Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to current nominations

Skip to: Active discussions | Recent discussions | Archive
Shortcuts:
WP:DRV
WP:DELREV
Deletion debates
Deletion today

Deletion yesterday

Articles (by category)

Templates

Images & media

Categories (active)

User categories

Stub types

Redirects

Miscellany

Deletion review
Deletion policy
Process - log - tools

Guide - Admin guide

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.

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

Contents

[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 debates

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

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

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page exists to correct errors in the deletion process, but that may also involve reviewing content in some cases.

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 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] History-only undeletion

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

[edit] Contesting 'proposed deletions'

Request this if the article was dealt with as a 'proposed deletion'. A 'PROD' can be restored by any admin upon reasonable request. Such an article may still be deleted at articles for deletion or under the criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators restoring deleted articles should also restore the associated talk page if it exists and place {{oldprod}} on it. {{ProdContested}} (shortcut {{subst:PC|articlename}}) is available for notifying the original nominator that the article has been restored.

[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, 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, so that it can be debated at the appropriate forum; 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] Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. 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.

[edit] Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision). 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.

 
1.

Copy the following line (which is also listed for you in the date page below):

{{subst:Newdelrev|pg=PAGE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~
2.

Follow this link to today's log, paste the line at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page), below the date header box. (This box looks like a few lines of hash in the edit page the link takes you to, but look for the "BELOW THIS LINE" tag after the first paragraph, and paste in your request just below that). Then replace PAGE_NAME and UNDELETE_REASON in your addition with appropriate content. Your whole contribution is this single bracketted tag. The tag will create the proper section for you when you save the page, so you don't need to create a new header or do anything else.
3.

Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.

Nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept should also attach a {{subst:Delrev}} tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
 

 

[edit] Active discussions

[edit] 27 February 2008

[edit] Talk:California State Route 57 (closed)

[edit] Mohammed Al Amin (closed)

[edit] North Shore Women for Peace

Put back North Shore Women for Peace. I recall there was a New York Times article in it explaining its relveance, but who is to know now that you have destroyed the evidence. Jidanni (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion and speedy close, no proof of notability given and bad faith nomination. Corvus cornixtalk 03:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion pretty unconvincing delrev request. No data to suggest closing was incorrect nor that undeletion would be proper. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 26 February 2008

[edit] David Lochhead

David Lochhead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Challenge the Speedy Delete Gordon Laird (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC) The article was deleted before I had sufficient opportunity to demonsrate the noteworthyness of David Lochhead Gordon Laird (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note attempt at discussion with deleting admin here which seems to have directed the user straight here rather than trying to resolve this, either by explaining to the user why it would meet the speedy criteria regardless of the material posted on the user talk page, or by restoring it for further work. Just a note since this seems to be the opposite of the normal position where the nom seems reluctant to discuss with the deleting admin. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This was a straightforward obit. Endorse deletion. The material at the talk link above may be article-worthy, but a lot of it sounds like internal-only publication without external recognition. Pegasus' bureaucratic dismissiveness, is disappointing though. Splash - tk 12:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse Tone was obit-like and didn't establish notability enough to escape an A7, and certainly nothing that would have passed WP:PROF or survived an AfD. Nominator seems to be saying he has additional notability which would have been added if the article had been up longer, but WP doesn't work like that. If you have something you'd like us to consider that wasn't in the article, bring it up here so we can fully consider it: otherwise, we have to go by what's in the article, and that frankly isn't much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore -- Gordon Laird writes that the article was speedy deleted before he had a chance to "demonstrate its noteworthiness". Surely, in this case, restoration should be pro forma? If a wikipedian says they were making a good faith attempt to respond to the speedy tag, surely they deserve a reasonable chance to respond? It sounds like this opportunity was not provided in this case. Once it has been restored, if readers feel it doesn't merit inclusion on the wikipedia, then let them instantiate an {{afd}}. Frankly, I agree with 81.104.39.63 that the closing admin's reply fell very far short of WP:CIV and WP:BITE. Geo Swan (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and trout-slap closing admin for not being more civil when asked to discuss the deletion. To reply to a fully articulated and rational request for review with nothing more than "Wikipedia:Deletion review(signature)" demonstrates how much effort went in to reviewing the reasonable assertion of notability which is all that is required to pass speedy. The criteria for speedy deletion is very much purposefully narrow in scope as the very concept of deletion without discussion undermines our philosophy of consensus. We have deemed that in certain narrowband cases that it is necessary, and it has therefore received carte blanche consensus already for those specific cases. For administrators to expand that criteris to "that which is not likley to pass AfD" is disappointing and blatantly wrong. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matilda Hunter (closed)

[edit] ComputerGuy890100/Userboxes/2007 (closed)

[edit] 25 February 2008

[edit] THE GUINNASS

THE GUINNASS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedied as A7 (non-notable band) by User:Bearcat. I attempted to ask Bearcat about this but have received no reply, so I'm going to bring it up here. I don't have access to the original text of the article, but I do remember seeing it in Special:Newpages and specifically thinking it did not meet A7, as it did indeed contain an assertion of notability (if it did not, I would have tagged it for speedy deletion myself). As such, I think this article at least deserves a full AfD rather than being speedied. Powers T 23:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion. The article reveals they got their first album on 22 January 2008, and have so far failed to win any of the competitions they have entered. The article is signed on its face by one of the members of the band. The article just strings together a number of enthusiastically-phrased activities of the band, and this is classic material for an A7 speedy. That it was unusually long for such articles does not mitigate; the material belongs on a publicity website somewhere, which Wikipedia.... Splash - tk 00:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I could have sworn there was some assertion of notability in there. Powers T 15:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion and speedy close. It was a copyvio from their Myspace page. Corvus cornixtalk 00:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Esp@cenet®

Esp@cenet® (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This redirect (to esp@cenet) was first speedied with the edit summary: "R3: Recent redirect from implausible typo, link or misnomer: db-redirtypo". I then took the bold liberty to restore it while leaving the speedy tag (I created the article), to be able to contest the proposed speedy deletion on its talk page. Unsuccessfully. The redirect was then re-speedied with the edit summary: "Speedy deleted per (CSD r3), was a redirect based on an implausible typo. using TW". I then attempted to resolve the issue with the admin here. But in vain.

The speedy deletion was done under CSD R3, "Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers." The redirect was created in November 2005! This is not an implausible typo. While the symbol "@" is part of the official name (see first footnote of esp@cenet), the forms "Esp@cenet®" and "esp@cenet®" appear relatively often because it is a registered trademark (a search on Google Book or Google Scholar for "esp@cenet" reveals occurences of "Esp@cenet®" and "esp@cenet®"). Strictly speaking the form "esp@cenet®" is neither a typo nor a misnomer. Some users do search for articles by just copy-pasting a string of characters into Wikipedia, and some users even create article with a "®" at the end. It makes sense to have a redirect from "Esp@cenet®" to "Esp@cenet" to.. redirect these users. And, since redirects are cheap, ... Edcolins (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think we have these redirects, for example Microsoft®, Dyson®, Microsoft Windows®, Microsoft Office®, Intel®, are red. It seems rather pointless to have gone to the effort of tagging it, honestly, but since it's gone and keeps getting deleted, you might as well just leave it that way. With it and the others red, people are discouraged from creating new ones since there are fewer examples to base it on, and we've had occasional troubles in the past with over-zealoous people wanting their TM and R and it's bee useful to dispose of them by example (and article titles with such symbols in are commercially ugly to my eyes). Endorse deletion, I guess. Splash - tk 23:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I support what I said on the talk page the first time I saw it; very few, if any, people are going to search for a brandname with a ® or TM in the title, so the implausible aspect applies here. As for not being recent, I don't think that that aspect is particularly important. So I agree with the speedy deletion. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The speedy criteria are specific for a reason, and "[r]ecently created" should not have been ignored. The deletion was improper. However, per WP:IAR, there's also no reason to undelete it just to take it through RfD, the result of which is a foregone conclusion. I strongly remind administrators to check creation dates when speedying under R3. Powers T 23:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, so I guess my !vote is No endorsement of process, but keep deleted. Or something. Powers T 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Out of interest why is the wording of this speedy restricted to 'recent'? On the face of it, if the typo is implausible it may as well be deleted. I should be interested in the policy rationale. BlueValour (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
        • The older a redirect is the more likely it is to have been linked to off-site, and there's no point breaking those incoming links for the sake of pseudo-tidiness. (With relatively recent improvements to Google's search functionality, it now might be possible to be more definitive about external linkage to particular links). Splash - tk 11:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • If the speedy deletion was improper, let's at least create a proper WP:RFD. The conclusion is not foregone. Other people participate to RfD. --Edcolins (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion. People do not accidentally type in the "®" symbol. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I concur, UsaSatsui, people do not accidentally type in the "®" symbol, but they may do so by copy-pasting a string of characters into Wikipedia, with the occasional symbols. Some do so. The purpose of a redirect is to help users to find an article as soon as possible, and we may help them by creating redirects. --Edcolins (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kick in the Ass

Kick in the Ass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

In a nutshell, the delete vote was 3-2 and not enough to form a consensus and the keep votes were far more well explained, per wikipedia rules it’s a discussion not a vote. The motivational theory was coined by a famous business philosopher Herzberg on how not to deal with employees and is in academic textbooks. The delete votes were all based on it being “made up” which per the references and the discussion it clearly was not. Any search of google books proves this. I find it hard to believe that this would be deleted on it’s content and believe it has been deleted on it having a funny name. Englishrose (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, if I were closing this, I'd have made specific rejection of the 'neologism' claim, since the term is referenced to the Harvard Law Review in the 1960s or 70s and appears in what looks to be a textbook, and with them the spurious notion that it was "made up in school one day" (people should read WP:NFT before citing it). I would go on to roundly reject all the arguments made by Crotalus Horridus, as unreasonable on their face given even a cursory reading of the links provided in the debate (notably a module peer-reviewed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution), and the latter part of Fubar Obfusco's as unhelpfully frivolous. That doesn't leave very much of the delete argument in tact. However, the point that terminology, and not just neologisms need sources about them rather than that use them is important, and this article was, in my opinion, a synthesis of interpretations of occasional mentions making it too close to original research for my liking. This said, I do happen to believe that an article is probably write-able on this, or at least a section of an article. So whilst I find the deleters to be entirely off base, I will endorse deletion, but be happy to see a proper, tertiary, recreation if one can be sensibly written. Splash - tk 13:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn The closer is supposed to evaluate the arguments as being policy based--& as being plausible. The keep argument said what you said, so the fact that it was not a neologism was raised, and ignored. the article itself gave a 1968 source and later references The delete arguments were based on 1/a trivial fact that the rather common phrase is also a song title 2/sounds like a joke, e.g. IDONTLIKEIT and the nom, another version of IDONTLIKEIT. DGG (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure (as closing administrator) As discussed on my talk page, The raw !vote count in the AfD was actually 4-2 (people often forget to count the nominator). But it really isn't about the count, anyway. The issues here are simple... we do have a clear guideline for neologism notability. This guideline was cited in the argument. The sources provided use the term, but do not describe it or critically discuss the term itself. The article reads like original research. This is probably because in order to write about this term one must do their own research, because there are no reliable secondary sources that discuss the term. I have stricken my use of the word "neologism, as I agree with the above respected wikipedians, that it apparently is not a neologism. I did not understand that at the time of closing, but I don't think that this actually impacts the closing. The fact is, that there are no sources for information about this term, so any attempt to create new information for the benefit of wikipedia readers who want to know what the term means, would be, unfortunately, own research. Wikipedia is not a primary source, and therefore can not have such content in it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Splash and Jerry in that sources need to be about the term, not just use it. --Kbdank71 21:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endore deletion - We already sinking under the weight of thousands of useless articles on one off neologisms and we don't need one more. It appears that this article was asserting a more recent terminology for a very old term and as such is completely confined within WP:NEO, since it is an article about a single usage of a term and not about the term itself (though I have great doubts if a well sourced article on this term could ever be written). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist calling the term a neologism is a joke, given the clear provenance of the term and its uses. Neither the nomination nor the delete votes make any reference to Wikipedia policy, and the keeps make clear references to why the article should be retained. The only way that a delete could be justified in this case is by counting votes and ignoring their content. Even if the deletes were valid, a 3-2 vote count is hardly evidence of consensus. Even the excuses here for endorsing teh closure are questionable, falling into the same baseless neologism claim and fighting the AfD rather than justifying the improper circumstances of its closure. Given the clear violations of Wikipedia policy here, the deletion should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose then, that you are just straight-up calling me a liar when I said that the process I used to determine the closing decision was not a vote count? I can see coming to a different determination, and even saying that my judgement was poor in my subjective analysis, and perhaps I'd be inclined to agree to some extent, as I referred to the term as a neologism. But to call me a liar? Is that really what you intended? Am I a liar? If I am a liar than I should be emergency desysopped, as the wikipedia project would undoubtedly be seriosuly harmed by a lying admin. And all of the other people who spent their time to evaluate this closing and bothered themselves to make a comment here, who happen to disagree with you, they are just jokingly vote-counting and ignoring content, with questionable excuses to fight the correction of impropriety through clear violations of wikipedia policy? So lucky we are to have you to point out all these very bad people! But please do recount the votes if you are comparing my supposed vote-count to your own, because the actually tally, if you will, was 4 to 2, not 3 to 2 as you just stated above. I assume it was a simple counting error on your part, probably forgetting to count the nom. I am sure any experienced wikipedian such as yourself would not lie. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • overturn/relist per DGG and Alansohn. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 24 February 2008

[edit] Anarchopedia

Anarchopedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Two years ago the Anarchopedia entry was deleted due to it was not considered relevant enough. However, I think that nowadays the project has grown enough to be taken into account. Here I give some arguments:

