Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 14#NYU in popular culture

:{{la|Malden Catholic Pope John XXIII Model United Nations Conference}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Malden Catholic Pope John XXIII Model United Nations Conference}} cache]|AfD)

This was supposed to be the unofficial page for my high school's upcoming Model UN Conference. I do not understand why it was deleted and was not notified of these reasons. I request the page be reinstated, or if not, I can create a new one. TheDTrain89 18:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion and do not recreate. While it is was deleted by prod, this should have been speedied as a non-notable event between two high schools. Wikipedia is not the place to promote all your high school events. - Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Urk as a PROD, I suppose we should overturn it. Does WP:CSD#A7 apply? Debatably I think. It clearly does not belong here per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site (webspace provider portion). GRBerry 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• : The group/club part of A7 applies here. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Wikipedia is not a webhost. A site such as MySpace would be a good place for your Model UN conference page, but it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. --Ginkgo100^talk 00:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse but if it's relisted it may go faster than the 4-hour Hawaii debate and G4 applies, so I won't be too disappointed either way, but the decision was clearly correct. Carlossuarez46 03:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion/Keep deleted - there are plenty of free webhosts out there, use them. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Although pages deleted via {{tl|prod}} should be overturned on request, this article is qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD A7 (no assertion of notability). There's no point in undeleting since it will immediately be speedied. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, would immediately be speedied as A7 (having no assertion of notability per the notability guidelines) if restored. --Coredesat 18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• :Comment: The editor filing this DRV is obviously a new user. Our criteria and norms would probably be better expressed in ordinary prose rather than jargon for aficionados such as "G4" or "A7". Newyorkbrad 19:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• ::Clarified. --Coredesat 07:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Generally, Wikipedia articles usually are composed of informaton from sources other than those connected with the topic. For your high school's upcoming Model UN Conference to be included in Wikipedia, newspapers or other such media would need to have written about it. It would be their written material that may be used in developing a Wikipedia article. In short, Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. The information added to the article was not a compilation of information previously written by third parties. In answer to your notice question, contributors usually are not notified of a deleted article after that article has been deleted. There was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATheDTrain89&diff=148120944&oldid=140903860 a notice] placed on your talk page before the article was deleted, however. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|Weaponhouse}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Weaponhouse}} cache]|AfD)

Improper speedy deletion. This article was created August 5th by relatively new user. The text of the article was "In old times weapons should not be carried into the church. Therefore the churches often have an addition to the main entrance where people could place their weapons while they attended service. This addition was called a weaponhouse." It was tagged with "db-nonsense" within ten nimutes of its creation. I removed the tag a short while later, as the text was clearly not patent nonsense. Ten minutes later the same editor retagged it with the edit summary of "do not remove speedy tags on articles you have created yourself", without noticing that I was not the creator of the article. A couple of quick google searches ([http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Weaponhouse&btnG=Google+Search], [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Weapon+house%22+church&btnG=Search]) indicate that the content of the article was substantially correct. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NCurse&diff=151090466&oldid=149120576 contacted] the deleting admin explaining all of this. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dsmdgold&diff=151122955&oldid=151013542 response] was less than satisfying. Dsmdgold 14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Rapid Overturn and remind the admin about deletion policy, in particular the limitations of speedy A7. The article however is in need of immediate expansion. DGG (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Recreate Article this should not be deleted. Needs expansion, perhaps from non-Internet sources. Shruti14 ( talk • contribs ) 18:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This is neither patent nonsense nor a case where A7 may apply. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|NYU in popular culture}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:NYU in popular culture}} cache]|AfD)

