Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 March

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 2012 Deletion review archives April 2012 >

31 March 2012

[edit]

30 March 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bernard_O'Reilly_(author) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A couple of years ago, I researched the story of Bernard O'Reilly's remarkable 1937 rescue of the survivors of a plane crash in Queensland and inserted a large inclusion into the wikipedia listing for Bernard O'Reilly. It was all my own work - not a word was copied from any other source. However, it has all been completely removed from the current listing. Three issues:

1. Can you advise my why my addition was deleted?

2. Can it be restored?

3. If it cannot be restored, can I please have it returned to me - I spent a lot of time researching and drafting that piece of work - if you blokes don't want it, I will use it elsewhere. 121.222.18.196 (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it looks to me the article you are referring to was Alfonso Bernard O'Reilly which was deleted with the reason "08:43, 14 June 2009 Gnangarra (talk | contribs) deleted page Alfonso Bernard O'Reilly (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://adbonline.anu.edu.au/biogs/A110102b.htm word for word from the the first edit)". Perhaps the bulk of the article was a copyright infringement. I expect your additions were deleted at the same time. The present article was later created from scratch. I expect an admin can recover your addition for you. Thincat (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd rather not directly restore it because of the copyright concern, but I'd be happy to email you a copy of the article as it stood before it was deleted, hit the email link after visiting my User Page, if that would suffice. As your parts of that article aren't copyrighted elsewhere from what you've said, I'd have no concerns about you reintegrating your work into the current article. --joe deckertalk to me 23:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Volko Audio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

They made the first Baglama instrument. I have added some references and explanation in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asaglam/sandbox template. Asaglam (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and send to AfD I declined to speedy delete the article, on the grounds in made an indication of importance, but RHaworth (who has been notified) deleted it anyway on the grounds that the claim of importance was not sourced. First, I know the rule was that once a speedy has been declined by someone other than the original editor, it cannot be replaced for the same reason, and therefore his speedy was improper (tho perhaps he had not noticed my decline in the edit history). Second, the criterion for passing speedy is a claim to importance, not a sourced claim to importance, and this "importance" is less than "notability" . The speedy thus was wrong in any case. If RHaworth is of the opinion that we should adopt the rejected proposal that unsourced articles other than BLPs may be deleted for that reason, he should try an rfc on it. As for actual notability , I'm not judging--that's for AfD as always. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per DGG. Can we just go ahead and remand it to AfD? Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD. This was previously tagged and deleted as an A7 back in February. So three users have tagged this as an A7 and two out of three reviewing admins have agreed. That said DGG probably has the right of it. In case of doubt, even a small one it is better to send to AfD, rather than speedy. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and AFD I don't think RHaworth was wrong, it was likely just a mistake. But AfD is the place to decide this now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. A reasonable contest of most speedies, including A7, should go straight to XfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Aziz Shavershian (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AFD closed as no consensus a few weeks ago, renominated last week. Re-Nominator withdrew nomination six days later after an overwhelming consensus to keep. Request that the AfD be taken to completion. Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I assume this is an attempt to make it so a "keep" closure is endorsed by the community to deter me from seeking another renomination in the future should our standards of notability change. I stand by my withdrawal as I realized that I was wrong in my assumptions at this time. I will also be staying away from AFD as I usually do, as well.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reading of the AfD will show that the discussion was irrevocably trending to a keep close when the nomination was withdrawn. There is no particular reason to change the label of the outcome, WP:NOTBURO and all, since the closure has the same net effect. We really don't need a DRV here, either, IMO. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy to withdraw this DRV. I mistakenly believed that a result of "withdrawn" carries less weight than a "keep", and thus might pave the way for further nomination. I'm sorry if I implied bad-faith; it was not my intention. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming a Keep carries more weight than a withdrawn, I also strongly endorse a closure. It's been weeks, we've torn through arguments on both sides, and a "withdrawn", or even what was previously a "no consensus" - is no closure. Thank you, -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 07:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So you want to reopen the AFD that I closed myself? Withdrawing is a white flag. I'm not going to attempt to seek consensus for a while.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 March 2012

[edit]

28 March 2012

[edit]

27 March 2012

[edit]

26 March 2012

[edit]

25 March 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Andre Barnett (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Having taken part in the AFD for this, I was very surprised that it was closed as keep. Like all political candidates, Barnett has to meet either WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") or the subject specific guidlines at WP:POLITICIAN. Of the 7 people that took part in that debate, only three argued for a keep and they did so arguing that candidates for US President should have a specifically low threshold. User:DGG argued for example that the Reform Party is "an important enough minor party to make its candidates for President notable,even if he's only running for that party's nomination" while User:Carrite, agreeing with the "low threshold" argument added: "The fact of the candidacy is sourced out in the footnotes, that is sufficient for me."

The problem with those arguments, as I pointed out in the discussion, is that they have absolutely no basis in policy, which in fact, in the politician guideline, says exactly the opposite: "just being an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." There are no exceptions made there for US Presidential candidates or specifically lower thresholds. Many of those participating, argued that there shouldn't be, based on the fact that there are 350 candidates running. None of the keep votes actually argued that Barnett had the significant coverage in reliable sources needed.

A further problem here is that having discussed it with him, I'm concerned that the closing admin, Martijn_Hoekstra, may be misinterpreting his role in closing AFDs. He pointed me to his essay User:Martijn_Hoekstra/what_is_AfD the relevant parts of which say: "there are in fact only two outcomes of an AfD...That means there are only two opinions that can be voiced on a deletion discussion: we should use the delete tool on this article, or we shouldn't use it (and, obviously, why we should or shouldn't do that). That also means that any opinion other than delete, is automatically keep...redirect means: don't use the delete tool... The second meaning is always an aside to keep."

I disagree with that, closing admins are not just there to decide whether the result is delete or keep (and we'll decide later what to do with it) Wikipedia:AFD#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed says: "After seven days, an uninvolved admin will assess the discussion for consensus to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article." As a result I disagree that the people there arguing on the basis of policy that the article should be redirected, should have their opinions reclassed effectively as keep and would like this close reviewed. Valenciano (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse All Wikipedia notability guidelines are flexible and the WP:N guideline says so specifically, Even if it didn't , all guidelines are by their inherent nature flexible. And even if tit didn't say so, we have a basic policy superseding al guidelines, WP:IAR. In other words, we make the guidelines, and we can make whatever exceptions we please to them. with the exception of copyright and libel, there is no external legal authority which controls us. We control ourselves, in whatever way the consensus decides to. This was argued to be an exception, and it is the people at the AfD who decide. the purpose of the AfD discussion was essentially to decide whether to make an exception in this case, and the people there did decide to. (I think reasonably, but if I though unreasonably, it would make no difference.; many exceptions are made I disagree with--some are not made when I think they ought to be. But the consensus decides, and what I as an individual think about it makes no particular difference. A closing admin who decided not to use IAR when the consensus called for it would be casting a supervote, and would be reversed here DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC) .[reply]
There is very clearly not a consensus in that particular case to use WP:IAR. Guidelines like WP:POLITICIAN have been arrived at after many discussions. If people think that specific exceptions should be made in it for US Presidential candidates, then they should argue that at WP:N. Until they have that consensus overturned however, arguments in AFDs that Presidential candidates are automatically notable are not supported by policy and as JohnCD points out below, it is the job of admins to weigh up arguments based on policy. Valenciano (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to redirect. (Disclosure: that was my !vote in the AfD - like Valenciano, I took part and was surprised by the close). I disagree with DGG above - the first two keep !votes, arguing that candidates for POTUS should have a specially low notability threshold, had no basis in policy, and it is the closing admin's business to assess the policy arguments presented, not to invoke IAR to decide that !votes that explicitly go against policy constitute a new consensus - that would really be a supervote, and if that were allowed, AfD would become a head-count. JohnCD (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there are at least 2 good sources in the article. [1] and [2]. Would seem to meet WP:N. The delete arguments never addressed the sources in the article so their waves at not meeting WP:N has to be taken with a (large) grain of salt. Maybe those sources are flawed, but I'm not seeing anything in the discussion to indicate why. Of course the keep !votes didn't address the sources either. But as the sources look acceptable on their face, a keep isn't outside of discretion. Hobit (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of sources was addressed by the nominator, who pointed out that with one possible exception, the sources were all primary sources or blogs. The first source you list above is a blog and vewry questionable. Valenciano (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point on the first source I listed. I'm now not certain if that is a RS or not, that would take some effort to figure out I think. That said, the nom didn't (as far as I can see) address the second source I listed (which certainly seems reliable) but did accept [3] which while a very short source, is also reliable. Hobit (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Whereas an unelected candidate for city council or state legislature should face a high burden of proof as to notability, a candidate for President of the United States should not be treated so harshly. This piece is sourced and this individual merits encyclopedic biography, bottom line. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Barnett is not just some kook who threw his name into the hat. He is one of four recognized candidates for the nomination of the Reform Party of the United States of America, a minor party but also a recognized one which received over 8 million votes in 1996. There are no policy violations here, as both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN are guidelines subject to interpretation and should not be applied on a "just say no" basis, but instead according to informed consensus of participating editors, which in this case included several who are quite experienced in dealing with deletion debates regarding political candidates. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I'm skeptical that he's notable, but the AfD close is sound based on the discussion that was had. Possibly could have been closed no consensus, but that would have still resulted in a keep. Just because User:Valenciano apparently wasn't persuasive enough to draw others to his opinion doesn't make the close wrong.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus could have encouraged another AfD debate, when clearly this topic should not be brought back to AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse  Closer correctly notes in subsequent discussion on closer's talk page that there was no deletion to consider, so "keep" is the correct outcome to return the topic to editorial control.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The nomination statement was very weak, and no one agreed with it. It was a SNOW "do not delete". Whether it should be kept or merged and redirected is not a question for AfD, and so relisting would be inappropriate. Discuss merge options on the article's talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As SmokeyJoe and others point out, the discussion clearly establishes a consensus that the issues involved should be addressed by standard editing processes rather than through the deletion process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all above for the comments, it's clear that the consensus is to endorse therefore per WP:SNOW, I believe this should be closed. Valenciano (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support closing per WP:SNOW. FWIW, I am the original nominator of the afd and accept the consensus to endorse. It is worth noting also that since the close of the afd, additional sources have surfaced and been added to the article which support a reasonable case for (at the very least) marginal notabilty. At this time, I see no reason to overturn closing administrator's decision.--JayJasper (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 March 2012

[edit]

23 March 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tenga (masturbation toy) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

No sources presented in the defense, no indication that there is ANY substantial coverage in a reliable, independent, published source whatsoever for this virtually content-free spam-o-rama of a piece. The contention by one defender that there were over one hundred (100) secondary sources (his emphasis) is a comical joke, he demonstrated the existence of zero (0). Improperly closed as No Consensus on the basis of nose counting, delete argument was policy-based. Carrite (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to keep Because I went through and found plenty of RS, such that the delete arguments were the unsupported ones. Google News archive for tenga masturbation, and you'll find plenty. Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come come Jclemens, you know much better than to wave vaguely towards Google and provide an assertion of sources. Please can you tell us exactly what sources you considered to be in-depth independent coverage. Also, while I know its not a requirement, it would have been really cool had you edited the article to add these sources.
      • I was trying to be non-pedantic, but it appears that I cannot do so without myself being accused of being lazy. Here's my methodology, which I didn't consider arcane enough to post previously:
1) Go to the AfD and use the Google News Archive link.
2) Take out the parentheses and quotation marks, then re-Google.
3) First link is Wired.
Now, which part of that was really necessary? Answer: none of it. WP:BEFORE is intended to prevent such clearly baseless nominations. Once something has a Wired (magazine) blurb on it, I have never failed to find more coverage. As we can see, Hobit's also demonstrated several other perfectly fine sources below.
On a more salient point: remember that sources do *not* need to be 1) in the article, or 2) mentioned in the AfD or DRV for a topic to be notable--notability is present when sources exist, not when we link to them. The entire process--nomination, discussion--lacked a good dose of WP:BEFORE. The solution to a clearly notable article, poorly nominated and poorly discussed as admitted below, is not to sustain a poor close, but rather to correct it: the article covers a notable subject and can be improved by regular editing, thus, the policy-based outcome is keep. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens: I do think that it is fair for people to expect those !voting to keep based on sources to link to those sources. Otherwise you force those arguing against you to guess which sources you think are appropriate. It's just really hard for the other side to say "no, those aren't acceptable" or for the closer to know which sources you thought were good. It's just too vague and hard to falsify (if I'm using that word right). My 2 cents as someone who generally agrees with you on related matters. Hobit (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another argument against this is that you leave the closing admin to evaluate the sources rather then leaving that to the actual discussion. That kind of behavior leads to supervoting which is something you have made particularly strong complaints about in the past. Spartaz Humbug! 13:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are responsible for evaluating the accuracy of arguments, per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, in the interest of building (and, by implication, preserving) the encyclopedia. If there are a bunch of "delete--no sources" !votes, and the admin can see, through a simple Google search consistent with the minimum level of effort expected by WP:BEFORE, that those !votes are not accurate, those !votes can and should be discarded. Now, the admin in question should provide an appropriate rationale for the close, but it has always been my position that administrators for making sure the close is objectively reasonable--not simply counting heads--which is itself consistent with what I said to you previously as well. Bottom line? If there's a clearcut, policy-based reason for keeping or deleting an article, then the actual !vote count and arguments advanced don't mean a whole lot. It's when good-faith editors in good standing differ over the application of a policy or guideline (e.g., BLP1E) that the dialogue really matters. Or, to adapt another Wikipedia phrase: clear-cut keep is clear-cut. Admins are not trusted to declare winners in delete-vs-keep tugs of war, they are trusted to render the right judgment that will further the mission of Wikipedia, which sometimes means holding pillars and policies above a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS not congruent with them. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Piss poor close with pisspoor discussion. Notability concerns need to be addressed by providing sources not asserting them and waving at google as Jclemens has just done is neither helpful or something that should be taken into account in the close. A better quality discussion revolving around evaluating sources is what is required here. Spartaz Humbug! 05:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Happy to strike vote not that Jclemens has provided the sources but I still think this should have been relisted and properly discussed as it is clearly going to be another argument for another day when it could have been settled now. I'm also not going to spend my time searching for sources on this when I live in a country that censors the internet to stop users looking at naughty websites. Spartaz Humbug! 13:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the body-waste-product language is "helpful".  Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If its good enough for the Merriam Webster dictionary then I think its good enough for wikipedia. Spartaz Humbug! 13:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per the definition you cite, "PISS-POOR: sometimes vulgar...".  You seem to be saying that urine-language is "good enough for Wikipedia" contributions.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really hope you're joking, because if you're being serious and "piss-poor" really offends you, then you're absolutely NOT mature enough to be editing (or even reading) Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say, "notability concerns need to be addressed by providing sources", although when I gave you a list of nine sources here, you declined to evaluate them, insisting that I shorten the list.  In the last reply, your edit comment was "yawn".  I'm pleased that you now want to have "a better quality discussion revolving around evaluating sources", please proceed, WT:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes#Do these reliable independent non-trivial references establish notability? is available.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please get off your boring hobby horse its irrelevant to whether someone can just assert sources or should actually list them if they want them considered and just makes you look like the kind of person who nurses a grudge. Spartaz Humbug! 13:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop the ad hominems, just because I respect you doesn't mean I have to ignore ad hominems.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And is it relevant as to whether the sources will be considered if they are found?  You say you want to elevate the discussion at AfD, and I also want to elevate the discussion at AfD.  Yet the call of a "better quality discussion revolving around evaluating sources is what is required here," was not required when sources were provided.  It seems possible that discussing these sources would validate JClemens overturn to keep.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, as much as I hate seeing my closes end up on DRV (fortunately, it doesn't happen often, though its two in two days now), I do always hope to get something out of it in feedback. So what would you have done? Relist? Write a more elaborate closing rationale? 11:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I would have relisted it with a request that the keep side evidence the sources they are citing and focusing on the need to evidence your arguments to carry maximum weight. If after the relist the sources were still asserted rather than evidenced I would have discarded any arguments by assertion. Spartaz Humbug! 02:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse A poor discussion for certain, so no consensus or relist was probably the right call. That said [4] certainly seems like a high-quality source. [5] is a reliable source briefly covering the fact that Walgreen's carries this. [6] is effectively a specialized encyclopedia entry. [7] is very short but would be useful in writing a decent article. The article as it stands is extremely poor and would benefit from actually using the third party sources. Hobit (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It reflected the consensus. I have never known JClemens to make such an assertion rashly & I'm glad Hobbit has now added some. Though the result of a relisting would probably be keep, asking deletion review to make the change isn't worth the argument. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Not an unreasonable close. Suggest that 2 months is a reasonable wait before renominating after a no consensus close. Advise the renominator to address the "Keep" arguments in AfD1 in the nomination of AfD2. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the nomination: no indication that there is ANY substantial coverage in a reliable, independent, published source whatsoever. There is clear indication of the existence of an entire 185-page book on the subject. The book is published by Takeshobo, a company that I think is independent of this company. It's no university press, but what degree of reliability is required for modest claims in a modest (if frequently spammed) article on a subject such as this? -- Hoary (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but relist after a month or so. Looks like it's destined for the bin eventually, but the closer's hands were tied by the rather poor debate. Just start fresh. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
pegacorn (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I suggest restoring this as a redirect to Winged unicorn like similar redirects unisus and unipeg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Lionheart (talk • contribs) 00:36, 23 March 2012‎

