Thank you for informing me of something I'm already well aware of, however I disagree. In BLP AFDs we should be looking for a consensus to keep, not a consensus to delete. Stop gawking over the use of the word default, if I had left that word out, does that mean you wouldn't be commenting here? --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
          • If you just wanted to delete it, you should have left out the word "default". Adding that word makes it an attempt at policy change. - Peregrine Fisher (talk)
          • Frankly yes, Coffee. If you had determined that consensus was to delete, I know that it would likely be a close within admin discretion. It would set no significant precedent. Shifting the burden to to look for a "consensus to keep" on BLPs will have a significant effect marshalling in favor of deletion of such articles. You closed the article the way you did to force the issue, so my gawking merely recognises your subtly significant adjudication. Its no surprise that a number of the endorse votes to date seek to endorse your outcome but not the rationale.--Milowent (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(contribs) 21:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • Coffee:
      • (1)WP:COATRACK is a mere essay, not even a guideline and by any standard not policy. Not that I disagree with it, but for sure it is not policy
      • (2)That !votes cite policy does not mean that they cite it correctly, which is the only thing that counts. Most of them cited WP:BLP1E, and they were obviously very debatable, since there were several events that made her notable. WP:COATRACK is just a reasonable essay, as anyone can see, and good motivations for the coatrack were not substantially given. I understand that you disagree, but the keeping or deletion of a page cannot rest on your personal disagreements.
      • (3)The deletion policy is clear on the subject (and it was at the moment of your closure): The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept . This has been recently added, but it has been done following the discussion I linked in the nom, as the rational outcome of that month-long debate.
      • (4)Therefore, your In BLP AFDs we should be looking for a consensus to keep is only your mere opinion, but is directly and explicitly contrary to policy. We should (perhaps:I respectfully disagree), but we do not.
      • (5)You reiterated that there was no consensus to delete. On which we agree, at least, and makes the points of a couple of endorsers here moot.
    • In short: I'm sorry to sound harsh, but it is painfully clear that you deleted this non-consensus AfD only because your personal opinion was to delete it, in explicit disregard of policy and community consensus on how to treat non-consensus articles'default. --Cyclopia^talk 22:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
      • • Comment - Only one thing that you said do I find necessary to reply to, as the rest of your points, I've already gone over here. To 5.: I at no point said that there wasn't consensus to delete the article, and if you can find anything to prove otherwise, I'd like to see it. The current closed rational is, no consensus to keep. That means the same thing as, a rough consensus to delete. ---Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Poppycock. If you'd closed as "consensus was to delete" you'd have saved a lot of time. The burden shifting of adopting a standard of needing to find a "consensus to keep" to keep a BLP article is a significant change in policy. There are frequent BLPs that close as "no consensus", which means no consensus to keep or delete, and they are kept. Your rationale would end in a delete. --Milowent (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Tim Song and partially what I said above, which is what I thought the closing admin meant. MuZemike 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. While the closer's statement could have been clearer, he did indicate that there was a rough consensus to delete, which is a reasonable reading of the debate. Kevin (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• To closing admin: Do you think we are stupid? I mean, if other editors and WP policies are stupid, just say so, please, don't beat around the bush.

Your comment: "I find it amusing that some of you here are trying to game the system, just because I used the extremely accurate term "no fully unanimous consensus". This term, while thought provoking, makes sense and isn't as deep as it sounds. If you need me to break it down, I'll gladly change it to: no consensus to keep, default to delete, which practically means the same thing."