New Information - Yale in popular culture was also under Wikipedia:afd review at the time, but after the NYU review was complete the Yale review was decided in a different manner. Both articles are almost exactly the same. As such, I propose either deleting Yale in popular culture or restoring NYU in popular culture -- Noetic Sage 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - clear consensus to delete the article. Concerns raised for deletion were not countered. The fact that another article was kept at AFD doesn't constitute new information for this AFD. Otto4711 14:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Allow re-creation when expanded and sourced. There was relatively little content, and the decision was not absurd. Noetic Sage, do you want it userified so you can improve it? DGG (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion in terms of similar articles being deleted. I'm afraid that's just the way to cookie crumbles. There were just more Yale fans !voting than NYU fans, and I guess the admin had no choice. Bulldog123 17:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus was clear. --Coredesat 18:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I am the creator of this article, and I can explain its purpose for being created. It was primarily created to eliminate excessive information on the New York University article which was growing very large. And as Orlady commented on the Yale AFD page: "If there is a continuing trend to delete "in popular culture" articles such as this one, Wikipedians are going to be reluctant to put this information into separate articles, with results that will not be pretty." In addition, the article was poor because it was seemingly indiscriminate, but as the creator of this page I was getting around to it after the NYU page was at least a good article. So I pledge, upon restoration, that I would ensure this article more reflects the notability and format of the Wikipedia in culture page so it is not a list but is a discussion of the university in the setting of popular culture. Per the discussion in the Yale in popular culture article I think this is a valid reason to keep the article. It needs a lot of work but I am willing to take care of that. -- Noetic Sage 21:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:Comment. I would like to add to my previous comment. Per Wiki:"In popular culture" articles, these type of articles aren't delete-able simply because they are trivia-like articles. Although only mentioned by one user in the original deletion log, the problem with the article is that it lacks sources. It is not an indiscriminate list any more than any other "in popular culture" article. It needs sources and some work as far as notability, and I will ensure that happens. The reason this article is still notable is to highlight an important aspect of NYU history; Before 1990 NYU was hardly known at all and was more of a regional school rather than a national school. In the coming years NYU became more prominent, recruiting nationally and internationally, and thus it was more in the public consciousness. As such, it was mentioned and portrayed in the media and popular culture more frequently. I know that the article didn't convey this importance at the time of deletion, but I am reviewing the deletion because most of the suggestions on the AfD page were arguments to avoid according to Wikipedia. In addition, the fact that not many spoke up during the deletion process is not sufficient reason to deny the reinstatement of this article. -- Noetic Sage 00:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:*The problem with the article was not that it lacked sources. The article was not deleted because it lacked sources. It is simply not true that the arguments advanced in the AFD are arguments to avoid. Arguments included WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:TRIVIA All of which are either official policy or guidelines with consensus and none of which were refuted by such arguments as "it's only nominated because it has 'popular culture' in the title," a staggering failure to assume good faith on the part of the person saying it. Otto4711 00:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Consensus was interpreted correctly; the two keep recommendations didn't provide any concrete evidence for sourcing or notability. Allow re-creation if sufficient evidence of notability and sources can be established. — TKD::Talk 23:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't see how it would harm the encyclopedia to let the creator work on it in userspace, then mainspace it as it improves. In the interest of disclosure, I received a message about this deletion review on my talk page, which is why I will comment but not even !vote. Antelan ^talk 23:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disclosure: I came here because of a note that User:Noeticsage left on my talk page. I am assuming that the editor did so because s/he is unaware of the faux pas this brought with it. I left a note on his talk page telling him about the guideline, and making a suggestion of how to better proceed in the future. That being said...