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 March 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Burroughs-Eric.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This file was a publicity photo produced by and for the late Eric Burroughs and was released to the public domain by his son and literary heir. I attempted to have him send the appropriate permission form to permissions-en@wikimedia.org but that bounced on him, so I had him resend the boilerplate permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The image was hosted at En-WP though and so apparently the permission letter fell between the cracks. Insert Commons Joke Here. Anyway, the son owns rights to the photo and is ready to release it and this erroneous deletion needs to be undone. I would have just went to User:Fastily, who deleted the file, to have him fix the problem, but he's on a wikibreak. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

given that Fastily has in essence realized that many of his deletions were done without sufficient care, perhaps there needs to be a special project re-examining them all, analogous to what we do for someone thought to be making multiple copyvios. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that, if it can be done appropriately. (Though I don't know if I would volunteer for it, sounds like a rather big undertaking : ) - jc37 23:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't Fastily have a notice stating that any admin may speedily overturn any deletion he has made. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone actually looked to see if OTRS actually has this information. Also was it tagged as OTRS pending previously. Talk about content not the editor. As has been pointed out many a time this needs to stop using multiple pages to in a sense have a go at an extremely hard working admin who mostly has done very little wrong is improper and to be honest appears to be bordering on bullying. A project is laughable to examine probably one of the hardest working admins around would be virtually impossible also did anyone actually do and RFC on him thats clearly states he is in the wrong.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think a systematic review of all his deletions is appropropriate, as the iternal evidence shows he would not have been able to make them according to policy. The precedent is serial copyright violations. DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, DRV is for reviewing specific cases—if there's a more general problem requiring a task force, then might not a more appropriate venue for discussion be the administrators' noticeboard?—S Marshall T/C 11:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Electricians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

What was meant as a discussion of over-categorization (i.e., Category:Israeli electricians) was highjacked as part of a recent war on categories of working-class people (circumventing the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 6#Category:House painters closure as "no consensus"), arguing that nobody who is an electrician should be categorized as an electrician UNLESS they are famous as electricians! (In other words, NOBODY!) Apparently, only artistic or intellectual professions (i.e., middle-class and upper-class ones) are "worthy" enough to have categories in Wikipedia; notable electricians should have their professions ignored, since some folks find them just too plebeian or something. Instead, these notable electricians were stripped of their categories (making them impossible to find as electricians), and their names were shoved under the mat onto an obscure "List of electricians" page. Orange Mike | Talk 19:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It looks as if your analysis is right. We have a very fine Category:Ladies-in-waiting which includes subcategories of considerable erudition and subtlety. We also have Category:Wikipedians who are Freemasons so Category:Wikipedians who are snobs would be a useful addition. I know, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thincat (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply - had a consensus gone against me at the first discussion, I wouldn't be quite so angry at this one. Take a look at some of the sports articles, where a soccer player may fall into fifteen or more categories; but nobody dares annoy the footy lobby by proposing that some of that microcategorization be deleted. Working stiffs, on the other hand: who cares about them? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The decision was to delete the category and replace with a list. On the face of it this is untenable because, as the relevant guideline explains, if a list is appropriate then a category is also appropriate and vice versa. However, I won't immediately go "overturn and relist" because although the closer's been notified of the DRV, he hasn't yet had the chance to respond; Timrollpickering deserves the opportunity to explain his reasoning.—S Marshall T/C 20:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quick clarification: A category existing doesn't mean a list is appropriate; same goes for if a list existing doesn't mean there should be a category - per WP:CLN. Categories are not about providing content. They are intended to be a system for navigation. - jc37 22:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      They do not always require each other, but they usually do. Sometimes there is a special reason, , but except for technical limitations or the need to create hierarchies of categories that may not be each suitable for a list, they are no frequent. The burden should be upon those wishing to justify the absence. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, afaik, they never "require each other". Never. They may co-exist, or may not, depending on the situation, but there is no "requirement". Indeed, Wikipedia would be an encyclopdia regardless of whether a category existed or not. Categories are merely a technical tool (like redirects) which are to help with navigation. The encyclopdia could exist just fine, regardless of whether they existed. - jc37 23:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    This comment has (unfortunately) less to do with the category under discussion, and more about the nomination itself.
    It would appear to me that this nom looks a lot like a form of ownership issues, of personally identifying with the topic, and taking it as a personal sleight.
    "Apparently, only artistic or intellectual professions (i.e., middle-class and upper-class ones) are "worthy" enough to have categories in Wikipedia; notable electricians should have their professions ignored, since some folks find them just too plebeian or something." - As I would hope we as Wikipedians know, no topic is "worthy" of inclusion in the Wikipedia. There is no such thing. We deal in verifiable reliable sources. Whether we like it or not, we have a notability guideline. And an individual having an article has to do with that "notability". This is no sleight to anyone. It is (supposed to be) neutral.
    So getting back to the category under discussion, it's a group of people who are noted for "something", who also happen to be electricians. (And more than a few of which are not noted for being so.) This is an incidental piece of information. This is better handled as a list so that this can be explained in each case, something that cannot be done in a category due to technical limitations. And because categories are designed for navigation, and not to be a "feel-good" grouping of like things.
    So I feel that the nom is sincerely sympathetic to those who he sees as "the working class", and that this is just taking this deletion personally. When,as noted, this isn't personal. It's part of the normal process of neutrally determining what should be included in the encyclopedia. If the nom doesn't like WP:N (and I will say, I'm not a huge fan myself), then please let's start an WP:RfC on it. but in the meantime, getting angry, and seeing this as a war on something that someone may personally identify with, doesn't help anyone. - jc37 23:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what is the relevance of WP:N? The underlying question is whether we should categorize based only on primary notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What is the basis for the request for review?: 1.) Closing editor didn't correctly summarize consensus, 2.) the consensus was wrong, 3.) the consensus on this nomination didn't match that on housepainters, 3.) that the original nomination about Israeli electricians was expanded ? It really matters here what is being objected to. (The competing claims of class consciousness versus career notability was discussed in the substance of the nomation at length and deletion review shouldn't just be to extend discussions; otherwise I would get a second chance here on every outcome I disagree with.) Different editors here are guessing what the underlying objection is but what is the actual procedural concern here? RevelationDirect (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply 4 above all, leading (because it was inappropriately expanded) to the issues you summarize as 3 and 2. Nobody is claiming bad faith; but just because I don't believe in Category: Swedish oncologists does not mean that I don't think we should have a category for oncologists. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment: there is a long discussion on this under way at WT:Categories for discussion#On the categorization of biographies by (perhaps) incidental occupation. A key point raised there is that occupation is still defining for the person even if that is not the reason they became notable. I'm still thinking about that, but it points in the direction of reversing my closure on Israeli electricians and my nomination on the other national categories. – Fayenatic L (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (I commented above). The CfD nomination was in two parts: (1) deleting the electrician-nationality intersections arguing that no people thus categorised achieved notability through being an electrician and (2) removing any people from Category:Electricians on presumably the same grounds. The "delete:non-defining" !vote seems to be using a novel meaning for "non-defining" and the "delete:create union categories as needed" does not give a deletion rationale and is unclear in its intent for category creation. The IP did not give a substantive opinion. The view that the intersections are trivial was not suggested although it could have been coherently argued—however, this view would not have applied to Category:Electricians itself. The closer did not provide a rationale but decided consensus was to adopt the nominator's suggested procedure. The nomination implicitly proposed a major change in categorisation guidance (invoking concepts of notability and primacy). Although the nomination was carefully worded, some people may not have spotted that such a radical change in category guidance was being proposed, possibly seeing the CfD as merely requesting the deletion of trivial intersections. Bearing this in mind the discussion was inadequate and the CfD should have been continued by relisting. I have no problem with a relist at this stage if anyone wants but I would suggest separate discussions for the category itself and the intersections. Thincat (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete closure because I see no procedural fault with it. I have no opinion about this issue of categorization, but DRV is not the place for repeating the XfD discussion on the merits. As soon as there is consensus about the underlying categorization problem, the categories can simply be recreated.  Sandstein  15:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 March 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Monstrosity (song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The song doesn't exist. It's just a made-up song with a photoshopped cover. Bacardimayne (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close DRV is the place to challenge the results of deletion discussion if you think that the person closing the discussion did not evaluate the debate properly when making the their decision (Keep or delete) not the place to start an initial deletion discussion. Since there is not a decision on a deletion debate a discussion will need to be created first and the instructions on how to do so are at WP:AFD.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Beamdog (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted by User:Drmies as G11 advertising. I did not write the article, I am unaffiliated with the company, and I disagreed with his assessment. I can see from the Google cache that it had sources from Kotaku. I asked Drmies to undelete this and then list it at AFD if needs be, am disappointed that he chose not to. - hahnchen 20:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. While the topic is of questionable notability and there are some facts that are mentioned that aren't neutral, by and large it can't be said that the article "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." My recommendation is that it be reinstated and sent immediately to AfD on notability concerns, not promotional ones. Bongomatic 07:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, send to AfD. The cache version of the article looks like it could be cleaned up. OSborn arfcontribs. 15:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if there is such a thing as speedy overturn, but I don't mind. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Wikipedia is not censored. When thousands of sources say that the ISI have supported and continue to support terrorism and insurgents then an article on the matter is needed. A move to a more neutral title would have been the more reasonable option over deletion as was pointed out by the two uninvolved editors who commented. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The requested user does think that I am WP:INVOLVED. Also none of these comments were brought up at my talkpage, but instead just listed here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@DS, per the instructions given at DRV, you first need to discuss this with the closing editor if you think there was any error of judgement instead of putting it up here. --SMS Talk 20:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments were quite visible on the AFD page, why on earth should I bring up something you had already read? @SMS I did ask him, he just copied and pasted a lot of stuff from notinvolved. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following up here from DQ's talk page, speaking of which I think there should be a procedural notification formalized or something for DRV follow ups. I think DQ is completely uninvolved as he closed the previous RFCs in administrative capacity. Being aware and being involved is different. I'll also like to mention that DQ's previous RFC closures on this content were endorsed by two more administrators as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about whether DQ is involved or not, it is how he could conclude for "delete" when a majority said "keep"? JCAla (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this issue (error of judgement (if any)) should be discussed with the closing editor, DQ (which I see is not discussed thoroughly) before coming here. This is prerequisite for Deletion Review. --SMS Talk 09:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@JCAla: "Majority" is never a criteria for keeping an article. I'm afraid you may have to re-read the deletion criteria and have a better understanding of how AfDs work. The major point of contention is that none of the "keep" editors provided a clear rationale as to why thie article should exist seperately to Pakistan and state terrorism and the fact that it is WP:REDUNDANT. It is also clear that there is some WP:Conflict of interest involved on behalf of the several "majority" of editors who voted "keep". Mar4d (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Says you who desperately wanted the article deleted. ;-) JCAla (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to WP:AGF? Anyway, time to drop the stick and leave the dead horse alone. The consensus from the RFCs is clearly maintained. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
he seems to have tried sufficiently. Perhaps he shouldn't be asked if he has tried when it is obvious that he done so. But a claim of conflict of interest or an personal involvement by an admin can quite reasonably be brought here first in any case--it is much better than arguing with him on his own page whether he is over-involved. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment Whether or not they support terrorismn, the titile is POV in the extreme and unacceptable, and I doubt any degree of consensus could be obtained to justify using it for the title of an article. The material is possibly usuable, but not for an article titled like this. Start over with a less polemical approach. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete closure as a reasonable reading of the policy based arguments in the AfD discussion. Accusations that the ISI supports terrorist groups or facilitates terrorism are easy enough to find in reliable sources, but it doesn't follow that a content fork dedicated to such accusations is necessary or desirable. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - seems a reasonable close based on policy and strength of argument. "I would have preferred a different outcome" is not grounds to overturn. Reyk YO! 20:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 March 2012

[edit]

