Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Skip to current nominations

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

Process – Log – Tools
Guide – Images – Admins
For simple image undeletions, try {{ImageUndeleteRequest}}

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

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

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

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

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 decisions

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 corrective 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 for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).

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

[edit] Temporary review

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

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

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

[edit] 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] How do I do all this?

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

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


[edit] Instructions

Before listing a review request:

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

[edit] Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

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

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

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

[edit] Temporary undeletion

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

[edit] Closing reviews

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

[edit] Steps to list a new deletion review

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


 
1.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

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

Copy this template skeleton for files:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used. For example:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=Deletion was entirely unreasonable.
}} ~~~~
3.

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

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

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

Click to create a log page for tomorrow (17 July 2009)

[edit] Active discussions

[edit] 16 July 2009

[edit] Andre Merritt

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

AFD = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Merritt Speedy Deletion 75.27.151.59 (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to delete. He has written, Disturbia for Rihanna. Forever for Chris Brown. Entourage for Omarion. Helped produced SEVERAL albums. Is signed as a songwriter to Universal Music Group. Look it up on their website! Also there is www.andremerritt.com HE IS ALSO involved in a songwriting crew called the GRAFFITI ARTISTZ which contains him, Chris Brown, and Robert Allen. He has MADE IT BIG.

  • Close - There is no need for a DRV for a speedy deletion. If he has "made it big" then there should be no end of independent reliable sources that attest to it. If you wish, you may write an article that relies on those sources. Note that neither Universal Music Group's website nor Merritt's personal website constitute reliable sources, which must be independent of the article's subject. Otto4711 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The last deletion was a G4 after an AFD so I'd say that a DRV might be necessary Otto. I linked the AFD up top. 75.27.151.59, please can you read our notability guideline and our sourcing guidelines and let us know if you can find a couple of reliable sources that discuss this person in depth. If you can then we will happily do something about this deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 06:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Given the previous DRV AFD, I still think this can be closed but if not then endorse the unanimous deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, i can't find a previous DRV Otto. Can you help me with a link to it please? Spartaz Humbug! 07:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Mis-typed. I meant AFD, not DRV. Otto4711 (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I may be starting to sound like a broken record, but I suggest a WP:USERSPACE draft. I'm sure one of many admins active in DRV would be happy to recreate the deleted article in userspace for that reason. Do ensure however that the article demonstrates (not just that the subject meets) verifiable notability with reliable sources before moving it to mainspace or it may well be deleted again very quickly. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 07:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As long as the claims above are verified properly I see no reason why this article shouldn't be recreated. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 15 July 2009

[edit] Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion was closed with 7 keeps and 12 deletes. But AfD is not a vote. There were strong arguments in both directions, so there was a consensus neither to keep nor delete. Therefore, this should be overturned to keep. Tatterfly (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Fixed link to proper AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • We've had this discussion at DRV once before, and it was sent back to AfD. Now the consensus at AfD is clearly to delete, and I don't agree with that consensus, but I think it's time to accept it and move on. Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I strongly endorse the deletion as a correct interpretation of consensus, given the relevant guidelines. ÷seresin 00:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The nominator says it best : AfD is not a vote. I did not close this by the numbers but rather by the strength of the arguments. I'm sure a review of the closure will uphold that reading. As the closer, I obviously endorse the closure. Shereth 01:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The closing admin gave a lot of thought to the decision and wrote an excellent summary. Incidentally, many of the keep opinions were ignorant of, or ignored, our guidelines. Drawn Some (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse, I see no irregularity at all. Not a vote doesn't exactly mean the closer HAS to go against popular opinion does it? In this case, vocalised opinion, existing policy, and strength of arguement all indicated deletion. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 07:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The refrain "AFD is not a vote" is all too often used by people who are opposed to a deletion discussion just because it went against them. Deletion review is not a venue to seek a second bite at the cherry in the hope the decision will go your way. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sales 2.0

Sales 2.0 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

I deleted this article after closing the Afd, and userfied it here per a request at my talk page. The editor has made improvements, and would like to return it to main space. I have declined to do so unilaterally, but have created this entry to assist the editor in getting a wider audience to consider the matter. He/she is welcome to replace this statement with a nomination of their choosing. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • The second and third reference listed (as of this version) don't really talk about the term at all. The second doesn't mention it at all, and the third merely has a trivial use. The first reference doesn't contain all that much, and doesn't discuss the term itself, but appears to be about a book which the author had considered naming Sales 2.0. This might be parsed through for something useful, and there's a book by the title (amazon.com link). So, I believe that something at this title can be written, but we're not there yet, unfortunately. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd add to Lifebaka's remark that blogs are not normally reliable sources.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As per lifebaka. The exiting references are not sufficiently reliable, and/or the coverage is too trivial. Suspect that it will improve with time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jurists by faith

:Category:Roman Catholic jurists (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
:Category:Jewish jurists (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
Category:Hindu jurists (perhaps this one as well)

Currently, there is a discussion going on about the possible deletion of Category:Jurists by faith. Part of the discussion revolves around the deltion of these three categories. I'd like to see them restored. There seems to be no problem with the category Category:Muslim jurists. I don't see why the three above aren't given the same consideration.