• Reverse and recreate, provisionally. I'm not versed on the actual cultural impact of NYU; however, if editors can work the article into a sourced discussion on this topic, it is worth creating (NYU is one of the top institutions in the US, so I wouldn't be surprised if said impact does exist and is a writable article). Give these editors a chance to improve this article. If it does not improve in a reasonable amount of time, go forward with deletion. Alternatively, keep the article deleted, but userfy the contents so that these editors have the opportunity to present to the community a better article in the future. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 00:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC) NOTE: Noeticsage has since confirmed my assumption of good faith, and says s/he will proceed differently in the future. :) CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 00:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. {{User1|Noeticsage}} has canvassed all editors who said keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yale in popular culture (and none who said delete), asking them for support here. PrimeHunter 00:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

::Addition: It appears Noeticsage didn't canvass DGG who said keep in a post [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yale_in_popular_culture&diff=prev&oldid=149482737] where the signed paragraph is a little to the right of the paragraph saying Keep (at least in my browser), so Noeticsage may have thought it was a comment to the Keep post. PrimeHunter 01:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Correct. We who were recruited duly noted this in our posts. If you're concerned, you may want to toss {{subst:template:!vote}} at the top of this section. Antelan ^talk 01:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Update - I'm adding the template. Antelan ^talk 17:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

::::I don't have a problem with "canvassing" users for support -- this is surely a tool that cuts both ways -- but unless someone can point me to a copy of the original article, I'm unable to comment on its suitability for deletion or retention. RandomCritic 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I too was "canvassed" because of my !vote in Yale in popular culture. The question I would ask about this article is whether reliable sources have said anything about what it means to reference NYU in fiction. If you say a fictional character went to Yale, there are some clear associations that come along with that: a degree of intellectualism, prestige, political connections, possibly snobbery (COI: I say this as someone who attended but did not graduate from Yale). Saying that a character went to NYU also conveys certain qualities, but it's harder to articulate what they are. I'd look for a source describing how NYU is used as a signifier, in order to provide some context for the listings — otherwise, it's hard to see what Washington Square, The Cosby Show and Rent have in common apart from tangential geography. That said, there's no harm in userfying the content so that a better-sourced article could be written, as CaveatLector suggests. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion another "unfair" result because we're damned if we don't nominate alikes together, this time: NYU is out but Yale gets to stay. Perhaps Yale has a greater place in pop culture? Probably so, but may still be nn. Perhaps more Yalies showed up? No way of really knowing who went where among Wikipedians as we know all too well. Perhaps inconsistency is a good thing? Not IMHO, but no one asked. Perhaps the Yale article should also be deleted and we'll get around to it? Here's hoping... Carlossuarez46 03:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

::that articles was nom for deletion, and was kept by a very clear consensus of almost everyone except those who always !vote for deletion of IPC articles, regardless of their individual merit. I see we'll have to defend it again. I think it should get an even stronger consensus this time round. 19:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion; there was clear consensus for deletion in the AFD, obviously the creator of the article doesn't like it, but that isn't a reason to overturn a consensus decision. Masaruemoto 03:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; a total junk page, and why the Yale page was kept, I have no idea, that should go to. Biggspowd 05:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation as per Noetic Sage. Harlowraman 16:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comments from closer—as the closer of this AfD, I should probably explain. I did close this article several hours before the usual 5-day deadline; however, many of the other "...in popular culture" articles being closed were a near-unanimous delete, and I felt this one could be closed with them (especially given the consensus to delete, except two one-line comments). Yale wasn't a clear consensus to keep either, so it's not necessarily a good reason to recreate the article. If someone wants a userfied version, I'll be more than happy to provide it; just give me a message on my talkpage so I know for sure. — Deckiller 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comments (1) How is the user who is not an administrator to see the article and therefore to decide how to opine here, when the history seen when one clicks on "history" is not really the article's history? (2) What efforts were made to solicit comments from people knowledgeable in the subject matter of the article, as opposed to whoever happened to look at the AfD page? There are obvious reasons why it's a good idea to do that. When I've mentioned this before, I was told only that it's not REQUIRED in some set of codified rules. That reasoning seems to rest on nothing better than the premise that in order to improve Wikipedia, one should do only such edits are are required in some set of codified rules. Michael Hardy 20:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• : As to #1, the article is currently at the DRV notice template for a retention, not the one for a deletion, which is normally protected with the history visible underneath. I, or another admin, can change that. However, even if the history wasn't there, because it isn't always worth doing, the "cache" link in the template at the top takes you to a copy of the article as it stood on 8 August. GRBerry 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|Allegations of state terrorism by Russia}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Allegations of state terrorism by Russia}} cache]|AfD)