19 March 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:List of roads in Toronto/eastwestTOC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Template:List of roads in Toronto/northsouthTOC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Plastikspork is MIA since March 3. This template was deleted on the basis that {{Horizontal TOC}} could recreate it. However, it doesn't. It adds numbers that make the TOC read like a bus schedule at List of north–south roads in Toronto and List of east–west roads in Toronto. To recreate it would require the use of {{List TOC}}, manually entering each title. The original template was not as redundant as it was led on to be. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Happy_Happy_Happy.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to have this restored so that I can move it to Commons. I feel that the image can have some educational value as visual portraying anti-ROC sentiment. I don't see how the image is "denigrating an identifiable individual." The individual in the image is out in public, and he wants his message to be seen and spread. I don't believe that the individual would be ashamed of an image portraying what he does in public. On the contrary, I feel that he would be extremely proud of it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with just going with File:Chinese nationalism.jpg? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why someone might want the extras at the left and bottom cropped off, to allow a thumbnail in an article to show just J.J. Chin and the signs. That being said, the original uncropped version of the this file is now on Commons as File:Chinese nationalism.jpg. If this content is eligible for Commons, maybe it's better to just upload a new cropping directly to Commons also, since that doesn't involve asking for en.wiki review before (I assume) transferring it to Commons anyway. --Closeapple (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
April Masini (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

According to the reason the April Masini article was deleted, I should have not created the article but after my initial contest to have the page undeleted I was able to work on it under "User: GMHayes4/April Masini. I checked all the references, and had the page reviewed by multiple Wikipedia editors. I moved the page to stand alone because all of the references are verifiable, and the language on the page is objective. I do not understand why I can not recreate the page, especially when I was given permission to do so with the "Userfied" version. Can I rename the page? It is also not showing up in "My Contributions" which is disconcerting, given the hours I've put into making the article a good one. What should I do now? GMHayes (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • In addition to this deletion, the editor Fastily has decided to take a "break" from editing Wikipedia which is understandable but leaves my article at a dead end. Can any of the Administrators help me restore the page that Fastily deleted, or at least take a look at it? All of my references are verifiable, and April Masini is a notable individual. Please help! Thank you!GMHayes (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. The speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 was inappropriate because the deleted version of the article [9] is substantially different from the AfDed version of the article [10].  Sandstein  18:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After spending more time considering the subject, it appears this is a paid PR spot to promote an aspiring personality. I would suggest the subject is not notable. If this article of a living person is considered notable, we'll need thousands more for every college dropout that aspired to a Hollywood career by doing commercials and bit parts in small productions. The Amazon reviews for her book are either promotional PR pieces or poor reviews by actual readers. It's really pretty sad that she's paying this GMHayes person to work up her Wiki page. That said, it appears the page has been created largely by one person and is therefore lacking a NPOV. Bromeliad39 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have proof for your allegation that Gmhayes4 is being paid by April Masini?  Sandstein  22:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had the article reviewed multiple times through the Wikipedia community, and have even found answers through members of Teahouse to help me create an article that is in line with the Wikipedia standard. April Masini is a notable living person that can be referenced for her contribution to the community at large with her advice columns. It is true that her works are self-published, which is why I left the reviews on retail sites off of the article. I have also directly contacted multiple publications that have reviewed her books, and if the Wikipedia Admin need those references I'll email you. There are multiple sources and references that all of the Wikipedia editors and Admin can reference that show Masini's impact in the Entertainment community. Also, the initial page that was deleted was poorly sourced which is why I created a new page with the best sources I could find. I'm not sure what else needs to be done from an editorial standpoint but I welcome the assistance. I have followed all of the rules, and double-checked my facts. Instead of using such incriminating language against my editorial work, I would like to know what steps I need to take in order to make sure that my article on April Masini is restored. It's something that I am actually very proud of, and look forward to reading and updating. Thank you so much!99.91.1.134 (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Seems to have a pretty good source (nicked from User talk:Sandstein) -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 March 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Conservation-restoration (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This has now become a ridiculous mess. Out of all of this, a variety of categories have been made and deleted base on the personal opinion of a few editors who on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_6#Category:Conservation-restoration. I have asked for help on his work on my talk page, but I'm not getting very far. Please help. The discussion on the category was hastily closed and now little matches up. I tried to talk to the editor who closed it, User:Mike Selinker, but he quickly turned to vulgarity and insults rather than being helpful. Here's hoping there are editors out there who are willing to do research about a category rather than throwing around their personal opinion and Google search results. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without wishing to rehash the drama, I will attempt to summarize the facts of this.
  1. Richard emptied Category:Art conservation into his new category.
  2. User:Vegaswikian opened a discussion on the merits of the category. Various people disagreed with Richard, who insisted that due to his WP:EXPERTISE as a conservator-restorer, his opinion should hold sway over all others who were merely using Google as a resource.
  3. After two weeks of discussion, a solution was suggested by, among others, User:Johnbod and User:Peterkingiron:
    1. Creating a category called Category:Conservation and restoration, which contains most of the articles
    2. Creating a category called Category:Art conservation and restoration, which deals solely with art
    3. initiating a move discussion from Conservation-restoration to Conservation and restoration
    4. Deleting Category:Art conservation and Category:Art conservators, which Richard emptied out of turn.
  4. I believed that Richard agreed with all of these elements because:
    1. Richard created the category which was very similarly named to Category:Conservation and restoration
    2. He stated in the discussion, "Conservation and restoration" works because it allows for sub categorization and might allow for specializations in the field to be nuanced, which seemed to clearly apply to art conservation and restoration
    3. He believed both conservation and restoration should be linked, as he had previously created Conservation-restoration
    4. He had asked for deletion of both Category:Art conservation and Category:Art conservators
  5. But I was clearly in error about this, since he went ballistic on my page, leading to an awful interchange in which I was just as guilty as he was. I was particularly incensed that he kept saying I hadn't read the discussion, which I had.
  6. Then in addition to complaining on my page, he did so on the CfD page after the close, and on his page, and on User_talk:Timrollpickering#Discussion.
  7. Along the way, at least four editors told him to take his concerns to DRV, which he finally did after more accusations of ineptness and thuggery.

I believe that my close was correct, and that it satisfied everything Richard wanted, despite his combative tone. He obviously disagrees. Perhaps others will see a road to conclusion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...Mike, I see why you're confused. You have some of the facts wrong:

1) I created a category that matched the article for conservation-restoration. And I moved things into it. It's not my category, it related to the article (which your gang has now moved on to try and change).

2) I also created other categories that matched sub-articles in that article. I never claimed any Wikipedia "expertise" clause, but pointed out that I knew from talking to my colleagues that this made sense, also I've consulted a variety of texts and professional organizations. Google can be useful, but using it in the way your gang does, is wrongheaded.

3) Simply put, you closed the discussion hastily and unilaterally. There's now a big mess because this issue was not properly discussed. I pointed out the issues directly to you.

4) Yes. But you didn't bother to read why the category "art conservation" was problematic. I explained it to you and gave you the SOS! example.

5) If by "ballistic" you mean I asked you why you did what you did. Suffering vulgar insults isn't much fun to anyone, even though you've sanitized your page now ... If you had read and considered the discussion, and actually suggested what you were going to do, we wouldn't be here now, would we, Mike?

6) Yes I did. See below, Mike and think about it for a second rather then defending yourself.

7) people told me to place it on this page, but this page is confusing, so I listed a help thing on my page AS THIS VERY PAGE TELLS ME TO DO! Please don't give me a hard time for doing what you told me to do and what this page explicitly says to do.

I think you should take a break from your work in WP, Mike. Your aggressive, vulgar, and combative approach is no good. Simply saying that I'm aggressive or ballistic doesn't make it so. That's just more name calling. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Your aggressive, vulgar, and combative approach is no good. Simply saying that I'm aggressive or ballistic doesn't make it so." Does it make it so when you say it about Mike? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trusty sidekick"? What are you talking about? Mike and I know each other on WP and we have had passing interactions in the past, but that's about it. It has been quite common for us to disagree on specific issues. It just seems to me that you are doing exactly the same sort of thing that you are criticising Mike for doing to you. You can't have it both ways. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. The close wasn't exactly what I had supported when I voiced my opinion in the discussion, but I can see that it was a good close. It took the views of the majority into consideration but was also sensitive to what at the time was perceived to be RichardMcCoy's views, which were expressed strongly and repeatedly in the discussion. I don't think the discussion was closed too soon or over hastily. (RichardMcCoy initially called for the discussion to be speedily closed, so I'm not sure why that would not have been too hasty but what Mike did was.) I don't know any other way that a discussion can be closed but "unilaterally": a closer doesn't generally poll everyone to ask, "OK if I close this now?" The discussion had remained open for longer than the standard period of time. After re-reading the discussion, though, I do not get the impression that Mike in any way imposed "his" will. It seems that RichardMcCoy may have only been satisfied with a close of the discussion with no action, as he repeatedly and strongly called for in the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close despite RichardMcCoy's manifest annoyance. RichardMcCoy's argument persuaded no-one (apart from one 'weak keep') to support the retention of Category:Conservation-restoration, and there was clear dissatisfaction with the name. Oculi (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I guess I didn't make that clear before. What's interesting about this entire discussion is that it points exactly to one of the failures of Wikipedia, and it's "seasoned" and "expert" editors. In this example, the gang of three that have tried to own this discussion, and two of which are trying to do it here, have failed to actually do any research -- they've used their Wikipedia club knowledge as a crutch to intimidate any real discussion.
I've asked, demanded, and tried to guilt someone into doing some real research -- "Good OlFactory" apparently was even insulted by my not accepting his meager efforts. But he, like everyone else, has done no real research. It's dissapointing that as "Oculi" points out, no one was persuaded by my argument. Really, I don't think anyone in this "discussion" has even read the article that this category relates to, conservation-restoration. So, in the end, as a way to ultimately expose this culmination of failures, here's one simple bit of research you could have done: look it up in the most recognized international organization of the profession, International Council of Museums. Read the definition of the profession here: http://www.icom-cc.org/47/about-icom-cc/definition-of-profession/.
Simple, really, isn't it? Right: I'll say it again: read that web page and think about this. Do some research.
This wasn't complicated research or particularly difficult to find. But it took real work and thought. You can call me what you want, but recognize the failure of the situation, and the failure of these editors. And, ultimately, please re-open this discussion, change the categories back, and start being productive rather than just trying to win a silly argument out of pride. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've promised not to speak to Richard again because it only makes things worse. But I am glad he posted the Definition of Profession link that he did, because it nicely sums up my close. I wrote RichardMcCoy is right that people in the field sometimes refer to themselves as "conservator-restorers" but the hyphenated "conservation-restoration" is far less common. So the proper course of action is to attempt to change the article name. In the link, we learn about conservator-restorers and the "Working Group for Training in Conservation and Restoration," which shows the "and" being used when the field is referred to. It later uses "conservation-restoration" in running text, showing that the approach is mixed. So using the less jargony approach makes more sense to me. YMMV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RichardMcCoy wrote: "'Good OlFactory' apparently was even insulted by my not accepting his meager efforts." No, but I am surprised that you assume to know what my efforts at background research have been or my knowledge in the area consists of, since I have not declared to anyone what they are or have been. You don't know, and are therefore making assumptions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You only makes things worse when you become aggressive and vulgarly insult people, Mike. In the face of the accuracy of this document you're really going to go this far out of the way to try and hang on to your sense of pride? I would think you would be embarrassed to do this. "GoodOLFactory" I only know what you've shown: a capacity to search words in Google.
As usual, you both are more interested in winning an argument, than thinking about what's at hand. What I've given here is one simple example of accuracy, but if you want to play to Mike's lowest common denominator, this Encyclopedia will suffer for your Google view on the world. I would hope that someone else here might be willing to do a little bit of extra research. But perhaps this effort will continue to prove the point that "experienced" editors are simply savvy at Wikipedia policies and able to pull a gang together rather than actually being interested in doing research and gathering knowledge. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse the conclusion seems a rational solution, and probably better than any other. Fighting for one's own terminology is not a very constructive process. When there is a choice between terminology widely used by the general public, and terminology preferred by the profession, the common usage holds unless it is actually wrong or misleading. The role of experts in Wikipedia is to explain things to the non-experts in ordinary language, not induce the non-experts to adopt their preferred jargon. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly common sense and accuracy are of little use here, so I hope that if you all continue with this inaccuracy for the sake of your own ease and believed convenience, I hope that you'll actually go and work through all of the related content to re-name it. At least do better than Mike's half-hearted efforts. I'm guessing not, but it's worth pointing out here to put on record.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Material heresy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Looking through the deleted edits, I can't understand why this was marked as vandalism: the author appears to have been writing about a specific teaching in Catholic theology. It's definitely not a blatant hoax, and I can see no other reason to consider this vandalism. I've not contacted the deleting admin: all his user rights were removed at his own request when he retired two years ago. Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - No objection to creating a new redirect from 'Material heresy' to Christian heresy#Catholic understanding. The deleted material, which seems to be a tirade against Protestantism, has no value in my opinion. The only source provided was a document which reads like a sermon on traditionalcatholic.net. That document is unlikely to qualify as a reliable source in this context and the website is a self-published personal site. EdJohnston (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia can't possibly host the wording originally published. "Invincibly ignorant" is completely unacceptable as a description of anyone. I think there's an encyclopaedic topic to be written about here, probably called something like Catholic soteriology; until one of the few Wikipedians who're remotely interested in religion gets around to writing it, EdJohnston's suggested redirect is as good as any.—S Marshall T/C 12:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three comments: (1) I'm a Protestant. (2) I understood the idea of "invincibly ignorant" as meaning "so ignorant that it's excusable", partly because the page says that they're "not guilty of the sin of heresy". (3) I agree that it's problematic content, but it's far from being an attack page. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'm jediist pastafarian. It's certainly not meant as an attack page, but irrespective of how it's meant, I don't think that "invincibly ignorant" is something we can say except in a quotation. "Invincibly ignorant" as applied to protestants is opinion, and I find it an inexcusable NPOV violation.—S Marshall T/C 16:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the routine technical term used, at least previously, in Roman Catholic theological writing, and were must report it accurately. Wikipedia can and should host without any exception whatsoever, the wording used in the RW to describe a subject. The rule is NOT CENSORED. Some people think it applies only to sex, but it applies to race and religion also, and even insults and bigotry. One's personal view of the opinion or the phrase is irrelevant entirely. (And as Nytennd points out, it is used as an excuse, not a condemnation. The alternative, as it was seen, is assigning them to Hell as willfully rejecting true religion. But even were it used as the grossest of insults, it's no cause for removing the term from the article, let alone rejecting an article. ) DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It still needs to be in an attributed quote, as I said. My position is that we can't use that language in Wikipedia's authorial voice.—S Marshall T/C 19:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two more bits: (1) My point about being a Protestant is to say that I'm not asking for restoration of this article because I'm trying to promote the idea. (2) All this debate about invicible ignorance is irrelevant to the reason I brought it to DRV: it's definitely not vandalism, and there's no other speedy deletion criterion that applies. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – WP:G3 is certainly not the correct deletion criterion; the deleting administrator should probably have prodded the article instead. Whether you can prod it now or not, I don't know; even though it is not an uncontroversial subject, I still think the wait-7-days-and-see-if-anybody-notices-it approach is the best way to decide whether it gets deleted or not. Bwrs (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore There is no point prodding it, as I shall remove the prod. I apparently did not make it clear earlier that I regard it as a valid topic for an article, though a fuller explanation is needed. If the deleting admin still wants to delete it, it would have to be via AfD. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore- The content is valid and should be merged into one of the Catholicism related articles. Reyk YO! 06:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Not vandalism, and I see no other CSD reason. But clearly not article-worthy in this state; if undeleted it should be selectively merged or redirected or promptly expanded to a stub that establishes topical notability.  Sandstein  18:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 March 2012