It is troubling that you are amusing yourself as an admin on the account of the community. It is YOU as a backer of "BLP no consensus default to delete" side who is gaming the system with immature silly wordings in closes. Your term is neither extremely accurate, thought provoking nor deep. It is childish, dorky and plain stupid. Let me educate tell you on about closing, Mr. Admin (I who have only a few hundred edits to my name): It is either Close, Keep, Merge or No Consensus. No consensus defaults to keep. Someone already pointed out that you previously prematurely closed this AfD with "no consensus default to delete" wording[16]. This careless disrespectful chatter you have on your talk pages on this issue with same-camp-deletionist Alison (discussing underwear and congratulating each other)is indicative of your utter disregard of other editors and/or current policyUser_talk:Coffee#BLP_defaults_to_delete. All of this WP disruptive behavior coupled with your snotty "deep thinker" loser comment above makes me sure you are incorrectthat there should be steps taken that you not close another AfD ever.Turqoise127 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Turquoise, please edit the above so to avoid personal attacks. While I can understand the reasons of your comment, and I personally can agree with some of its content, the vicious attacks you're making at the closing admin make me sure that there should be steps taken that you not comment another DRV (to use your words). --Cyclopia^talk 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How about you and your 458 edits go to RFA, and then we'll see if you can make blanket statements like that. Sorry if my opinions don't completely agree with you, but I honestly don't care. The encyclopedia's reputation is at stake with BLPs, and I'm more interested in that than your hurt feelings. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my inappropriate comments. I tend to be overly passionate at times. I am not as patient and do not have so much tact like editors Cyclopia or Milowent. When I find something unjust and disrespectful to the project I overreact. Will work on this. Have struck out mean parts. Turqoise127 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn as there is no "default to delete" by either policy or consensus. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Procedural Overturn, have another closer perform the close with Delete rationale. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn No consensus defaults to a keep result, there is no such thing as no consensus to keep. there has to be a consensus to delete. Wikipedia policy about this is totally unambiguous. There are apparently a few admins who do not yet realise it--strange, because it has always been that way, and someone who insists otherwise, needs to review WP:Deletion policy before closing further afds. The arguements given by the closer for why it ought to be deleted belong at an afd--if thecloser had an opinion about that , they should have joined the discussion, rather than closed a disputed AfD based on both their own opinion and mistaken policy,. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- when the closer closed the debate the first time, 30 hours too early, he/she used the following formulation in the edit summary: "Closing debate, result was no consensus, default to delete". This is simply an error. It was a further error to perform the close again, after the full period had elapsed, with virtually the same mistaken rationale. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] break 3

• Suggestion: this drama is all the fault of an incompetently worded close. I am a BLP deletionist who supports a default to delete, but that is utterly irrelevant here, and I'm as irritated as the other side by the wording of this. However, I think we are confusing the result with the stupid and confused rational. The closer is now saying there was a "consensus to delete" - which is what is ought to have said in the first place and spared us this shitstorm. I suggest that what we need to do is: uphold deletion (as consensus to delete), repudiate rationale (as a misstatement of policy), then trout-slap closer.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Since, as noted immediately above, the closer discerned "no consensus" the first time he/she closed it, it would be powerful strange to switch to perceiving "consensus for delete" at this stage (after the first close, keep and delete views were added in equal measure). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Support this, consistent with my expanded views above. Though I'm more partial to exploding whales...... Tim Song (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Uphold deletion, repudiate rationale, and trout-slap closer :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ehm, even the closing admin has repeated that it is a no consensus. Are we trying tricks to keep it deleted despite AfD outcome and despite policy violations? --Cyclopia^talk 22:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse close this marginal BLP anyways. Secret ^account 22:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Honestly we need to form a policy with these marginal BLPs. BLPs aren't like any other subject in this project. They have the potential of causing great harm to this project if we treat these articles wrongly. We should delete BLPs that have marginal notability. Coffee shouldn't have closed this debate because he has a clear point of view, but the delete closure was correct. How would Uchitel feel that she has an article on Wikipedia because of an alleged affair. We shouldn't create articles based on this kind of information. Lets stop policy wonking each other, and discuss a solution to what is becoming a major crisis in our hands. Secret ^account 00:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, overturn no consensus to delete if needed. There appears to be no consensus on the notability of this person, however none of the keep votes have addressed the BLP problems whatsoever, meaning there is consensus that the page should be deleted for BLP concerns. The overall consensus therefore should have been delete. There is no reason to quibble over the closing admin's choice of words. Triplestop x3 22:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What BLP problems? There were BLP problems that required deletion? Only BLP-based argument I am aware of was WP:BLP1E, and this has been addressed extensively. --Cyclopia^talk 23:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn. The closing argument has been clarified as "no consensus to keep, default to delete", which has been explicitly rejected as an acceptable rationale several times. This should be reopened and an admin who is not trying to use their position to effect a change in policy can close it instead. Fences&Windows 23:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn. As one who changed his vote from weak keep to delete, it seems pretty clear to me that no consensus should default to keep. // Internet Esquire (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Even if poorly worded, the close was legitimate. This is forum-shopping. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's not forum shopping. The deletion close is being contested, and this is deletion review. Don't Wikilawyer. Fences&Windows 00:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