I dissent with the closing of this debate. The closer has not given a comment other than "keep", but it appears that he has judged the debate on strength of numbers, rather than strength of argument. As we know, AFDs are not decided by vote count. None of the "keep" commenters has given a meaningful rebuttal to the fact that this article violates WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, instead many of them resort to various forms of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or "don't delete new articles". >Radiant< 12:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure view. There was a clear consensus for keep and there were no policy grounds on which the closing admin could overturn that consensus and delete. Sure there are issues with the article but those are matters of policy interpretation not policy application and are for further editorial, as opposed to DRV, debate. Bridgeplayer 23:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Re-open AfD for a more explanatory close rationale. Will ^(talk) 23:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Although I have not given the reason that I've closed the AfD, I found it to be a pretty simple case. The article is verifiable, notable and contrary to the nom's belief, is not original research. This is shown by the many reliable sources in the article. The claims of violations of WP:SYNTH can also be contested. I fail to see how a "terrorist act" labeled by a former president of the United States has any synthesis whatsoever, as it specifically refers to Russia, and an allegation of terrorism...[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DM&p_theme=dm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0ED6177F62CFFF53&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM] Back to the closure of the afd, I see no consensus to delete the article. Most of the delete comments cite a bad title name, or WP:SYNTH as the deletion reason. For the name of the article, there has been no consensus in any of the "allegations of state terrorism in X" AfDs and talk pages for a change. As for the synth arguments this could be fully fixed with more sources. Taking particular weight on the sources by manticore which assures notability and counteracts the SYNTH argument. "Unfortunately, we can't see any serious democratic movement against the state terrorism in Russia."[http://www.rferl.org/specials/50radioliberty/cemilev-speech.asp] "the state terrorism in Russia against China"[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/23/cst.02.html] State terrorism in Russia is specifically mentioned in the sources, the article is notable, and Wikipedia does deal with allegations, see for example Bulldogs gang rape allegation and [http://www.google.com.au/search?as_q=allegation&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=yEC&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=en.wikipedia.org&as_rights=&safe=active] --DarkFalls ^talk 06:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the consensus was to keep despite what I believe to be compelling arguments to delete this and all "allegations" articles, but the ArbCom is busy with apartheid allegations now, perhaps state terrorism ones will stay or go based on the outcome. Carlossuarez46 03:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - The numbers in this case are really overwhelming -- 18 keep, 7 delete. Clearly the arguments that you thought compelling were not compelling to many other editors. The only real argument for deletion offered was WP:SYNTH, and such an application is possible only with a very loose interpretation. Does categorizing certain allegations as "allegations of state genocide" constitute "advancing a position" (which is what WP:SYNTH forbids)? Probably not, since the existence and contents of an allegation are factual issues. Editors having to make reasonable judgment calls is an inevitable process in Wikipedia, and that is not something WP:SYNTH forbids. Perhaps the specifics are somewhat ambiguous -- but that's a reason to let the community decide, and a strong consensus rejected the application of WP:SYNTH. — xDanielx^Talk 06:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• As I clearly explained in the nomination here, AFD is not decided by vote count. Your claim that it should have been is therefore entirely baseless. >Radiant< 08:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• I did not say that AfD is a vote. I said that overriding an overwhelming 18-7 majority requires a very good reason, and no such reason has been provided. Unless you joined Wikipedia yesterday, which you didn't, surely you must agree that absent exceptional conditions the opinions of representative editors play a significant role in decision making. Sometimes I wish we were still following the 2/3 vote rule, so that we wouldn't have to deal with all these cases of "my argument was better, even though it failed to convince anyone." — xDanielx^Talk 09:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Contrary to the nominator's AfD rationale, the article is not "about alleged state terrorism" (which would violate WP:NOR). Rather, it is about allegations of state terrorism. The existence of allegations can be factually verified. The notion that "encyclopedias deal with facts, not allegations" is seriously misguided as it confuses the creation/introduction our own allegations with the reflection of the allegations of others. If the encyclopedia made no mention of allegations, we wouldn't be able to present the US' rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 (after all, the notion that Iraq had WMDs was alleged but never proven). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weakly and temporarily endorse closure The article was nominated for deletion very soon after it was created. I am well aware that there have been many such allegations/accusations/etc... over the years. The question of WP:SYNTH is whether there are secondary sources that discuss the allegations. At this time, I consider the question unproven; because nobody stepped up and said "I looked and couldn't find such sources." So I think, as RJ CG said in the discussion, that the topic may have merits but the current state is a problem. If it doesn't shape up and use secondary sources over the next few weeks, bring it to AFD again and kill it then. On the other hand, this and Allegations of Iranian state terrorism do look like they might be the first step along a WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND mess akin to the allegations of apartheid series (but at least this doesn't have the template to link them all together yet). Yuck. How do we prevent this from recurring? GRBerry 21:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as consensual. Consider renaming to remove the word "Allegations". AshbyJnr 18:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Mankiewicz family}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Category:Mankiewicz family}} cache]|CfD)

I am going to take the rather unorthodox step of bring a debate that I myself closed to deletion review. When I initially closed this discussion, I closed it as keep, as I felt that the consensus indicated that precedent did not apply to this case. After being approached by the person who initiated the discussion, I checked with a couple of other admins, and I now feel that my decision warrants further review. If less time had passed since my initial action, I would simply revert my closing, but that would probably lead to a DRV eventually, so I'm just going to bring it here directly and hopefully reduce some pain and anguish along the way. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete (as nominator) - no arguments presented by keepers that overcame the precedent of dozens of similar previous deletions and the guideline found at WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Arguments for keeping are based in the supposed prominence of the family (other families of greater prominence have had their categories deleted and endorsed at DRV), the supposed lack of general consensus about family categories overall (not relevant as it was not asserted in the nomination as a reason to delete), the number of articles in the category (we routinely delete categories with many more articles) and a concern over the supposed loss of data that deleting the category would cause (simply not true as the article Mankiewicz family already contains more data than the category ever can). Otto4711 12:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. When the only other person to agree with the nominator says "weak delete", it's clear there's no particular consensus to delete. Tim! 16:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Nonsense. CFD does not have a quorum. >Radiant< 09:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Please do not call my argument nonsense, it is not very civil. Tim! 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• WP:KETTLE, as usual. Once again you appear to be simply following Otto around in order to disagree with him; that is inappropriate behavior. >Radiant< 08:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• This is a very crude attempt at a smear on me, bordering on a malicious falsehood. I had been discussing this category with {{user|Cgingold}} here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATim%21&diff=150749006&oldid=149793312] and in any event I check DRV every day, so your assertion is without foundation. Even if had been true it would not excuse your aggressive and rude attitude. Tim! 17:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• endorse as a Hollywood family. reasonably consistent with other existing categories. DGG (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per precedent and Otto. --Kbdank71 18:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to say overturn as well, as this would be reasonably consistent with other deleted categories, as explained by Otto. >Radiant< 09:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - WP:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people is fairly loose and flexible on this point. This category, unlike some similar ones, is a decent size in my opinion, and a quick browse through the member articles shows that the relevance/closeness among members is high. The Keep arguments in the CfD seem perfectly valid to me, and absent a very clear policy violation I would go with the 5-1 consensus among the participants. — xDanielx ^T/_C 18:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• The referenced OCAT guideline is fairly wishy washy here, and clearly leaves the issue up to informed judgement, for which we follow the usual consensus rules. There was not a consensus to delete in the CFD discussion, and that guideline leaves it up to the discussion. So, no argument from overriding policy to delete, and no reason to consider the close contrary to consensus. Endorse closure GRBerry 22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse retention Useful category of a common type. There is certainly not a consensus not to have family categories as there are hundreds of them and it is hard to believe that more than a tiny minority of users would be in favour