There are the categories of Category:Roman_Catholics_by_occupation Category:Jews_by_occupation and Category:Muslims by occupation, why can't there be a jurist sub-category?

As an example of their relevance, in the U.S., the Supreme Court now has six Catholics, the faith of a judge does seem relevant. It fits within our category schemes and isn't over-categorization. Philly jawn (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • The "Muslim jurists" are all to at least a large degree "Jurists of Islamic law" (modern systems are often mixed), but I have suggested at the other debate that the category (not currently nominated) should be renamed to this. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Category:Roman Catholic jurists and Category:Hindu jurists weren't deleted, they were just renamed in this CfD, a decision I endorse. I haven't looked into Category:Jewish jurists yet. lifebaka++ 19:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse the various deletions - no indication that any of the various CFDs for these categories were closed in error, no new information presented indicating that the consensus expressed by those CFDs has changed. DRV is not CFD round two. That there "seems to be no problem" regarding the Muslim jurists category is not relevant to this discussion. First, the existence of one category does not mandate or even suggest that another similar category should exist. Second, as has been noted both in at least one of the original CFDs and in the current discussion, there is some "problem" with the notion of a category specifically for jurists who are Muslim and a suggestion has been made to rename and repurpose the Muslim jurists category to make it specifically about jurists of Islamic law systems.
  • Additionally, I note that although Philly jawn was explicitly advised here, after re-creating some of these categories out of process, that before opening a DRV he should discuss his concerns with the closing admin(s), as advised in the instructions found on this page. I see no indication that he has done so. Otto4711 (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've taken the liberty of notifying the closing admins for both discussions. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse prior decisions, from April 2007 and May 2009 (I fixed your link, it was to Supreme Court Justices by religion). Agreeing with Otto about lack of indication these were closed in error. Why are these old and older decisions brought to Review? These are now long-standing and repeatedly confirmed decisions.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 14 July 2009

[edit] Brandon Evans

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

There is no reason to request deletion. He is clearly listed as an BMI songwriter. Brandonn12345 (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Welcome to Wikipedia. I recommend creating a draft version on a WP:USERSPACE page such as User:Brandonn12345/Brandon Evans. When you feel that the content demonstrates how the subject meets WP:ARTIST or WP:MUSIC, feel free to drop me a note at User Talk:usrnme_h8er and I'll have a look and provide comments. Your user name has a similarity to the subject, if that is not coincidental, I also suggest you take the time to review WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 07:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion as the deletion process was followed properly. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Clearly listed as an BMI songwriter" where? BMI's search page shows 1,440 songwriters and composers with surname "Evans"[1] but there's not a Brandon Evans among them. --Stormie (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Programmer13/Vandalism Patrol (closed)

[edit] 13 July 2009

[edit] 12 July 2009

[edit] Owl City (closed)

[edit] Wikipedia:Long usernames

Wikipedia:Long usernames (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

I feel consensus was completely ignored by the closing admin Xavexgoem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights). I've tried to resolve this here, but it did not work, so I'm bringing this to DRV. Aditya α ß 10:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I confess this is my first time at DRV as an admin - I suppose everyone starts somewhere. I kept the page because some felt that it constituted a part of Wikipedia's early history. The page had not been edited since 2004, and only once in 2009 by Graham87 so as to link it to a very, very old village pump discussion (Dec 03). My determination was that there were two parties in the MfD: those who wanted it deleted per WP:DENY, and those who wanted it kept for the sake of history. I figured that the latter had a larger stake in the matter compared to the former, the latter being long term editors. So I weighed the arguments but figured that, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter whether this page stays or goes. I went with the option that didn't deny folks their history.Xavexgoem (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Generally, it's best to avoid deletion whenever possible, so I can see why Xavexgoem went with tagging as historical. I also don't feel like WP:DENY has too terribly much to do with this, though certainly a case could be made. A good compromise would likely be to blank the page and maybe write something there instead (an essay on why/why not to have long usernames, a humor bit on some particular long usernames, et cetera). Alternatively, if Xavexgoem doesn't mind, he could go back and delete it, since I agree that the end result doesn't matter much. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • What worried me though wasn't the end result, it was that Xavex ignored the clear consensus to delete the page, in favor of what he thought was right. While it's true that "some felt that it constituted a part of Wikipedia's early history", it's also true that most people felt it should be deleted. Aditya α ß 14:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Not how I would have closed it, but it's not worth overturning. The closing admin's reasoning is sound. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The reasoning is fine. For a !vote. But I believe his interpretation of consensus was incorrect as he was influenced by his own personal feelings on the subject. Aditya α ß 06:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, but it's acceptable either way. True that consensus did not exactly favor this result, but it's still a valid close. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, my personal feelings really had nothing to do with my decision. I did not and do not consider it a blind maneuver on my part; I did weigh the arguments as an administrator. That said, I do not always just count the for and against votes if the deletion discussion is in any way nuanced. The largest failure, in my opinion, was not describing my rationale for the decision, and I'm sure this discussion wouldn't have happened had I did so. Or, at any rate, my judgment on the matter wouldn't have been reduced to my personal opinion. If you want to know my personal opinion, it's that it should've been deleted a long time ago per WP:DENY (denying recognition has a long history outside Wikipedia).
  • I'm happy to discuss this matter at this DRV about WP:DENY and {{historical}}, and why I don't always reach decision based solely on number of votes. But I repeat: this wasn't personal on my part. I'm not a longtime editor, and I generally agree that we should deny recognition. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Lastly, if that article is used for recognition despite the historical tag (and I'd argue that anything that hasn't been edited since 2004 is historical by default), then the WP:DENY argument certainly trumps the historical argument.
  • Endorse - No reason to overturn, it wasn't a overwhelming consensus to delete, I would blank it though. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • re-writing history? If it's inactive, why should WP:DENY matter? Why not keep things like they are when they're not hurting anybody? --Sigmundur (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete because that was the rough consensus. If the closer was tempted to overrule the consensus, he should've !voted instead of closing.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse Last I checked WP:DENY wasn't policy, marking the page historical is what we do with pages that are inactive. Good close by admin. Whispering 07:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse. WP:DENY is an essay, enjoys limited support and certainly does not have consensus as a deletion criterion. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete per rough consensus — WP:DENY is a perfectly reasonable explanation for an opinion at AfD. The keep !voters failed to argue any merit to the page, while the deleters did argue harm: I see no case to close against the numbers. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse, I give more leeway towards Admin discression in MfD discussions than I do in AfD, especially when it's between historic and deleted. If this had been an admin keeping an article where the consensus was delete (like for example, if the other DRV today had been kept) I would probably have said overturn. In the end though, this is just a WP page which does no damage. In terms of DENY, I don't think this will have any measurable effect on Trolling. Replacing the page, while maintaining the history, with a redirect to the username policy seems like a fair compromise though. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a reasonable close. I suspect I'd have closed this as 'delete' were I the admin responsible; but it is on the line and a decent argument could be made for closing it either way. ~ mazca talk 14:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse. That was a reasonble close. The delete rationale was sound. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering it was closed as keep your comment seems confusing.--76.69.166.93 (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Blank content, keeping the tag, and the content in history. The majority of !voters went for "delete", although many wrongly (arguably) cited WP:DENY as mandating or justifying "delete", as blanking is arguably a preferable way to deal with such things (blanking denies recognition more effectively than staging community MfD & DRV debates). I guess that the closing admin saw this, or another weakness to the delete rationales, or recognised the vary valid point that we do and should try to avoid deleing our history. If the consensus were not for a full delete, it was certainly for a blank and mark historical, as per my & Ned's !votes, and consistent with Graham87's comments. The only other keep !votes by Stifle, and comment from Graeme Bartlett, did not specify whether the offensive content should or should not be removed from the continuing tagged page. Blanking the long usernames seems a pretty easy solution to most, and middle ground mostly satisfying everyone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gamma_Alpha_Lambda

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

This sorority is a national organization with 4 current chapters in various universities. These chapters each have met the requirements set forth by their universities for a sorority. The organization is still young (6 years) which accounts for their relatively low notoriety amongst other areas of the country. However, much of their logo, sorority necklace, name, etc have been copyrighted with the U.S. government since their establishment and as they are now Gamma Alpha Lambda, Inc., they are no longer a "non-notable sorority" A full website is available to confirm information. This sorority is definitely notable and worthy of being on Wikipedia, especially as more chapters are added in the coming years. Gal3130 (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion. Small and not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD commenters could find no reliable sources and no indication of notability, and there were no !votes to do anything except delete. A perfectly correct closure. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion – unanimous consensus for deletion and proper closure after relisting. MuZemike 21:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse delete Completely in line with our usual practices. As you say, the group is still young & in the process of getting noticed. After it has, then there can be an article.DGG (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse per DGG. In fact, I would go further and say that virtually all fraternities/sororities are non-notable. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I agree with the consensus; I think most aspects of academia have a place in a serious encyclopaedia. I certainly think there's a small benefit to including them and I don't see that they do any damage. Category:Honor societies shows that it's established custom and practice to include them.

    I endorse the closure as an accurate reading of the consensus, but would also support a relist because I think the debate was defective.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Endorse as a completely valid close of the AfD. I wouldn't go as far as Stifle and say no fraternities are notable but I see no reason for them to be notable above WP:N and sub-contant at WP:ORG, specifically WP:CLUB. Perhapps a specific mention of Greek System societies is needed in WP:CLUB, though that might be rule creep. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Make It Home (closed)

[edit] 11 July 2009

[edit] 10 July 2009

[edit] Rand Kannenberg (closed)

[edit] Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala

Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Never mind the consistency issues with Marcelo Lucero (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcelo Lucero and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_6#Marcelo_Lucero), where there is also an undeniable abundance of sources during the course of over a year and BLP#1E not applying to dead people, this should not have been deleted per our notability policies. Should, at the very least, have been moved to Murder of Luis Ramirez or some equivalent title. (I attempted to discuss this with the deleting administrator before coming here but he is no longer responding on his talk page.) TAway (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion Discussion was properly closed, this is not a place to re-fight the AfD. RayTalk 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    Note: Ray was the original deletion nominator. This isn't an AfD re-hash, it's a matter of whether the administrator should have closed as a move per the available discussion and our policies. No one is denying that the murder's coverage well surpasses our notability guidelines, and instead of deleting on a technicality (that Ramirez didn't warrant his own biography under his name) it should have simply been moved to an article on the murder itself. TAway (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse this reasonable close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse, nothing wrong with the decision. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse, I would also have closed this as delete. Those advocating delete made a good argument, and those advocating a keep... did not. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC).
  • Endorse Close, Support Recreation While my personal opinion would have been different, the consensus at AfD does appear to have been for deletion. If there are requisite sources and there has been coverage above and beyond the single event of the murder itself, recreating the article as Murder of Luis Ramirez would appear appropriate. It's a shame that this was not considered at AfD, but of the keep or delete options discussed, delete prevailed. Alansohn (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse, standard one-event case. Wikipedia not the news. Sad, but will anyone remember this case in a year's time? Stifle (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    This is the classic response of someone who shows up to vote without investigating any context. Given it's already received over a year's worth of coverage, the answer would appear to be "yes." TAway (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    Or endorse per the consensus at the AFD if you prefer; take your pick. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Mountainous Armenia

Republic of Mountainous Armenia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as no consensus. However, a check for the existence or not of sources shows that the "no sources" side is telling the truth. I got essentially no hits looking for web sources (other than those for copies of the Wikipedia article), no hits at all in Google Scholar, and as someone commented in the discussion, the book sources seem to all be from Armenian authors. There just don't seem to be adequate sources to support the article. I think it would have been better to take at least a cursory check of the claims rather than just count votes, particularly in such a perennially contentious subject area. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Endorse this accurate close. This is not AfD round 2, and that debate did not reach a consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mangoe. The topic has no reliable sources whatsoever, and according to WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Grandmaster 05:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse- There was no consensus with that discussion, and, as its been pointed out, this isn't AFD round two. If you don't like the close, you're welcome to re-nominate in a couple months if the article has not been improved. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse decision – Definitely does not look like a consensus for deletion has been established. Of course, that doesn't preclude another AFD down the road provided those who favored retention fail to provide anything reliable. MuZemike 22:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Umbralcorax. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse no consensus close. "...the book sources seem to all be from Armenian authors" is not a valid objection to the source material. The requirement is that the sources be reliable, not that they are English. There was no consensus in the AFD, and no sound policy basis to ignore that and delete anyway has been presented. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to WP:OR: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.. In this case, claiming the so called "Republic of Mountainous Armenia" based on solely Armenian sources (if any), over the territory of disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region explicitly serves to advance an [Armenian] position in the dispute, thus unfit for the encyclopedia. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, no consensus — And no prejudice against relisting at AfD once a better case for deletion is put together. The delete case seemed to rest on the belief that histories of Armenia published by reputable presses are WP:OR if the author has Armenian background, which is false, but the keep case fell short of convincing me that the claim to existence of the state was soundly made; hence the closure reflected the failure of the AfD to get to grips with the issue at hand. I note that Richard G. Hovannisian (2004, The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times) talks about the 1918 activities of Andranik Toros Ozanian, according to the article the failed state's founder, in Karabakh and Zangezur without mentioning his founding of any state there. But the sources cited in the AfD have Garegin Njdeh as the founder. The first place to work is to figure out what the article actually should say, and ruthlessly delete anything that can't be properly sourced. Then it should be clear whether the article can be saved or should be deleted. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hermy

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

Obviously, move and edit-protect this, but "Hagger" has a link to Rubeus Hagrid. This should redirect to Hermione Granger. My cat's breath smells like catfood (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Sounds sensible. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As someone who only included Hagrid on the dab page with my tongue firmly in cheek, I'd agree this is sensible. Redirect and protect. Sceptre (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Are we sure we want a redirect to a popular culture article here? Wouldn't something more scholarly like Hermes or Herma be preferable?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
A disambiguation might be the best idea, like Hagger is. Other possibles are Addie and Hermy and The Adventures of Nilson Groundthumper and Hermy (yes , they're just partial title matches, best I can find on short notice). Additionally, I note that Hermy Granger already exists as a redirect to Hermione Granger. lifebaka++ 14:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • My first thought was that it would refer to Hermie and Friends. I think that a dab is certainly necessary here. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It could be a decent disambig page, but it needs to be protected and watched for obvious reasons. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC).
  • Create redirect or dab page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Americans accused of spying for the Soviet Union

Category:Americans accused of spying for the Soviet Union (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Consensus was to keep. Category is for people who were accused of spying, and neither confessed or were convicted. The alternative is to list people in category of spies, which is not legally correct. The argument for deletion was libel, but no more libelous than an other category anyone can find offensive. That is why we depend on reliable sources. Almost all the people in the category were deceased and libel doesn't apply to the dead. The most sound solution would have been to remove the two living people if there charges were vacated, not delete the category with 20 dead people in it. And certainly adding them to the spy category is not the solution. Once investigated or tried and found innocent we have Category:Wrongly accused spies for those like Wen Ho Lee. Deletion leaves a gap in the categories, so we end up losing them as spies for people looking for them by categories. The libel canard can be used equally well by any ethnic category or religious category that a person can be put in if it was incorrect and deemed offensive by a living person, even describing someone as the wrong political party could be potentially libelous, that is why networks apologize when they make that mistake. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Overturn to keep. The closing admin erred. RayTalk 04:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion CFD is not a vote, as the closer noted, this is an "accusations" category, and accusations by whom? of whom? If I publicly denounce my cat at a Soviet spy, do she get an article so we can populate the category? Seriously, this is little different that people acquitted of something or other, which are routinely deleted as being libelous, and some people would equate being accused of spying for the USSR with child molestation and other types of accusations categories we cannot maintain with BLP because nothing, repeat NOTHING, in the title of the category limits this to dead people, people accused in some formal proceeding, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Keep per Consensus We're not refighting the CfD, we're looking at a close. The arguments were made that the category is defining and that for many of the individuals included the official accusations of spying for the former Soviet Union is their primary defining characteristic. We have to end the process of granting closing admins a supervote that allows consensus to be disregarded and one admin's biases to be substituted. If an argument that "I closed it contrary to consensus because I decided it's wrong" is to ever be accepted, it needs to be accompanied by a rather detailed justification rather than a blanket statement that "Arguments for deleting here are particularly compelling and most of the arguments for keeping here are particularly weak" which merely arrogates a right to overturn any consensus whatsoever. Alansohn (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wait. Seriously? Yet another CfD close from Good Ol' being challenged on DRV? This smells of a witch-hunt.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 06:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Witch-hunt or no (I suspect not; maybe I just suck), I continue to think it could be useful if those wanting to challenge these closes actually say something to me prior to starting a DRV. Isn't DRV kind of supposed to be a "last resort"? This is the 3rd consecutive DRV that has been started about one of my closes where the nominator has not said anything to me prior to the DRV. For the ones that go to DRV, no one asks for a clarification, a reconsideration—nothing. There's a chance users might be able to save themselves and the community some time as well as some fairly aggro discussions. I won't bite, honest. Unless you're hunting witches. In which case, by all means carry on. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, if it's not a witch-hunt, then there's a different problem: the community seems to disagree with your CfD closes. It's not at all usual that one single administrator is brought so often to DRV, and it's a bit worrying that each time, at DRV there's been significant support for overturn. But I wonder whether that's just because you close so many CfDs and this is, in fact, a representative sample?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Anyone is free to investigate my history of CfD closes and come to a conclusion. Every time there seems to be any ripples at all, things seem to end up here, without anyone even approaching me beforehand. It seems to be either "all" (DRV) or "none" (not a peep), so I would say if there's any "problem", it's nothing that probably couldn't be well on its way to resolution with better communication from concerned editors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
          • A close that states "Arguments for deleting here are particularly compelling and most of the arguments for keeping here are particularly weak" is a generic excuse to grant yourself the power to close any CfD any way you want it to, in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. If you are generally concerned about a lack of communication, the problem starts with the tendency to override consensus, cast a supervote for your preferred option, and then offer a vague story about why any vote that matches your personal choice is the height of perfection and any vote to the contrary is by definition so utterly worthless as to be unworthy of consideration. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that this has occurred and DRVs have been opened by several different editors independently raising these issues. If you truly feel that you have not received adequate respect for your closes, why not try to take the first steps yourself by trying to exhibit a significantly greater sense of neutrality and distance when closing CfDs -- putting your rather clear personal biases to the side -- and provide far better explanations for why you are disregarding consensus when you do so, offering a modicum of respect for community consensus. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
            • I've never said anything about a lack of respect for "my" closes. I'm unsure how focusing on what you see as my shortcomings is productive here. I'm suggesting things would go a lot smoother if there was increased communication prior to a DRV being started. But in the end, I don't really care if users do it or not—they can discuss to their heart's content without approaching me first, but then they have little standing to argue that my behaviour or the close was inappropriate, since they didn't even approach me to seek further details about it. Usually I find that editors who don't approach the closer first prefer to frame the DRV as "CfD #2". And no, I'm not going to pre-empt the questions by writing a dissertation for every close. You have to ask to get the dissertation. I note that you, Alansohn, are one of the only editors who has ever asked about a close prior to coming to DRV, and you did so after I had mentioned at another DRV that doing so is helpful. The only other ones (I believe) have been jc37 and Otto4711. But in the end, users can (and do) suit themselves. I'm just throwing out a suggestion that could possibly help things. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Very well, then. Overturn to no consensus, because there was none.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus, as there was none. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse, as the BLP/ethical argument was not sufficiently countered to convince me that the CfD shouldn't have ended in delete. Consider, for example, if it was instead "Americans accused of child abuse"; the mere mention alone creates neutrality and ethical problems if it is not a proven/generally accepted fact. Sceptre (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse -- This is a belated review from a discussion that began May 14th (almost 2 months ago), and closed May 24th (over 6 weeks ago), after an extended discussion. Its parent and siblings have been deleted. That is, this closure has been repeatedly confirmed; closures by different administrators. Evaluation of strong versus weak arguments is necessary and proper. Moreover, keeping would be against existing policy and guidelines, and closures shall never be against policy – no matter how many voices natter about how "defining" it is to be falsely accused. Smells like a witch-hunt to me, too!
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse – I agree with the above remarks of William Allen Simpson. 'Accused of' is too vague. Occuli (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Alanshon. What's the point of AfD if a closing administrator is going to ignore consensus (or arrogantly dismiss keep arguments as "weak")? We need to strictly enforce that deletion can only be achieved if there is consensus.SPNic (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Good judgment call. I specifically remember this cat being used as vehicle for retroactive Commie witch-hunting. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • overturn Was no consensus. I don't see any compelling BLP problem since the category makes clear that it is for individuals who were accused but not convicted. As long as we have good sourcing for the statement there's no issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You might just as well argued that it's neither a floor wax or dessert topping for the relevance your rebuttal has to do with the arguments -- including mine -- I'm reading. Rigid adherence to a standard without reference to its intent (or, in this case, to other reasons for not having this vehicle for retroactive commie-hunting) isn't on. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment While the endorsers make much of the claimed BLP issue, the subject was raised and consensus was clear that there was no problem here. As always, we need to rely on descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources, and there are hundreds of sources that use the term to describe and define individuals as accused Soviet spies. The New York Times titled the 1990 obituary "Martha Dodd Stern Is Dead at 82; Author and an Accused Soviet Spy" (see here). The Wikipedia article for Alger Hiss describes him as having been "accused of being a Soviet spy" in the lead paragraph, and this book review discusses "evidence that the accused Soviet spy, Alger Hiss . . . had lied." This article from the Chicago Tribune discusses a deal for "accused Soviet spy Gennady Zakharov". this article from the Los Angeles Times discusses how "Former FBI agent Richard W. Miller testified Wednesday that he went to the beach in Malibu with accused Soviet spy Svetlana Ogorodnikova". There are legitimate concerns about BLP, but the ultimate solution is to rely on reliable and verifiable sources. It couldn't be any clearer that the hundreds of reliable sources from media nationwide in the US and around the world use the term to describe individuals, living and dead, who had been accused of spying for the former Soviet Union by government officials, were never tried or convicted, and for whom their status as accused spies is a defining -- if not their most defining -- characteristic as an individual. To lump then either as spies (which implies that there was a conviction) or to leave them uncategorized on this basis, serves no purpose other than to disrupt navigation across clearly similar articles using the category system. BLP was raised and addressed at CfD and consensus was that there was no issue. There is no place for a closing admin deliberately disregarding consensus by arbitrarily deeming his preferred position "particularly compelling" to ram through his personal preference on the discussion at hand. Alansohn (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd say that giving retroactive Commie witch hunters a loophole to exploit makes even less sense. You're free to ignore the BLP concerns, but that doesn't change why it's a bad idea. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Raising issues of BLP does not create a magic bullet for deleting content. It appears that the "witch hunt" was raised about possible BLP issues and rejected. The question here is if the close was based on consensus, or the arbitrary supervote of the closing admin. Alansohn (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - admin clearly looked at both sides of the argument and correctly determined that the arguments against the category, including BLP concerns and the general disfavoring of categorizing by allegation, were stronger than the arguments in favor of keeping. This consensus was confirmed in additional CFDs found here and here. No new information has been offered here to indicate that anything has changed. Otto4711 (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I love the circular logic. The close is correct because the closing admin decided correctly, consensus be damned. Naturally, the alternative that the admin ignored consensus and abused policy by imposing his own supervote, which most accurately fits the case here, has been ignored. Do the reliable and verifiable sources that support this as a defining characteristic count for anything here, or is it still against policy to make use of such sources to establish definingness? Alansohn (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Closing something correctly, footstamping by WP:ILIKEIT voters aside, is pretty much the opposite of "circular logic", it seems to me. Though it's certainly less than clear whether the "circularity" you're seeing actually exists. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus per Alansohn; I do not see that this might have been closed as "delete" but by the closer's substituting his judgment for that of the community. Joe (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Two other CfDs, here and here, are related. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment — There do seem to be a lot of editors who will turn up and defend the j'accuse categories, regardless of the merits. I think the category has too fungible a criteria for membership, unlike, say, Category:Americans in the Venona papers (though see the doubts raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Americans in the Venona papers), and it is the right course of action to delete it per WP:NPOV, but that the outcome of the debate was clearly no consensus: observe that many keep !voting participants in the AfD did note the problems with the category and suggested workarounds. Would an RfC aimed at establishing policy with respect to which spying lists and cats be a workable solution? The hope is that with such a policy, the AfDs will behave better in the future. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. As I noted in this original CFD, the problems raised with this subcategory were not particular to it but rather common to the entire "Accused spies" parent category structure, and should have been discussed as a whole. Because that parent category structure has since been deleted, however, the deletion of this particular subcategory is moot and should not be separately discussed. This subcategory has no independent basis for existence from Category:Accused spies, and so its recreation should only be discussed through a comprehensive review of that broader deletion. On the merits of whether any "accused spies" categories should exist, policy and guidelines, including general categorization guidelines as well as more serious BLP and NPOV concerns, weigh against any categorization of mere accusations. Obviously the fact that such an accusation was made can be reliably sourced, and may be significant enough to be described within an article. But a category obviously cannot set forth who did the accusing, whether the accusations were repeated by others and/or sustained over time, or whether there was any basis for the accusation. As a category, this and all other "accused spies" categories, therefore, suffer from a ridiculously low inclusion threshold and are meaninglessly vague. They were properly deleted and should stay deleted. Postdlf (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You have cast a wonderful vote, which might have been considered if it had been posted as a vote -- not a comment -- at CfD. The issue of possible BLP concerns was raised by you and others at CfD and clear consensus was that this was not an issue. The question of the propriety of ignoring actual consensus at the actual CfD, our job here at DRV, has been ignored. Neither you nor any closing admin are entitled to a supervote that disregards consensus and turns it into a mockery based on the arbitrary biases of any one admin. Alansohn (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm rather perplexed by your response for a number of reasons, partly because I didn't raise BLP concerns in this CFD. Regardless, I don't see the "clear consensus" in the CFD that you do regarding whether BLP was an issue, as only two people expressly discussed it. One person said that BLP probably wasn't an issue only because most of the included subjects were probably dead, which even if true would not affect its application to however few were still living. The other actually wanted the category substantially changed to omit "accused" so as to avoid libel concerns, presumably to focus on actual spies (however determined). Postdlf (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm all the more perplexed that BLP issues were raised and deemed not relevant, yet consensus was ignored. You obliquely raised issues regarding the word "accused", but you yourself appear to have neither indicated that there was a BLP policy violation requiring its deletion, nor did you actually vote, despite ample opportunity to do so. I know that admins want the opportunity to be judge, jury and executioner in other CfDs, but that hardly seems to be a valid justification to disregard the "clear consensus" you seem unable to see. User:Mazca, an uninterested party who would have voted to delete had he participated, aptly describes below how he "can't see a consensus to [delete] here no matter how hard I squint" yet you and fellow admin and CfD regular User:Good Olfactory have no such problem seeing a consensus to delete that just ain't there. If only this clear discrepancy between community consensus and the judgment of closing administrators were not so perplexing. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
          • No, I'm not very interested in your assessment of Good Olfactory's close or this specific CFD, because (as I thought my comments above made quite clear) I find it far more interesting and relevant that this entire "accused spies" category structure was subsequently deleted. See comments above of William Allen Simpson for links to those CFDs (one of which was unanimous, and the other of which was 5-1, for what it's worth). I don't think this CFD should have occurred in the first place without considering those parent and sibling categories as well (as my only comment at this CFD observed). But that doesn't matter because that consideration then did occur, and those near unanimous, system wide deletions of the "accused spies" categories helped to retroactively validated the result of this one, assuming arguendo that it was in need of validation. WP:DRV is fundamentally about whether deleted content should be recreated or discussed again, and I do not see any basis for recreating only this category as long as the system-wide deletions stand (which, as I said above, I believe they should because categorizing accusations is untenable under relevant policies and guidelines), regardless of whether Good Olfactory's close at that time of this one subcategory was a proper reading of consensus or policy. Postdlf (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn - on a personal opinion note, I completely agree with the outcome of the CfD, in that I absolutely feel consensus should have been to delete it. But I really can't see a consensus to do so here no matter how hard I squint - there was a distinct majority arguing to keep it, and as far as I can see, the keep arguments were generally fairly cogent and founded in reason, even though I disagree with them. I really think there was no consensus to delete here. ~ mazca talk 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, on further review I retract my argument to overturn. I maintain that this close was not a very good reading of consensus; but this CfD in particular did effectively validate the close, and ended in a unanimous consensus to delete the entire system of "accused spies" categories. Consensus apparently did change; so overturning this deletion does not appear to be appropriate. ~ mazca talk 08:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse (closer). Per above comments and original close. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure obviously, AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Questions about closures should be directed to the closer, not immediately brought to review. Good decision on part of closing admin. Drawn Some (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, despite misgivings about the way it was closed — Per my comment before, and per the CfD Mazca cited, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_11#Accused_spies. I note that that CfD did not receive as much participation as this one. An RfC at Category talk:Spies might be useful here. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The category actually had vagueness in the criteria and there is the BLP concerns mentioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse as there is nothing improper about weighing the strength of arguments vs. the number of arguments. A gaggle of users calling for "consensus" does not override BLP policy, which does not mesh well with "accused of..." categorization. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn (keep). Arguments for deleting (No uniform standard...; Category has been [mis-]used ...; ...are disfavored...; ...we generally do not ...) were not compelling. Reasonable keep rationales by experienced wikipedians were not well answered. CfD is run by a groupthinking clique that doesn't recognise the opaqueness of their reasoning as a problem. The opaqueness keeps newcomers out, stabilising the status quo, and in the meantime wikipedia does not have a categorisation system that works well. Suggest the usual CfD closers take a break and see of other admins keep it working the same way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfounded accusations about CFD participants constitute an abject failure to assume good faith and could be interpreted as personal attacks against regular CFD participants. Wild-eyed conspiracy theories do not constitute evidence that the closing admin misinterpreted the CFD, nor do they constitute new information that compels a re-examination of consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • While some of the points are framed poorly, I can see why someone might say that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no doubt that the questionable closes were done with the sincere belief that the closes were the right decision. Some questionable closes even were the right decision, but to my eyes, fit the description of clique behaviour, where there is little regard to explaining to outsiders/newcomers. I allege no conspiracy. Groupthink and clique behaviour can arise without the intent of any of the participant. It isn’t lightly that I say “overturn (keep)” where others are saying “endorse”. Clearly, there is a problem. This has been mentioned in previous DRVs, but to no effect, which I find extremely worrying. If you seriously think that the close of this CfD is unproblematic, then we have a problem. If you think that the close represents good practice of WP:Consensus, then I say that you have a problem with your perspective. I have a theory for the cause of the problem, and a validation test for the theory. If you find this personally insulting, then I am sorry, but I stand by what I see. There are some CfD regulars who are working hard to maintain a difficult system, but they have run themselves into a rut, and are now disconnected with the inexpert community. As I said, in direct contradiction to the closer, the deletion arguments were weak, and the keep arguments had valid points. Closing the debate like that, with keep arguments not answered, but labelled “particularly weak” is extremely insulting, even ostracising, to the non-mainstream participants. The radical close doesn’t even explain itself – it contains no useful information. It is not useful to know that the closer found arguments for deleting “particularly compelling”. It would have been nice to read why he found them compelling. Similarly, “most of the arguments for keeping here are particularly weak” insults and dismisses, but reveals nothing about why they are weak. My general CfD ruling-clique observations are not specific to particular admins, and the foundations of what I have said are not the point. The point is: Am I right, or wrong? If the current regular closers took a break, would other administrators continue to close discussions in the same way? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Diana Vickers

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

Diana Vickers has become more independantly notable since the page's deletion Sumeet 92 (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Diana Vickers has just been given the lead role in the West End play 'The Rise And Fall Of Little Voice' and I think it is fair to say that this makes her notable enough for this page to be restored.

Diana has now separated herself from the X Factor and has become a notable individual; it seems pointless in denying her a wikipedia page.

Sources:

  • Permit recreation. That's certainly more than enough coverage for a separate article, and I see that it includes national newspapers. (Although I shudder to think that The Sun is a reliable source, it probably does count for this).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as not requesting anything within the purview of this process. It's not salted...so, why are we here? If it gets recreated and it's sufficiently different from the last go-round, it won't get WP:CSD#G4'ed and if someone wants it gone - it'll go to WP:AFD again on its new merits - the DRV was closed properly, which is what this process is for,,,. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    Well, Sumeet already tried to do that one month ago, and it turned into an edit war. Consensus then was to keep it redirected. If it were to be reversed again without a discussion it would probably not go unchallenged. decltype (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
No, Sumeet's first port of call was to edit-war, in direct disobedience of the instruction on the redirect page. -- Smjg (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • My first port of call was not to edit war purposefully; I was new to Wikipedia and was genuinely oblivious to the guidelines in place and I apologise for the disruption I caused. However, I think it is clear that the recreation of this article will do no harm to Wikipedia as it is only increasing the level of information available to users and Diana Vickers is certainly a person who, with the recent west-end play news, will be searched for.

--Sumeet 92 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


  • Allow recreation I'd have no objection to the article being recreated without this DRV, but you never know when we'll see another kneejerk deletion of recreated content. The question has been appropriately raised here and the sources establish independent notability. Alansohn (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation I strongly supported deletion when she was notable only for the X Factor appearences, but she now has coverage in reliable sources which look beyond that. I agree with the wisdom of bringing here; recreation without doing so would have been against recently confirmed consensus and IMO would almost certainly have been challenged. I42 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment No notification was posted at Talk:Diana_Vickers about this Deletion Review. I have now done this, but this is 2.5 days after the start. I suggest that this be borne in mind when closing, and that the close date be adjusted if needed. I42 (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Permit Recreation, given the volume of sources presented, it appears this person has crossed the line into notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC).
  • I'm still not convinced. This same user has been pressing for it again and again. And trying to find more and more sources in the hope that it'll convince us she's notable now. A lot of the articles cited seem to be accounts of the exact same story. How many people are in the cast of a typical West End production? Why should this girl be deemed any more notable than the others on this basis? Which notability criterion, exactly, is being claimed???? -- Smjg (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That would be the GNG. Significant coverage, check. Multiple reliable sources, check. Independent of the subject, check.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Original Material Leaked. On the 10th July 2009 a studio recorded single of Diana's was leaked and is now circulating around the internet which is evidence of original material which further separates Diana from the X Factor and establishes her as an individual artist.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIkgexHIgQI --Sumeet 92 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Allow recreation. Reasonable request. No future prejudice against future AfD nominations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Computer tan hoax (closed)

[edit] 9 July 2009

[edit] Recent discussions

[edit] 8 July 2009

[edit] 7 July 2009

[edit] 6 July 2009

[edit] 5 July 2009

[edit] 4 July 2009