[edit]

16 March 2012

[edit]
  • Thresher & Glenny – Send to AfD. The speedy deletion rationale was G11 (exclusively promotional, would need to be fundamentally rewritten). A majority of contributors considers that this does not apply to the article, and most of the minority of "endorse deletion" arguments do not address the G11 criteria at all. As speedy deletions are intended for uncontroversial deletions, and the present discussion shows that this one is not, it is sent to AfD for a more thorough examination. –  Sandstein  16:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Thresher & Glenny (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Thresher & Glenny article was deleted during the BP COI Investigations. HJ Mitchell, the user who deleted the article, failed to cite any reason or arguement for it's deletion. The article was historically factual and referenced a number of reliable sources. If the case could please be reviewed. Thanks BePoWiki (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone temporarily restore it please, so we can make an assessment? --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Secretlondon (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I don't think so You got paid for writing that article and it was deleted while we were removing your promotional material from Wikipedia. Tough luck I say. If an editor with no COI chooses to recreate the article from scratch then that would be a good thing, but giving you a free pass on paid editing? I don't think so. Spartaz Humbug! 06:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The BePoWiki group account (are such accounts even permitted?) claims here that "the article was originally created by an independent Wikipedian". However that is not the case, it was created by the blocked user Biggleswiki and HJ Mitchell did give a reason for deleting it (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: see Wikipedia:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations). So, I agree that the article was properly deleted and should not therefore be restored.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it is disingenuous, to the point of deceit, for BePoWiki to say that "the article was originally created by an independent Wikipedian who had no connection with Thresher & Glenny." It was created, and all the content added, by Biggleswiki (talk · contribs), confirmed at the BP SPI to be a Bell Pottinger account. It seems that BP have learned nothing and that we cannot trust anything they say. JohnCD (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • re-delete it and indef block BePoWiki as a WP:ROLE account. Alarbus (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That content is not irretrievably promotional. It's fixable. Did the community ever come to a consensus about paid editing, and if so could someone please link it?—S Marshall T/C 11:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was originally inclined to endorse deletion per WP:G5 but then realized that WP:G5 is not retroactive. And I get the feeling that WP:G11 seems mainly to be for blatant spam that does not cite to reliable sources. Because of the argument advanced by User:S Marshall, I suppose that we should list it at WP:AfD instead; the article produced by the firm was better-written than many new articles. Furthermore, speedy deletion of paid content "on sight" may drive other paid editors (of whom I think there are probably many, particularly in today's tough economy) further underground. Way better to do it out in the open. An AfD listing may also allow broader input into a possible consensus about (or against) paid editing, as well. (There are likely some Wikipedians who frequent XfD discussions without visiting Deletion Review. And I myself would never have even heard about this Bell Pottinger scandal had I not come here.) By the way, I think the ban on role usernames is not a ban on role editing; rather, professional editors may edit from their IP address if they like, and in my (humble) opinion, IPs should be allowed to create their own userpage so they can openly disclose any COI. Bwrs (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AfD No speedy criterion applied. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and optionally send to AfD or rewrite; with a little rewriting, it would make an acceptable article. It is perhaps our fault, actually that we didn't have an article on it earlier--a serious effort to cover historic businesses would decrease the opportunities. There will be only one problem: we do not normally cite from unpublished archives, however authentic, because although in principle someone could check, in practice it is unreasonably difficult. There are a number of other articles deleted similarly, and these need to be checked also. I notice that the other people who checked articles either sent them to AfD or corrected them, not speedy deleted them outright. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD. It is very tempting to delete, in order to send a message that paying spin-doctors to exercise their "dark arts" on Wikipedia can permanently damage your reputational health, particularly when BP are still trying to pretend that this was written by "an independent Wikipedian"; but we should consider the article and not its source. JohnCD (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since what I'm about to say is more or less my opinion and is not supported by any current guideline or policy, I won't bold a !vote. In my view, the first indication that a subject may be notable is if a neutral editor with no connection to the subject "takes note of" the subject and elects to write an article about it. One cannot take note of oneself and one cannot pay somebody to take note of something. If an article on a company already exists then I would have no problem with a representative of that company participating in its development, preferable by making suggestions on the article's talk page but the issue of whether or not we should have an article on a subject should be made by a neutral editor. Thresher & Glenny should not have hired Bell Pottinger to create this article and Bell Pottinger should not have used a sock puppet to create it. That being said, what I would recommend at this point is for the article to be incubated until it has been edited and checked for neutrality by independent editors. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion If the article is going to come back it needs a clean break from the previous material and a fresh start from editors completely free from COI. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... why? Nothing in policy requires such a thing. COI is a reason to closely examine NPOV and fix content accordingly, not a poison that irrevocably taints all contributed content. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Reg Cox.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)
File:Reg cox civvy.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Reg Cox was previously an article of a fictional EastEnders character. Then it was merged into a decent list. However, somehow two images were removed from the list, and then they become orphaned and deleted under F5. Even though I have added the group photo into the lead section of the 1985 list, there is no chance that Reg Cox will ever show up as part of any group cast photo in history. WP:NFLISTS explains that group photo may be preferable, but that is a guideline, not a policy. Reg Cox appeared dead in only the pilot episode and became referenced since. An image of Reg from Civvy Street helped me identify his youth, and another from pilot helped me identify his ageism. Both images are irreplaceable, and actors who portrayed Reg Cox have no chance to appear in group photos, such as the one from 1985. George Ho (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion does not imply that "Reg Cox" should be a stand-alone article again. In fact, I like Reg Cox as a section of a list more than as a stand-alone article, as Reg Cox is notable enough as part of a list. --George Ho (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 March 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ginny Deerin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As far as I can tell, the subject easily meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG with at least four in-depth, verifiable, secondary sources (including Skirt! magazine, the Charleston Gazette, Edutopia.org, and Island Eye News). One of the sources is a Newspaper article devoted to Ginny Deerin receiving the Palmetto award, which is apparently a very high civilian honor. She is also a creative professional who founded a significant social monument (the WINGS foundation). Further, two of the discussion contributors suggested they would change their votes if more reliable sources were presented -- and they were, but I don't think those contributors had a chance to change their votes. I think this article deserves another chance -- either through a temporary undeletion or a userfication/revision and submission to AfC. OldGeorgie (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the subject paid an editor to write an article about them. Major COI violation.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If so, she deserves her money back; he did a terrible job, with an article that was so promotional as to attract negative attention. If an article can be written, it would have to be started over from scratch. I am not necessarily opposed to paid editing; I am opposed to promotional low quality editing from whatever source. In the circumstances, I am not going to undelete the article for inspection as I usually do/ As for the Palmetto award, recent governors have been awarding several dozens a year.I urge a SNOW SUPPORT on this deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 March 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Folding Legs (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I am writing because the name 'Folding Legs' was salted on Wikipedia in the past due to a kid's foolish misdemeanors, and I am now trying to correct that wrongdoing. I have never personally aired a page for Folding Legs on Wikipedia, I have only just now created a page for them in my sandbox with the hopes of it going live soon. I am asking for the salt to please be lifted off the name, so that the page I have created eventually can go live when it's ready. Tailtrap (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 March 2012

[edit]

12 March 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Singaporean by-election, 2012 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
User talk:Tom Morris#AFD closure
I noted in the AFD discussion that this was going to be saddening to watch. It was. The world proceeded to happen, as the AFD discussion progressed. There were only four participants in the discussion: me (who watched the news unfold, in line with my prediction at the start of the discussion, throughout the discussion), the nominator (who made a nomination and no further discussion contribution), one editor (who opined delete and also never came back), and Jacklee (talk · contribs). It only came to my attention after the article was deleted that one of the AFD discussion particpants was directly involved in the events. Yes, Jacklee is, by his own admission both here and on his SMU WWW pages, the Jack Tsen-Ta Lee of SMU who started appearing in the news reports, propounding his own view of the law, just after this article was deleted.

Ironically, whilst maintaining in Wikipedia that there shouldn't be an article Jack Lee was merely adding to the (existing) reliable sources from which an article could be built. By my count, at the time that I went to User talk:Tom Morris there had been three law professors, several MPs, and former attorney general all discussing in print the legal circumstances and controversy surrounding this subject — enough material for an article of several paragraphs on that facet of it alone. (There have been several party announcements as to who will and will not field candidates.) It seems amazingly silly that we had a discussion at Wikipedia where one of the people busy documenting the subject outwith the encyclopaedia came here to argue that there shouldn't be an article on it.

To that end, I'd like to see an AFD discussion where perhaps people less directly invested in the subject than Jacklee get to opine, perhaps from the point of view of building an encyclopaedia rather than excluding things that don't agree with one's point of view on the subject by having an entire article erased. As I said to Tom Morris, I think that Deletion Review is the best place to start getting some independent attention.

It saddens me yet further to report that since then (a) two more legal experts have weighed in, providing sources in addition to the ones that were already available at the time of discussion closure, (b) a legal challenge has been mounted in court that the article can mention, and (c) the prime minister has come out and said what everyone else had been saying all along and that there will indeed be a by-election, Jacklee's arguments at Wikipedia notwithstanding.

By the way: I'd very much rather not use my tools to undelete this for Deletion Review, but I'd like DR participants who aren't administrators to get a good look at the article as it stood when it was deleted, to get a full taste of the irony of its AFD discussion.

Uncle G (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review (Not having participated in discussion of this so far, I can do what Uncle G thought he would rather not do himself.) _ DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article without criticism intended of any AfD participants or the closing admin. Since the AfD was closed, it has been announced that the by-election will in fact take place. [11] The best way to deal with this would be to restore the article and allow it to be updated through normal editing. Although deletion may have been appropriate at the time, it no longer is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, as Metropolitan90 suggests. However, I think the original deletion nomination and some of the AfD discussion were ill-advised because it was not crucial whether or not a by-election had been called (and it still might not happen[12]). The article was describing a notable situation. For the AfD, "delete" was within admin discretion, I suppose, but a rename should have been considered. Failing that, a merge with Yaw Shin Leong or Hougang Single Member Constituency would have been better than deleting the material. Thincat (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore since the new information makes the reasons given for deletion no longer relevant. As an aside, I don't think the AfD comments were the strongest anyway, since they dealt only with whether or not the election was likely to happen and didn't consider the possibility that some things can still be notable without ever happening at all... Alzarian16 (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge I will certainly appreciate if this deletion review is brought to my attention (via my talk page) as I have certainly drop a message to the main contributors of the article that the article was going for AFD. The deletion review is not brought up at WP:SG also. With regards to DGG's comments on my non-discussion on the afd, my point is already brought up as per my nomination reason and as the AFD goes, contributors supported my nomination with only Uncle G commenting. Before I get to comment, JackLee –talk– has already commented and using the same few articles as the basis of the reason for nomination, hence I find it unnecessary to repeat the same point. If there was an issue with his comments at that point of time, Uncle G should have come forward and make further comments to reject the AFD.
With regards to the article, I like to ask a simple question, is there a confirmed event of a 2012 by-election in Singapore? Even the Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong cannot confirm the event and he is the one who is able to call for it. While there may be other events unfolding which may leads to a 2012 by-election as the AFD was going on and this Deletion Review is going on, it is was still not a confirmed event. Will there be a by-election? --Adding on here, I mean at the closure of the AFD, the by-election was not confirmed. It was only confirmed on 9th March that there will be a by-election-- The issue is still being settled. Will it be in 2012 if there is one (with assumption from the earlier question)? With the 2 questions in mind, will the article still goes through? Yes, the matter around the by-election is still notable, I agree that it should be written and kept in wikipedia so I will support a merge to Hougang Single Member Constituency if it had been suggested during AFD. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. I don't see anything inappropriate with my previous support for the deletion of the article. The last deletion review was closed on 22 February. At that time, the article was written on the basis that a by-election would be held. As I pointed out, with references, this was incorrect as it had not been confirmed at all that a by-election would be held, and that the Prime Minister maintains the view that he has wide discretion as to whether or not to call a by-election at all. My personal view on the matter – that it is unclear whether the PM was legally correct in taking this stand since the Singapore courts have not had the chance to pronounce on the matter – was irrelevant to whether the article should remain in Wikipedia or not. Since the last deletion review, the PM announced on 9 March that he has decided a by-election will be held (see [13]), though he has not said when. Thus, if some editors wish to have the article restored, I have no objections to that. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, of course. The irony there is, indeed, considerable.—S Marshall T/C 12:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The controversy about if or when to hold the election is notable, but it is not clear to me that the election will be held in 2012 at all, and the article (in its undeleted state) does not give enough background on the controversy for anybody to appreciate why it is important (I had to google it to figure that out). Perhaps it can be restored under a different name until we know that it will occur, and then it can be moved back to its original title when that happens? Bwrs (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 March 2012

[edit]

10 March 2012

[edit]