F&W, The close is an accurate reading of the consensus, and if some of the people commenting here would look past the bold letters, they would understand that. IMO this is just an attempt to shut down the term "default to delete", whether or not the close was done correctly. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

DRV does seem rather political as of late... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 09:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - Yes, a bit awkwardly worded, but the rationale of weighing the strength of the arguments is sound, and the arguments to keep were poor, to put it charitably. Yet another DRV nomination intended to stoke maximum eDrama. Tarc (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn due to procedural error. The AfD was closed one day early by the same closer who came to the same conclusion the next day (with a shortened version of the wording). Editors would interpret this to be a message that the outcome is going to be the same regardless of whatever they had expressed/!voted there. It really should have been handled by another admin. Whatever conclusion that comes out of it, whether concur or otherwise, is another story altogether. - Mailer Diablo 02:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete I am a firm believer that BLP cases should default to delete if no-consensus but I think this was the wrong close as BLP1E clearly applies and this was not adequately refuted by the keep side. Therefore overturn no-consensus to a clear delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• I know this is not AfD part 2, but BLP1E does not "clearly" apply, sorry. Read the above. There is not one single event where the article could have possibly been renamed/merged. Again: !votes that handwave policy are not more powerful just because they handwave policy, they have to do that unambiguously correctly. I wait for the day someone will delete a dead person article citing BLP... --Cyclopia^talk 10:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Been there, done that. BLP applies for dead people as well if there are living rellys to be affected by an article. Do no harm isn't just for christmas. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The closure rationale does include the phrase "no fully unanimous consensus, default to delete", which some people here seem to object to. However, it also says: "The delete !votes are far more compelling and cite stronger policy than the keep !votes, and the consensus (by percentage) mostly leans toward deleting the article. Therefore per my full reading of the discussion, it warrants deletion." and that seems like a reasonable closure to me. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Scott Mac. Enigma^msg 06:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion I count 42 delete !votes and 25 for keep, with one for merging to Tiger Woods. (I may be off a few, but the toolserver count is off due to changed votes). So, in the end result, it doesn't matter, around 62% supporting deletion. The merging idea never got any traction at all, so let us discount it. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but, if the closing admin believes the 62% have stronger arguments than the 37% on the other side, I'm okay with him/her closing the debate with the majority's argument. This tells admins to gauge "rough consensus", which I believe Coffee found in this discussion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and Re-close The close as written should not be endorsed. The reasons have been pointed out in many of the comments above and don't need rehashing by me. However if an admin not using his statement as a platform in a policy debate read that afd as a consensus to delete I'd have no arguement.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Undelete; the closer does not appear to have found consensus to delete. Thus, keep was the appropriate result. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion If those making the complaints would read the statement "The delete !votes are far more compelling and cite stronger policy than the keep !votes, and the consensus (by percentage) mostly leans toward deleting the article" instead of just the bold text, I don't think that this would be an issue. Perhaps the bolded portion was poorly worded, but the justification for the delete is most certainly sensible. --Shirik (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Consensus != unanimity & the closing statement did not suggest that it was. As the closing admin stated, both the numeric weight and the weight of policy based arguments were on the side of deletion. It cannot be clearer. Nancy ^talk 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• overturn No consensus is no consensus. I would have likely argued for deletion in this case. But that's not the consensus and despite repeated claims, there's no communal decision that no consensus defaults to deletion in BLPs. If someone wants to make an argument that a policy interpretation overrides here then they might have something resembling an argument. Close as no consensus, and renominate it in a few months. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC) = Per Scott's remark below. To be very clear. This is a wretched close reasoning. There's no communal decision that no consensus defaults to deletion in BLPs. Repeated attempts to push it through have failed. However, this could be closed on better policy and consensus grounds as Scott summarizes below. So I want to overturn and replace close with a close noting the consensus for deletion based on clear BLP1E and consensus in the discussion. I'm concerned that this close was chosen to make it more likely that the community would see this as an acceptable case to adopt no-consensus defaulting to deletion. That's exactly the sort of policy-football that Scott refers to below. Thus, I'm making this formally a call for overturning and replacing with a proper reason for deletion. (Also I damn well hope that the closer look up what the word unanimity means. Either the closer doesn't know what that word means or the closer is so far from anything that even the most die-hard deletionists want...) JoshuaZ (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry, now back to overturn The fact is that there's a very good argument that this is not a BLP1E given the coverage from well before the current matter. Given that, and the very bad close decision this should be overturned. Defaulting to deletion is not a policy, and without that sort of claim (which has been rejected by the community) there isn't a good argument to delete this article. I'm moreover concerned by Coffee's comments here and elsewhere which seem to suggest that anything less than unanimity allows a delete close. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • But there was a consensus. Leave aside the whole "default to delete" nonsense here - which is a policy argument that really has nothing to do with this particular article, and what have you got? A 62%-38% vote, with the closer finding the 62% to have the stronger policy case. Now, I find the closer's wording unfortunate, but do we really restore this article to prove a policy point that's for a different debate? I'm happy to agree that there's no consensus for a "default to delete", but restoring this article is wikilawering and almost a WP:POINT violation. If this is restored it will be immediately renominated and almost certainly deleted with a better worded close. So we really want to use the biography of a living person as a pointless policy football?--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] break 4