of deleting a category as prominent as say :Category:House of Bourbon, which has been attached to many prominent articles for and a half years without attracting a nomination for deletion. Entirely proper closure. AshbyJnr 18:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse As User:Wassermann pointed out in the discussion, the deletions are all the work of the same handful of people, and do not represent a consensus. When it was pointed out to Otto4711 that the guideline he was quoting didn't actually back him up, he simply changed it to say what he wanted it to say! RegRCN 19:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, this clear-cut correct decision. I could have guessed exactly who wouldn't want to accept the decision here. These are the three main deletionists on :Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, one of them make the nominations, another backs him up, and the third does the deletions. They are an effective team, but they don't represent a community consensus, they only represent their own deletionist convictions. Hawkestone 23:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|List of islands by population density}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:List of islands by population density}} cache]|AfD)

Article was speedy deleted because of the identity of the user who created it, but I believe it had been edited by multiple users. The article was also currently subject of an AFD which had not generated consensus to delete. JulesH 08:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, the list was indeed written to push Instantnood's well-known POV (for the pushing of which, incidentally, he's banned). No prejudice against creating a new, neutral list. >Radiant< 09:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment by deleting admin. Although there were other contributors, the nature, completeness, and sourcing of the list ultimately hadn't fundamentally changed since Qaka's first string of edits to it. (I do notice now that some content was split to List of island countries by population density, and I've posted the relevant edit history to the talk page of that article for GFDL compliance.) Nevertheless, the way that we deal with contributions from banned users is to revert them and, if there is anything redeeming, reinstate any good edits ourselves. In this case, as Radiant said, there's no prejudice against a new list, provided that it's sourced consistently and reliably; there was, at worst, no consensus on the AfD discussion as to whether the list qualified as indiscriminate. — TKD::Talk 09:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist without the early close. WP:CSD#G5 is really meant for hoax articles, other bad faith articles, and the like. This is a factual article, and I think it certainly at least deserves a proper AfD. We have to keep in mind that WP:N and the like aren't really meant for lists or categories, so I think the issues should be discussed in the AfD with an emphasis on WP:IGNORE. Per WP:DP, lack of sources is a reason for deletion only if sources don't exist or cannot reasonably be found -- this clearly isn't the case, and even if it was it doesn't justify a speedy close. — xDanielx^Talk 09:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• No, G5 is meant for "contributions by a banned user (while they were banned)". Your interpretation is baseless. Also, this is not a good faith article, because the list is obviously one-sided POV pushing. Certainly we can have a list here, but this isn't it. >Radiant< 10:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• My interpretation is based on WP:SENSE, WP:IGNORE, WP:BURO, WP:SNOW, WP:WL, and the like. WP:CSD#G5 exists because there is a correlation between the status of an article's creator and the merits of that article. In cases where that correlation does not prove true, WP:CSD#G5 should be ignored. The rule itself has already been inconclusively challenged; see for example here or here. If the list was not WP:NPOV, then fix it, don't delete it. There's really nothing about island density statistics that inherently violates WP:NPOV. I can't view the list in question, but it doesn't sound like anyone has found the list to be counterfactual, so I don't see much point in starting over. — xDanielx^Talk 21:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• See WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. We revert edits, regardless of merit, from banned users because they are neither authorized nor welcome to make them in the first place. I don't think it's wikilawyering to interpret the banning policy that way; the spirit of that policy is that banned users are absolutely unwelcome here. And, yes, a list that gives only a handful of data points and that highlights only a couple of those through partial assignment of ranks, in my opinion, does correlate with POV pushing. Even if it weren't, it's still at best a dead end because you'd need to find a more complete source anyway. Plus, you couldn't interleave that source to fill in gaps in the existing columns because that would constitute novel synthesis of disparate data sources (with potentially different methodologies). — TKD::Talk 22:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Fair enough, though I think the policy, read literally or contextually, is loose enough ("may be removed," etc.) to give us discretion in determining whether the article should be deleted, especially given that there were contributions by others. Hence my relist suggestion. — xDanielx^Talk 04:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation as this is certainly a non-trivial intersection (one of the key statistics about an island is how populated it is). But the deleted article didn't look all that useful... it listed 6 islands and only gave the rank of 2 of them. --W.marsh 12:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, edits by banned users are deleted on sight. But allow recreation as useful article. Corvus cornix 17:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Wait, what? Isn't population density by its very nature a neutral statistic? Evouga 22:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Statistics can be selectively cited to try to prove a point. In this case, a handful of data points were provided and partially ranked. — TKD::Talk 22:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Just wanted to clarify that, although I provided a direct answer to your question, neutrality (or lack thereof) wasn't the reason that the article was deleted; the deletion was done in accordance with the banning policy. (The problems with the content are merely symptomatic of why the user was banned in the first place.) My deletion didn't directly have anything to do with the usual content policies, or with the ongoing AfD (I merely closed the AfD as a speedy delete; I didn't formally judge consensus). — TKD::Talk 03:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse banned means banned, seems clear, if someone else wants to create a new article a speedy deletion is without prejudice to doing that. Carlossuarez46 03:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore Judge the article, not the writer. This is basic encyclopedic information. AshbyJnr 18:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|Historical persecution by Christians}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Historical persecution by Christians}} cache]|AfD)

This article's discussion, which still hadn't reached a consensus, was closed by a nonadministrator. This might be acceptable if the result had been unambiguous WP:DPR#NAC, but it clearly was not. In fact, a careful review of the arguments, suggests the article should have been deleted. The articles on Historical persecution by Muslims and Historical persecution by Jews had been deleted and the arguments voiced there applied equally to this article. The closing editor had also participated in the discussion, finding a consensus for keep according to his own wishes. I would propose the closure be overturned and the article be deleted. Mamalujo 06:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist delete, I relisted the AFD after deleting the Historical persecution by Muslims/Jews articles in their respective AFDs. Non-administrators are not supposed to close AFDs that are not unambiguous or controversial per WP:DPR#NAC. The AFD nominator cited the other two AFDs as the reason for this one, and arguments on the keep side were fairly weak. Any close had potential to be controversial given the results of the other AFDs. --Coredesat 07:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Changed to overturn and delete. --Coredesat 09:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn since the closing (non)admin voted. We can't say it is an early closure as the AfD was closed 5 days after its creation, which is normally enough. It seems to me that the result should have been either 'keep' or 'no consensus'. I want this to be closed by someone who hasn't voted. The article seems 'legit' to me (not plagued with OR, etc), and the AFD nomination was weak (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), so I have a vote in my head, which is a 'keep'. Mamalujo, I checked the historical persecution by muslims AFD, and that article wasn't deleted b/c it was 'historical persecution by X', but b/c it had big OR and SYN issued according to the comments there. I did not like the relisting idea. Deniz^T_C 07:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Not an early closure. There was clearly no consensus to delete. 13 keep votes with valid arguments, versus 7 delete arguments, many of which were clearly dubious (e.g. impossible to satisfy NPOV because who is a Christian and who isn't is a matter of opinion, intrinisically OR because different people define the words differently... neither of these is a valid argument, due to the fact that both policies can be satisfied by reporting fairly on what has been published; also much confusion present between "not yet sourced" and "original research"). JulesH 08:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment by nominator Deniz, thanks for your contribution. I would suggest that you take a closer look at the article. The U.S. section, for example, is almost entirely OR (editors gleaning their own view of persecution directly from various state constitutions and legislative sites) and where the article is not synthesizing primary sources it typically cites to unreliable ones like this" [http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2002/0303.htm Rob Sherman Advocacy March 3, 2002]. The article was a synthesis of the editors. Not a single source cited in the article deals with the overarching theme. The theme or thread connecting these events is a synthesis done by the editors, not by any source. And this is not the classic spurious argument (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I'm not simply saying the other articles were deleted and this should be too, rather, that the arguments applied in those article do in fact equally apply here. Primarily, that the article is irredeemable OR, a hodgepodge synthesis of historical events concocted by editors and not by any source. Mamalujo 08:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• I wasn't talking about this review when I said weak nomination. That AFD nomination is certainly weak and just uses an otherstuffexists argument, as far as I can see. Just like Julesh mentioned there, the 'contemporary' section might be somewhat unnecessary. Imo we might keep the section, even if the title contains the word 'historical', especially if they are continuation of 'historical things'. Also, the issue you mentioned is a reliability of sources issue, not an OR issue. Same statement is supported by another source, which might be not so reliable as well. We can just get new sources, and if they are unsourceable we can just erase the sentence. The article