9 March 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Expert-subject (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No strong consensus was formed to delete, but due to the outcome this template is now being removed from articles. Contrary to the arguments put forward this template is in active use by e.g. WikiProject Mathematics (Category:Mathematics articles needing expert attention) and WikiProject Computer science (Category:Computer science articles needing expert attention). —Ruud 16:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restore: This template has two complementary uses: First informing the members of the project that the article needs attention. As there is a large backlog, a section in the project talk is not sufficient for the math project. Secondly, in mathematics, there is a large backlog of articles needing more citations. Most of them are clearly correct (for the experts), but sometimes the correction of the content is dubious. In this case, the template is useful not only to ask the help of a better expert, but also to inform every user that a content is dubious. D.Lazard (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I came here because of a thread at WT:WPM. Could someone give a clear link to the deletion discussion? Also, why wasn't the Wikiproject notified in advance of this discussion? Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'd be happy to see this template and all similar "cleanup" templates deleted, or at least transfered out of main space. But just for completeness ... the discussion at TfD seems to assume that all WikiProjects have a banner where we can put a flag attention=yes. However, some WikiProjects have made a conscious decision not to tag all articles which could be connected to it with a WikiProject banner (maths is one example). This does not seem to have been taken into account by either the comments nor the closing admin. When the closing admin says "delete after replacing with a 'attention=yes' or equivalent parameter in the corresponding WikiProject banner on the talk page", as s/he did in this case, how can this be done in the case where there is no corresponding WikiProject banner? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason why this should be in the main space. If say a mathematical formula is wrong then that will be of importance to a reader of the article and needs to be flagged in main space. The proposed the solution moves reporting to the talk space so only editors will see there is a problem.--Salix (talk): 22:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One of the people voting to Keep the template expressed that view by writing Fix and then expressing agreement with one of the earlier Keep voters. Hence at least three said the template should be kept, and only three (with the possible exception of the proposer?) said it should be deleted. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, given the importance of the template to some projects, the failure to notify projects of the original TfD, the lack of consensus to delete, and the fact that the recommended replacement ('attention=yes' flag) isn't possible in all cases. -- 202.124.74.200 (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I will repeat what I have posted elsewhere: I disagree with the conclusion that there was consensus for deletion of the template. I count 3 votes for deletion and 2 for keeping the template. Aside from that, while I'm usually rather critical of article tagging templates I consider this one to be one of the more useful ones. It is claimed in the deletion discussion that we can notify editors in another way than by using this template. But this is not just about notifying editors but also about warning readers about problematic content and inviting potential expert readers to contribute. Nageh (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The debate really didn't have enough discussion for something with such a large impact, and such a large reorganization required by many wikiprojects. It should be relisted and effort made to inform the wikiprojects on who it will impact.--Salix (talk): 08:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Far too little debate and far too simplistic a solution. I agree that the template isn't perfect - it's supposed to be accompanied by a reason for tagging and many never did, but that's not relevant here. Although I was in favour of removing templates that had no reasoning behind them, outright deletion isn't the way to go. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Given that this template affects multiple WikiProjects, it does not seem like adequate input was solicited. The mathematics WikiProject, for instance, was not notified, and we do rely on this template to maintain a list of articles requiring attention from the project. (Rather than a banner, as already noted by Jitse.) An opportunity for more careful discussion about what to do with this template is needed in which all parties who are likely to be affected have a chance to provide input. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. I check this periodically to see if any articles are within my field. It's by far one of the most straightforward ways to find places to improve. Rschwieb (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. While I still believe that this template and its sister need to be deleted, I believe that further discussion would certainly not hurt, to how these templates can be converted into working parameters for each respective WikiProject. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Endorse closure. Agree that tfd was handled correctly, and how to effectively implement the change is what the WikiProjects should be discussing, not the re-instating of the templates. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (Though I don't strongly oppose relisting for further discussion) - In my opinion, this was a good close. If you think that not enough people commented in this discussion, you should join in at TfD. MANY templates, which have more than minor usage, are being merged/deleted with as much or even less discussion. The closer read the discussion for what it was and saw where there was consensus. Please remember that consensus is not a vote, it's about determining what most can agree on (within Wikipedia guidelines/policies, of course). And I think user:Plastikspork did that just fine. There was clearly discussion about using other ways to do this, even amongst those who said "keep". And note: If there are banners/templates that cannot support the update (yet), then deletion will have to wait for that per the closure. - jc37 18:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think confronting editors with the result of a discussion that was carried out under the radar without wider notification considering the widespread use of the template (not compared to "cleanup" or "refimprove" but certainly compared to most other templates) is helpful in assisting the community (in furthering our goal of building this encyclopedia in the best possible way). This is bureaucracy par excellence. And I don't agree that there was clear consensus for deletion, even when yo do not simply count votes. In fact, three commentators have argued that the template should be fixed. I'm all in favor of mandating a/the reason/talk parameter so as to not make the template vague and non-specific, as has been complained about in the discussion. Nageh (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned, it wasn't "under the radar" any more than any other XfD discussion is. And I have complained for some time that AfD discussions should happen on article talk pages, for just these sorts of reasons. That said, people just don't watch the talk pages of templates/redirects/categories/files. Compared to article space or wikipedia space, talk page usage there is typically this side of nil. So having a central XfD process makes some sense in those cases. If you are unhappy with it, get more people to: PLEASE REGULARLY JOIN IN THE DISCUSSIONS : )
    As for "fixed" - WP:SOFIXIT. I have suggested fixes at several discussions at TfD, while being told that that has no place in the discussion. And I would agree with you that (in my opinion) THAT is absolutely wrongheaded, and that looking for positive ways to edit templates to update them, and/or to make them more useful, SHOULD be a part of the discussion. This IS a wiki after all.
    But regardless, I do disagree with your premise that this was a bad close. Noting of course, that DRV isn't XfD part deux. (Though as I said, I don't see a major reason why this discussion couldn't be relisted.) - jc37 19:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. The outcome of TfD should be in the best interests of the community (not the other way around). In this case, the community refers to various WikiProjects. Relisting to gauge a more thorough consensus among the community is definitely not outside the scope of deletion review. This debate had simply closed without soliciting a sufficiently wide consensus. This happens all the time in AfD/XfD: debates are relisted to generate more discussion. Since there is clearly some question about the deletion and the proposed remedy, reopening the debate seems like the only reasonable course of action. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The consensus seems to be slightly more in favor of adding a "needs attention" flag on talk page templates, which as the original MFDer, is a viable solution to me. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, this does neither warn a reader about problematic content nor invite him to contribute. Nageh (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it does warn the WikiProject, which is much less a shot in the dark than hoping an "expert" will come along. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it is my hope. See, I am one of the few active members of WP:WikiProject Telecommunications. Consider this article section: I do know enough on coding theory that I can tell that this section does not do justice to the extensive subject of LDPC decoding, and I can also tell that the content is misleading in that it discusses only a very simple, specific case. Yet, I am no expert on coding theory, and as such I do not know how the improve the section, and I know that neither does any of the other active contributors in the WikiProject. So, notifying the WikiProject has no effect, and the (my) only hope is to get outside input. Nageh (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or relist. No consensus for deletion established in deletion discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus There was , to put it simply, no consensus to delete. The closer apparently adopted one of the positions without any basis for doing so, and therefore cast a supervote. There was in my opinion very good arguments put forth for why deleting the template would be harmful, and no policy-based reason given for deletion. The essence of the nom. was that there was building up a backlog. Somehow this led to the absurd conclusion that rather than attack the backlog, we should remove the template and thus hide the problem. This is in direct opposition to the policy at the heart of the way things actually work at Wikipedia , that Wikipedia is in the process of continual improvement. It is also in opposition to the practice that we call readers attention to problems, instead of pretending that we are perfect. People seeing problems in articles should be encouraged to indicate them by any means available--it is then the responsibility of the community to fix it. Too many clean up templates have been deleted; if they are too obtrusive, the effort should be to make them less necessary by doing the cleanup. Nobody can pay sufficient attention to all possible XfDs and admin processes, and major template decisions of this sort that affect many articles need consensus by the community as a whole, at least those parts which are affected, which will not be the same as those who care primarily about templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:09, 11 March 2012
  • endorse, but should be relisted. no indication of a "supervote" as some are accusing. however, I see no harm in relisting since there were many wikiprojects who were unaware that the templates had been listed. in short, the admin did a perfect acceptable job closing the discussion, placed the template in the holding cell to make sure that all the issues could be resolved, but there is additional information which has come to light to indicate that there is a need for broader input. I absolutely agree with jc37 that "if there are banners/templates that cannot support the update (yet), then deletion will have to wait for that per the closure". that's the way things work, so if this is not feasible, then the template will never be deleted. of course if we know that is the case right now, then there is no reason to even have it tagged for future deletion. Frietjes (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Relist. There is plenty of evidence that there is more to be discussed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist regardless of the consensus in the discussion (I don't think there was a clear consensus for deletion there) it's clear that interested parties were not notified. Hut 8.5 09:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per many of the above. I think this demonstrates that important templates really need a bigger hearing the first time around. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to no consensus admins closing something strongly one way are ok when there's a compelling policy reason. That's not what happened here. This looks like an unacceptable supervote rather than an attempt to actually determine consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per User:Jclemens, and per my reasoning here: when a template is transcluded on over 4,400 pages, the TfD ought to be kept open longer. Bwrs (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 March 2012

[edit]

7 March 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jack Bergstrand (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Revised version. Bgarofallou (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that the edited page for Jack Bergstrand be reposted (see User:Bgarofallou/Jack_Bergstrand). I have sought the advice of the administrator who deleted the page, Bushranger, and, at his request, sought the opinion of The_ed17.

There was a concern that Jack was simply a “writer about some current IT trend.” This is not the case; he has developed a IT project management model based on Peter Drucker’s theories and his own 20 years of executive management experience at the C-level (CIO, CTO, CFO) for Coca-Cola. His model is based on Drucker’s work, moving Drucker’s concepts from theory into actionable practices that will work for large-scale companies looking to retool for the 21st Century. To be sure, Drucker’s work has its detractors. But it also has a large following.

Bergstrand’s model and book are the result of years of education and practice. The book has been favorably reviewed by Rick Wartzman, Director of The Drucker Institute, as well as practicing IT managers and academicians in the field of business, other students of Drucker’s work, and the preface to the book is an endorsement written by Rick Wartzman himself. To quote from Wartzman’s preface, “Among other steps, Drucker called for giving knowledge workers sufficient autonomy and treating employees as assets rather than as costs. Jack Bergstrand’s remarkable contribution is to explain how (emphasis in original) business should actually go about doing these things.”

While the original article suffered from improper referencing of authoritative sources and promotional writing, these issues have been addressed.

There are Wikipedia listings for: Peter F. Drucker, The Drucker Institute (see Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management and Claremont Graduate University), W. Edwards Deming (contemporary of Drucker and considered the father of Total Quality Management).

I respectfully ask that you review the revised content and references and consider re-posting this page.

  • Keep deleted, The book is self-published and, though published in 2009, is held in only 4 libraries . Prefaces to books written by notable people are not to be taken at face value: people are generally overexpansive in such circumstances and they are not a RS for anything--And all the more so when the author is an alumnus of the school of which one is Director. Being a student of a notable person does not make someone notable--that's exactly what is meant by NOT INHERITED. I fail to see the analogy with Deming--saying one's teacher is as notable as Deming, even if true, doesn't make oneself any the more notable. That such an argument is used indicates there is no real claim to notability The refs are mostly either article by him. The one major one that isn't , is again by Wartzman, not an independent source for his student. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. While it doesn't look so bad, it still is well written promotion. What is needed, but missing, is independent secondary sources that discuss the subject directly. It is the "independent" part that looks particularly weak. The authors of these pages all seem to have a direct Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I would be much more receptive if an experienced Wikipedian were contributing, or of an interest author demonstrated useful contributions elsewhere in the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Shigeru Nakanishi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Because I am Wikipedia editing beginner and not proficient at writing in English, I did not know Wikipedia:Notability. Therefore the English version of the Shigeru Nakanishi article was deleted. Because I show the site in reliable sources here, please return the article.

  • He wins a prize every year in Nitten (Japanese art exhibition) which is a maximum general art exhibition in Japan. There is his name when you search 中西繁 in a site of Japanese edition Nitten.

Nitten is日展(日本美術展覧会) (in Japanese) [14]

  • He is a director of the Toko society and brings up people drawing a picture.