• Overturn to delete and encourage admins to close debates as "delete" instead of "no consensus-delete" if they feel particular policies necessitate deletion. I don't like the idea of no consensus defaulting to delete and I don't think it should be used, but administrative discretion on touchy debates like this can and should be used and a delete close would be well within that discretion. No consensus-delete only gets people fired up. ThemFromSpace 23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse No Consensus, Overturn Delete- Although I argued for the deletion of this article, I disagree with the result. There was no consensus, and it should have been closed as such. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This was the correct reading of the AfD, regardless of the way the closer put it. Chick Bowen 01:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse delete Consensus to delete, or at least definitely to not keep. Reywas92^Talk 03:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to nc, default to keep Firstly, if the closer found no consensus to delete, it should be kept. Secondly, the keep arguments were stronger, as she was notable per WP:N previous to the "one event" and therefor BLP1E doesn't apply. Finally, there really was no consensus to delete that article, so it should be kept. Hobit (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Finally, has the closer provided a reason for closing the AfD early? Hobit (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    • It was accidentaly closed early the first time. The close that this DRV is on, was closed 2 hours after the typical closing time. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
      • So the first closer undid the early close and you closed it after that? Who was the first closer and how did they close it? Hobit (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
        • He was the first closer, too. [17]. Tim Song (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Delete was the correct outcome, overturning over the issue with the closing admin's wording would be bureaucracy. Many of the delete arguers felt that the subject's 9/11 connection and the article about her as a nightclub manager did not amount to notability, therefore BLP1E did apply. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn, without question (to no consensus, default to keep). I did not comment or vote in the AFD, but I am here to state that the verdict given by the closing admin verges on abuse of process. When there is no consensus on a highly-controversial AFD involving many, many participants, the default is to keep, not to delete. —Lowellian (reply) 13:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep. "No consensus = delete" has been continually rejected by the community with good reason. This blog post may also provide some insight into Coffee's actions. He accuses those opposed to his close of stupidity and playing politics. But it is he who is factionalising here, with his dismissal of "inclusionists". By making such a controversial close it is he who is being political, trying to make it a fait accompli and set a precedent.

"I'll just run off to make more closes like this. And in ways where you can't dispute it."

"I don't give a shit what any inclusionist says"

• I also suggest that Coffee has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of consensus as used on Wikipedia, first referring to it as "by percentage" and second describing it as "mostly leaning" towards deletion. Consensus does not "lean" towards an outcome - it exists or it does not. If it does not exist here (as he asserts himself in the close) then the article should be kept. the wub "?!" 14:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse deletion. A completely valid close. I didn't comment in the AfD but looking through I find Coffee's close to be entirely fine. Wizardman 14:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• This probably won't affect the discussion but I feel it should be mentioned. Apparently Ms. Uchitel is in talks to pose for Playboy [18]. I know this isn't AFD part 2, but this information does, I think, go further to negate some of the BLP1E arguments, given that she's not trying to remain out of the public spotlight. 04:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Other than the number of people linking to BLP1E, there wasn't any reasoning as to why 8 years of coverage falls under BLP1E. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - This isn't supposed to be AfD part 2, but it is. In the original AfD, 8 years of coverage was decided to be a BLP1E (obviously incorrect). In this DRV, a no consensus was deemed to be a delete. I hope the closer gives a long explanation as to why both of those things should be ignored if they close as an endorsed delete. And, if they say "by consensus", I'd like to hear why this local consensus overrules the global consensus at the policy and guideline pages. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It wasn't a no consensus to delete close, it was a no consensus to keep close. Please stop trying to manipulate the wording to fit your agenda, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Problem is, to delete you need a consensus to delete. --Cyclopia^talk 11:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't ever remember saying that there wasn't a consensus to delete. Rather quite the opposite, did you even read past the bold letters in that AFD? --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
        • I read here that you discerned "no consensus" at all in that AfD (and again the balance did not shift after this point). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
          • How about you read what you linked to: "However the delete !votes are far more compelling and cite strong policy. Therefore I'm deleting it.". --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
            • upgrades earlier trout to tuna --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
              • If you smack hard enough, I might be able to make it tuna salad. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• We have a role-comprehension failure on the part of the closer, here. Admins are elected to enforce the rules we have. They aren't elected to enforce rules we don't have, and "no consensus defaults to delete" is a rule we don't have. Attempts to introduce this as a rule have repeatedly failed to attract the necessary support and, unsurprisingly, the necessary support is not evident in this DRV either. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Uphold deletion (as consensus to delete), repudiate rationale (as a misstatement of policy), then trout-slap closer (per Scott MacDonald above). I was about to say essentially the exact same thing but Scott expressed it very well. Reading through the AfD (in which I did not participate), it's quite clear that closing as "delete" is well within administrator discretion, and Coffee should have simply closed it as such. Probably would have gone to DRV but it would have been upheld. Like Coffee and others here I'm in favor of having the option to close no consensus BLP AfDs as "default to delete," but we've recently established that this is not currently the community consensus. Closing in this fashion was thus a poor, out of policy decision which needs to be repudiated here at DRV, and furthermore it was completely unnecessary since one can make a strong argument that there was a consensus for deletion. So another way to put my view is that I think we should Overturn to delete, thus vacating the original "no consensus, default to delete" close, but in point of fact maintaining the status quo vis a vis the article itself. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse A lot of folks don't want to admit this, but closing a deletion requires two judgments, one about the consensus of the participants and the other about the weight of the arguments. When the consensus isn't obvious (what we call "no consensus") it requires the discussion to be closed on the arguments. It was certainly wrong to say the word "default" in this, but the closer made it clear the the weight of the arguments was to delete. We need more closes like this that take an depth look and think about the result instead. The closer should be congratulated for using his brain and not a numeric count. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• 'Endorse deletion but allow a redirect to an article on Woods' travails. This violates WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Do realize that she had significant coverage (in one case an entire article solely about her, plus a fair number of coverage elsewhere including the NYT) before the Woods thing? Hobit (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] break 5

• More or less per Scott: Uphold deletion (as consensus to delete), repudiate rationale (as poorly worded), then trout-slap closer ... followed by a whale-slap for those policy wankers who are arguing that we need to overturn this, just so someone can post a different closing rationale. Good grief. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You are the one pushing for changes in policy via AfD/DrV rather than by discussion. Are you really claiming that closing statements don't play a role there? Hobit (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that closing statements don't play a role? How do you derive that from what I said? I'm not seeing any such assertion by me. Of course they play a role. And this one is flawed, and could stand to be changed, and should be. But getting the statement changed by mutual agreement, which I favor, isn't at all the same thing as an actual overturn. It would be sheer process wankery to force an overturn just to change the close if one agreed with the outcome. We don't have time for such tomfoolery. ++Lar: t/c 02:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so assuming Coffee is unwilling to change is closing statement for the second time, what should us "wankers" do? Just let the closing statement stand? Plus, as I've argued elsewhere (and Coffee noted for the record) the discussion had no consensus. Hobit (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Lar is expressing distaste for the people who see a consensus to delete but are nevertheless calling for an overturn. He's not referring to people like you, who believe there was no consensus to delete. I hope that clarifies things. Equazcion (talk) 05:20, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And I slap back all the campaigning admins who are canvassing on Wikipedia Review and abusing their positions to force a change in practice contrary to policy and consensus, and who call other users wankers. Get a grip. Fences&Windows 23:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So many fallacies in two sentences. I suspect it is your grip that needs improving, not mine. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Preacher's back. sorry I couldn't resist --Cyclopia^talk 12:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Get thee behind me, Satan. sorry I couldn't resist ++Lar: t/c 18:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion but not closure per Scott and Bigtimepeace. I think there was a consensus to delete here; the whole "no consensus, default to delete" controversy should've been avoided. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Just change the closing rationale - Coffee was told, on his talk page by a few people, myself included, that his closing wording was inaccurate and would be seen as a problem. He was stubborn about listening to advice though, as he often is. No one really disagrees about the delete, just about this "default" nonsense. Force a change in the closing rationale, and everyone will probably be happy. If he had changed that himself when people started commenting on his talk page (which was before this DRV even started), this could all have been avoided. Equazcion (talk) 03:13, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
  • "No one really disagrees about the delete"? I certainly do, quite strongly. The delete !voters are living in a world where when someone who _is_ notable really sees serious press coverage for something silly (like this) they suddenly label them as not notable. Had the Woods thing not happened, no one would have sent an article about her to AfD--she was plainly notable before that (easily met WP:N and WP:BIO). But the Woods thing did happen, and the article got created because of that. And so we have people arguing BLP1E when it doesn't apply just because _that_ is what prompted someone to create the article. She easily met WP:N a year ago.  !votes that argue to delete for BLP1E should be greatly discounted. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
    • This isn't AfD II. If you have a problem with the closing because you think the voters against you were wrong, that's not what DRV is for. Equazcion (talk) 03:38, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
      • You said no one disagrees with the delete. That's factually untrue as many of us do. The question here is how the closer should have closed the debate. And part of that, perhaps most of it, is looking at the strength of the arguments on both sides. In this case the subject plainly, met the letter of WP:N before the "One Event". So arguments citing WP:BLP1E as a reason to delete should be taken with a grain of salt. One can argue those sources weren't enough to establish notability (and a few people did in the AfD). But most let them pass without comment. Hobit (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The main cause of this drama is Coffee's stubbornness. But he's always right, so what can we expect... Fences&Windows 03:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm truly surprised in the bitterness in that statement. I try not to think that I'm always right, but I usually don't stand behind a view unless I feel that it's the best for everyone. I'm not just some drama-mongering idiot. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I hope this doesn't come off as the same bitterness you're referring to, but my frank response to this is "so prove it". Change your closing rationale to get away from the "no consensus" and "default" stuff so that this long waste of time and effort can end. Equazcion (talk) 05:48, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