is open to improvement. Deleting the 'contemporary' section may or may not be an improvement.Deniz^T_C 09:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, deletion debates should be closed by a neutral outsider, not by someone who already expressed an opinion therein. Whether the closer is an admin is irrelevant. Aside from this slightly bureaucratic reason, the (biased) closing did not take into account strength of argument and precedent in the related debates. >Radiant< 08:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse without prejudice to relisting. For all practical purposes Ten Pound Hammer might as well be considered an admin; his RfA failed only by a smidgen and his closures tend to be mostly reasonable and non-controversial. I agree that certain parts of the article are OR, but the argument that classifying X is persecution is, at best, extremely shaky, and was rejected by almost all of the AfD participants. Likewise with the WP:NPOV connection. A clear majority favored keeping the article, and there were no clear policy violations to justify doing otherwise. The standard five day duration was followed properly. I think your concern that the arguments from other AfDs apply is valid, but that concern was voiced in this AfD already, and it seems most editors were not convinced that the similarities were strong enough. At most we might pseudo-merge the three AfDs giving more weight to the Christianity one (having the most specificity), in which case it seems like a no consensus would result. The consensus was a definite keep by a margin of 7-8 voters -- perhaps it was close to the borderline of keep and no consensus, but I can't see a case for closing this as delete. — xDanielx^Talk 09:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Whether he's an admin is irrelevant; the point is that his closing is biased, because he expressed an opinion in this debate. You make the common mistake of confusing "consensus" with "vote count". >Radiant< 10:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Please consult a dictionary before criticizing my use of language. "Consensus" does not translate to "the argument Mamalujo fancies most." I didn't say that the AfD process was strictly a vote count, but pretending that voting has little relevance to consensus is just ludicrous. — xDanielx^Talk 21:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral comment: people who participate in a discussion should not close them, regardless of whether they are admins or not. And I say this as someone who has a great deal of rspect for Ten Pound Hammer. Corvus cornix 17:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ensorse closure as being the correct call, but hand TPH a bucket of trout for doing so - it's highly improper for someone to close a discussion when they've participated, and it's also pretty improper for a non-admin to close a contentious debate at all. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, it was a mistake to close it, in retrospect. I really jumped the gun, and I apologize for my actions -- keep in mind that my closure was just based on my misinterpretation, and confusion of consensus with vote count. And my otters say thanks for the trout. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• No big deal, it happens. I don't know any AFD relisted, probably because I am not so active in AFDs, so my opinion might be contradictory to the consensus (if exists), but let me tell you that in my opinion relisting will make this situation worse, we would be discarding votes of those people. I think this AFD should just be reclosed based on the votes on the AFD page (I did not vote there). If the final decision here turns out to be to 'relist', then one of us should contact all the voters and inform them about the situation. Deniz^T_C 20:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Time for a speedy relist I think. Closing editor has retracted and apologized (the latter which s/he is to me commended for), so we can proceed with an AFD now. It is worth noting, though, that the relisting of this AFD is a little dubious. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 00:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Another damned that you didn't problem. Carlossuarez46 03:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Feel no need reopen this .Too much of OR. Harlowraman 16:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse The outcome wouldn't have changed anyway. Feel free to relist it but then all "Persecution by..." should be listed together. No point in singling out a specific religion. // Liftarn 11:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Although I am quite unhappy that Persecution by Muslims got deleted and Persecution by Christians did not. From my work on the article I can say that there is a notable debate on Religious Persecution from a Christian perspective and I strongly suspect that there is something similar from a Muslim perspective, with different terminology however. Only the Jews did not need to debate this since they were a minority religion for 2000 years. The article Persecution by Jews really needed to be deleted, but I would have preferred to keep the Persecution by Muslim article. If you want something more to be deleted here, start with the religious persecution template. Zara1709 17:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Same problems as with Historical persecution by Jews, Historical persecution by Muslims.Proabivouac 08:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse There are no valid arguments to delete this article. It needs more work, but so do many other wikipedia aritcles. If this should get relisted, the two deleted Persecution articles should be relisted too, so that they can also be kept. --Voidocore 14:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse retention There was no consensus to delete, and this is an important topic. AshbyJnr 18:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)