Toko society is 東光会(in Japanese)[15]--Hiroko Yamamoto (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist I see from the AfD there was minimal discussion. Rather than discuss notability here, a new AfD would be better. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist just one commenter on the AFD, and since there's new info another look couldn't hurt. If AFD decides again to delete then that should stand unless things change substantially, however. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist participation at the AfD was minimal and it seems to have been closed as Delete by default because only one person commented. If someone is objecting and has new information then a new discussion is appropriate. Hut 8.5 09:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 March 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Simon Wicks 2012.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The closure contradicts two votes in support of this image; the nominator did not know how significant an image of the actor's appearance in 2012 is. His appearance changed, and Simon Wicks did not appear since 1991 or 1990 until 2012 just for a cameo. I'm not sure if the closure properly read the consensus. George Ho (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, image was a clear violation of policy. Kelly hi! 14:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I must say I was never comfortable with the discussion's closure after it went stale; it should have been re-listed. Two people (including me) had opposed deletion, and that the nomination was left open for eight days suggests that there was clear ambiguity as to whether it fails policy or not. My comments at the time still stand, not to mention that discussion at Talk:Simon Wicks was tentatively leaning towards removing the other non-infobox picture instead. Looks like the deleting editor appointed himself judge, jury and executioner on this ocassion, and so I'd say a relisting and full discussion would be entirely appropriate. U-Mos (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a consensus to delete there, so I would be grateful if Fastily could please expand on his reasoning.—S Marshall T/C 20:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, Fastily's ongoing lack of communication about non-obvious closes concerns me far more than this particular picture. One would think he's gotten enough feedback by now that communication is more important than speed in closing XfD's that he would have modified his behavior appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I'm anxious not to divert this DRV into a discussion of Fastily's conduct which would properly belong at a user RFC, I would like to agree with Jclemens here. In the event that no elaboration is forthcoming my !vote should be read as "overturn".—S Marshall T/C 12:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Neither of the supportive comments significantly addressed the NFCC policy concerns, especially for an article including multiple nonfree images of the same actor playing the same character. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless I'm mistaken, the question here is whether it was right to close the discussion and not whether the image should be kept/deleted. At any rate, if I must be direct I would argue that the image in question would be primary visual identification of the section on the character's cameo appearance in 2012, and together with the infobox image (I would support deletion of the third image) illustrates the character's appearance over time. U-Mos (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. But "the character's cameo appearance in 2012" isn't independently notable, and the NFCC criteria have never supported the notion that any discussion of a scene in a film or TV series justifies an illustrating nonfree image. And, in this specific context, nothing has been advanced to suggest that NFCC#8 has been satisfied. After 8 days for discussion, without any policy-compliant analysis supporting retention of the image, I don't believe the discussion should have been closed any other way. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might not find that reasoning satisfactory, but I do and so might others. This is why a discussion is required. The closing user had no grounds to consider the matter resolved. U-Mos (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All that knew had the chance to comment U-mos - the reason for nomination was solid. The only reasons to keep did not meet the NFCC requirement. It was right to be removed too - there were three non free images inthe article at the time - This one was from a 15 second scene, it does not take anything away from the general reader now it is not there. They don't really need to know that the character aged because that is fairly obvious.Rain the 1 23:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Obvious"? Obviously, soap opera episodes have become daily, yet newer episodes come and go, while older ones... I know that SOAPnet is going away, and we Americans will never see reruns of soap operas in the future in the US. How do they work in Britain? Saying that there is no need to know that this character aged would be something, as no need to see how aged David Wicks had. Unfortunately, Fastily thinks that using multiple images for age depiction may not meet standards of WP:NFCC and is not fair use; I discussed age difference with Fastily. Still, I thought it was unfair to delete this image, and using two or three images for age difference really helps my thoughts per NFCC#8, as well as general readers. Just one question: when will BBC or another station rebroadcast Simon's 2012 cameo appearance? --George Ho (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you explain how this image increased your understanding of the subject? What aspects of the actor did it help you understand? Remember that this is about a fictional character - we do not use non-free media to illustrate living persons.Rain the 1 00:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...What else can I say? As far I can remember, Simon's hair has gotten white, his skin became a little brittle and dried, and his voice must have changed, although picture is not same as a video. Also, daytime soap operas function differently from a primetime program. As I told you, no one knows when older episodes have chance to be rebroadcast. As far as I know, American soap operas will not be rebroadcast in local channels and networks. Somehow, I will never have British or international soap operas in America; even BBC America and PBS stations, such as KOCE, stopped airing EastEnders. Although image is not allowed in a biography of the living person, it is good for an article about this fictional character. Omitting an image just because text is "sufficient enough"... what about dyslexic people? Can they read that article properly? --George Ho (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that image was of the quality to show that the subjects skin had become "brittle and dried". The picture does not help with his voice either. So I don't think the image will help you identify with those points. As for daytime soaps that air in the US - they have little to do with these soaps that air of a night time in the UK - they are broadcast at a later date in some countries. We cannot predict the future either, so it might get shown for you again. As for those who have trouble reading the article - any number of things can be done by them - and even you can request a audio version of the article. Even after all that, I'm not sure those reasons meet the requirement.Rain the 1 01:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To imply, what's fair to you is not fair to me, correct? Unfortunately, what's happening to EastEnders in UK is different from what already happened and has been happening to EastEnders in the US: no channels are broadcasting EastEnders in my area at this time. Also, I'm not sure if there are any publicity photos of Simon Wicks's appearance in 2012; screenshots are our only chance, and this image was unfairly deleted. I wonder if BBC has released a clip of Simon Wicks's 2012 appearance online; even so, I can't access any video clip of fictional element in BBC.co.uk because I live in the United States. Maybe there might be Americans who have become interested in past characters of EastEnders more than present ones, actually. As for this image, why is a text of cameo sufficient, while the image is excessive? --George Ho (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While wary of drifting towards WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'm failing to understand why this new image is the one that must be removed, and not the other extraneous image on the page (which, as I pointed out, there was some support for on the talk page). I'm also failing to see the difference in this image depicting a change of appearance over time, and those that have not been removed at (off the top of my head) Alan Jackson (EastEnders), Abi Branning, Pat Butcher and I'm sure many many more. Secondly, on the question of the closure surely the appropriate course of action where a discussion has gone stale would be to raise it on the project talk page, and article talk page, and perhaps place a note by the picture in the article itself before waiting to see if there would be any further response? Not to mention that the closing editor could have used the discussion point to explain why he felt the image should be deleted himself, which may have encouraged further comments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe any of these steps were taken here, and I don't believe deleting non-speedy candidates by the back door like this is correct. U-Mos (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 March 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gabriel Cousens (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have written a completely new draft here: User:Ocaasi/Gabriel Cousens. The article was previously deleted due to lack of notability and one event issues. There were also some BLP concerns about controversial information relating to the Charles Levy Controversy. This draft draws on a variety of mainstream, regional and national news, as well as natural health and skeptical news sources. I think the subject's notability is pretty solid. One-event issues were cleared up by focusing broadly on all sourced aspects of Cousens' life, work, retreat center, film productions, and publications. The controversy is but one section among 4 or 5 substantial ones. In the previous AfD, Cousens' mentioned that he didn't believe the Phoenix New Times[16], which is used in the Controversy section, was reliable. I was careful to very neutrally phrase the information from that article, as well as adding sources from Arizona Central[17] and Quackwatch[18]. I think the treatment is in line with NPOV and V and only leaves a remote possibility that Cousens would pursue legal action through the Foundation. I don't believe it's our job to preemptively censor articles, so I believe the article as written should be created and legal issues left for the Foundation to handle. If there is consensus among other editors that the controversy section was mishandled, they can be resolved by either searching for other sources, removing information, or rephrasing the text. In any event, the majority of the article as written should be uncontroversial and is well sourced, so in a worst case scenario the controversy section could just be removed (though I think that would be a mistake and not required by policy). I have spoken with the admin who closed the AfD and he encouraged me to pursue this Deletion Review. Ocaasi t | c 19:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gabriel Cousens personally requested that his article be deleted in this diff. I think the substantive question at this DRV is whether Dr Cousens is notable enough to warrant overruling his wishes. On the one hand, we do have a basic duty to tell our readers the truth, and it's verifiable that a medical examiner pinned the death of Charles Levy directly on Dr Cousens (source in the draft article but for convenience the link is here); besides, Dr Cousens' dietary recommendations strike me as most peculiar and highly unlikely to enhance his patients' health. We might save people some money, or even some medical issues, by having an appropriately NPOV article in this space.

    But on the other hand, we aren't Snopes. We aren't trying to expose people of whose practices we disapprove, but to write a comprehensive, objective and neutral encyclopaedia. I don't see that Dr Cousens is so notable that we need an article on him—which means it isn't necessary to expose the Wikimedia Foundation to legal risk or Wikipedia's reputation to another controversy concerning a living person. It seems unwise to court trouble when we don't need to.

    I can see a lot of effort's gone into that draft, and I've no wish to be unpleasant but on balance I'm more persuaded by the case for not publishing it to the mainspace.

    If you're the kind of person who likes words in bold then you should read this whole comment as weak keep deleted: I don't feel strongly about this, I think it's a judgment call and if editors do wish to keep it then I would be persuadable.—S Marshall T/C 20:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure if responding to comments is typical at Deletion Review (this is my first), but I have a few thoughts about this. I wasn't aware that notability required a need, as opposed to merely significant coverage in reliable sources. Does the draft have that? That's the first question. The later notion, that we have to balance the subject's wishes or legal risk to the foundation over the motive to expose odd or potentially dangerous practices all strike me as concepts that are unfamiliar or absent from my understanding of policy. Could you point me to where it suggests we're supposed to use discretion for that type of balancing of interests, or even consider those issues at all? Is there any stipulation or precedent for editors (as opposed to the foundation) avoiding controversial articles for preemptive legal concerns? (Although many of us fashion otherwise, our role is neither to be muckrackers or lawyers). You said, "It seems unwise to court trouble when we don't need to"; that kind of sentiment seems like permission for self-censorship; how many other articles would we just skip to be on the safe side? That doesn't strike me as in line with the encyclopedia's core mission--which is to share knowledge--not to avoid liability. That may be a naive analysis, but I think it's important nonetheless. I acknowledge that a lot of work went into this draft, but I don't conceive of that as reason to recreate or alternately keep the article deleted--the only question for me is does the article meet article creation guidelines and were the issues from the previous AfD sufficiently improved upon. In my opinion, the only lingering issue is the potential legal threat. I note that in all other cases the person expressing that legal concern would likely be blocked rather than heeded, and the article would remain until the foundation intervened. Assuming there are no BLP or RS issues (which might not be fair to assume), why would we respond differently here?
    • If there is a question about the sourcing of the controversy section, let's address that on the merits, perhaps taking it to WP:RSN or WP:BLPN where they can weigh whether Phoenix New Times, Arizona Central, and QuackWatch--the 3 sources on which the controversy section is based--are sufficiently reliable to source this type of claim. Phoenix New Times is used in over 500 actual Wikipedia articles[19] as a reference or external link. Although Cousens characterized Phoenix New Times as a 'tabloid', it's run by the same media group as the Village Voice and has won awards for its investigative reporting [20]. Quackwatch has repeatedly be judged to be reliable for limited areas within its expertise at WP:RSN[21]; examples: [22][23][24]. I note that the Quackwatch article I used is referenced itself and does not cite the Phoenix New Times article; instead it is a secondary reading of court documents, which should broaden the perception that the section is supported only by one source. Arizona Central (now Arizona Republic) is the state's largest newspaper and has been in the top 10 nationally for circulation.[25]
    • In a worst case, the controversy section can still be removed and the article judged on what remains. I don't know what protocol here is, but in the event that concerns did not outright permit recreation, I'd at least appreciate a broader hearing at a relisted AfD if that's within possible responses. Ocaasi t | c 23:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are very welcome indeed to reply to comments in a deletion review: this is supposed to be a consensus-seeking conversation, and I have no doubt that your thoughtful approach to this will enhance your prospects of success. You raise quite a few issues. You're quite right to say that there's no element of "need" in the concept of notability. Something's either notable or it isn't. But with biographies of living people, notability isn't the only factor and we do sometimes delete BLPs about notable people. This is well-summarised in Sean Williams' closing statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd), which was endorsed at deletion review. Basically, administrators have discretion to take the subject's wishes into account in deciding whether or not to delete. This could lead to a deletion even when the subject is otherwise somewhat notable, providing he's not clearly notable (so to use an extreme example, Barack Obama couldn't opt out of having a Wikipedia biography). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Blake (broadcaster) are also relevant examples of how Wikipedians view deletion of BLPs at the subject's request.