  • Anarchopedia is mature enough. Far from the few hundreds of drafts of the beginning, it has now 4,152 articules in the English version http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Main_Page together with the 2,446 of the German, 985 of French, 797 of Spanish one... Besides, and following the steps of Wikipedia, with the growing number of articles and users, the quality of the articles is improving too.
  • In 2006, where the last discussion considered it, Anarchopedia was receiving just a few visits. Nowadays http://anarchopedia.org has a Page Rank of 4 and its visits have grown significantly, achieving the needed critical mass.
  • There is an entry of it in the Spanish Wikipedia, the Italian one, the Chinese, Japanese, Norweigian, Indonesian... even in the Simple English Wikipedia: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchopedia. Samer.hc (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Whether another project chooses to have an article on something isn't relevant. What we need are reliable sources. If you have non-trivial, independent, reliable sources then you can have an article. I've found three possibilities. this one is a passing one sentence mention. There are two others that are in German [1] [2] but both also give only passing mention. If you can find additional sources that would go a long way to allowing an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per lack of additional reliable sources. I also notice that while its number of articles may have grown, its reach seemingly hasn't: Alexa rank is a paltry 250,000 and over 3 years has been virtually flat, apparently never scratching even the top 100,000 websites. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Improve and show us in user space which is pretty much the usual response to request like this DGG (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse longstanding deletion. If I'm counting right, this has been deleted 8 times, 3 times through the AFD or (earlier) VFd processes. The title has been Protected twice. Hardly seems plausible that it will just be undeleted because some time has elapsed and it (anarchopedia) still exists, you'll likely need more of a case than what you've put here. I also agree with DGG here, Samer.hc - start from scratch with what you think would be a viable article in your userspace or your sandbox. (User:Samer.hc/Sandbox) Bring it to some other editors' attention for reviewing. If you get generally positive feedback, then it can be moved to mainspace to see if it survives an AFD on attempt #4. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse for now, but per DGG and Keeper, I have no problems with a rewrite in your user space. --Kbdank71 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn, improve, and list at AfD. Per the nominator's comments, this may fall under the realm of semi-notability. Editorofthewiki 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
What is "semi-notablity?". It's notable, or it isn't. Is there a guideline for "semi-notability?" Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "semi-notability", but if you're impressed by the "large" number of articles, don't be. I just had a look at about 15 random Anarchopedia pages (using the random pages tool) and all but one was either a copy of a Wikipedia/Wikia article, or a tiny substub which would be speediable by WP standards: for example, their article on School reads "School is a place where students learn the "sellable" skills." ...and that's all. As far as I can tell there's very little substantial original content there at all. Besides, even if these were decent articles (and they're not), 4000 isn't very impressive anyway: Bulbapedia, a Pokemon wiki, has twice that. And of course, still no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
As you have been told many times, many places...there is no such thing as semi-notable. You either are or aren't. -Djsasso (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse for now. As people have said above, if you construct a good draft in your userspace, feel free to restore it. But right now, I don't see how you would do that. -Amarkov moo! 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, looking back over the history of many deleted revisions, I'm not seeing any that ever had any quality, sourced content. If you can demonstrate notability (via "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") I recommend creating a well-sourced version in userspace, and then bringing that to Deletion Review. --Stormie (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c

Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

No consensus for redirect. Page is an historical archive of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs)

Version before redirection and protection is here
  • Overturn and keep discussion visible. What has happened here is a lack of proper archiving or merging with the destination page. Although this archiving could be done without admins tools, I note that the redirect was protected for some reason. As far as I can see, there is no need for the redirect to be protected - where is the edit war? The discussion on the page in question should be visible so that it can be read in the future. We do not point people to page histories to read old community discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The more I look at this, the more I'm shaking my head in dismay. Redirecting without merging, and then claiming that it wasn't deleted? That is blanking of discussion, pure and simple, and the technical difference between that and deletion is purely semantic. People signed comments they put on that page. They don't expect it to be only accessible in the page history. And protecting the redirect stops anyone from editing the page and undoing the blanking. I suppose someone could copy the stuff out of the page history, and then archive it properly, but that would be equally silly. This needs resolving at DRV and I'm somewhat disconcerted that MZMcBride thought it was appropriate to go to MickMackNee's talk page and ask if he (MZMcBride) could close the DRV. It might have seemed the right thing to do at the time, but it fails to respect both MickMacNee and the DRV process. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Question: The main concern about the thing was it read like a giant attack page. Where would the benefit of leaving the text up be, seeing how the attack rationale was the main one at the MfD? Remember, the decision has been made, DRV is for procedural violations and the like, not as a second MfD to fight. -Mask? 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh, there are tons of procedural holes in this. Where was the consensus to redirect (see below), is the most pressing one. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
          • You'll notice im not endorsing the decision quite yet, and im really not trying to needle you, I promise :) But you really didn't answer my question. The issue of turning it into a redirect as the vehicle to accomplish this goal aside, there was great concern by many established, respected editors that it read like an attack page. As any deletion is not a vote, but rather a reasoned debate, it's obvious that these concerns had merit to the closing admin. This being the case, where would the benefit, or even compliance with the spirit of the close be, if the comments were just left in the open? I suspect the redirect and leaving them in history, as opposed to an outright deletion, was intended as a sort of compromise. -Mask? 01:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Examining the redirect option - MZMcBride closed the MfD as "redirect(fully-protected)", but in the actual discussion, redirection had only been mentioned three times: "deletion or redirection to an RfC"; "Delete and then redirect to a neutrally worded RfC based around finding solutions, instead of apportioning blame"; "Delete or redirect to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance". There was also the related option "Merge it into the AN subpage". The actual closure did none of these, but instead blanked the page and turned it into a redirect to the AN subpage. Surprisingly, no-one thought of moving the page to an RfC (which would have changed the title, left a redirect behind, and preserved what was said). There were many better ways of dealing with this, and the option chosen is, I'm sad to say, not one of the better ones. If the result had been keep, I would have supported any number of refactorings, movings, archiving and improvement of the page, but this protection of the redirect means all this is no longer possible, as MZMcBride has literally said: no need to edit this page, thus removing the option of many of these other possibilities. If MZMcBride will unprotect the redirect, I would be willing to try and find a more equitable solution such as marking rejected and moving to a subpage with a different name. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    The votes were pretty much split between keep and delete, with a slight favor to delete, as I recall. I was strongly inclined to delete, however, I chose to redirect. "Merging" two pages is not possible with MediaWiki, and any type of history-merge would have destroyed the pages. I redirected because it left the revisions in place and visible to the community while directing people to the appropriate place for ongoing discussion. I protected the redirect to avoid any further comments in the "wrong" place.

    As for moving the page to an RfC subpage, that would be absurd -- admins are in no way empowered to begin an RfC like that. The full history of the page has been preserved, something that I honestly believe some people failed to realize. No revisions are gone, everything is still visible to those who wish to see it, and in fact, people can move their comments if they see fit. This is advantageous to me (or another admin) simply copying over all the text from one page to the other, as it makes attribution of edits far easier.

    As for marking the page as historical or rejected, there were strong concerns that the page was being used as an attack page against Betacommand, something that simply will not be tolerated. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

    Where do I start? It's not a vote, for a start, but if you think there was a slight favour to delete, it was 17 people mentioning delete, and 21 mentioning keep. Would you like to retract your "slight favor to delete" comment as misleading, or try and justify it with reference to what was actually discussed, rather than vague and inaccurate references to counting votes? As for your "merging" comment and MediaWiki page history comment, you know full well I wasn't talking about a page history merge. I was talking about the sort of merging that saw lots of AN and ANI threads consolidated at the AN subpage. The move to an RfC should have happened at the start. Of course the full history of the page has been preserved, but the discussion hasn't. People don't look in page histories to see what was discussed. They look at archives of discussions. Do you see the difference? And no-one has substantiated the attack page concerns. Simply "concerns" that something is an attack page doesn't make it an attack page. I count seven people calling it an attack page: MBisanz, Redvers, Hammersoft, LaraLove, ThuranX, Coredesat and AKMask. However, most of them (or those supporting 'per' their comments) say why they think it is an attack page, but simply assert that it is so. Only MBisanz and LaraLove made any attempt to explain why they thought it was an attack page, and many editors explained why it wasn't an attack page. So how can the closing admin decide when opinion is polarised like that? Simple. They can't. I have no problem with the redirect, but there is no consensus for it, so it should be unprotected so others can try other solutions (before or after discussion), rather than having this one imposed by fiat. Carcharoth (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    If you feel the comments should be moved similarly to AN and AN/I comments, you're free to. That's exactly why I decided to preserve the history. My protection stops people from editing a page that shouldn't be edited (i.e., centralize the discussion). My protection does not stop anyone from copying and pasting. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks. This doesn't preclude the redirect being unprotected and restored later, depending on what this DRV outcome is, but I've made a start here. I intend to do the same for the main page (extract and archive useful comments), but will wait and see what people think of that first. Carcharoth (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse redirect - I voted delete in the MfD because the page is a borderline attack page in my opinion. I don't think there's much of anything on that page of relevance that's not already somewhere else. However, if it isn't going to be deleted, this is the best alternative. It's not semantics. Only admins can see deleted pages. This allows anyone to see the page via the history. It allows anyone to link to a permanent version visible to everyone. I don't see a problem with this. Lara❤Love 05:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • By semantics, I meant that there is little practical difference between the visibility (as in people being aware of it, not whether they can physically view it) of a redirected page and a deleted page. "I don't think there's much of anything on that page of relevance that's not already somewhere else" - I strongly disagree with you there, and I am actively archiving the useful parts of the page (will be done in a few days). Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • What aspect or part of the page, specifically, makes it an attack page? This accusation keeps getting bandied about, but I've yet to see any real evidence to support it. David Mestel(Talk) 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • ugh. Endorse redirect. Better yet, delete the damn thing, as an attack page. You kept your promise to drag this crap out on DRV, no? Congrats, good work. unsigned comment, misidentified user bringing this to DRV, sorry. This is exactly why it is best to sign your comments. SQLQuery me! 05:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I am trying to keep my arguments to procedural ones about MfD, believe it or not. But I do worry when SQL thinks I started this DRV when it should be plain that I didn't. For the record, I added the "unsigned" tag before SQL made the above comment, so I am still mystified as to why he made the comment he did, despite him striking it out. When people make mistakes like that over BetcommandBot, they get attacked. When people make mistakes in other matters, people are more forgiving. Like I'm trying to be. Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse - as I said on the MFD, we don't need two pages discussing the exact same thing. Closing admin must've thought along those lines too, and thought that would be the most sensible and least inflammatory option. Will (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Right. But surely it'd be far better to simply tag the page as historical, leaving it easily visible? David Mestel(Talk) 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse redirect getting tired of all the antics. Also getting tired of the revert warring trying to maintain visibility of this page [3][4][5][6][7][8]. 6 times in less than two hours? After being blocked a week ago for 3RR violation? Wow. I mean WOW. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll see your six ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]), and raise you a clean block log. Clean block log? I though Betacommand had been blocked before. Oh, hang on, this is his alternate account. </sarcasm> Seriously, if someone had come along and blocked them both for edit warring, does the main account or the alternate one get blocked? (Yes, I know, Black Kite protected the page and warned them both and that is an end to it). Oh, and let's throw in a parody for good measure: "6 times in less than two hours? After being warned for abusing a bot to spam this editor's talk page and after being warned for incivility? Wow. I mean WOW." There. I hope the karma of the universe has been restored. Hammersoft told the MickMacNee version. I told the Betacommand version. But seriously, Betacommand is developing a real pattern of borderline and unacceptable behaviour here. His supporters need to be less uncritical and to have a quiet word with him (if they can) and get him to settle down and not get provoked so easily over so little. Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes I did tell the MickMacNee version. That's because I'm tired of his antics. I'm not tired of Betacommand's. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Hammersoft, is that not... inconsistent? Or at the least biased. (Seriously). Imagine someone said this about you. How would you feel? I know we shouldn't treat people differently according to how long they've been around, but MickMacNee's been around since 30 October 2007. Betacommand's been around since 7 November 2005. Both are giving as good as they get, in my opinion, and both need to calm down and learn to get along. I'd give MickMacNee a bit of slack because he has only been here a few months, and I'd give Betacommand a bit of slack because he is a long-term contributor and does useful work. That has to be balanced though, by his having been here for over two years so he should know how things work around here and people shouldn't defend him all the time. Equally, as others say, he does get a lot of aggro for his image tagging work, and, as long as he apologises, he should get a little bit of slack for that, and if he reports attacks on him (I mean the stuff on his talk page, not the alleged attacks from MickMacNee), then warnings should be given to those attacking him. Despite what people like ThuranX have said, I'm very unlikely to ever call for a community ban or permenent long block of any established good-faith contributor. But I do speak my mind and tell people when I think they are wrong, or if I think they can do things better. I do realise that sometimes cajoling is better than shouting or lining up the evidence, but I genuinely do hope that people take the criticism in the spirit in which it is given - the intention being to help people improve how they collaborate and communicate with others. The single largest barrier to this is intemperate, curt, incivil language, which is why I try to avoid that as much as I can - maybe all the time. I have criticised many admins and editors for their actions, and I've praised others as well, but I always try to do so in calm, constructive, civil language (if a bit verbose). Carcharoth (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec) Um...do you really think that "getting tired of all the antics" is anything even approaching a good rationale? David Mestel(Talk) 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Certainly. MickMacNee is seriously on about BetacommandBot and I see this is just another permutation of that. Over and over and over again he keeps trying to attack, cattle prod and disparage Betacommand and his bot. At some point it needs to stop, and MickMacNee needs to take a time out. There. Longer version. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, for starters, there are the twelve other editors actually supporting his proposals. Why is this anything more than legitimate criticism of the actions of BCB? David Mestel(Talk) 19:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
          • So you're saying the page was really just a vehicle for criticism of BCBot? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, it was a page for the discussion of BCB's activities, and MickMacNee's (and many of the other commentators') opinions happened to be critical of said activities, and it seems to be those opinions about which you're complaining. David Mestel(Talk) 20:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
              • No, but thanks. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Come again? David Mestel(Talk) 21:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • Why should I? You're doing a wonderful job stuffing words into my mouth. Please, feel free to translate my latest response to whatever form you feel necessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
                    • I just don't understand what you're saying. With the greatest possible respect, if anyone's been stuffing words into anyone's mouth (not that I allege this), it's you: see your comment above starting with "so you're saying". If you're referring to my suggestions about what you were complaining about, I am prepared to be corrected, but I thought that one of your main points was that these criticisms was that these criticisms were a thinly-veiled attack on BC, no? David Mestel(Talk) 22:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn: AfD is not a vote, but there was clearly no consensus to get rid of it, and the arguments to delete were principally "it's an attack page", for which they provide no evidence whatsoever, and "any criticism of BCB is a thinly-veiled attack on BC", which is a monumental failure to assume good faith, and for which there is likewise no evidence. If this really were an attack page, that'd be an excellent reason to delete even in the face of a lack of clear consensus. Give me some evidence, please. David Mestel(Talk) 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse redirect per AKMask. Nothing there worth merging. Mr.Z-man 18:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That's an editorial decision. I'm torn on whether to complete the merger I started, or wait until the DRV is finished. There is good material on this page, and I want to use it as part of productive discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Carcharoth, if you can spend the time to remove the miss-information that the page was based on and propagated. it shouldnt be an issue. But as it stood the purposeful mis-information and blatantly wrong comments should not be merged. βcommand 18:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Part of the reason I haven't merged yet is because almost no-one who has said there is "bad" content has told me what they think is "bad". But if you are happy to trust my judgment, I'll finish the merger later tonight. And hopefully get some credit for trying to end this peacefully. Though I doubt it. (And no, walking away isn't always the best way to end something). Carcharoth (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't see the benefit in attempting the merge. That page generated a hellacious debate that will only fame flames if the material is merged into Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand. The latter page does as well a job as can be regarding the issues. We do not need to keep relighting the fire under this kettle. In this case, walking away IS the best move. Let it die already. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse redirection. Concerning the Betacommand debate, there's arguably nothing anywhere really "worth" saving. In this case, we have two pages which discuss the materially same thing. That is unnecessary. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 18:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I understand what you are saying, but can you show how the pages are the same? Why was one MfD'd and the other one not? Bad things have been said on the destination page as well. At root, I suspect that this is a "fruit of the poisoned tree" debate, but those with long memories will remember the DRV I was heavily involved in, where a page started by a banned user got undeleted. Just because someone objects to who started a page and how, doesn't always mean it is unsalvageable, or doesn't contain useful content. Carcharoth (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC) - it was this one, in case anyone was interested.
      • Well yes, this is probably why it wasn't deleted. Not to speak for the closing admin here, but this seems to me an attempt to consolidate discussion. This is generally desirable, and even though there was no consensus to delete one or the other, I would be willing to wager that there is consensus as to which one of the two pages was the more congenial place to continue discussion. This redirection has two effects - consolidating the discussion into one place which (most) everyone can agree is appropriate and sufficient, and leaving the non-used page accessible to non-admin users. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 20:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
        • You should be my spokesperson. : - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
          • The Mfd'd page does not cover the same topic as the redirected page, and also pre-dates it. If anything, it would fall under just one heading of the betacomand AN sub-page, had it actually existed at the time. A closure in this way is the first time I've ever seen a discussion closed like this, if the closing intent is actually to retain archived discussion. Also, the stated reason for closure: "The result of the debate was redirect" is also just plain false, as explained above. MickMacNee (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Ryan, your comment about "consolidating discussion" seems to suggest to me that you think the content has been merged. Do you have a definition for what you mean by "consolidate"? In my view, this was a "blank all content and redirect" result, not a "merge useful content and redirect". Do you see the difference? That is why I'm proposing to merge the useful comments, despite Hammersoft taking the line that nothing is useful. I also have more faith that a proper merge will allow some of the unanswered questions to be resolved, and some of the worst of the "discussion" on that page to be quietly left behind, and that could have happened if people hadn't shortcircuited the process with a premature MfD'. I could also just summarise what the page said and rewrite it, in what I think would be a more acceptable form. Betacommand has said he has no problems with that, so I don't quite see why Hammersoft is objecting. But it will now have to wait until tomorrow. Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
          • So then merge any comments you think are useful. To be blunt, it's a redirection, not a black hole. We don't need two grocery stores if the only difference between them is that one sells a variety of grapes that are more sour. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Make visible - There's really no reason to remove this from easy view, even if it is a rehash of the same old thing. There is a lot of constructive criticism in the page, and relatively little attack. The page should be made visible or added to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand as a collapsed section (like the completed discussions here). It seems like many of the people claiming that this had no purpose other than attack are no longer willing to view any criticism of this process as anything other than an attack. Read even the opening support/oppose section for evidence of this. —Torc. (Talk.) 02:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestion What about changing this to {{softredirect}} & possibly adding {{historical}}? The closing was a little terse - was this redirected because the closer decided that it qualified as an attack page? If so, then it should have been deleted. If not, then it should have been tagged as historical or at least {{courtesy blanked}}. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This doesn't seem to need undeletion. The page history is already visible. I like Anetode's suggestion. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I see no need to create new precedents in how historical debates are retained. How about the closing admin clarifies the postition, was it deleted for being an attack page or not? Is the page history needed or isn't it? MickMacNee (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The real sticking point is the protection of the redirect. Without that, people could have tried other options after the (effective) keep. And yes, a redirect does keep the page history, and this wasn't deletion. There is a difference between blanking something and deleting it. For what it is worth, WP:AN/B now has an archive. Is there any reason not to just stick a disputed or rejected sign on the page being discussed here, and dump it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 0? Carcharoth (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Concur there's no support (not to mention consensus) for a redirect. The !votes seemed to be delete (some delete and redirect), keep, and mark historical. (I !voted keep and/or merge to AN/B, I believe.) Carch...'s suggestion above, revert to last version, remove the the MfD from the article, mark historical (or unproductive, which I think I'd agree to, whether or not "historical"), and move it to an archive of AN/B, and restart relevant threads in AN/B, seems the best available option. I don't really see a reason not to merge it to AN/B, except that it has independent discussion of whether any bot could enforce NFCC 10c, with my reasoned decision being negative. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kick in the Ass (closed)

[edit] Gavin Donoghue

Gavin Donoghue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Some say this may not satisfy the notability treshold, but it is very well referenced and he has played for Ireland under 17 and Ireland u19 and i think that is more that notable.  Sunderland06  21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion Player still fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never actually played for Sunderland. Consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Number57. Only Under-21 caps should confer notability. – PeeJay 21:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per current established notability rules. --Angelo (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion has not played on a team in a fully-professional league nor been in a competition at the highest national level. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Number57. robwingfield «T•C» 18:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn Article meets our core policies. Catchpole (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Number57, fails WP:ATHLETE BanRay 22:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/AGK (closed)

[edit] Abongo (Roy) Obama

Abongo (Roy) Obama (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted less than a minute after it was put up, despite the fact that included sources such as the article in Investor's Business Daily that raises the fact that some might be unconfortable with a president who has a half-brother who self-identifies as a fundamentalist Muslim. Abongo has gotten a lot of attention recently and I am curious why there is no information about him on Wikipedia about him.

AJmed (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Article was deleted under WP:CSD section G10 (G10: Pure attack page or negative unsourced BLP). As the original CSD tagger i am not aware that there were any references added, which is why it was originally filed under section A7, Not Notable. I however, agree with the decision to G10 the article as the article contained only negative information, which violates WP:CSD and WP:BLP Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 20:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment recreating a G#10 deleted article in the middle of DRV is not usually a good idea, especially when the only comment is somewhat negative. Happy‑melon 20:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a straightforward attack article. I agree that recreating it after it was speedied under G10 wasn't the cleverest thing to do. It should be deleted again immediately. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have re-deleted the article pending discussion here, as a possibly negative BLP it should not be recreated using virtually exactly the same text unless discussion here reaches consensus to restore the article. Davewild (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Googling for sources gave me a top hit of a whitepride website.......if this is encyclopedic I'd want nothing less than major reliable sources.--Docg 21:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - it seems at least one reliable source on this man does exist: an article in the Chicago Sun-Times [15]. There's also an Investor's Business Daily editorial about him [16] and a post on Mike Huckabee's website regarding it. [17]. I didn't read the article, so I can't comment on whether it was an attack page, but perhaps an article should exist. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore with the added sources. I think he's enough of a public figure to justify inclusion. We seem to be seeing lot of BLP requests for people who have some less than favorable relation to presidential candidates. I expect we'll see more as the year goes on, and I think we should make it plain now that the campaigns of the likely candidates of the major parties are so notable that anyone mentioned in a substantial way by the press in connection with them justifies an article to the extent the responsible sources permit. DGG (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment This is not really about notability, but rather about the page not meeting BLP guidelines (By a long stretch). I deem the person notable enough to be on wikipedia, but in its current form, this is a mere attack page. Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excirial (talk • contribs) 06:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If he's notable for more than one isolated event--as he is--and the negative material is sourced,as it is, how does it violate BLP? It should simply be expanded further. But if we endorse, we should specifically say that we permit recreation. DGG (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It violates the BLP subsection on criticism. As quoted from the BLP guidelines: so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics;. There is absolutely nothing constructive as is, which means that it violates this second requirement.Also, it does not seem to comply with WP:NPOV. Excirial (<fontcolor="FF8C00">Talk,Contribs) 19:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely needs to stay deleted for now. There's nothing substantial about the reporting, quite the opposite. We don't have enough information to write an NPOV biographical article, so we don't have enough to support any article. If things change then we can look at this again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eau Gallie Yacht Club

Eau Gallie Yacht Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted within minutes of it being launched. The Brevard County Historical Commission (an independent, 3d party org that researches & assess historically notable items for the county) has already determined it notable enough to place a historical marker on it & they are the experts -- not me. I believe that the last sentence of the history section establishes the historical notability of the building. Besides, this article was a stub about a building/org & not nearly in a final state. IMHO, it simply was premature to delete this article & should have been tagged for improvement rather than speedy deleted. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Undelete There was definitely enough there to avoid an A7 speedy deletion. As a suggestion, though, the author should find better sources than relying on the club's own website. There should be newspaper sources, find those instead. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - as the original deleting administrator, this was very much a borderline case, but I stand by the decision to delete. The article, in my opinion, doesn't sufficiently assert or verify all the substance the club may contain, plus the comission that put a marker on it for being historic, isn't even notable itself to have a page. Rudget. 18:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The article is about a building & a club, not just about a club. The fact that the Brevard County Historical Commision does not have an article in Wikipedia does not mean its not a legitimate or notable organization. In fact, I just wrote an article on the Florida Historical Society, the state level historical society within the past few months. Historical societies across the globe are way underrepresented in Wikipedia....take a look at List of historical societies. Only a few articles exist for historical societies even at the state level. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Undelete I don't know if my vote counts because I submitted this article. However, if it does count, I would like to go on record with a vote. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • List at AfD - There is an assertion of notability, in that a local society deemed the building historical, but I seriously doubt that would survive an AfD. I have to agree with Rudget. that this is a really borderline case, but WP:SPEEDY does say that if there is even an assertion of notability, it should go to AfD instead. I personally think this should be a Delete, as there are thousands of non-notable buildings marked "historical" by non-notable societies, but this one squeaks by into AfD territory. -- Kesh (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spimes

Spimes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deletion of this article seems unreasonable, the term has got quite a bit of currency in futurist discussions, and people would expect it to have a page on Wikipedia (certainly I have referred to wikipedia for this word before myself). I had a look at contacting the Admin who had deleted it, but they say on their user page that they don't want to receive any communication on Wikipedia - so I'm writing here.

Charlie Stross also thinks Spimes shouldn't have been deleted, fwiw: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2008/02/news_of_the_weird.html Winjer (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion when something has been deleted by AfD three seperate times, and endorsed by deletion review at least sonce before, you'd have to bring forth some pretty amazing new sources in order to get it undeleted at this point. Deletion review isn't the place to keep bringing back the same old debates again and again without substantial new information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buy.com (closed)

[edit] Template:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees - Readers Poll (closed)

[edit] Mohammed Al Amin

Mohammed Al Amin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article, and two others, Sarfraz Ahmed (unnumbered Guantanamo captive) and Abdur Rahim (unnumbered Guantanamo detainee) were deleted within a few minutes by the same administrator. The admin deleted all three for A7. I requested a pointer to the location of the discussion the preceded the deletion. And I requested userification.

Then I noticed the deleting admin has been off-wiki for three weeks. Would someone please restore these articles to my user space, so I can decide whether I make the effort to address whatever concerns triggered the deletion? Specifically, could someone userify:
*Sarfraz Ahmed (unnumbered Guantanamo captive) to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Sarfraz Ahmed (unnumbered Guantanamo captive);
*Abdur Rahim (unnumbered Guantanamo detainee) to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Abdur Rahim (unnumbered Guantanamo detainee); and
*Mohammed Al Amin to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Mohammed Al Amin.
Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - This request seems better suited for AN or AN/I than for DRV. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Overturn I have offered there to userify them if nobody has done it already--but I also say here that the deletion was in my opinion altogether unjustified for adequately sourced articles. These are generally defended at AfD, and sometimes kept, sometimes not. the admin is not justified in using his own opinion about this. As he's off wiki, I think there is good reason for a direct restore to WP space. If anyone is around who does not think them appropriate, AfD will be the place to get the community opinion. The admin';s action should be discussed at AN/I; the undeletion should be done right here. DGG (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 23 February 2008

[edit] Blobbo Lite (closed)

[edit] Brianna Denison

Brianna Denison (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn and Rename: Change article name to 'Murder of Brianna Denison'. The article was nominated and voted for deletion when it was still a stub written in a quasi unencyclopedic tone - I believe the user who nominated the article for deletion, User:WWGB failed to give the article a chance. The article was also deleted by admin Bongwarrior immediately after a significant expansion and sourcing. This story has received prominent coverage in the U.S. news media. Though coverage may be fleeting, once notable is always notable, and I think it's got to that point already. As for the MWWS argument, there are plenty of cases in which similar subjects where considered notable enough. Considering that the kidnapping has received significant media coverage and that the perpetrator is still at large, the subject should be at least partially satisfied by an encyclopedia article. I believe this warrants an overturn. James Bond (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - I just wanted to point out that the article was indeed vastly improved by the author, after most of the !voting had already concluded, which I hadn't noticed. I would not be opposed to a relist of the debate if necessary, but I'll leave it to the wisdom of others. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Generally crime victims, even murder victims, aren't notable enough for an article per WP:BLP1E. Any murder is going to get news coverage because...well, murders get a lot of press. Unfortunately, just being killed isn't notable. That said, sometimes crime victims can achieve notability (Chandra Levy, Jon Benet Ramsey, and John Wayne Bobbitt, for example), so I wouldn't necessarily rule this victim's notability completely out. We'll see if it's still being talked about in a few months, or if anything further develops that makes her notable. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist - Every single vote at the AfD was cast before a significant rewrite, expansion, and sourcing by James Bond, save for James's own vote. In other words, the article that was !voted for deletion was not the article that was deleted. I think the community should get a chance to see the degree of media coverage the article is sourced with before making any final decision. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    It isn't a vote, the question would be do the changes made address the issues the commenters had made. I can't tell not being able to see the article, but since they were issues like WP:ONEEVENT and nothing here has suggested that problem was overcome, the rewrite probably doesn't impact the validity of the arguments previously put forward. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    I left out the ! in front of the word "vote," but the point holds: no one's opinion was based on the full article. Also, WP:ONEEVENT is an extremely problematic policy, since it actually says that notability can be based on one event. Whether it's Laci Peterson or even Guy Fawkes or John Wilkes Booth, we have plenty of articles on people notable for only one event. The fallout from the event can make a person notable. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    It was the "cast" which prompted the response. Yes there maybe problems with WP:ONEEVENT (But this isn't the venue to address that, the fact that there are exceptions (and quite possibly numerous exceptions) doesn't magically make any opinion citing that as a reason invalid) and there were certainly problems with the none-opinion vote (for that's all it was), the question still remains, did the updates address those concerns or not? If they didn't then their opinion still holds, no need to restate what they already said (in fact there is nothing to say they didn't see the update article and it simply didn't change their opinion). This is quite normal, deletion debates last 5 or more days (normally) and people are encouraged to work on the article in the meantime if they can "repair" the issues, but just making major updates doesn't automatically put it into a "rinse and repeat" cycle otherwise there would be some articles being perpetualy updated just to try and sidestep deletion. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    Well, when major updates are made at the very end of the fifth day, the community should have some chance to review them - otherwise, no one will ever know whether they "repaired" the issues. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    And the nom here, nor your statement, nor anyone elses does anything to suggest that those issues were addressed. If the article was deletable because of those issues, no amount of rewrites which don't address those issues make it any less deletable. We seem to have come to the end of any useful dialogue here, I was hoping someone would point out that the rewrite did indeed address those concerns, guess I'm wasting my time. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    How exactly is the nom here supposed to suggest that those issues were addressed if he can't reference his work because it's been deleted?? --66.214.221.166 (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
We should remember the policy for a biography which says, "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime" and I certainly don't consider rape and murder to be unimportant, especially given the national news attention it got. Plenty of victims have articles, and there seems to be no reason for this to have been deleted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, not all rapes and murders are equally "important", at least not the way Wikipedia is using the word "important." Certainly we wouldn't write an article for every rape victim in the world. But when a murder generates the mountain of publicity and ripple effects that Denison's has - yeah, it's notable. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore The current version has sufficient sourcing, including FOXNews , CNN ABC , MSNBC and CBS News. given this, there will be additional. DGG (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn Not sure whether the article should be renamed or not, some are saying this could indicate a serial rapist, but honestly this certainly seems to meet notability requirements. I did a brief Google News search and found whole articles about this on Fox News (apparently John Gibson talked about it on FNC), CNN, Washington Post, Seattle Times, LA Times, AP, and ABC News. I'd say notability requirements are more than satisfied.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Relist as the nominator asserted most delete votes were cast before the significant rewriting and referencing, so this needs more discussion. A rename can be considered after relisting; the deleted version has enough good sources to at least establish the notability of the event. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. A really well written news story is still a news story. This is a news story, not an encyclopaedia subject, and Wikinews is over yonder. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking at the AfD there's another problem, I don't think consensus could be reasonably said to have been met. The person who nominated it said it was MWWS and another delete opinion said people only start caring when a rich white woman goes missing, hardly reasons for deleting it and it suggests some level of bias. Another didn't even give a reason, just said delete. Then there's another whose only edit as a user was ON the AfD. There were only ten responses to the AfD with three keeps seven deletes and two of those deletes can't really be considered valid as one was a single edit user, that edit being the AfD, and another gave no reason. With two more showing an apparent bias and the only keep decision not made by an established editor gave significant reasoning for keep I'd hardly say the consensus was delete. It seemed to lack consensus, which means keep.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn -- WP:NOT#NEWS does not act as an absolute bar to the coverage of current events, notable as such, with no evidence of prior notability. Instead, it attempts to distinguish mere news topics from current events which are legitimate encyclopedic subjects by means of reference to the amount and substantiality of coverage available in third-party reliable sources. To quote the policy in relevant part:

    Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.

    Furthermore, the general notability guideline provides that

    A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

    To properly evaluate whether news coverage of an article's topic is merely "routine", as disfavored by WP:NOT#NEWS, or instead constitutes "significant coverage in reliable sources", as favored by the general notability guideline, an AFD discussion must necessarily consider all of the source material present in the article. Since it appears that substantial evidence of coverage in third-party reliable sources was added to the article near the conclusion of the AFD discussion, and that all comments supporting deletion refer to a prior, far more sparsely sourced version, the AFD discussion may well have come to the wrong conclusion. John254 02:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] G. Edward Griffin (closed)

[edit] Education in The Simpsons

Education in The Simpsons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

While this article may have not met certain criteria or guidelines some of the information in here was salvagable and could have been moved to relevant articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhowden (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse. If you want to salvage the info, then ask an admin for it. But that's not a reason for undeletion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion/Userfy You're not looking for the article to be recreated, but rather for access to the content. Charles Stewart (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question The information can't be moved to relevant articles unless the article history is restored for GFDL compliance, right? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That would depend on the information and how it is reused. Simple lists of facts don't qualify for copyright protection (no creative element) so don't qualify for copyright protection, so no issue with those. Other information if a direct copy maybe an issue, fully rewritten to fit with the destination and again there is no issue (much the same as us telling people instead of cut and paste from a website, rewrite in your own words...) --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, which I wouldn't interpret as "moving" so much as revision. :) I'd support the userfying of this so long as it is clear that material can't be copied & pasted unless the article's history is restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Userfy and allow re-creation if article is improved. There are scholarly sources that discuss this topic, such as [20] and [21], so a good article about this topic is possible. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 22 February 2008

[edit] Kent Hehr

Kent Hehr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I wanted a history-only deletion for this article, as I'm curious if anything in the prior version was useable Rob (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment in addition to being a campaign ad, the article was almost entirely a copyvio from here (click "more" to see all of it). Should not be undeleted as it breaches Wikipedia's copyright policy. Hut 8.5 22:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as moot - the previous content is visible in the cache and it is clear that the entire content was merged to the election article here. BlueValour (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What the heck??? I created an article on a person, since there was sufficient non-trivial coverage from multiple sources of him, beyond the mere fact he was a candidate (though I only added a little of it). I then asked for the old version (before the one I made) to be undeleted. So, now, it's been suddenly speedy deleted, with no discussion? What earthly reason do we have for composite biography articles. The version I created doesn't fall under any speedy deletion category. It should be undeleted, and put under AFD, if somebody wishes it deleted. There are multiple non-trivial sources, meetting WP:N,and this isn't a campaign ad, so the deletion was wildly out of process. --Rob (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A merge is not a deletion or a speedy, and does not require AFD approval if it's consistent with standard practice. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not consistent with other cases, since there's a basis of notability beyond mere candidacy. Of course, you don't know that, since you didn't read any of the bios you merged into Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Alberta provincial election including multiple copyright violations. That's what happens when you do "category clearing". Some were notable, some were non-notable, and some were illegal copyright violations. Sorting things out, will require discussion for each individual bio. Sadly, that won't happen, since you went ahead and did everything, by yourself, with no discussion. Unfortunately, we're left with Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Alberta provincial election which could grow to have 82 biographies. Actually, the merge is worse than a proper deletion. I had to remove some biographical detail, which simply doesn't belong in an article about a party roster. --Rob (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Ivy League

Canadian Ivy League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

A clear neologism that has no supporting grounds for retention, as is evidenced in the AfD debate. Requesting review of non-admin close. Eusebeus (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse No Consensus Closure There were valid arguments in the AFD that the sourcing in the article provides notability to the term and that it is not just a neologism. No consensus closure in view of the disagreement over notability is the sensible closure. Davewild (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn non-admin close non admins should not close AFDs that is no consenus, several of the keep sites were I heard of it and I like it. The sourcing are all passing mentions. Secret 00:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The sourcing is NOT passing mentions. Each of the sources discusses the term in depth, describing why people are using the term, and what it means to them. There is a verifiable program using the term for marketing purposes. I don't know what these "passing mentions" are. I know what a passing mention is, and a few of the sources mention "Scottish Ivies", for example, without elaborating. But the bulk of the sources are about looking for a Canadian university as an alternative to a prestigious US university, hence the use of a parallel term. That is not incidental. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok a few sources describe the term, not in full, the ones like the Boston Globe source is obvious passing mention. Secret account 15:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • endorse no consensus closure I'd rather non-admins didn't make closes that weren't pretty clear but no-consensus seems like a good conclusion of the discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse no consensus closure. Certainly non-admins shouldn't close contentious AfDs, as is made clear in the policy. However, any admin could have reopened the closure and none have been prepared to. 'No consensus' was a reasonable call on the discussion though I take Secret's point that the sources are pretty thin and I'm doubtful that this is a genuine term. The way forward is a relisting if any editor is still unhappy. BlueValour (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey, I did what I could for the article, and it seems to pass WP:N, which was agreed by numerous participants in the AFD. This seems like using DRV for a second chance at AFD, personally. Obviously I feel there are "supporting grounds for retention", but then I'm an inclusionist. Most of the opposition seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:NEVERHEARDIT rather than taking the time to look at the sources. Thus, I endorse the closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Relist Admins are trusted to find consensus. Sorry, but the closure seems out of process. Charles Stewart (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse No consensus is the reasonable outcome, and it would seem purely procedural to overturn this result only on the grounds that it was made by a non-admin. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Acually this being endorsed would lead to more non-admins closing AFDs as no consensus, in which we need to avoid. Secret account 15:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Relist. Valid policy concerns were not properly addressed in the close - admin or not, it needed a proper discussion of the basis of debate, not just an apparent vote-count. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse No Consensus Closure Sources demonstrate the use of the term to describe Canada's leading colleges. Most of the delete arguments rested on the entirely specious claim of a neologism. My favorite was the claim that the Ivy league is a sports league and that therefore this article can't possibly valid, though the presence of the Public Ivy article would shoot that one down as well. There is no evidence whatsoever of any out of process issue given the overwhelming consensus for retention. If anything it was a clearer keep than a no consensus. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse and relist. It's a clear no consensus, nobody seems to argue against that. Just because an admin didn't do it doesn't make it any less valid (though he really shouldn't have). But it's a no consensus result...it can be relisted easily enough. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I did not think too much of it at the time, though now I realize that an administrator should have closed it. I will be more careful in the future. Sorry. Cheers. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harry (derogatory term) (closed)

[edit] Master of Science in Information Assurance (closed)

[edit] Mikri Arktos (closed)

[edit] Recent discussions

[edit] 21 February 2008

[edit] Disappointment (closed)

[edit] Avanti Construction

Avanti Construction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

does not fit criteria for speedy deletion

  • The purpose of this entry is to show that research has shown that many problems are caused by poor or missing production information. Effective communication of high quality production information between designers and constructors is essential for the satisfactory realisation of construction projects. The evidence shows that improvements in the quality of production information reduce the incidence of site quality problems and lead to significant savings in the cost of construction work. I think this entry's notability is therefore justified, insofar as Avanti was a project supported by the UK Government (via DTI) whose aim was to demonstrate how the costs in construction could be reduced by addressing the production information from the very first moment in an accurate and meticulous manner.
    I have also rewritten it in a non-advertisement style, from a neutral point of view.
    There are plenty of links to other sources and articles.
    I saw the entry quickly deleted twice, but I still think that its notability is clear and should not be questioned. The entry is relevant for the above reasons.
    Many projects in the construction industry become a nightmare because at the very early stages, specifications are made in a wrong way. And little faults at the beginning end up being a chaos at the end. Avanti proved this through case studies. If a project shows the relevance of specifying clearly in a construction project, it seems to me that the project is notable and should therefore have an entry in Wikipedia. There is no possible advertising: the project is over and finished.
    I would be grateful if you could consider my explanations and restore the entry.
    Thanking you in advance,
    Machiavelli2008


  • This was the entry as it was written in the second instance only to be deleted shortly later:

Avanti was a project for an approach to collaborative working in order to enable construction project partners to work together effectively. The project was promoted, among others, by the UK Department of Trade and Industry. Avanti focused on early access to all project information by all partners, on early involvement of the supply chain, and on sharing of information, drawings and schedules, in an agreed and consistent manner. The Avanti approach was supported by handbooks, toolkits and on-site mentoring and relied heavily on the advice and materials provided by CPIC.

Avanti mobilised existing enabling technologies in order to improve business performance by increasing quality of information and predictability of outcomes and by reducing risk and waste. The core of the Avanti approach to a project's whole life cycle was based on team working and access to a common information model.

In July 2006, the Avanti DTI Project documentation and brand ownership was transferred to Constructing Excellence. Since the handover, Constructing Excellence endeavoured to promote the savings demonstrated on live projects. Further work was also carried out to make Avanti part of the update of BS 1192. The BS 5555 committee coded the methods.

See also

External links

Category: Architecture Category: Civil engineering Category: Construction

________________________________

Machiavelli2008 (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been speedied 3X, once as G11, once as A7 and most recently for no specific reason at all. At present it does not meet speedy, so it should be restored. It really does need at least one reference from a secondary source however. DGG (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This reads like a pamphlet from the European Union, it's full of corporate jargon and weasel words and asserts no notability. John Reaves 15:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
yes, it isn't a good article, but that's not the standard. It's not spammy enough for G11. The standard at speedy is not, that if it's a poor article, we delete it.DGG (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not spammy but it's not encyclopedic and isn't notable outside of it's own standards. John Reaves 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear DGG and John

Thank you for your comments on the deletion review page about Avanti Construction. Can I then understand, in view of your comments, that I can restore the article? If so, please could you unprotect the page? Thank you very much indeed for your response.

--Machiavelli2008 (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't endorsing restoration at all. John Reaves 09:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
However, DGG says "it should be restored". What is the procedure when an administrator agrees to restore and another administrator disagrees? --Machiavelli2008 (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review is a five day process. John Reaves 11:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much, John. I will wait for the outcome of the review.--Machiavelli2008 (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment John, "not encyclopedic and isn't notable outside of it's own standards." are not among the grounds for speedy. They're reasons for AfD.DGG (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any point in prolonging the inevitable. Plus it may as well been an A7. John Reaves 21:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn. There is enough here to avoid an A7. This was a significant cross-industry project that was funded as part of a government initiative. It has been reviewed here and here and showcased in a government document here amongst many other sources. BlueValour (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Agree that the article needs development to avoid AfD, but assertion of government promotion seems enough suggestion of importance to avoid A7. At least in its last incarnation, the article does not seem a G11 candidate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question to administrators. After five days in the deletion review and having read the above comments, what is then the final decision on this entry? Can I restore the content as it is written above? If any changes are needed, could any of the administrators kindly suggest them? Sincere thanks.

--Machiavelli2008 (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tokugawa Chikauji

Tokugawa Chikauji (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The deletion was disputed. Additionally, the speedy deletion criteria are not applicable in this case. -- Taku (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion - Performing a disputed deletion is by itself no procedural error. The reason given on the talk page was: "Since the article is about a historical figure, CSD A7 is not applicable." Unless the credited OpenHistory is considered as waiver to assert notability, this isn't the case. The article itself read: "Tokugawa Chikauji (? - probably 1407) was the father of Yasuchika and Sakai Tadahiro, among others." Moreover, it would have been helpful if the nom had discussed with the deleting admin first. Or simply recreated a better stub, if the person warrants it. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if that comes across harsh, but not even this DRV nomination explained what the case is or what was meant by 'historical figure', presumably that he the is an important member of the Tokugawa clan.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, now I understand that, procedurally, the deletion was correct and that A7 is indeed applicable for non-living people as well. I must, however, point out that that the article was created based on the entry in OpenHistory is probably sufficient for us to assume its notability. Additionally, while the article gave little context, if you are familiar with the topic, you would immediately know that the article on a person who is a member of a Japanese clan and that itself makes the person automatically notable as Wikipedians who contribute to the topics related to Japanese history always know.
    • This is not a problem with any particular admin. (That's why I didn't see any point contacting him.) He acted according to the procedure he knows as I understand. I guess, my point would then be it is the procedure that is a problem. This kind of deletion is just plainly counter-productive. I know he is notable, and it is just a matter of time when the article gets recreated. I don't understand why those admins are interested in dragging down those who actually want to create an encyclopedia. Maybe the notability isn't clear to laymen, but then they should just stay out of topics that they don't know and leave them to the specialists. -- Taku (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • You know he is notable? Okay. Show us how. Or are you suggesting that the standard of notability should be expanded to include "what you know"? --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, I assume most of us are here to built an encyclopedia and one thing administrators try to do is actually helping to prevent that things get dragged down. While I understand why you perceive the deletion as unproductive, it helps a lot if the specialists give us something to work with. If someone reverts my edit I try to improve it or explain myself better. One thing I don't understand here is why a specialist would choose to copy verbatim extremely short and unreferenced stubs from this OpenHistory which does look to me as layman indeed not very authoritative. Well it's free, but is a tertiary source itself and my understanding is that we reincorporate GNU text if we actually get real content. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The article was deleted about an hour after the page was tagged with a {{hangon}}, when for 20 minutes after a statement was made to he author on the talk page - a statement which the author of the page hadn't responded to. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "Hangon" isn't a free pass. The person who puts the hangon on the article needs to explain in the article's Talk page how the article passes notability. If that isn't done, and an hour seems to me a long time in that state, then speedy deletion is certainly appropriate. Corvus cornixtalk 19:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Permit rewriting but endorse the speedy. the full contents of the article was not sufficient by my standards. Probably he is in fact important, and ideally the admin should have checked for sources himself. DGG (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse the deletion as a valid A7 - the article did not assert notability, and A7 applies to all real people (which includes historical figures). This person may well be notable, and I have no objection to a rewrite. Hut 8.5 18:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion as a valid A7 - there is no indication of the historical significance of this person in the page. BlueValour (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse...in fact, I would call this a perfect example of an A7 deletion: the article did not indicate why the subject was notable (regardless of whether or not he actually was). With so many questionable ones, nice to see a good example. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Universidade da Luta

Universidade da Luta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Does not fit criteria for speedy deletion.

  • The source is credible (also provides CLEAR pictures) and it is now a known fact amongst the MMA world (there are also several pictures and a video as proof) that Mauricio and Murilo Rua along with Andre Amade and Mauricio Veio have started this gym. If this article should not exist than you could also say Chute Boxe's wikipedia page doesn't deserve to exist either or for that matter any mixed martial arts training camp/gym. I was also was looking for and found the link from Sherdog.com explaining about the formation of the gym (Sherdog is as credible as you can get for MMA online information and is a WELL KNOWN) and was going to post it until this article got deleted for a SECOND time AFTER I put CREDIBLE sources and made sure the article looked professional. There is no reason this article shouldn't be allowed to exist and is a bit ridiculous that you think otherwise. I understand that the article is about living people but it is information that is already known and does not harm anybody let alone it is not controversial in any way shape or form. If the information was given through the form of public interview and meant for the ears of MMA fans than why shouldn't this article be on wikipedia? Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia for knowledge of ALL TYPES. MMA information should be no different. Thank you for your time and I hope you reconsider. Also I do apologize for trying to recreate this article a second time but I thought if I recreated it with my source (I figured I would insert it later) it would be okay. I did not know it was against regulations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TapOut 013 (talk • contribs)
    Comment - I'm having a hard time presuming good faith with the last comment considering that the user above has again recreated the "article" (on the 24th, according to the page history). - jc37 04:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at the article, it only has one reference, which doesn't really meet the requirements for multiple, non-trivial reliable sources, and to me doesn't really assert importance in the grand scheme of things. Endorse deletions; if at some point it receives enough coverage in multiple reliable sources, then it can be recreated. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn This is a school of martial arts, not a university. the first deletion was A7, which does not apply to schools. It could be questioned whether this was a true school in the intended sense, but the founders were noted champions, and that does assert importance. Deleted a second time as G4, but recreation applies only to article deleted under XfD. Tony, the standard for speedy is some indication of notability, not just lack of sourcing, nor is it "importance in the great scheme of things". Any plausible indication of importance is enough. 90% of the contents of encyclopedia is not important to the great scheme of things--yes, i know some people would go ahead and delete that 90%--but not by speedy. Nor is inadequately sourced a reason for speedy. (The article was a little on the spammy side, but not enough for G11, either, but I do not know how it would fare at AfD.) But being able to unquestionably pass AfD is not the standard for passing speedy.DGG (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I find no assertion of notability in the article. It's a month-old training gym run by a couple of MMA guys; calling it a "school" is a bit of a stretch, in my view. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, it's a gym, not a school of martial arts. Gyms are businesses. Businesses are subject to A7. --Coredesat 05:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted though as DGG points out it should have been an A7 since G4 doesn't apply. At present, I don't see the indication of importance but as the business develops it may well gather enough sources to justify a recreation. BlueValour (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would recommend that a userspace version of this page be created that has several sources, and then ask here again to allow recreation and list on AfD. The main problem for me is that only a single source is listed. VegaDark (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - And suggest that if this discussion results in "endorse", and the "article" gets re-created again, considering that by now the users should be quite aware of the concerns, that the re-creator be blocked. - jc37 04:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vicki_Iseman (closed)

[edit] 20 February 2008

[edit] OC Systems (closed)

[edit] Matthew Halischuk (closed)

[edit] P. K. Subban (closed)

[edit] Death Roe

Death Roe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closed as no consensus, but practically none of the Keep votes addressed any policy-based reason why the article should be kept. Keep votes claimed a consensus that such articles should be kept (there obviously isn't, or else there wouldn't be current RFAR on the subject), "It's notable", and "per Arbcom". Despite being an obvious violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, the article cannot be deleted or merged whilst the Episodes and Characters injunction is in place, but should have been relisted. The AfD was also closed by an admin who is active in the Episodes and Characters RFAR and has argued for the retention of such articles, and should therefore have recused themselves. Black Kite 13:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse, can't delete the article because it would violate an ArbCom injunction. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse as the AFD was relisted twice and so had 3 tries at establishing consensus. The close as No consensus seems quite accurate. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse or better yet Reopen we can't do nothing until the injuction is over, but relisting the AFD everytime until the injuction is over is the best idea, as I don't see the need for speedy closing all the AFDs, many of which consensus is obvious, but we can't close because of the injuction. Also the obvious closer bias takes to affect. Secret 15:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse AFD was a mess, no consensus seems like a reasonable close, with nothing to stop someone nominating the article again after the Arbitration case is finished. Relisting AFDs which seem likely to have a concensus to merge or delete emerge seems sensible until the injunction is lifted but an AFD like this seems unlikely to have had a concensus emerge any time soon. Davewild (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, with the current ArbCom injunction in place and the variety of arguments in the AFD, a no consensus closure seems more than reasonable; "no consensus" simply means "do nothing" and leaves no prejudice against relisting, which can occur when the injunction is lifted or expires. --Coredesat 02:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and reopen the AfD and reinstall Template:Fictwarn. Looked like fairly good consensus was forming for merge. I assume PeaceNT make a good faith call, but I think the outcome was not correct, and may have been incorrectly influenced by the perception that the injunction says we have to keep them all. Those saying endorse because of the injunction are not representing a proper characterization of the injunction, which merely says do not merge, redirect or delete... it never says do not discuss. The ARBCOM has not said to close the AfD's, even though they have been directly asked about them. Our procedure of fictwarn-relisting them has not been discouraged by ARBCOM even though they are aware we are doing it. A lack of negative feedback is positive feedback. JERRY talk contribs 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    Merging is an editorial decision that doesn't require an AfD, and a merge can't be carried out now anyway due to the injunction. --Coredesat 06:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Which is why it should've been relisted, and I'm surprised no-one was commented on the closing admin's COI. Actually, why am I surprised round here these days? Black Kite 00:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid your words may lead to others mistakenly believe I have some serious involvement with the on-going Episodes and Characters arbitration case, which is false. I am not a party in this dispute, only a passerby who is concerned about the issue and makes some comments there (as you should very well know). Thus, I don't see how this suggests any strong COI; if I did, I'd certainly have avoided closing the debate. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying you closed it in bad faith; just that anyone who's been involved with the RFAR shouldn't really be closing FICTWARN AfDs, especially where they're not clear. This should be obvious, I would've thought. Black Kite 11:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
As someone who is entirely not involved with the dispute, but the process of resolving it, I don't think my closure constituted any illegitimacy. What I meant above is that your characterizing me as "on the inclusionist side" (original wording) and with a COI is misguided, and has apparently induced a user below to mistake me for an "involved party", which does not sit well with me. Sorry for not being clear. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. This should not have been closed with any decision because of the ArbCom injunction. This should be relisted until a decision comes down. I will be looking into PeaceNT's actions to be sure he/she, as an involved party, has been warned of the injunction and therefore, should not be making any decisions related to the deletion, merging, or keeping, of any articles at this time. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, not trying to sway your vote, but I'm just making sure you got your facts right. The Arbcom injunction does not prevent the closure of these AfDs, just the acts of deleting, merging, or redirecting characters and episodes articles (when there existed consensus). For the record, I am not an involved party in the case in question (please see the involved party list) or the previous arbcom case (see here). Please judge the closure on its own merit, determining whether there was, or was not, a consensus on any specific actions, rather than degrading the closure by analyzing my other actions, or labelling me with the bias I don't have. Thank you, --PeaceNT (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse my closure as no consensus; there was sufficient communal support for keeping the article, and they do have a point that it does not fail WP:V. At any rate, a merge would still require keeping the article, though the merge voters didn't cite any destination article that this page can be merged into. AfDs without clear consensus are certainly subject to relisting, but given that this one was active for 18 days (quite longer than the formal 5-day period) and was already relisted twice, I don't think reopening the debate would be effective. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure; it's been open for 18 days, what on Earth do we gain by keeping it open longer? Given the mess that was there, I'm happy to go with a No Consensus, and after the Arbitration is over, it could be relisted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jawahar Shah

Jawahar Shah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

If the logs are checked it can be seen that there was a clear majority for Keep. Plus Jawahar Shah's contribution in development of the Software is unquestionable. It is one of the leading softwares used by thousands of Homeopaths the world over LINUSS (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Relist This became involved in a personal matter about a now-vanished editor, and the close was i think affected by this. I'm not convinced the article should be kept, but there needs to be a fresh discussion. DGG (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Relist relisting seems a reasonable measure to assure that the perception is that the process was fair and not contaminated by tangent issues. JERRY talk contribs 03:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. I believe the process was fair, regardless of the editor's involved in the nomination or the closing of the debate. The article's creator, Linuss, has never created anything outside this article (except an image of Mr. Dr. Shah titled "Picture of self" and this DRV filing). That makes for obvious COI and SPA issues here. No verification of the asserted notability in reliable independent sources has ever been found, and with BLP issues running rampant around this particular subject matter I say leave it deleted. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 03:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of article cannot be justifed by saying that the article creator has submitted only one article so far. There is always going to a first article by everyone. Also; I am sure if any one is even remotly associated with the field of Homeopathic education and softwares for Homeopaths will be aware of Dr. Shah and the software he and his team has created. LINUSS (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough regarding your first article. Point taken. As to your second point, if "anyone even remotly (sic) associated with the field of Homeopathic education and softwares" are aware of Dr. Shah, surely a reliable, secondary source exists somewhere that verifies this? Do you have any that can be linked at this DRV, Linuss? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terran Federation (closed)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (closed)

[edit] Perry_Belcher

Perry_Belcher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
  • Overturn: Change article name to Selmedica Article is sourced with the most notable references on the issue, BBB as such many others. This list will be ever growing. I feel that there is too much information to fit as a stub in Credit_card_fraud, and thus warrants its own article. As for deletion because of the BLP Violation: I agree. My view was contemplating whether to create the article as titled Selmedica (The company) or Perry Belcher. I choose the latter, as this person has a history of changing company names and opening up operation once again. Albeit, due to the strictness and fairness of BLP, perhaps we can resume the article under the name Selmedica. I envision changing the article name to Selmedica, and a little rewrite would come across very well. In addition, to the extensive editing process that can commence, will make this article very informative. Further, I believe the wikipedia founding principles fits most perfectly for an article like "Selmedica". Thatopshotta (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I had quickly hit deletion review. After sleeping on this matter, I realized everything you all are saying. You are absolutely right, no review necessary. When I have time, I will try and write a more comprehensive article, and include the specific references to the max.

The only thing propelling me to do this, is my conscious. That same conscious realized that it is unfair to Perry Belcher's family and children to have this article under his name. So I agree with you all, and in time Selmedica article should be up hopefully. Thatopshotta (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • No DR needed Write the article under the name of his company and see what we think of it. I speedy deleted the article under his name as provided by BLP for having no reliable sources to justify accusations of fraud, which were the entire contents of the article. Even under the company name, such things take sourcing, and only non edit-controlled web sites were provided. Given the nature of the deleted article, I cannot repost it during the discussion, but i will email it privately if any non-admin wants to review it. There is a subsidiary issue of whether the fraud is in fact notable, but I did not investigate that part of it. DGG (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse no matter what title it appears under; the only remotely acceptable source—the letter from the FDA—is primary, and the article didn't even pretend to be neutral. —Cryptic 07:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
primary and directed towards a very small part of the article only. I agreee that for an article under any title much better & fuller documentation would be needed. DGG (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 19 February 2008

[edit] Lakshmi Tatma

Lakshmi Tatma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
  • I see a clear consensus to delete, from arguments primarily based in WP:BLP. We'll need more than a bald statement of notability about her (not "it"). Endorse deletion GRBerry 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion; consensus was formed that WP:BLP issues meant that there shouldn't be an article here. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument, though I wonder why a girl who's notable only for a parasitic twin is more notable than people who worked to entertain an audience and succeeded.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • endorse deletion I would be inclined to have argued for keeping. Since her parents were fine with the attention and so we have no reason to think that the relevant people did not want an article or that it was creating any problems. In general, unless we get an actual request for deletion of an article deleting due to penumbra BLP issues is a bad idea (see User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP for more about the notion of a penumbra BLP). However, I am generally in favor of the community determining by consensus whether or not a penumbra BLP warrants deletion. Consensus was clear in this case. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn I think BLP concerns were uncalled for. the publicity was desired, was widespread, and was not about anything shameful. Most articles of parasitic twins have in fact been deleted here, but I think these extremly rare anomalies do in fact reach public notability and belong here. The sources included BBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, CBC, and Times of India--how much more can possibly be needed to show worldwide interest? If the public thinks something notable as shown by coverage in multiple international world-famous unquestionably reliable sources, what more can possibly be needed? Or do we think we know better than the rest of the world? DGG (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Info: Using new information I have put a new version in User:Anthony Appleyard/Lakshmi Tatma. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Reluctant endorse deletion but permit recreation Even as I would have !voted "keep" at AfD (per, on the whole, DGG), I cannot conclude that the result of the AfD, which was closed consistent with the discussion, was plainly contrary to established policy, and so the closure as "delete" seems appropriate (my thoughts on BLP are, as ever, quite similar to those of JoshuaZ, and my thinking here tracks closely with his). Anthony's version, though, certainly seems to present clear assertions of significant notability, such that it is probably fair to say that this is no longer a case of a marginally notable subject for whose article discretion to delete per BLP might be had. Whether we should consider that new information here for the purposes of establishing notability, as often we do when recreation is sought, or whether we confine ourselves here to the threshold issue of marginal BLP notability and consider broader notability issues at a new AfD, is an open procedural question, but really one about which only we PIIers need worry; because WP:BLPUNDEL, notwithstanding its premise's resting on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bdj RfAr or, more broadly, of the role of the ArbCom in policy creation, development, and understanding, is rather en vogue, we would probably do well to follow the former course and not to restore the article until it is relatively clear that it will not be deleted straightaway at AfD. Joe 08:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If overturn, should we histmerge from User:Anthony Appleyard/Lakshmi Tatma? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That was my thinking (your version draws from the deleted article, yes?). Joe 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not keep. I don't agree with keeping this article.There was significant media attention to Manar Maged, who also had a parasitic twin; one much rarer than Lakshmi's.So why was that deleted? also, although the operation on Manar failed 13 months later and Laksmi's was a succses, who knows what might happen to little Lakshmi? she may also die from infection, and wouldn't that affect the BLP policy?I'm just a bit confused.I am sooooo cool! 22:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsocool! (talk • contribs)
  • She is much more worthy of notice than the thousands of routine pop music songs that each has its own article on Wikipedia; I have just waded through a list of about 20 song articles to make requested obstructed moves to correct minor letter case errors in their names. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • No, nobody is more worthy of notice merely by being born than the celebrated and enjoyed products of hard work and creativity. More importantly, I fail to see how the repeated complaints about pop music are helping anything; it's very hard to compare the two subjects for notability, and base assertions are unlikely to change anyone's mind.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Change of opinion. Yes, i do agree to restore this.If Lakshmi is important enough to be on the Bodyshock series, she is of worthy of being in Wikipedia.I am sooooo cool! 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National board for professional teaching standards (closed)

[edit] Hema Sinha (closed)

[edit] Image:Waterboard3-small.jpg (closed)

[edit] 18 February 2008

[edit] Carl Otto Nordensvan (closed)

[edit] (Some) Years in Ireland categories

Various categories, none of which have yet been deleted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 30#Years in Ireland for the scope.

I'm opening this nomination on behalf of User:BrownHairedGirl because she has expressed an interest in having the close reviewed here. You can see other discussion, if that's the word for it, at User talk:Angusmclellan#Year in Ireland CfD closure, User talk:Sarah777#Year in Ireland categories and User talk:PrimeHunter#Strong suggestions.

The CfD concerns a large number of categories of the form Category:697 in Ireland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), most of which contain only the corresponding article, e.g. 697 in Ireland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). My view is, and was, that these categories cannot be adequately populated. WP:CAT tells us that "[c]ategories are mainly used to browse through similar articles". These could not be as the "similar" articles are each in their very own little category. It was proposed that the categories be merged into the corresponding decade categories, i.e. Category:697 in Ireland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) into Category:690s in Ireland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). I believe that the basic concept of categorisation supports this and the arguments on this side were the stronger.

BHG will be able to do the reasons for retaining them, and the reasons the close was incorrect, much better than I can. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than to repeat or cut'n'paste my earlier comments here, there isn't much to be added. My main point was that there are no deadlines in Wiki; that we asked for time to populate the articles rather than base a deletion on the guesses of the uninvolved editors re what those actually doing the work can achieve. I could expand further and say that this is a classic example of productive editors attempting to build the project been harassed and tired out and disillusioned by unproductive trainspotters. Not very WP:CIVIL but it explains why I am very fed-up of those who claim that in order to make the content more "user-friendly" they will drive away the content producers! And note; all the regular editors on this series oppose this move and all those supporting it are contributing zilch. I also (personal view) think there is an element of typical British anti-Irishness involved here; the nationality of most of those attacking the project is very clear. One or two have said that if a "decades" category is OK for the earlier "Years in Britain" then it surely must be good enough for the Paddy version. This observation is also no doubt breaching several Wiki "good faith" and "civility" principles but I believe it to be true nonetheless. And I'll have to disagree with the Wiki-establishment that the truth is utterly irrelevant on Wikipedia. Sarah777 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Just spotted Category:Museums established in 1980, now that is one of thousands of such esoteric categories; this time in a year-series. There is such a huge field for the non-productive editors to explore; why not go away and come back and look at "Years in Ireland" in about a year? Sarah777 (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
overturn of course the point of setting up a systematic scheme of categories is to make provision for articles that will be written, rather than doing it piecemeal. Nobody is forced to help develop these schemes --most of us don't - - but I let the ones who do want & have the patience to do the work to do it without interference.DGG (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC).
  • Endorse - "Keep the categories because someone someday might create content that would go in them" should cut no ice in a CFD. Sure, someone someday might write a slew of articles that might appropriately be categorized in one of the listed categories. Should that happen, the categories can be recreated with a few keystrokes. Dealing with the reality as it exists today, there is no need for the categories. Otto4711 (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse without prejedice to recreation if (and only if) needed on an individual basis. As demonstrated in the CfD, many of the categories will probably never have more than the corresponding "year" article in them. One Night In Hackney303 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - typical deletionist nonsense. This is an attack on the work of the productive editors by the bureaucrats. One wonders (not) what motivates this. And nothing was "demonstrated" in the CfD; assertions were made. Again, why the strong interest by non-involved editors? Could this be related to the involvement of some editors in "an article I couldn't give a sh*t about" (List of massacres) by some Anglo editors, one wonders? Sarah777 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Most of these year categories have a single article with a single line of actual content (for example mentioning a death in that year), and that article is already both in a decade and century category. When year and decade categories are counted together, the number of categories is often larger than the total number of lines of content in all contained articles. That is category systematization gone too far. There is not enough Ireland-by-year information to support this system more than 800 years ago. If we ever get the information then categories can be created. Until then, readers risk spending a lot of time going through hundreds of year categories in search of non-existing content. Decade and century categories give enough systematization for these old times (actually, many decade categories with a single article containing a single line seems like too much, but is not part of this discusion). PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't the fairest way forward and best compromise to draw a line in the sand on x date say the last day in may , giving the people who believe they can populate this categories 2 months to work , If after the proposed 2 months the majority are still under populated the categories can be speed renamed into decades Gnevin (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse per otto and ONIH. --Kbdank71 18:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Two months isn't nearly enough GN. And sadly, the way consensus works on Wiki you are being asked to either oppose or support this motion. Kd71; the Wiki rules say you are supposed to give some reasons if your contribution is to be taken into account. Or is this a vote? Seems pretty random what is and isn't a vote in these discussions. Doesn't it? Sarah777 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Srh7, I did give a reason. "per otto and ONIH" If you'd like, I can just cut and paste what they said, but that seems to be a waste of time and resources if you ask me. --Kbdank71 16:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have read the relevent Wiki guideline on this and it says these thinhs are not votes and things like "agree" or "agree with John" are to be discounted. Sarah777 (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Very well. Endorse because "Keep the categories because someone someday might create content that would go in them" should cut no ice in a CFD. Sure, someone someday might write a slew of articles that might appropriately be categorized in one of the listed categories. Should that happen, the categories can be recreated with a few keystrokes. Dealing with the reality as it exists today, there is no need for the categories. In addition, I'm okay with recreation if (and only if) needed on an individual basis. As demonstrated in the CfD, many of the categories will probably never have more than the corresponding "year" article in them. --Kbdank71 21:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Refering to your 'edit summary' comment KD - maybe. But as this entire deletion process is a complete waste of the time of the productive editors who are building the encyclopedia at least you can now appreciate the waste inherent in this process. Sarah777 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that creating a category to house one article is also a waste of time. I would think you could be a little more productive if you skipped all of the useless category creation. BTW, you've all had a lot of time, from creating the categories, through the CFD, and now through the DRV. Are there any new articles to populate these categories, or is it the same as when you started? Give me a reason to overturn and I will. "Give us more time" won't do it, as shown. --Kbdank71 21:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
"Give the productive editors more space and time" is what I am saying. Especially as this attack on the project is comprised 100% of uninvolved (and in some cases, pretty unproductive), editors. And categorising a page takes a second - so please don't fret on behalf of the workers. Sarah777 (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You are making the same argument as BrownHairedGirl, which is both a) an ad hominem and b) false. Tim! (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You've had space and time. Where are the results? Or is the "more space and time" argument empty? --Kbdank71 01:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's the not-very-good Synod of Birr was created since this started. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think those sneering comments are helpful. Tremendous work has been done on the 1,500 articles in the past few months. These comments are destructive, disruptive bull. I think a year would be a reasonable period of time, since you ask. Difficult to add material to the series while wasting Wiki-hours in forums such as this. Sarah777 (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, so I'll write out 500 times "Do not sneer at other editors' contribs". Actually, though, I thought it was a simple statement of fact that the article is not very good and that it is the only one, what with Vita tripartita Sancti Patricii and Timelinefrog's stuff being not amenable to categorisation into a particular by-year category. If you know of more, I'd be interested to hear about them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn. I should have commented earlier, since it was me who wanted the review, but was busy in the midst of a complex dose of research on the membership of Seanad Éireann (silly me, concentrating on creating content rather than on the wikipolitics). Now that so many contributors have said their say without hearing my reasons for seeking this review, I'm probably wasting my time commenting, but here goes, just in case it makes any difference.
In summary, this was an bizarrely perverse and irrational closure: it was made against the balance of opinion, by treating a guideline as if it was a policy, and most critically it acknowledged a crucial technical impediment to which the closing admin acknowledged that there was (as yet) no solution.
That is, by any standards, a flawed decision: to issue a judgment which creates an acknowledged problem, without any solution to the problem. The correct closure would have been to close as "no consenus", and to suggest a further CfD if and when the problem was resolved through discussion. Instead the closing admin did something I have never seen before in the (literally) thousands of CfD debates in which I have participated in the last two years: he created a sort of suspended sentence, a closure which would not be implemented until a solution was found.
This had the effect of taking the categories out of the usual consensus decision-making process, and placing their fate in the hands of the closing admin, who had (through his closure) appointed himself as the one-man arbiter on the matter.
I initially assumed good faith and took that this as a well-intentioned mistake, but after subsequent discussion I'm not so sure. The closing comment said that " I take BHG's last point about {{YearInIrelandNav}} as significant. This outcome presumes that I can in fact get the template to work in the necessary fashion" ... which was strangely cryptic because it did not specify what exactly was the "necessary fashion". (I presume this refers to my comment explaining the technical problems.)
After the closure I left a long note on Angus's talk, setting out the problems and my concerns. Angus's response was to say, inter alia that There's no deadline to implement a solution - if it takes a month, that's what it takes - and I'm not going to do so until I have agreed the mechanics with you, Sarah, and anyone else that's interested" ... but within a few days that had changed to a threat to implement an "arbitrary" solution. After reading that, I'm no longer sure that my good faith was well-founded.
I'm not going to repeat here all the details of my technical objections to the removal of these categories: they are set out at length in the CfD debate and in Angus's talk page. But the basic problems remains that in his closure, Angus acknowledged that those problems were real and that there was yet no solution ... yet he went ahead and decided the outcome regardless, and subsequently made clear that in fact any old kludge would do.
This sets a very very bad precedent for CfD. I have seen countless CfDs where there is a strong feeling that a category or set of categs is problematic, but where a solution has not been agreed. In ever other such case that I have ever seen, the closure has upheld the status quo 'until a better solution is found. That should have been the way this CfD was closed too, and if this closure stands it sets a dangerous precedent for future XfDs to be closed with a comment that says "yes, there are serious unresolved problems with this proposal, and no consensus to proceed with this one, but I will take it upon myself to decide how to sort out the problems." That would be a bizarre way to make decisions, and if we go down that route there will be endless conflicts in future.
I and a few other editors have spent a huge amount amount of our time and energy trying to organise the Irish categories into a coherent structure. None of us claims ownership of the work-in-progress, but I do have to wonder why we bother if the work can be ripped apart without consensus, despite acknowledgement of the damage that will cause, all because one admin has decided to treat a guideline as if it were a policy.
This CfD remained opened for ten days, twice as long as usual, which is a pretty good indication that other admins regarded it as an unclear case. Even one of the "delete" !voters described the closure as a "brave decision", which is a pretty good indication that the lack of consensus was acknowledged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
PS The debate also seems to have been the subject of strangely personal canvassing: this contribution by User:Thincat is a strange combination of vote-stacking and stalking: go find people who have disagreed with X, and invite them to pile in. I don't know if that was an isolated incident, and the editor canvassed appears not to have participate in the CFD debate, but I just thought I should mention it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The mention of {{YearInIrelandNav}} is a red herring that has been proved wrong before now. For example see 512 in Ireland - the template does not link to individual year categories, only the decade and century categories which aren't part of the CfD. One Night In Hackney303 07:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • ONIH, it's a great pity that before talking of a "red herring" you apparently neither checked the facts nor even read my previous comments :(
    Indeed, the template {{YearInIrelandNav}} does not link to the year categories; it doesn't need to, because it populates them, by categorising the YYYY-in-Ireland article in the YYYY-in-Ireland category.
    However, that's not the only template involved; there are a series of other templates used for the categories, including {{IrelandInCentury}}, which taken together ensure that the categories and articles are consistently interlinked. My objection is to the dismantling of the system created by all of these categories and templates taken as a whole, which a) works, by providing consistent and easy navigation to the reader; and b) took mountains of work to create, and should not be dismantled lightly.
    The whole premise of this CfD was that under-populated categories are an impediment to the reader, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, that sound general principle does not directly apply in this case because the categories and articles are heavily interlinked with navigation boxes.
    Finally, your repeated invocation of the mantra that suggestion that the categs could be recreated if needed on an individual basis continues to ignore the problem that if the categorisation structure is not consistent, then the template-based navigation structure gets broken. One of the major advantages of it is that ensures consistency, and that gets lost if there are ad-hoc decisions on whether the categories exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • User:Angusmclellan/IrelandInCentury is another ugly piece of work, using #ifexpr to change {{IrelandInCentury}} in the same way that the first kludge changes the other template. If things are ever so far along that the years are needed again, well at that point there would be no obvious problem using an #ifexist test in the template instead of an #ifexpr one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Kludge is right: it indeed "another ugly piece of work", and not a well-thought out solution. How exactly do you propose to use such an #ifexist test: by having 100 individual #ifexists in each category, thereby making the template into a ginormous and impenetrable blob of code which imposes a huge server load each time it's called? There is in fact a limit on the number of #ifexists which may be called in each template, beyond which they are not processed; I can't recall the exact number offhand, but I'm pretty sure that it's less than the 100 #ifexists which would be needed here.
    This, I'm afraid is another example of why I am so concerned about this closure, and by the way in which Angus has appointed himself as arbiter of a solution. A bad closure, without consensus, is creating a problem to which we don't have solution and a lot of extra work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, 100 #ifexists are all that are needed, or am I missing something? There's an {{exists}} template on meta to get round the limit, but I thought better of copying it over. If you want another alternative, a parameter could be added to the template to set whether it does by-year or by-decade links. That would use #ifeq rather than #ifexists. I have to say that I don't see the need to spend a great deal of time on a solution to this until I know whether one is needed.
  • I don't see the arbitrary cut-off date as being particularly undesirable. Some believe that somehow or other these categories, the number of which will only increase, can be populated. If not all, then at least enough of them to make the unpopulated remainder the usual unavoidable feature of every systematic effort at categorisation. I don't think that the numbers will ever be adequate and that a division between by-year and by-decade is a necessary and permanent feature, one that should be emulated by all similar by-region or by-country schemes. There's nothing unsystematic about a scheme that categorises things into unequal intervals. Examples of this include the geologic time scale or the various subdivisions of the Holocene and of Bronze Age Britain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Angus, but that still doesn't do it. First, a solution is needed, because it is quite clear that nearly all the "delete" !voters at CfD and the "uphold" !voters in this DRV have done so explicitly on the basis that the categories can be recreated if needed. If there isn't a way of allowing for that, then deletion gets cast in a very different light ... and your own note at closure that the closure was dependent in finding a solution remains an unmet condition.
    You may be right that framing out each #ifexists test to a sub-template could get around server-imposed restrictions, but I'm pretty sure that any such attempt to evade technical restraints (which have been imposed for performance reasons) would be stamped on quite firmly and rapidly. I'm surprised that you even suggested it.
    Your alternative idea, of a #ifeq test couldn't do the job, if you think about it: all it could do is to turn on the nav links to all of the by-year categories in that century, even though most of them would not exist, and according to the create-only-if-x-number-of-articles logic, they should not exist.
    Finally, the comparison with geologic and other time scales is bizarre and irrelevant: those timescales are a very different issue, because they are not based on a fixed set of numbers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Arbitrary simply meant a quick fix, a kludge if you like. Something along the lines of {{#ifexpr: {{{1|}}} >= 1100|[[Category:{{{1|}}} in Ireland{{!}}{{PAGENAME}}]]}} would be simple to do. You didn't like the idea of using an #ifexist test. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that nicely illustrates the inconsistency of the deletionist arguments :( I had considered the implications of a year<1000 test, but one of the problems it would create is that unless we reverted to the messy ad-hoccery which created such a mishmash of inconsistency before, it would then rule out single-year categories for that period ... which would undermine all the recreate-if-needed arguments above. That's what I find so frustrating about the deletionist case here: an insistence that a way must be found of achieving their onjective regardless of the consequences. A kludge such as the year<1000 would indeed be allow the deletionists to say "look, we could ignore half of WP:OCAT#SMALL and nuke the categories without creating any redlinks", but in doing so they ignore the effect that the recreate-if-needed approach advocated by many of the deletionists would have on the consistency and navigability. There is something unpleasantly single-minded about this delete-and-damn-the-consequrnces approach :( -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Having hundreds of categories with only article in each defies common sense and to merge them to decades seems like a reasonable compromise. I consider that is now BrownHairedGirl's repsonsibility rather than Angus to fix the template to work — if necessary to remove the categories from it and add them manually to the articles. Therefore any such "technical objections" raised by her should not prevent the deletion of the categories. I also consider that Sarah777 has violated the restriction placed her on her by the arbitration committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 restricted (not to mention WP:KETTLE) with some her comments here, such as "I also (personal view) think there is an element of typical British anti-Irishness involved here; the nationality of most of those attacking the project is very clear." Tim! (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sigh :( There aren't "hundreds of categories with only article in each", there are a few dozen, and since they are a work-in-progress, it's premature to say that they will remain underpopulated.
    As I have repeatedly pointed out, adding the categories manually is the situation we had before, and it was a disaster for the reader (remember them, the people we are creating this encyclopedia for) because the result of it was an inconsistent and ad-hoc categorisation of articles and parenting of categories, which created a navigation nightmare in which the reader might have to burrow through several different category trees to find material. That a heck of a lot less useable than a few underpopulated categories which are consistently interlinked to each other,
    Finally, Sarah777 would win few prizes for diplomacy, but she has a point here: AFAICS, every Irish editor participating in the CfD and the DRV opposes the deletion of the categories. The simple fact here is that the editors regularly involved in the huge task of maintaining, developing, populating and creating content for these categories opposes their deletion, and the clamour for their removal comes from the uninvolved who are insisting on the application of a simple guideline as if it were an immutable rule, whereas guidelines explicitly permit exceptions by applying common sense. It is a great pity that it in this case a few purists are defying commonsense by simple-mindedly pushing for the crude application a rule which will have the effect of undermining a carefully-crafted system which has ensured that this particular set of year-in-county articles and categories is consistently and clearly interlinked. Commonsense involves balancing different objectives and weighing the downsides of different approaches, rather than zealously and single-mindedly pursuing one single aim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • PS May I also, once again draw editors attention to the relevant guideline, which does permit categorisation schemes such as this? WP:OCAT#SMALL says "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" (emphasis added by me). The pint which I have been making throughout is that the year-in-Ireland categories are indeed part of "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". It's real pity that the deletionists seem to be ignoring the "unless". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • BrownHairedGirl claimed: There aren't "hundreds of categories with only article in each", there are a few dozen. The most recent year mentioned in the nomination was 1088. I just made a quick manual examination of years before 1100. Some year articles have a redlinked category for that year but it appears supporters of the category system want these categories and just haven't created them yet. There are hundreds of categories and there would be many more if the remaining red categories with a year article were created. According to my examination (I don't promise I spotted everything), four of these categories currently have more than one article: Category:660 in Ireland (2 articles), Category:697 in Ireland (3), Category:980 in Ireland (2), Category:1014 in Ireland (2). If decade and century categories are included in the count then the total number of existing and wanted categories before 1100 becomes much larger than the total number of articles (and most of these articles have one or two content lines). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Primehunter, if you want to start making assertions about nunbers, it's always a good idea to actually do some counting rather than relying on guesswork: there are currently 201 year-in-Ireland articles before the year 1100, and 140 categories. 140 is not "hundreds", it rounds to "one hundred" (one is not a plural quantity).
        And yes, of course many of the categories are not populated yet: this a work-in-progress. The suggestion of recreating each of them manually if and when they reach some magical threshold is one which would only be made by someone who has not actually tried creating the content and is unaware of just how much extra work is imposed on editors by taking a piecemeal approach to a categorisation system such as this: that's one of the reasons why the guideline at WP:OCAT says explicitly "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", because it adds a multiplies the effort involved in maintaining and populating the categories. That's important, because if the job is done messily or incoherently it's no use to readers, and if it becomes too much hassle editors simply don't do it.
        It's very noticeable that despite the repeated zealous insistence on avoiding having undepopulated categories, even temporarily, the deletionists continue the CfD nominator's mistake of ignoring the guideline's exemption unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". This is just such a scheme, and the sheer size of the exercise makes a piecemeal approach a recipe for a return to the chaos which existed before we standardised it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Ok, so there are not hundreds of year categories yet, but there would be if the system was completed the way the supporters want, and there are already more than a few dozen. And in all these categories I was able to find a total of 5 articles other than the year articles which can already be found in several ways without year categories, for example in a decade category, a century category, navigation boxes on nearby years, and List of years in Ireland. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are may be only five articles so far, but as has been repeatedly pointed out, this is a work-in-progress, and it is only in the early stages of being populated. It's a big job, and one of the many frustrating things about this discussion is that the deletionists seem utterly uninterested in the fact that this work is about creating and organising actual content. So far as I can see, it should be noted, none of the deletionists are in any way involved in the work of creating or categorising the content concerned, and have offered nothing but criticism of all the hard work which has already been done, yet are full of enthusiasm for imposing on the editors actually doing the work a restriction which will make the job much more labour-intensive, by insisting that a coherent structure be taken apart now and rebuilt on an ad-hoc basis. That doesn't just double the work involved in organising this material, it multiplies it several-fold:
  1. dismantle the existing structure, and revise all the templates to remove the by-year categories
  2. Figure out some way of allowing the categories to be recreated on an-hoc basis so that their existence actually shows up in the navigation system; this may be possible, but will involve some hideously complicated use of advanced template syntax
  3. (this is the big job) On an ongoing basis, monitor 100 ireland-by-decade categories to see which of them have reached a deletionist-acceptable threshold for the creation of by-year categories, and then recategorise articles ... and continue to monitor those 110 by-decade categories to check that articles are dispersed to any sub-categories which do exist and which have not been pounced on again by people who do not want to read the unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme in WP:OCAT
So PrimeHunter, how much of this ongoing work are you going to be doing? Or is this just something that you think other editors should be devoting hours of their time to on an ingoing basis? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting off topic for a DRV, but I can cooperate on a new system if the category deletion is endorsed. Individually choosing and changing which years get their own category would require some work and could create inconsistent navigation so I would prefer a boundary. Roughly, there tends to be less information the farther back you go. There are some exceptions to this but a little variation in category sizes seems to matter less than having a good category system. Pick a boundary year divisible by 100, for example B=1100. Don't allow templates to add category links for years below B. It seems unlikely to me that any decade before 1100 will get so many articles that the decade category becomes hard to use. Some simple template changes:

  • {{YearInIrelandNav}}: Don't add the page to a year category before B. The navigation box has no links to year categories so that requires no change.
  • {{IrelandByYear}}: No change. It isn't used when the year doesn't have a category.
  • {{IrelandInCentury}}: If the century is before B then add decade category links in a horizontal row instead of the large table with year categories in Category:6th century in Ireland - or don't add anything since the existing decade categories should be listed as subcategories.
  • {{IrelandDecade}}: Doesn't make year links now, so no change.

A suggestion to make it easy to change B in the future: Make a new template, for example called {{IrelandInYear}}, with a year parameter. If another article than "y in Ireland" (which uses YearInIrelandNav for categorization) should be categorized in "Category:y in Ireland" if it exists, then the article can add {{IrelandInYear|y}} instead of [[Category:y in Ireland]]. IrelandInYear can then be coded to add a year category for years after B, and only a decade category before B. Currently this template would only have 5 uses before 1100. If it becomes much more then a bot could be programmed to make the conversion.

The above system makes it easy to change B, for example decreasing B by 100 when more articles have been added to the preceding century. If B is changed in templates then everything else should work automatically. After loking at 1100 to 1600 (a period which may have hundreds of one-article categories but I haven't counted), I think B=1600 would currently be much better than B=1100 (although more articles would need conversion to {{IrelandInYear}}). But no year after 1100 was listed in the CFD nomination so some editors might object to raising B. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This may be well-intentioned, but I'm afraid that once again its an unworkable solution. The result of your proposal would be to create a weird situation where editotrs should treat all year-in-Ireland categories differently to any other category by not adding then directly to an article, but instead use a template. Most editors are not going to know that, so there would have to be continual monitoring of redlinked categories, and each article edited to replace the category with this new template. Are you offering to commit yourself to monitor 1000 redlinked categories in perpetuity, or are you expecting someone else to do that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
PS PrimeHunter - I notice that like, Angus, you are now advocating permanently removing all year-in-Ireland categories before a certain date, without allowing for their recreation if needed, which was a specifically-stated condition of plenty of delete voters.
You are also only partly right that this is getting off topic for DRV. I quite agree that DRV is a very bad place for discussion of this sort of issue, but the reason we are having the discussion here is because the CfD was closed without consensus as delete, and because the closing admin explicitly tied his closure to finding a solution ... and we haven't got a solution. So the deletionists are busy drawing up back-of-the-envelope solutions to try extricate themselves from the mess created by the original closure. It's a lousy way to make decisions, and a lousy way to find solutions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Redlinked categories is a potential problem on any article in Wikipedia, and lots of templates add categories. Except for "Year in Ireland" which is already handled by a template, there are few Irish history articles in this period. There are already many red categories and I don't recall seeing any other article than "Year in Ireland" in any of them. The relevant articles are probably mostly edited by Irish history regulars who would quickly learn the system. Most other people would probably not expect an old category like Category:987 in Ireland to exist (I certainly wouldn't have before seeing all these categories), so they wouldn't try adding it. And if they did and saw the red link then they would often remove it again, or replace it with Category:980s in Ireland which wouldn't be so bad. I'm not going to manually monitor 1000 categories but if bad redlinking becomes a significant problem (which would surprise me) then a bot could be programmed to find the cases periodically and automatically make the conversions. My suggestion isn't to permanently delete all categories before a certain date, but to make a consistent system with a boundary which can later be moved. My preference is: 1) Delete all categories before a given year which can later be moved back. 2) Delete all categories with insufficient content and recreate on individual basis. 3) Keep hundreds of one-article categories for articles which can easily be found in many other ways. I'm trying to respond to the complaints from the Irish history editors about inconsistency, and all I get is more complaints. The DRV looked a lot like endorse before I posted and I could just have said endorse too without spending time on a possible solution. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse the closure. Close was perfectly valid on procedural grounds, which is what DRV is supposed to review, not whether you "like it" or "find it helpful." Additionally, I would be in favor of removing the vast majority of "Year in Country" categories. A quick looking around finds them largely empty, but that is for another debate. ^demon[omg plz] 05:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment as BrownHairedGirl has now raised this point several times, she criticises Angus's closure as treating WP:OC as policy but then repeatedly, and in bold, brings up "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". That too is only a guideline and if makes wikipedia worse, should be ignored. It is also completely untrue that "the clamour" for the deletion of these categories comes from the "uninvolved", as I have contributed to the year in Ireland series as well as that for many other countries, mostly United Kingdom, but also England, Scotland, Great Britain, France and Japan and categorisation for countless year-based events, so I'm afraid that is just another straw-man. Tim! (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Before making accusations of straw man arguments, please check what the term means.
Yes, both are part of a guideline, not policy; but the closer's rationale has been based on the approach set out in one half of a guideline which clearly envisages exceptions, and this case fits those exceptions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, your comments are more of an ad hominem than a straw man based on who you perceive do and do not contribute to the article and category series. The closer had weigh up the guideline and use common sense as well and came to reasonable compromise. Tim! (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Can't speak for BHG. But some facts; (1) The folk proposing the category deletion are 100% non-contributers to the series of articles. (2) They are overwhealmingly British. Now are you going to claim that a simple observation of fact can't be made in this debate? Must we pretend that perspective isn't related to where you are looking from? Sarah777 (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous (group) (closed)

[edit] Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD (closed)

[edit] Talk:Comparison_of_one-click_hosters (closed)

[edit] 17 February 2008

[edit] User:Basketball110/Presidential poll (closed)

[edit] List of CEP vendors (closed)

[edit] Milo Turk (closed)

[edit] Adam Mayfair

Adam Mayfair (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The debate was procedurally closed as keep citing reasons of the injunction. However the precedent that is in place is to insert Template:FICTWARN on the AFD and relist it until the injunction is lifted or modified. The closing admin, when asked to modify the closing, said he does not agree with the template, and seems to prefer to dispose of a consensus-forming process in favor of preventing a backlog at AfD. The backlog concern seems unwarranted, as the articles are in a tracking category and can be quickly dealt with when the injunction is over. To ignore consensus-forming input by summarily closing these debates makes the problem worse as it prevents editors from exchanging ideas about these articles and will likley result is a rash of new AFD's that have no particpation in them yet, the moment the injunction is lifted. That will create the same backlog. So I say overturn and add template. JERRY talk contribs 00:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment We have no established way of handling these, and every admin dealing with this situation is trying to improvise as best he can. Jerry's way of doing it is one good way, and Phil's is another. We shall really have to collectively figure out how to deal with this when the injunction expires, in the (in my opinion very likely) case arb com does not provide us with useful practical guidance.DGG (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • My feeling is that the arbcom injunction was meant to stop destructive and ill-tempered process wars over this, and that the correct way to uphold it is to simply not deal with deletion on these for the time being. Certainly "Go through a bunch of AfDs but don't hit delete" seems outside what the case is looking for. And I think a DRV in this case is far outside the spirit of what the injunction seeks, and downright foolish. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Foolish, Phil? I'm a fool? I am trying to get community consensus to determine if disposing of a consensus-forming process in favor of the convenience of a smaller backlog at AfD is the way forward. I don't think name-calling is the kind of behavior that I find is easy to assume to be in good faith. JERRY talk contribs 02:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
One does not have to be a fool to do something foolish. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Much like one does not have to be a child to behave childishly, but the insult is still implied, nonetheless. JERRY talk contribs 06:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy close, the wording of the injunction - "no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article" (emphasis mine) makes it pretty clear that people should not be nominating articles on television characters for deletion on the grounds that they are non-notable. "Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight," so it was entirely correct to close the AfD and un-tag the article. --Stormie (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I would agree if this happened before significant discussion had occurred. But once DAYS went by, I then disagree. JERRY talk contribs 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well it's unfortunate that it wasn't closed earlier, but User:Colonel Warden did point out a mere three hours after listing that it was in violation of the injunction. --Stormie (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, since the arbcom clearly doesn't want to bother to clarify this injunction (there are unanswered concerns about it since before it was even passed), we need to decide how to interpret it. I don't think DRV or AfD are the best fora in which to do so. But until then, I think the best option is to close the AfDs after 5 days, and if the result would violate the injunction,wait until the injunction has passed, and then use the category that {{FICTWARN}} puts AfDs in to find ones that need the delete button or redirect action. I suggest we do this for this AfD as well. seresin | wasn't he just...? 06:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but if action is not going to be taken as a result of the discussion, there is no need to stop the discussion. Keeping the discussion listed and open seems the best course, as it does not violate the injunction, AND it allows the consensus forming process to continue. The perceived emergency of some huge backlog that these dozen or so discussions are going to cause is really Mount Molehill, IMHO. For the editors who participate in the discussion and make a sound recommendation one way or the other, for the discussion to be closed summarily equates to their input being ignored. JERRY talk contribs 06:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see a reason to make these AfDs special and keep them open indefinitely. But we shouldn't be closing them blindly based on this injunction, which, depending on how it is read, does not prohibit AfDs. seresin | wasn't he just...? 06:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment on it's face I'd agree with the closing of the AFD, it seems pointless going through a discussion which is going to have no result, by the time any arb case has been resolved the article may have been modified sufficiently that any consensus formed may not longer be valid, and so would be inactionable at that time. Has anyone actually asked arbcom for clarification on this? Rather than trying to argue about if specific wording means/implies. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly the reason to keep the discussion open; whomever goes to close it will look at the most recent comments first, and if these comments describe a large change in the article content or if these comments form a different sub-sonsensus than the earlier ones, the administrator will look at the article history and will discard comments that are no longer factually applicable. This is not a special process, it is how we handle ALL afd's. For example if the first 10 responses on an AfD say "delete, no sources cited" and then 4 comments follow that and say "keep - has 12 verifiable reliable sources" then I look at the article and the sources. If I notice the sources are good and were added after the initial comments were left, I would close as keep. There is nothing different with these. JERRY talk contribs 14:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well given some are currently not commenting on the deletion, but noting the injunction and that the outcome of the arbitration may change the approach taken by people on either side of the debate, it would seem you either leave them open for 5 days after the arbitration is finished to give people fair opportunity to comment or you close them and let the debate work from the start. From my perspective it is "cleaner" to just close these and let those which people still believe are unsuitable to relist after the injunction is lifted. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure Arbcom seem to want a cooling-off period. Jerry seems to be trying to facilitate a business-as-usual workround and this is contrary to the spirit of their ruling. In any case, Jerry has no power over other admins who have a different opinion, right? Colonel Warden (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
WOW. JERRY talk contribs 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume that's why he bought it here for discussion. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse close. My approach has been to speedy close these. The ArbCom case could go on for a long time, and constantly relisting these debates will create more work for AfD closers. Many of these discussions have commentators refering to the injunction, not the merits of the article, so its hard to say much of a consensus is forming. To me the approach of closing the debate and allowing a new one to start once the injunction is lifted makes more sense than keeping an ever increasing number of discussions continuing. WjBscribe 20:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This issue is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Request for Comment. Davewild (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and add template. There's no reason this should not be discussed. Discussion is just that: discussion. Discussion does not have to equal deletion. If we don't like to relist, we should complain to Arbcom, preferably through the RFC I have set up. Redfarmer (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've commented there--I am not sure how much help in settling these we will get from arb com, and I think that by the time they've finished, the appropriate thing to do will to think a bit, and then start over. It may happen that some of the less temperate may not longer be participating by then,which will considerably simplify matters. As we are all experimenting here, I think that either a freeze and relist, or a close and leaving the possibility of relisting, are equally good options. There is no need to overthrow either. DGG (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I support keeping the article regardless of the method achieved, so whether this is open to debate or not for procedural reasons, I support the keep. It seems noteworthy, and I don't see the harm in debate. Locks should only be for edit wars, etc.JJJ999 (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

2008
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2007
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2006
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review"
Personal tools