        • While I will eschew the "so prove it" wording, I agree with the sentiment. Please just change the close to clarify matters, Coffee. You say you're not a drama mongering idiot... well much drama has been mongered. ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Y Done - here. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
      • It helps to do so with a good amount of tact, which is left much to be desired especially after reading the blog post. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Noting Coffee's change to the closing rationale, I now endorse the deletion, and thank Coffee for making the change. Seeing as the concerns of most of overturn voters have been addressed, this DRV can probably be closed. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:56, 14 Dec 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Since the deletion rationale has been changed (though I personally could see a no consensus close), I think the revised rationale was within closer's discretion. The "default to delete" rationale being repudiated for good was my primary concern.--Milowent (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'd certainly object to closing this early even given this third close by the same closer. Let's let this play out by the book. There is no need to make this more of a farce than it already is by closing out of process. Hobit (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There were two important issues at hand here. One was problematic wording of the close that attempted to push an agenda in a subtle way. I applaud the wording change by Coffee, and this has resolved one issue of this DRV (coincidentaly, seeing the closing editor's blog explains much, this is a very young contributor). The other, equally important issue at hand was the allegation that the closer was not correct in his interpretation of the AfD itself and closed incorrectly as Delete (no matter how it was worded). Numerous experienced editors have argued this above and it is not fair to disregard their opinions. This is absolutely not AfD part 2, we are deciding here on the issue of whether or not the closer interpreted the arguments correctly and if policy based arguments for keep were given sufficient weight. Personally, even in completely disliking this article and considering it not worthy of inclusion nor encyclopedic, I believe keep arguers offered well reasoned policy based opinions. Turqoise127 (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What on earth does being a young contributor have to do with the close? I'm over the age of majority in the US, and there are editors here a hell of a lot younger than that. I took the blog post down that I made earlier, for a few reasons. (One of them being that I was on Percoset (wisdom teeth were removed) at the time of writing it which impaired my judgment, granted I'm still on it now, just a lower dose) The consensus was for delete in that AFD, just looking at the rough numbers (discounting the SPAs). 67% of the !votes were to delete while 33% were for keep. In my book that's a pretty damn good consensus. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• AFD Relist?. I have no opinion on the merits of the article or of the closing, and don't plan to form one. But in the circumstances, maybe a relisting, with a brief summary of the policy/fact arguments made in the initial AFD, would help. Rd232 ^talk 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • There's no need for that. This AFD had plenty of discussion, and the consensus was obviously for delete. A relist would just create more unnecessary drama. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh Coffee, you should just let this run its course at this point and see what happens. Your initial AfD close was no consensus, default to delete. If the consensus was obviously for delete, it would be been, well, obvious.--Milowent (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Scott (first comment) who said it best. I completely agree with the end closure itself, and it was the only logical decision if you actually look at the votes and their reasons. Even a number-crunching admin would have seen the +60% (apparently it's more like 67%) and clearly closed it as "delete". The only problem here was the closure reason which stated "no consensus, default to delete" (might not be an exact quote, sorry) as a fact. Like it or not, that's inaccurate, and the initial statement was worded poorly. But I strongly agree with the decision to delete; Wikipedia is not a tabloid paper, and the consensus was actually pretty strong. Relisting is a generally bad idea, given the subject, and would only cause more drama. JamieS93 22:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This is what worries me. If a subject met WP:N before they became "tabloid bait", shouldn't they meet it afterwards also? I think people are trying to delete notable things because we "aren't a tabloid". I'm waiting for us to remove Tiger Wood's article next. Same principle, different degree. (Yes, that's hyperbole, but where do we draw the line with this? I've no doubt if she'd had a wiki article before event it would have been kept at AfD. Plenty of sources including an article solely about her and how she did her job, plus a NYT piece about her wedding, plus plenty of other minor sources.) Bah I say. Hobit (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kerberos/Sandbox (closed)

[edit] 7 December 2009

[edit] Recent discussions

[edit] 6 December 2009

[edit] 5 December 2009

[edit] 4 December 2009

[edit] 3 December 2009

[edit] 2 December 2009