        It is, of course, quite true that precedent does not have binding force on Wikipedia, and we might reach a different decision on this case.—S Marshall T/C 12:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • Thank you for linking to those prior discussion. I wasn't aware that subjects' wishes had been taken into account before. That expands the scope of the debate considerably. I apologize in advance for lacking brevity or approaching polemics.
        • RATIONALE
          • I take seriously that BLP articles can do real world harm to people, and we should be cognizant of that. I didn't write this article to either promote or expose Cousens, only to thoroughly and neutrally describe his significant views and engagements.
          • There are cases where borderline-notable people would have their privacy infringed upon for little benefit to readers, and in those cases I can conceive of taking their views into account and even letting them prevail in deciding to delete an article. This is not one of those cases.
          • Cousens is an internationally noted authority, a global teacher and trusted spiritual advisor. He is not only a doctor to the people who visit him and follow him, but a priest (or Rabbi, since he's into Jewish spirituality). He promotes himself as an expert and independent sources confirm his reputation in the natural health field. People trust this man with their diets, their bodies, their ailments, and their souls. They pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars to receive his guidance.
          • Renown doctors, politicians, religious figures, as public figures, lose their presumption of privacy. Available information, commentary, and criticism on those individuals serves a vital public interest. It is unavoidable that in the neutral presentation of reliably sourced material that we will come upon matters which reflect negatively on the subject. In the case of a small-time academic or fledgling artist, the potential harm that material may do could outweigh the benefit. In this case, the potential harm is intimately linked to the potential good that it serves readers and the public to be informed. As it is our goal to share information with the world, I believe we have not just permission, but a positive duty to cover such topics responsibly.
          • When an individual touts his myriad credentials, accepts money for explaining his views and instructing in his practices, makes novel and bold medical claims which are promoted in newspaper and film, challenges the scientific consensus, and earns a reputation as a guru and expert... these are the very people who are ripe to be a focus of summary and review. These are the people the public, our readers--our customers and clients and peers--not only want to know about but need to know about.
          • I'm sure that the Levy incident was tragic for Cousens and that he is terrified it will prevent all of the positive work he is doing. It looks bad, it sounds bad, it raises caution and red flags. That is not a reason to exclude it; quite the contrary, it's the reason it must be included. It's ironic, because I started this article with the goal of providing information about Cousens for people who would be interested in his teachings--I knew nothing about Charles Levy until midway through my research. But now I will stand to defends its inclusion as an essential component of our mission as an encyclopedia. That might be overly grand, but the principles we espouse are won and lost in the individual cases where they are challenged.
          • Cousens, in sum, has no reasonable expectation of privacy in this case. He lost that when he became an expert, developed a devoted following, sold his knowledge, and promoted his influence, made medical claims, and dismissed scientific consensus; and when other reliable published sources covered his life, work, views, projects and travails in detail; then it became our responsibility to summarize it neutrally.
        • PREDECENT
        • Closed as delete
          • Seth Finklestein: This discussion raised the issue of BLP deletion standards saying, "According to the BLP deletion standards, the closer of the deletion debate should take into account the wishes of the subject if the subject is on the fringe of notability... Editors need to realize, if they haven't done so already, that Wikipedia is not a game. Biographies of living persons are not something to be taken lightly." Although I confer with the second part, I think the first is exclusionary here. There is not a question of Cousens' notability. Durova summarized my sentiment: "By no means do I propose an aggressively PC deletion standard at every Wikipedia article. I do suggest that the subjects of lower-end notability BLP articles be granted more respect when one asks us to delete the particular article about himself or herself. " Is this article really that low on the notability standard, so low that Woody Harrelson talks about him, he has a movie about his work, he blogs on naturalnews.com, gives frequent interviews, is written about in skeptical sources, and has a dedicated feature profile in Rolling Stone Argentina? Suffice to say I don't think it is. Finklestein in said the discussion: "On a human level – setting any personal antipathies aside – it’s fair that we extend one courtesy in return: although Wikipedia is not paper, some living people who began their careers in the era of paper publishing and prefer to lead relatively private lives." But Cousens has actively decided not to lead a private life. He writes books, has a youtube channel, offers courses, promotes his retreat center, and offers his service and guidance to the world. This is a person who may wish to be hidden from scrutiny, but he cannot have it both ways, promoting himself where it serves him but avoiding attention where it may harm his endeavors. That of course is a natural motivation, but it's not our motivation.
          • Jon Blake (broadcaster): Closed with "In my judgment, notability has been neither established nor verified by reliable, non-trivial sources. While I eschew the idea of a subject dictating the terms or presence of an article, there is sufficient precident for such. Wisdom suggests that we are better off without this article at least until notability can be verified." Dragonfly said it succinctly: "The defining characteristic of notability is the presence of coverage in external sources, and this appears to fail." Again, I don't think notability is seriously in doubt here. There are 29 different sources (own website pages: 5 plus 1 for his movie's website; regional news: 11; natural health/food websites: 3; skeptical websites: 3: and the Rolling Stone Argentina feature). There are also 4 unique further reading options which are also RS. And just for kicks, there are also 458,000 Google results for ["Gabriel Cousens" eat raw]. In the case of Blake, there was only 1 major award and the rest of the material had doubts about verification. In the Cousens article the available sources have been exhausted (as far as Google will allow). This is a different beast, because frankly, it appears to be a more thoroughly written and referenced article.
          • Ginger Jolie: This discussion closed no consensus, default to delete. As a pornbio, Durova said, “The difference to Wikipedia's completeness is trivial; the difference to her life is enormous.” I would ask whether we also need to consider the difference this article would make to the lives of our readers, who do not have a voice in this debate as Cousens has had. As much as Cousens has a right to protect his reputation, we have a responsibility to the public to provide valuable (and sometimes critical) information. That is our right, and BLP concerns may influence it, but it does not override it, in my opinion. The closing admin noted WP:NPF which states in part: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures." I would hold that there is no evidence that the controversial claims are defamatory. They are based off of three apparently reputable sources, at least two of which did their own investigation into court documents. I do not believe there is a question of fact as to whether or not the death was actually ruled to be caused by Cousens. And the rest of the section merely presents arguments from both sides in a neutral way. Also, Nil Enne commented that the sourcing in Jolie's article was primarily from her own website and a single award she won. In contrast, Cousens' article draws on a panoply of sources, the majority of which are independent of the source.
          • Rand Fishkin: Durova commented, "Mr. Fishkin's page is a stub and he's probably less notable than either Mr. Finkelstein or Mr. Brandt. I doubt very much that any paper-and-ink encyclopedia would devote an article to him, and although this is sourced, it's basically only five lines of material. That's unlikely to ever grow into a featured article and the person whose most affected by this article's existence would be happier without it." I would note that Cousens' article is definitely not a stub; it is well developed and well organized. It would have a chance of approaching GA status with some work, and even FA status with serious attention. The material to do it is already there.
          • Daniel Brandt: The 14th nomination of this subject resulted in a merge. The close said: "Brandt's activities are subjects of significant commentary, and as such should be covered in this encyclopedia...This article causes Brandt distress, largely because of previous and potential coverage of minor things he'd rather not have discussed in public but which have been mentioned in minor self-published publications Brandt has mostly tried to bury...This article cannot hope to be complete, due to incomplete coverage in the sources, which largely treat him as a private figure." In Cousens' case, he is also the subject of significant commentary and should be covered in the encyclopedia. If the article causes Cousens distress because of the Levy controversy, is it really our role to prevent that rather than just present the information for all of our readers to decide for themselves. Again, in balancing interests of having an article vs. causing harm to the subject, we also need to consider the harm to readers from not having an available and comprehensive article which covers controversial areas. Last, this article can hope to be complete, because the coverage in sources is substantial. In sum, I think the 5 precedents, although mostly controversial 'close calls' which I likely would have supported article creation for, do not apply to Cousens because of the depth of sources on which the article is based, and the care that went into representing their content neutrally.
        • Closed as keep
          • Martin Halstead: The article closed as keep. Catfish Jim and the soapdish said, "Subject is clearly sufficiently notable to warrant an article. I can't see any valid argument for deletion here, although I can see that the article might be slightly embarrassing for the subject." The argument was made that any WP:UNDUE issues should be resolved by fixing the article not deleting it. Similarly, the Cousens article, if there are particular faults or excesses could be improved rather than deleted.
          • Rich Shapero: Close discussion was closed as keep with indefinite semi-protection to prevent vandalism. Nuujinn commented, "Yes, the subject has only published one book, but it's the release of same that garnered attention in the press, and is thus notable." Cousens has published 7 books, several of which were explicitly mentioned in independent newspapers and niche sources. NYKevin said, "If OTRS et al. decide to WP:G9 this, that's their choice. Until then, this is an apparently sourced BLP which should be rewritten through normal channels (i.e. the discussion page)." I agree that unless the Foundation's legal department intervenes, this article should be created and discussed through normal channels rather than preempting legal action ourselves.
          • Tristan Emmanuel This closed as no consensus but defaulted to keep. Close said, "The outcome therefore hinges on whether Emmanuel is a "relatively unknown, non-public figure". After reviewing the discussion, I gather that Emmanuel has been the leader of political rallies and run for public office. It is difficult to conciliate those activities, where public attention is sought, with Emmanuel being a "non-public figure". Since Emmanuel's political activity make him a public figure, the "no consensus" outcome here is defaulting to keep." Like Emmanuel, Cousens is arguably a public figure due to both his reputation, his self-promotion, and his global teaching activities. CJCurrie noted, " I am not opposed to deleting the biographical pages of truly marginal figures whose future prospects may be hindered by past utterances, but Tristan Emmanuel is not a marginal figure. He received extensive media coverage in 2003 and 2005-06". Cousens has also been the subject of relatively extensive media coverage from a variety of sources. GrantNeufeld noted: "The numerous references show, cumulatively, pretty clear notability. The subject’s apparent desire to not have an article about themself should carry no weight here. The key here, as with all such articles, is to ensure that WP:BLP is being followed, which the well-cited content of the articles seems to do."
          • Vanessa Hall-Smith. Closed as keep: "The result was keep as there is consensus here that the topic passes the notability threshold, and the argument that we ought to tear pages out of the encyclopaedia on the whim of the subject is in this case unconvincing." SoWhy noted, "The subject's wish is not to be ignored lightly but someone with such broad coverage in multiple reliable sources and even an articles in The Times is not someone who can be described as a "non-public" figure. Non-public figures don't go around in public or give interviews, do they?" I feel similarly about Cousens' advocacy and promotion. DGG added, "Clearly notable, so we have no basis for removing the article. The (in my opinion disastrously anti-NPOV) policy of paying respect to the subjects wishes only applies in borderline cases, and Director of the British Institute of Florence and a public career reported in reliable sources is not borderline. We're an encyclopedia, not a place where the subjects choose whether or not they want to be written about based on mere preference."
          • Steve Benson (cartoonist): This artist bio with vandalism concerns and controversy sections was closed as keep. Arxiloxos said, "With due sympathy for the vandalism, Benson is a Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist, a former president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists[1], and the subject of substantial coverage throughout his career[2]. He is controversial, and these controversies have been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [3][4][5][6][7]. We have an article for every Pulitzer-winning cartoonist since 1971, and all but 3 of the winners since 1940. Deleting the article creates a gap in Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of editorial cartooning. There are better remedies for vandalism targets." Although Cousens has not won major awards, the list of people who hail him as an "authority", "expert" "prominent" "leading" individual is long. Natural health figures are an important part of encyclopedic coverage of the alternative medicine field, and I similarly feel lacking this article creates a 'gap' in our coverage.
        • I'll note that there are many deletion discussions and I am looking to find counterexamples of subject-requested-deletions which resulted in keep/create. They're available in the AFD archives and the Deletion Review archives. Ocaasi t | c 17:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Update: I found 5 keeps to match the 5 closes. I don't get a sense that there's an overwhelming consensus one way or the other in these articles. If anything, the standard seems to be mixed--but it always comes down to notability and coverage in reliable sources. In order to keep Cousens' article from being created, there would have to be a more serious effort to show that his notability is somehow lacking, or that the sources are somehow inadequate. I haven't seen that analysis presented here yet. Ocaasi t | c 19:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation with an optional relist, though it will need some editing to remove excessive detail, which I am willing to do. The fundamental rule is that Wikipedia is not censored. There's sufficient documented notability. The subject may prefer not to have it, but that's as irrelevant as if he thought the opposite--had it been an entirely positive article I doubt he would have objected. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excessive detail is my weakness at times (at least as an encyclopediast); if you point out some of the worst offending sections, I can try and trim them myself as well. (I don't think that's a reason to exclude the draft, though perhaps something to focus on in my future writing).Ocaasi t | c 23:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Would it be considered canvassing to ask a few experienced editors who are active in the alternative medicine/pseudoscience area to comment here, provided I merely notify them that the discussion exists and don't make a statement either way about my position? These are people who I have worked with in the past, but often from different sides of a debate; I wouldn't consider them my allies and I respect their independence. What if I try to notify an equal proportion of scientifically minded as well as natural health interested editors? Ocaasi t | c 02:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took your advice and notified WikiProjects Medicine, Alternative Views, Alternative Medicine, and Rational Skepticism. I also left a note at noticeboards BLPN, FTN, and RSN. I hope this wasn't excessive, the messages were short and neutral, for example this notification. I didn't contact individual editors, as that seems a little more fraught with potential bias. Thanks for the tip. Ocaasi t | c 18:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closure - I oppose Occassi's immediate attempt to recreate. Youreallycan 04:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I want to add one more thing to the considerable content I've submitted already. Cousens' reputation is international, as a leading expert in his field. Alternative medicine is a very popular topic, and within it, diet, raw food and spirituality are significant components. Cousens is listed as not just an expert in this area, but one of the most prominent experts. Here's what others have said about him:
    • Rolling Stone Argentina: an American guru and the highest international authority in the field of "live food"
    • NaturalNews: a "pioneer" of the raw foods movement
    • TreeHugger: a "household name" on the subject of raw vegan food
    • emPOWER Magazine: a "published authority on alternative healing and raw living food nutritional therapies.
    • AllAfrica.com: an "internationally acclaimed health guru"
    • Nutraceuticals World: a "highly-reputed medical researcher and internationally-known sprout expert"
    • Portland Press Herald: an "international teacher...considered by some to be a leading medical authority on live food nutrition"
    • Midwest Book Review: "one of the world's foremost experts in the preparation and nutritional values of raw food consumption for the mind and body"
    • Dynamic Chiropractic: a "forerunner" in live food diets
    • Clevelend Jewish News: a "celebrated healer and spiritual facilitator"
    • Actor Woody Harrelson: "In my mind, Gabriel Cousens is probably the greatest living health practitioner."
  • I think those speak directly to his notability, his prominence, and his reputation. I think we should have an article on this person. Ocaasi t | c 03:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are these quotes that you have or intent to use in the article? Although these quotes present the subject in a favorable light - the article you have written and are desirous of publishing using en wikipedia appears more focused on deriding his treatments. Quackguru - is that attack site even a wikipedia reliable source? Youreallycan 05:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those quotes are indeed in the article; however, per DGG's recommendation that the writings was overly detailed I had to merely mention some of them in passing. This article in no way intends to deride Cousens; that is a misperception. Simply because Cousens doesn't want information about a controversy included doesn't mean my purpose in writing the article is to 'get him' by publishing that information. It's merely one aspect of a very long, detailed, and I think balanced treatment. Please give the article a fair and close reading before deciding it has a point of view or an agenda. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 06:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And jonny said he was this and harry said he was that and now off to the guackguru style attack of him. Your article doesn't reflect these quotes at all. -they are your excuse to publish the attack content. - If you manage to publish your desired article using en wikipedia - the person in the picture that is not the subject will need cropping out of the picture - I will do it for you if the article is published.Youreallycan 07:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaken about both the article's neutrality as well as my own motivations. I will be happy to include every one of those 'positive' quotes. I had done so originally and only shortened them at the request of DGG, who thought listing all of them was too promotional. Since they seem to have a direct bearing on this discussion, I will add them back in full. For the record, I spent about 8 months trying to stop Quackguru from turning Chiropractic into more of a hitpiece than it already was. I also have expanded content on noted alternative health practitioners such as Mary G. Enig and Weston A. Price. I started the holistic dentistry article, Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, Suzanne Segal and mediated a dispute at Astrology where there was an attempt to put 'pseudoscientific' in the first sentence three words of the introduction. I have tried to be a responsible editor and not promote the views of these subjects , but if anyone who knows my work was going to accuse me of bias, it would be to say that I am too kind and too inclusive of the works of alternative medicine topics. If you're still in doubt, ask User:Yobol or User:WLU, two smart, scientifically minded editors, with whom I have collaborated in the past. I hesitate to be blunt about this, but I think you're just wrong in this case. As I said above, when I started writing this article, I did so at the request of my sister, who is a fan and follower of Cousens. I wanted him to have an article so that who like him could read about him. Only midway through my research did I discover the Levy case. On the merits, even if I was some type of alternative medicine assassin, is there anything in the exact phrasing or construction of the controversy section that you object to? Are the three sources on which it's based not sufficient? YouReallyCan, there are currently 41 references in the article. Three of them focus on the controversy. The article is 4000 words long, of which just over 400 of them are about the controversy. I believe that is a good indicator of the appropriate weight I have given to the subject. I sincerely ask you to give the article a close second look.
I appreciate the offer to crop the picture. I have been in contact with the woman in that photograph through email and she did not object to its use. Is there a reason it needs to be cropped? Ocaasi t | c 13:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say, "but if anyone who knows my work was going to accuse me of bias, it would be to say that I am too kind and too inclusive of the works of alternative medicine topics.", thats nice and your comments speak well of you - and your strong desire to replace an OTRS and AFD removed contentious article might well succeed, but that will not stop it being turned slowly slowly into the same kind of article it was previous. Its common knowledge that on en wikipedia there is a strong anti alternative medicine aspect to the whole sector of content and that policy is not strong enough, or complied with enough, to defend a neutral report and that is why I still strongly support this livings persons request for the en wikipedia project to not host a biography on him. As for the picture, whether or not she objects to appearing forever in a wikipedia article, she is not the subject of the article, and she is not a notable person and imo is better cropped out of the picture. My reading of Wikipedia:IMAGES appears to point towards support for this position. Youreallycan 15:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have viewed the OTRS ticket and there was no follow-up that I can see from the Foundation. It was just Cousens expressing his view, exactly as he did at the AfD. That AfD was based on a completely different article than the draft I wrote, which I believe resolved the notability, one event, and neutrality issues. As for what happens if this article goes live, neither deletion nor page protection is designed to preemptively protect articles from turning the wrong way. If needed, that is what semi-protection or full-protection are for. Needless to say, I will keep a close eye on this article assuming it is created, and concerned editors will have to strive to maintain its neutrality, just like on any controversial article. Also, thank you for your consideration of my background and intent here. It sounds like your objection is not based so much on the particular article I wrote but on your broader concerns about BLP policy and its enforcement. If that's a fair description, then I can only suggest that we are constrained to avoid WP:HARM to subjects but also to follow policy and to summarize reliable sources. If I have done that faithfully, then I believe the article should be created, and then watched carefully, rather than kept out of the encyclopedia.
I'm not particularly concerned about the image either way. If we need to crop it, that's fine.Ocaasi t | c 16:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate. Sometimes I establish notability on the basis of WP:AUTHOR by citing several book reviews (see Adam Berinsky, Robert Martensen, and Johnathan Oberlander). So I searched and I found a few book reviews on his books. On the basis of that, and other coverage talking about how he is culturally influential, the guy sure seems notable to me per WP:CREATIVE. Jesanj (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  By normal criteria, there was no need to bring this issue to DRV, the work that has gone into this article is excellent and no discussion is needed.  This is not normal, though.  The DRVs opening statement, "The article was previously deleted due to lack of notability" says much more than was intended.  The closer said nothing about notability, and editors at the AfD that used the word "notable" give no evidence that they did any research into whether or not this topic is notable.  There is plenty of evidence in the new article that the topic was notable at the time of the first AfD.  What we have is broad AfD consensus that the article failed WP:NPOV.  The continuation of this line of thought is expressed by a further statement at this DRV, "we are constrained to avoid WP:HARM to subjects but also to follow policy".  Well, here is the problem, if as a group we don't have a functional understanding of the word "wp:notability", can we trust ourselves to do no WP:HARM and to follow policy"?  Several times at Wikipedia I have found myself quoting, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."  I don't recall anyone saying, "I agree."  The fact is that there are no constraints for the assertion "we are constrained...to follow policy".  I am going to make a policy-based argument, the policy being WP:IAR, that the doctor be invited to participate in this discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been in touch with Gabriel Cousens' assistant, as Cousens is out of the country temporarily. The assistant was pleased with the effort that went into the new draft, but thought it focused too much on nutrition and not on spirituality, which I attempted to remedy with new sources I discovered. He was also very critical of the Phoenix New Times source, the accuracy of which he disputed. I encouraged him to publish a formal response to that article on the Tree of Life website, and they are considering it. Hopefully Cousens will find the new article an improvement and drop his objection. If not, it will have to be considered in light of the article's sourcing and neutrality. Ocaasi t | c 12:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards allow recreation here. The new article isn't perfect, but to my mind it does enough to a) overcome the previous reasons for deletion, b) establish notability and c) avoid creating any major BLP issues by presenting the controversy neutrally as only a small part of a longer article about Cousens's career. We will of course have to be very careful to make sure it stays neutral, but we have the ability to do that so that isn't a barrier to recreation. Alzarian16 (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. My own view is that while the concerns of article subjects should be carefully taken into account when dealing with article content they should not be able to opt out of having an article if they meet the ordinary notability criteria. Notability is already difficult to judge without adding a new standard of "too notable to veto having an article" to keep track of. In this case, the new draft sufficiently addresses the concerns that led to deletion that recreation without prejudice to any new AfD is appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 March 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Laura Massey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Previous DRV's 5 July 2010 * 29 Oct 2010 * 9 Jan 2012 ((added Spartaz Humbug! 13:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)))[reply]

Laura Massey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Massey has had three deletion reviews all of which have resulted in her page being kept deleted. I have two other sources that were not brought up in the last deletion review for some reason that I would like you to consider.

I'm not exactly sure what is needed to get her page back, but she is a growing public figure at Microsoft and is now a Project Manager leading "Xbox Incubation". Google and Bing results for her have increased to 1,270,000 and 11,200,000 respectively. She has created her own game named NerdTrivia http://nerdtrivia.net/ which has thousands (7,074) players and has raised press coverage in the above links.

I would also like to add to this discussion per her former deletion reviews links which by themselves were too weak to overcome the AFD, but perhaps if reviewed together might make for a stronger case for her to meet the WP:N criteria.

She seems to have done some very notable things in public in and out of her work at Microsoft. Bawitdaba1337 (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse again. Last DRV was just a month ago, and the supposed "new" evidence is just more of the same, blogs and irrelevant stuff like Google hits... while we're on that topic, while it's true Laura Massey without quotes gets plenty of hits, *with* quotes it has just 589 unique hits, and most of those are unrelated folks who just happen to share that fairly common name. On that last page, for example, I see a doctor, a cyclist, and a bookseller, among others. For comparison's sake, my name gets 501 unique results, and I'm not famous at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Needs RS. Spartaz Humbug! 13:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit bewildered by the above two replies. I have absolutely no idea how Starblind came to the conclusion that they were "blogs and irrelevant stuff". When I click the links, I find interviews with the article subject. Now, I'll be the first to admit that the interviews aren't exactly the pinnacle of journalistic brilliance—but they're also pretty far from blogs, aren't they? They're also far from irrelevant, because this nomination shows that Laura Massey is notable by linking to the sources that have actually noted her.

    I think that if we're going to refuse the opportunity to re-create this article then we need to show in what sense the sources linked are unreliable, and I respectfully challenge Starblind and Spartaz to do that. Unless that is shown, I feel that the appropriate response is to endorse the previous deletion as it was done in accordance with the consensus at that time, but permit re-creation on the basis of the new sources provided. Alternatively, if there's significant resistance to the idea of re-creation, we may wish to incubate. A flat refusal without a proper analysis of the sources strikes me as inappropriate in this instance.—S Marshall T/C 12:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay -
    • Wired is an interview about Nerdtrivia not about Laura Massey and since its an interview its a primary source anyway.
    • CNET is another interview and isn't about Laura Massey but a product she is working on.
    • worldofmeh ditto - and references the same interview. An appears to be a blog whose meeting RS is far from clear
    • So does Slowdown.vg and ditto bloginess.
    • And.. guess what.. leadershell is exactly the same
  • So what did we have? A grand total of zip about Laura Massey and no RS about her that we can base an RS on. Did you even look at the sources? Please explain how they meet GNG by being non-trivial reliable secondary sources about Laura Massey. Oh look, they aren't. Spartaz Humbug! 14:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spartaz, those are the sources we've already discussed before. The nominator here mentions two new ones, did you see? I also wonder if you aren't confused about primary sources. Interviews are only primary sources if they're self-published, and even if these were, it would be okay to use them, just not for evaluative or analytical claims.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW though, being a primary source is of course not a block to using it for non-interpretive purposes, also it isn't necessarily a block to using it for notability purposes, the question posed by notability is about the world taking note, people seeking out interviews would (to my mind) indicate that the world is taking interest, the question would tend more to be about the significance of the source and the triviality of it, taking into account self publicity and that many sites will publish such as being pretty cheap and if it gets them access to other stuff... --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll repeat the basic question which you have not addressed, under which definition of primary and secondary sources does who publishes the material affect the status as primary or secondary? In fact under which definition are the words of a person presented in diary form always primary, but the words of person presented as an interview is only primary if they publish that interview themself. Our definition of Secondary source states "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information.", nothing about who does the publishing. Can you please explain how writing out the words of an individual does any of those things? Verbatim reproduction of a primary source does not generate a secondary source. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interview isn't a verbatim reproduction, though, is it? Please read the first couple of paragraphs of each of the two interviews that the nominator cites. You'll find that although much of the interview is just a lightly-edited record of a conversation, it is bookended with a pen-portrait of the interviewee, usually written by the interviewing journalist. That pen-portrait comprises the generalisation, analysis, synthesis etc. to which you refer.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm lost for words, if you've read that interview and think the "light editing" escalates it to a secondary source, then I'm seriously worried about the standards you apply, there is no synthesis, generatalisation etc in it. As to if an interview is a verbatim reproduction of what was said - for any given interview at which I wasn't present, I've no idea, were you present at that interview, can you validate what was/wasn't said and if that's a verbatim reproduction or not? Regardless you still don't answer the question, how does who publishes it effect that? The same light editing etc. could all have taken place by the journalist before the person them self published the results - how would that differ? You might also be interested in Wikipedia:NOR#cite_note-2 which lists types of primary sources, which of course contains interviews and mentions nothing about who publishes them. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source—Analytical content: "Laura Massey is big into games, to say the least. She’s a software engineer for Microsoft’s Xbox 360 video game console, part of a team working on top-secret stuff for the Redmond software company". Source—Analytical content: "Social media and an increasingly competitive gaming atmosphere have swirled together to make talking smack and one-upping your friends an effortless endeavor. Thanks to Xbox Software Development Engineer in Test Laura Massey, you now have a chance to prove who among your friends is the biggest nerd with Nerd Trivia, her new Twitter game.

"Laura (also known by her Gamertag “lollip0p” [editor's note: that's a zero in "pop," the WordPress font makes it indistinguishable from an O]), co-host of the weekly “Major Nelson Radio” podcast, has worked on some of the Xbox 360’s most defining features including the Xbox LIVE Party feature and the Kinect software. A “codist” by trade, many references have been made on the podcast about her love for puzzles and skills at creating different computer programs."

Does that make it clearer for you?—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No doesn't help, I disagree that they are analysis of the sources, but never mind, Duke University disagree with you, general wikipedia policies disagree with you, that you can convince yourself of this is of little or no consequence. You still failed to answer the key question repeatedly asked, so I assume you have no answer. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't it obvious? A primary source is something written by someone who lacks objective distance, so an eyewitness account, a writeup of an experiment by the experimenter, a historical document, etc. Journalists, historians and other professional report-writers are presumed to have objective distance because that's what they do. The identity of a publisher matters because editorial supervision is one of the things that can give objective distance. In reason and logic an interview written by a journalist and published by a news organisation, which goes beyond a bare transcription to include some analytical content, is a secondary source. It may not be a very good secondary source, but that's what it is. And the fact that Duke's University include interviews as primary sources in their simplistic guide here doesn't exactly cut much ice with me, I'm afraid: read the rather more nuanced guide in the sidebar here.—S Marshall T/C 19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse salt, ban. Jesus christ how many times to we have to discuss the Xbox chick? This is the same as ever, some bare scrapings of mentions in sources. Time for the fan club to just let this one go. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus meaning Keep. It is disheartening to see that things haven't changed much on the project. There seem to be compelling arguments on both sides, and even some previous AfD's seemed to have been split. Now, considering that the young lady does seem to enjoy a degree of notability among a certain group of individuals, and that there do exist (arguable) RS, I think we have here a poster child of no concensus. THIS is what the project is to me. We are not limited by a number of pages. It will be sooo much more interesting for future generations to read about Ms. Massey here than all project-included notability-satisfied politicians put together. Respectfully Turqoise127 21:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The prior AfDs had a consensus to delete, a finding upheld here at DRV. More sources can't "upgrade" a consensus to delete to a finding of no-consensus, that would be ugly bureaucratic wonkery at its worst. This isn't a project to write about people with "a degree of notability among a certain group of individuals". I'm sorry, but there's many subgenres of nerdom (or nerd-dom?) who think that what they <3 is the most Terribly Important Thing on Earth(tm), but hasn't quite set the world of reliable sources outside their little sphere afire. Tarc (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I must admit I did not understand much of your comment and the little silly signs or whatever, but I will say this; more sources can not only "upgrade" a consensus to delete to a finding of no-consensus, more sources can make an article downright notable in every aspect and undo any AfD or DRV. Having said that, I do not appreciate you telling me what this project is not, you can say what it is to you, but please do not decidedly jump to a conclusion that what I think the project is -is incorrect. Ridiculous. Turqoise127 03:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure there's English translators around if you are in need. I simply do not like the suggestion of "Overturn to No Consensus meaning Keep", it is just plain ridiculous. Either the sources are judged to be not enough to satisfy notability or one of the Massey fanclub can try his luck and recreating the article and hope it is different enough from the last version to get past a G4 speedy deletion, or hope that it survives yet another AfD. And yes if I think you are incorrect I will cheerfully tell you that you're incorrect. There's a lot of fancruft deleted here that heads out to specialized wikia projects, which IMO is quite a good thing. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 March 2012

[edit]

2 March 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Debraj Shome (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed as no consensus with the spurious claim None of the people suggesting delete had anything to say about the sources presented by MelanieN which is the core issue.. That is completely untrue, as my comment specifically said that none of the sources provided was a reliable source from which to write a biography, and all of them were incidental mentions. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, or change to Keep. Reasonable conclusion, but keep would have been better, because there are refs offering substantial coverage from the major Indian newspapers. Although there was concern over that what they showed him notable was not in fact major scientific discoveries but rather fringy therapies, this is not a valid objection and is founded on a misunderstanding of policy. He does not meet WP:PROF to be sure, but he does meet the GNG, which is explicitly provided for in WP:PROF as an alternative for just this sort of situation, where there is popular but not academic notability DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking over my close I can only agree with The Mark of the Beast that the statement I made was factually incorrect. Somehow I missed the comment he made 15 February and that made me interpret his 20 February comment as a post done without considering the references presented in the AfD. I apologize for my mistake. That being said, I still consider no consensus to be the most reasonable close. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "keep" corner, we have the 31 sources in the article and 5 provided by MelanieN. In the "delete" corner, we have an opinion statement that none of them are sufficient. If that opinion statement was backed up by a reasoned analysis of the sources, we might have something substantial enough to justify an overturn and relist, but with just the bare opinion statement, I'm not seeing it. The amount of attitude the nominator displays on Pax Vobiscum's talk page is noted and taken into account.—S Marshall T/C 02:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the "attitude" that my comment was totally ignored? That attitude? Pax Vobiscum apologized for that oversight, but S Marshall needs to consider where I was coming from at the time, and "attitude" has no bearing on deletion discussions. I will repeat: Not a single one of the "sources" Melanie provided is any worth at all in writing a biography. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Attitude that means you waited a princely 3 minutes between raising your concern about the close and nominating the DRV. The agressive and combative way you answered queries or the complete lack of self reflection demonstrated in your responses here. Pick any one of those and maybe consider that we are completely uninvested in this close. Spartaz Humbug! 06:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist What a piss poor discussion. The only well evidenced vote was from MelanieN and the delete arguments were pretty much by assertion as well as clear evidence of socking in the discussion buts is quite clear that the closing admin hasn't read the commentary properly. Non consensus is a justifiable close but reviewing the sources provided by MelanieN, I am struck that they are extremely weak and none of them are detailed enough to hang a BLP on. I'm minded because of that to suggest that we rerun the AFD but this time the delete side should actualy analyse the sources and explain individually why they think they suck by reference to policy. This process is called evidence based voting and is worth far more then a bag of attitude and a bunch of assertion. YVMM and I was half tempted to endorse by default for an agressive nomination. Spartaz Humbug! 06:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you calling me a sock? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the AFD? Did you see the first delete voter was blocked as a sock? Did you see that another participant was also blocked? Did I suggest that you were a sock? You know, the whole world does NOT revolve around you. Spartaz Humbug! 08:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, WP:DICK much? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you absolutely nailed it. Spartaz Humbug! 14:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Allow renomination at AfD after two months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because? Spartaz Humbug! 11:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because the close was not unreasonable, we must endorse the close. Because AfD debates are sort of formal affairs, and because they should be expected to close with some limited finality, the close, if not faulty, should stand for a period of time. For a "no consensus" close, I think two months is an appropriate default. This case seems not so special. In the two months minimum, I suggest to the AfD denominator the he carefully compose a more convincing case for deletion than was put in this AfD. In the meantime, discussion of specific sources should be done on the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The discussion was open plenty of time, and extending it is unlikely to get more interest. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure When it was closed, this AfD had already been relisted four times, which is generally the maximum allowed. Relisting it again would have been ridiculous, and the discussion as it stood could not have been closed any other way. Most of those advocating deletion were either overly vague in their rationale or based their vote on the proposition that Shome failed WP:PROF. Other than Mark, no one addressed the sources raised by MelanieN as evidence of Shome's notability under WP:ANYBIO, and even his comment on those sources didn't go into much detail. As a result, this discussion was fundamentally unsatisfactory and further deliberation over the notability of the subject should be encouraged. However, it's far too soon to be relisting the article at AfD yet again; therefore, I am instead suggesting that Mark or any other interested editor start an analytical discussion of MelanieN's sources on WP:N/N. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cole Mullin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I went to try to create this page today, but it won't let me because it has been "created to many times and is disruptive to some people". I don't understand why this page got deleted in the first place...just google "Cole Mullin" and you'll find plenty of information about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safarisocialism (talk • contribs) 20:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 March 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
DesignTech_Systems (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article , first submitted for review on 30th December was approved by wiki editor Pol430 on 31st December, 2011 - [27]. A month later, it was abruptly deleted on 7th February by Fastily without a warning. It says the page falls under G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. The problem here is that how can one editor on wikipedia approve an article and somebody else delete it anytime later. What does that do to users like me who are trying to learn it up and become better at contributing to the same. How can the guidelines between two editor differ so vastly? Is there no common rule book that everybody follows? And why does the Design Tech article read like unambiguous advertising? There were enough links and resources provided to show the importance of the same. prateekshah03

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_March&oldid=478535182"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy