Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 1

{{drvlinks|pg=topcity.org|ns=article}})

Admin deleted article under A7, yet the article meets the stated criteria for notability and secondary sources.

I attempted to discuss the issue with the admin, but he would not

provide a reasonable explanation for why the sources did not qualify. He ended the discussion by actually proving my argument. He said that "Wiki welcomes mainstream news sources" and then went on to dismiss my sources, which were from two established newspaper.

This is my first article, and I would be happy to fix any problems, but I reviewed the instructions before I posted it, and the reasons for deletion does not seem to fit the Wiki guidelines. Furthermore, I am a little put-out that the admin would be so quick too delete the article and refer it to DFR process instead of supporting his reasons for deletions in a reasonable manner.

Most people would not call defining the only daily newspaper for a state capital as "hardly significant" or not a "mainstream" news source.

I'm not sure how to link the discussion between myself and the admin, so I am pasting it verbatim:

Speedy Deletion of Topcity.org

The entry has two secondary sources from recognized publications. It meets the criteria for notability. Please reinstate it.

Thanks

Hairoddohtus (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC) harioddohtus

:I'm sorry, no. The article read like a total promo piece, and as the site was only created in October, I hardly believe it has encyclopedic notability. The two sources you cite, one of which is a university newspaper, are hardly significant, and don't demonstrate encyclopedic notability. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but your reasoning is not supported by the criteria for secondary sources. The Wahburn Review has been in print for well over a century and has a weekly readership of over 5,000. The second source is from the Capital-Journal's radio program hosted by Jim Cates, a well-known local radio personality, and program is hosted on www.cjonline.com, a major website with over 300,000 unique reades a month, not to mention tens of thousands of daily print readers.

Since you're so quick on the gun to delete, please cite WHY how the sources do not meet Wikipedia's criteria as secondary sources. All you have done is given unsupported opinion to justify an arbitray deletion.

Secondly, I don't remember anything under the notability criteria that listed time as a determining factor for notability. Your logic seems to suggest that a subject cannot be notable unless it has been existence for a set period of time. Can you cite your source for that, so I can mark my calendar for when when the article should be reinstated?

Thirdly, I was coming back to to do a second draft when I saw the deletion. I'd be happy to tighten the writing, but frankly, your reasons for deletions are not credible. If you won't neutrally apply the wiki guidelines, please forward this conversation to whichever entity reviews contested articles.

Hairoddohtus (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

hairoddohtus

:You are welcome to take this to deletion review. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 02:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the deletion review guidelines, I am supposed to try and work it out with you. You are not being very helpful. Please tell me why the secondary sources aren't good. If you can demonstrate they are through the Wiki guidleines then I will graciously concede the matter.

However, you really should clarify why two established news sources are "hardly significant."

Thanks

Hairoddohtus (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC) hairoddohtus

:Our policy indicates "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press." What you've provided are two very minor, local news reports that cover a subject of local interest. I don't consider that to meet the bar. When I said that you're welcome to take it to DRV, that means you've met your obligation to try and work it out with me, and that you are free to post it there. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 02:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I messed up the code on the review page, so I am posting what I wrote here. Perhaps you can use your expansive admin powers to fix it for me?

Reason to Undelete ---------

Admin deleted article under A7, yet the article meets the stated criteria for notability and secondary sources.

I attempted to discuss the issue with the admin, but he would not provide a reasonable explanation for why the sources did not qualify. He ended the discussion by actually proving my argument. He said that "Wiki welcomes mainstream news sources" and then went on to dismiss my sources, which were from two established newspaper.

This is my first article, and I would be happy to fix any problems, but I reviewed the instructions before I posted it, and the reasons for deletion does not seem to fit the Wiki guidelines. Furthermore, I am a little put-out that the admin would be so quick to delete the article and refer it to deletion review process instead of supporting his reasons for deletion in a reasonable manner. That's actually an abuse of process, not to mention a waste of time and energy.

Most people would not call the admin's opinion that the only daily newspaper of a state capital is "hardly significant" and "not a mainstream news source" as reasonable or credible.

Thanks.

Hairoddohtus (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairoddohtus (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Hairoddohtus (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, websites like this are ten a penny. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. GlassCobra 17:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, wikipedia admins are far better qualified to judge the reliability of sources than an inexperienced newcomer and there's no point wasting the community's time with this. Furthermore, whether or not this thing scrapes past the GNG, as Stifle puts it, websites like it are ten a penny and just don't belong in a general encylopedia. Recommend that our newbie friend goes away and looks for a community more indulgent of its time being wasted than this one. Benefix (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• :I invite you to amend that statement per WP:BITE. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• ::OK I apologize for the "NOOB" thing it was uncalled for. However the fact remains that there is a reason that this community puts its trust in an admin and if people aren't prepared to accept the judgement of senior members without all this fuss they are likely to find their time at Wikipedia to be something of a bitter experience. Finding another project to which to contribute would be best for all concerned. Benefix (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, NN website --rogerd (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as the original deleter. In case anyone cares, my rationale is that it was, at best, a website with local area interest only. Two sources were presented, one was a college newspaper, and one was an audio file from the website of the city's main newspaper. The later would have credibility to me if it dealt with a subject of more than just local interest, but as it was, I did not believe that it rose to the level of "significant" coverage as outlined in WP:N and WP:RS. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the could to endore publication, but consider this notice of such:

Stifle: Please link me to ten websites that are similar. Your implied ad-hominem attack on the publication's originality is irrelevant to the argument. In addition, your statement is unqualified, unsupported and has no merit regarding notability or secondary sources, which is the issue of discussion. Please stifle any further unhelpful commentary.

GlassCobra: Is there a minimum number of secondary sources needed? Link, please.

Benefix: Another ad-hominem attack. If you're representative of the Wikipedia community, then the feelings of casual contempt are mutual, my misinformed acquaintance. Secondly, the title of "admin" does denote anything beyond more user privileges. As far as this issue is concerned, I feel that the admin's actions were unreasonable, unhelpful and an abuse of the review process. He made no sincere attempt to answer my questions or support his rationale beyond a Wiki source that undermined his own position.

Ackradecki: Please support your contention that either of those sources do not fit the qualification of a secondary source. You seem to be saying that daily newspapers and university newspapers do not fit the bill. Is that what you're saying? Because if so, I did not see anything in Wiki's guidelines for secondary sources to support that.

Now I've more than supported my arguments, and I've answered what little I've been given back. Unless someone can demonstrate that the sources aren't qualified as secondary, it seems to me the conditions are met for publication. That was, after all, the reason the admin speedily deleted it instead of giving me a chacne to correct any perceived failings.

Hairoddohtus (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• The thing here is that AFD is not only time consuming, it is also unreliable. It does not always reflect the fact that it is not the policies which are important but best practice, something which senior wikipedians are most familiar with. It's quite possible that, based on the evidence given AFD and policies as written, AFD would end up with the wrong answer. That's why it's best to nip this in the bud right here, not least because to have one's judgement overturned at AFD would cause great loss of face to an esteemed member of the community. Benefix (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: ad hominem consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. Stifle (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - rather than argue, I will merely quote our policy: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to verify some of the article's content." In this case, I don't see the coverage as "significant", and I don't see it as more than "local". A college newspaper is simply not a major media source. The only other source is a local one, and the appeal is local only. Thus, it fails. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

{{drvlinks|pg=List of common emoticons|ns=}})

Recently, this article has been lined up for deletion, but the internet loves this page, google: "List of Common Emoticons" and you'll see many people enjoy this page, deleting it is deleting part of internet culture. Restore it to its original glory please. =] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezeah (talk • contribs)

: Fixed the nom and found the page is still in place, though was briefly deleted and is now at AFD. Nothing to do here. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

{{drvlinks|pg=Assyrian Christian Stele|ns=Article}})

The primary reason for the AFD was a complete lack of WP:RS and therefore a case of WP:OR. These serious problems were not addressed by those wanting to keep, merge, or redirect the article. The creating user still has not provided any reliable sources, and this violation stills hold true.

The article "Assyrian Christian Stele" was created on Jan. 5 by a user claiming it was the "correct" name for Nestorian Stele. He cited a source which supposedly used this name. Following AGF, I waited until I received a copy of the work cited through ILL, only to discover that the user was quite incorrect, and the author of this work used the term "Nestorian" was well. I then spent a considerable amount of time examining many other sources, including both online and many printed sources in my university library, and found not one single source using this term. Any uses of this name online are copies of this original Wikipedia article. I can't think of a more clear case of WP:OR. I almost listed it for speedy delete, but decided to go with AFD to give the user in question another chance to find just one source that uses this term.

The AFD was open for five days. The closing admin (MBisanz) claimed "consensus" existed for a redirect. This "consensus" is: 3 deletes (counting myself), 1 keep from the user who created the page (but has never provided sources), another keep only if the sources were correct (which they aren't) and 2 merges/redirects from users who seemed to think this was a naming dispute, and not a WP:OR violation. I discussed on MBisanz's talk page how the keep/merge/redirect votes failed to address the lack of sources (or seemed to assume there were sources and that this AFD was a naming dispute), and how the WP:OR and WP:RS issues were still not resolved. He claimed a redirect was better than a closure of "no consensus" - again, not addressing the OR problem here.

Even as a redirect, this article title completely fails WP:RS and clearly violates WP:OR. I would like to re-list to more clearly explain the problems with this title and the purpose for the AFD, and make sure that the resolution of these two serious issues, one way or another, is the focus of the AFD. Otebig (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• support relist per nom, this was clearly a delete-or-keep issue. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

:The deleting editor has misrepresented the facts. The work cited, Henry Hill, Light from the East, was cited to prove the name "Nestorian" was pejorative. Hill does NOT use the term "Nestorian Stele" to describe the stone, or at least not in the 1988 edition I possess. Hill rightly corrects the misuse of the term "Nestorian" with respect to the Assyrian Church of the East, the church which is described on that stele. That is how Hill's work reads and that is correct. The scholarship the deleting editor refers to is from the first half of the 20th century or older and is now discredited in scholarly circles dealing with this topic as obsolete. The deleting editor was requested not to delete the article until the opportunity arose to consult with the national university library which was closed at the time. The deleting editor decided not to accede to that request and quickly deleted the article without consensus. The 1911 Britannica is hardly a reliable piece of up-to-date scholarship, and the anti-Assyrian propaganda of western European missionaries of the 19th and 20th century is certainly not NPOV. Kevin Baker, A History of the Orthodox Church in China, Korea, and Japan, Edwin Mellen Press, 2006, ISBN 0-7734-5886-7, p36-37, avoids the pejorative term "Nestorian" and instead says "This stele was discovered by a Jesuit archeologist in 1625, at a site near Xi'an, the current name for the ancient capital, and hence the reason for its appelation as the "Xi'an Stone", (or sometimes in the older spelling style "Hsi-an"). The more recent more reliable scholarship I have which describes the stone as the Assyrian Christian Stele is not written in English. Some is written in Syriac and some in Arabic. Finding English usages is problematic. Since the deleting editor is so fixed on removing the article at the earliest possible time without consensus, I suppose the article will be made to disappear again before the long and involved search is completed for a reliable, contemporary English scholarly presentation which does not use the word "Nestorian" to tag the stone. The article should remain to allow scholarly research to proceed rather than quick internet searches of obsolete discredited heresiology. Gubernatoria (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

::Clearly there's still a discussion to be had here, and I'd love to respond and deal with the issues in a re-list.Otebig (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• There was not a consensus to delete this page, but I think redirecting was entirely wrong here, and would overturn that and relist at AFD. Stifle (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

:There was in fact a majority for deletion versus the other votes. If scholarship can be found, of course it warrants recreation, but not until then, it is OR until it can be broperly and reliably sourced. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse There wasn't a consensus to delete or to keep. There was a consensus that the article shouldn't exist as it was, and a redirect was a logical outcome directing the editors involved to resolve their differences with the history intact. A no consensus close would have gone against more of the editors who offered their opinions. A bold and wise close. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

:While I want to wait until a re-list to get into the details, it needs to be clearly stressed again and again (since so many people seem to not understand this) that what we have here is not an issue of differences among users over which naming convention is more correct. It is that one user (Gubernatoria) has created a title for this historical object which is never used in a single reliable source (either presented by the user or researched by me). THAT is what this entire AFD (and re-listing request) was/is about. This is an WP:OR issue, not a WP:NAME or WP:NAMECON issue. Otebig (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse, closing rationale seems sound to me. ChildOfMidnight puts it well. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support relist (or deletion) Why would we even have a redirect for an inaccurate name? This is almost awarding OR. dougweller (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

{{drvlinks|pg=Ikariam|ns=}})

This article was speedily deleted under A7, though I don't believe it should have been. It indicated why the subject was notable, and was backed up by a numer of reliable secondary sources [http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/review/R123428.html] [http://www.planet-geek.com/archives/004441.html] [http://www.casualtygamer.com/2008/08/browser-based-gaming-ikariam-review/] [http://www.mpogd.com/news/?ID=3962]. The admin who deleted them says he doesn't regard them as reliable, though they meet the definition prescisely; Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. These reviews were published by well known and respected gaming web sites, who of course are trustworthy and authoritative in the subject at hand. Besides, even if it is decided that this isn't notable, this should have gone to AfD rather than been speedied, because it certainly doesn't meet A7. The article can be viewed here Patton^t/c 12:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and list. If you are arguing about the sources then it requires discussion to delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• While Accounting4Taste's talk message suggests that this article has been through two AFDs, I can't find them. As such, overturn and send to AFD. I'd be inclined to change if the previous AFDs were pointed out. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• The article clearly has enough sources to warrant at least an AfD. I'd even say, given [http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/924/924131p1.html this] and [http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/review/R123428.html this], DRV doesn't even need to mandate an AfD. seresin ( ¡? )  22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• :I would question the reliability of those sources. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• ::What are you questioning about them? Why aren't they reliable? seresin ( ¡? )  23:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• :::The IGN article admits that it's only taking a cursory view, and gamefaqs is based around user-created content. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral I'm not sure if it was a valid speedy or not (not an area I've had much to do with), but what I will say is that based on these sources it is unlikely that this will be overturned at AFD. GameFAQs reviews are 'reader reviews' posted by visitors to the site and are not reliable in any sense. Planet Geek is very shaky indeed and even if reliability was demonstrated it is not a substantial piece. Casualty Gamer is little more than a personal blog, one which I would love to use because it covers the kind of games which are difficult to get reviews for, but I don't use it because there is no indication that the writers have any kind of background in games journalism, again back to reliability. MPOGD is a funnel-site, basically a database of online games which have a short description, just because it's called a review doesn't mean that it will be accepted as an authoratitive piece. I'd keep an open mind if it did hit AFD but this proposal is very unconvincing. Someoneanother 17:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

:*RPGVault is regularly used and IMO reliable, but the article itself emphasizes that it is based on a shorter amount of time playing than usual reviews and contains very little genuine analysis, it's an informative piece rather than a review which diminishes its value, unfortunately. Someoneanother 17:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Short version of the above: GameFAQs reviews are never usable, ever, no opposition to relisting at AFD but the above sources don't justify overturning to keep. Someoneanother 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep the article at User:Patton123/Ikariam for now, until it can be brought up to basic stub status. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD Based on the version in Patton's userspace, this should not have been speedied as it made several indications of importance (tens of thousands of players, positive reviews) and referenced independent coverage at several websites, some of which look at least moderately credible. Whether they're credible enough to meet WP:RS is a question which is worth asking, but that's a matter for an Afd, not a reason for a speedy. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, userfied version is still well short of readiness for prime time, so that can serve for now. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

{{drvlinks|pg=British National Party election results|ns=Article}})

Page was deleted with minimal discussion and spurious reasons from original nominator. One contributor even commented that "I can't think of what criteria this breaks." The page WAS unreferenced, but this could have been addressed in a matter of minutes and has now been done (see: User:Emeraude/British National Party election results). It was also described as unencyclopaedic (with no reason given) and as a violation of BLP policy - absolute nonsense that would mean the deletion of every article that named a candidate in any democratic election!

The same "debate" also resulted in deletion of British National Front election results; revised version is at User:Emeraude/British National Front election results. I would also like to include that in this request for reinstatement on the same grounds. Emeraude (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The first couple of sections only mention the paper and the date, a proper source also mentions page numbers and article headlines (or if it is online URL and headlines). The idea that there are no parallel entries for other parties is a faulty reason since if such article should exist, one has to be the first. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn Minimal discussion for deletion and the page can easily be sourced. For example results from 1983 onwards are [http://www.election.demon.co.uk/ online here] and results prior to that [http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/edates.htm online here] Valenciano (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Allow recreation provided every entry is properly sourced. Unsourced content should be removed, and if the entire article is unsourced it should be deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

::Note Entire contents of both articles is sourced - see versions on my user pages indicated above. Emeraude (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Have a look at WP:CITE. PhilKnight (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn Minimal discussion for deletion. From what I have seen of the NF test page it would make a fine article, if the BNP article would be of the same quality then that too would be worthy. The NF article documents the rise and fall of a far-right British party, perhaps this could be better done with text or graphs but they could be added onto this skeleton article quite easily.-EchetusXe (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? I would also be grateful to have details of why this nomination was made only now for an AFD over four months ago. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• I did not omit a request to the admn: See User talk:MBisanz/Archive 4#Undeletion request. Why has it taken me a while? Come on, there is more to life than Wikipedia!! Emeraude (talk)
• Thank you. Endorse deletion as a unanimous decision; nothing has been pointed out to indicate that the deletion policy wasn't followed. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse but allow recreation of a reliably sourced version. There was a clear consensus to delete at AfD based on established policies including those on verifiablility and biographies of living people; a reliably sourced version would seem to largely satisfy the issues brought up and would require a new AfD discussion if a user thought the content should still be deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn. Apart from the bizarre "I can't think of what criteria this breaks" (but let's delete it anyway), the only rationale offered was that the article was unsourced. The correct response to an unsourced article is to tag it as {{tl|unreferenced}}, and move to deletion only if references are not forthcoming after a period of time. A few simple checks would have shown that the article could quite easily be sourced, and since there were only three responses to the nomination and none of them addressed this crucial question, the closing admin should have relisted rather than closing as "delete". Whether or not the original decision is overturned, I see no reason to oppose restoration of the version to which Emeraude has now added references. The article should use tags rather than listing sources in the table, but that's a stylistic tweak. Congrats to Emeraude on rescuing this article, which serves an important encylopedic purpose of tracking the electoral fortunes of a highly controversial minority party. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn per BrownHairedGirl.--John (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comments BrownHairedGirl. I take on board your point about and that's easy to do. Can I ask that contributors note that I have requested that two articles be reinstated, since both were deleted by the same AfD in the first place. Emeraude (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Closing admin If there are sources, then sure recreate it, but at the time of the AFD it was unanimous in support of deletion and did run the full five days. MBisanz ^talk 15:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Thank you. I will recreate and incorporate the helpful suggestions made above. The original AfD debate was, as you say, unanimous. That does not make it correct. Also, I was away from Wikipdeia for severeal weeks at the time so the five-day spell was irrelevant. As contributors here have noted, the arguments used then were totally flawed and there was no attempt made to invite editors of the articles to give their views. I am aware that this is a courtesy, not a requirement, but it would have been useful if the original closing admin had taken any of this into account. Emeraude (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I share the concern that the closing admin relied on unanimity. Unanimous support for invalid reason is not grounds for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• If anyone cares, I've sent the revised version back to AfD as I think it violates WP:UNDUE. We don't (and hopefully never will - they would be immense) have articles on election results for other British parties, however revolting they might be. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

{{drvlinks|pg=Power Chamber|ns=}})

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for less than four days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, the closure was also erroneous in that the principal argument for deletion - the lack of independent reliable sources, as required by both WP:V as well as the proposed compromise guideline WP:FICT - was not addressed by any of the "keep" opinions and that accordingly, the discussion should have been closed as "delete". The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least one more day.  Sandstein  09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Relist. In this case an early closure was inappropriate because fiction is a highly controversial topic and likely to attract people with another opinion if the discussion was left open. The keep voters also didn't address the fact none of the sources were independent. A certain degree of primary sourcing is unavoidable in fiction, but those sources shouldn't be the only thing an article relies on. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• I admit that I messed up my days (hence my early closures on that particular day), but I still feel there was a clear consensus. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• With only the nominator arguing for deletion there could have been no way to close as delete. Endorse current state of affairs, although perhaps not the way we got there. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure It wasn't going anywhere in one more day, and JulianColton just mixed up his days (which is easy to do with UTC). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

{{drvlinks|pg=List of Mariah Carey tours|ns=}})

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only about four days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, is not inconceivable that continued discussion would have resulted in a "merge" consensus instead of a "keep" that is not really supported by the three comments that were made. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least two more days.  Sandstein  09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse keep closure. The nominator nominated the page for being too short, and the commenters rightly said that it was appropriate to spin out material if it makes the main article too long. If this is going to be relisted, it needs to be for another reason, or after more than 2-3 months. In my view this is a proper application of IAR. (If the main article doesn't contain references, it could be renominated per WP:V) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse though trout slap closer for needlessly ignoring the correct debate timeframe. Endorse only on the basis that there is no valid reason for deletion in the nomination - Peripitus (Talk) 11:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per above. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per above. Nobody except the nominator wanted this deleted. The list of concerts of one of the biggest pop singers is certainly a Keep. The article may need more refs. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

{{drvlinks|pg=Fallout: The Health Impact of 9/11|ns=}})

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only about three days instead of five days. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, is not inconceivable that someone would have provided the sources needed for keeping the article during the almost two days the debate had still left to run. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least two more days.  Sandstein  09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Relist. While it was appropriate to ignore the keep comments in this particular case, because they cited google hits instead of actual content, closing it 2 days early was a mistake because it doesn't allow people with proper keep arguments to make their case. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Relist per MGM - contested Afd with 2 days cut from the debate - procedurally poor - Peripitus (Talk) 11:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per above. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'd reflist this one. I'm not convinced that the discussion was very deep. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

{{drvlinks|pg=...Fuck It?!|ns=}})

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only four days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, is not inconceivable that someone would have provided the sources needed for keeping the article during the day the debate had still left to run, or that a merger would have been decided upon. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least one more day.  Sandstein  09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn. Almost everyone, including the nominator, only cited one of the numerous WP:MUSIC guidelines that indicate notability, which means they weren't thourough in assessing the article's potential. And with the nominator saying a merge is potentially possible that the idea that deletion should be a last resort wasn't applied. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn per Mgm.--EchetusXe (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse delete I endorse Julian's decision. The result of the debate is obvious, 4 days are enough, consensus has been determined correctly. No need for overturning. — Aitias // discussion 18:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• How exactly is ignoring 11 criteria and cherrypicking one to support your view in any way proper? - Mgm|^(talk) 00:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, the closure is very clear. No one thought it should be kept; why would it be closed as such? Wizardman 04:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, nobody opposed the deletion, so restoring it only to go through another five days' discussion and delete it again is process for process's sake. I would encourage Juliancolton not to do this again though. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - Good enough. I'm sure he'll be more careful in the future. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

{{drvlinks|pg=Indus Center for Academic Excellence|ns=}}) (AfD 2)

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only four days and two hours instead of five days. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, is not inconceivable that someone would have provided the sources needed for keeping the article during the 22 hours the debate had still left to run. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least one more day.  Sandstein  09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn. There were multiple sources provided which several editors thought indicated notability for the center. Some didn't agree. The fact that opinions were divided amongst established editors and discussion was still ongoing are a clear sign that this shouldn't have been closed early. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Reopen for the remainder of the debate (Mgm may be looking at the first Afd which was contested). This one was one nominator and 2 agreeing. While it is still likely that it will be closed delete, I agree with Sandstein that the early closure was unnecessary and possibly destructive - Peripitus (Talk) 11:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

:*I've now linked to the contested discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indus Center for Academic Excellence (2nd nomination). Sorry.  Sandstein  12:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. Yes, technically it should've been open another day, but the close was right. Wizardman 19:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I seem to have commented on the wrong AFD, but I stand by my decision. A nomination in which the nominator says "I'm not interested in sorting out this article and it seems nobody else is either." boils down to WP:NOEFFORT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, both extremely bad reasons to delete something. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse as there was no opposition to deletion. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

{{drvlinks|pg=American Mayor(film)|ns=}})

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only four days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, is not inconceivable that someone would have provided the sources needed for keeping the article during the day the debate had still left to run. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least one more day.  Sandstein  09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion and relist. In this case Julian isn't the only one to blame, what he deleted was a redirect to a page deleted by User:Woody, but Woody deleted American Mayor (film) as a G4 speedy when the new version didn't in the slightest resemble the originally deleted entry. In the discussion closed by Julian Two people mistakenly called it a hoax and only one editor bothred to research. One editor is not enough to establish consensus. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, the close is good, even though it was closed a little early. Outcome would've been the same. Wizardman 19:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

{{drvlinks|pg=Nader bell|ns=}})

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only four days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, is not inconceivable that someone would have provided the sources needed for keeping the article during the day the debate had still left to run. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least one more day.  Sandstein  09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. The debate was a tad on the short side, but the editors didn't just pile on. Comments were well-researched and it was a clear case of SNOW. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, restoring would be process wonky. If anyone actually has the sources (rather than saying someone might find them), I might be inclined to change my view. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Well, DRV is the place to be process wonky, is it not? This is, after all, the place dedicated to reviewing violations of deletion process. If we don't do that, why do we bother with policy any more?  Sandstein  15:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• To be clearer, I don't see a point in relisting and putting the article through another deletion process only for it to be deleted again. Saying that there are sources is a lot different to citing them. Stifle (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• The point is us confirming that our deletion policy is a policy, not just a suggestion. At the AN thread linked to above, somebody pointed out that a majority of AfDs seem to be closed early now, which is unfair to all editors who are not given a chance to comment, and which will tend to decrease the quality of AfD outcomes. If we don't overturn such out-of-process deletions here at DRV, we might just as well give up the pretension that this is not AfD round 2 conducted by an in-crowd.  Sandstein  20:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• DRV works much like any appelate court, simple error doesn't demand reversal unless prejudice can be shown. Because we are not a beauracracy the threschold for prejudice is rather high but it's certainly possible to reach. If there is a reasonable chance that the outcome would be different following the correct process it should be relisted and done right, if not no point in taking up more time at AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• I seem to hail from a different jurisdiction. Where I live, courts of appeal do overturn verdicts if they find any error, whether intentional or not, if the error is relevant to the outcome. But this is not a court of law, this is a discussion about whether deletion policy should be taken seriously or not.  Sandstein  20:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, it would've been the same outcome anyway. Wizardman 19:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse no need for process wonkery Secret ^account 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per Eluchil404; the appeal does not show any sign of success; proper WP:SNOW closure. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

{{drvlinks|pg=Heroes of Might and Magic IV: Winds of War|ns=}})

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only about three and a half days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, is not inconceivable that continued discussion would have resulted in a "merge" consensus instead of a "keep" that is not really supported by the two comments that were made. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least two more days.  Sandstein  09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. It appears there was a prior consensus for a merge. If consensus merges are repeatedly undone, the resulting redirect can be protected. Either way, we don't need to reopen a deletion debate to establish whether a merge is appropriate. The important thing is that the material is kept and still available to merge if so desired (there's not a snowball's chance in hell of a deletion outcome since the history needs to be retained because of the previous merge. While a merge may be the outcome of a deletion debate, opening a debate to specifically discuss a merge is not what AFD is supposed to be used for. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, relisting would be process for process's sake. If the nominator, or anyone else, feels that a merger is in order, they can do so or start a discussion on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per Stifle. Merge discussions should be taken up elsewhere. GlassCobra 17:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, closure is valid despite it being a lil early. Wizardman 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per Wizardman. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

{{drvlinks|pg=Allegations of state terrorism by Israel|ns=}})

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only about three days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, the topic is a very controversial one, and while the deletion looks prima facie reasonable based on the discussion as it stands (though it is not clear why WP:POVFORK, invoked without further comment by many, is a reason to delete instead of, say, merge), many semi-regular editors who might have contributed better arguments for either retention or deletion have been deprived of that opportunity. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least two more days.  Sandstein  09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Relist. It's inadvisable to speedy close discussions on controversial topics. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Relist - the debate was not dead, the time was not up and the closure was inadvised - Peripitus (Talk) 11:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, and good riddance. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Relist no grounds for closing early, especially on controversial topics we should ensure full time is allowed for discussion. Davewild (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Relist per Davewild, and how can there be an article on this for the USA and not Israel? Only bias can possibly explain that, as for everytime the USA has been called a terrorist state Israel has been called a terrorist state another 50 times.--EchetusXe (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, I don't think two more days would have rescued it. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - there was a clear consensus to delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse no need to process wonkery if closed a few hours early, obvious consensus there. Secret ^account 17:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse no need to do process for process' sake, this was never going to be a keeper based on the debate. Good close. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Endorse although due to the controversial nature of the article, I would have preferred it to complete a full five-day cycle. Horologium (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Lesson is probably learned, but it's a waste of time to send it back to AfD. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

{{drvlinks|pg=Saint Pancake|ns=Article}})

Redirect was G10 deleted, despite multiple editors arguing that it was not solely an attack page. Black Kite has declined to undelete and has encouraged me to seek review here. Redirect should be restored and then listed at RfD. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Discussion Rachel Corrie is a controversial individual. Since her death, she has been called many impolite things. LittleGreenFootballs apparently started calling her Saint Pancake a goodly number of years ago, and the term has stuck. There's plenty examples of Corrie being called Saint Pancake on any number of right-wing blogs, user comments pages of Ha'aretz, and the like. The two redirects, Saint Pancake and St. Pancake each existed peacefully for over three years, before being spotted and tagged as G10's. The arguments in favor of or against the redirect being appropriate for Wikipedia are nuanced, and Wp:RfD is really the right place for them. The inappropriate and preemptive use of G10 against a redirect that exists as a redirect from an alternate (admittedly disparaging) name has quashed that debate.

:Therefore, I believe it is most appropriate to overturn and send to Redirects for Discussion. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn I was really quite surprised by the peremptory nature of the deletion even as discussion was ongoing as to its merits on several forums. I believe RfD is definitely the right place to hash it out. Ray (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• List at RfD and discuss it properly. Not all that obvious a G10. Though I think I incline to delete at the moment, we need a discussion.DGG (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted and salt CSD G10 applies fully. We should nothave to reach consensus on this. Its an attack, and it doesn't belong here. Or are we playing Nomic and if we like an attack we ignore CSD G10?--Cerejota (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note Saint Pancake was already unilateraly salted by Black Kite subsequent to its deletion. St. Pancake remains unsalted at this point. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and salt. Shit like that has no place here. --TS 07:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The "Saint Pancake" epithet is not mentioned (let alone sourced) in the article Rachel Corrie, which makes the redirect disparaging and a legitimate G10 subject. Were it otherwise, though, a RfD would have been necessary.  Sandstein  09:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse as a G10 deletion. We don't use blog-sourced only epithets as redirects - Peripitus (Talk) 11:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Hmm, which to choose? Pseudo-bureaucratic waffling in support of grotesque childish mockery of the dead, or simple human decency? Not hard, really. Endorse deletion and salt. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse as a G10 (note: my own deletion). WP:CSD#G10 clearly states "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage ... their subject or some other entity". Since the name only exists in unreliable sources (i.e. the blogosphere - it has no Google News hits whatsoever) and serves no purpose but to disparage Corrie, then the page can only exist for the same purpose, and therefore this is as clear a textbook G10 as I have ever seen. Black Kite 14:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment That is an excellent argument for an RfD, one that I will admit is the strongest one I've heard for deletion, and one of the reasons this redirect should get its "day in court" in RfD. Sourcing concerns are not properly the domain of CSD's. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as a clear attack page. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Whether or not Saint Pancake is a legitimate G10 is not a conversation for DRV. The only thing necessary for a G10 CSD (or any CSD, for that matter) to be overturned is that editors disagree with the appropriateness of G10. None of the "keep deleted/endorse" votes address this fundamental flaw in process and should be discarded by the closing admin. DRV is not the place for arguments over reliable sources; RfD is. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• So whether it's a legitimate G10 isn't an issue for DRV, but whether it's an inappropriate one is? Doesn't that strike you as pretty flawed? Regardless, most of the Endorse votes have commented that it was a legitimate G10 per policy, regardless of sourcing, and as such should not be discarded. Black Kite 16:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Uh, come again? If I accept what you're saying, please explain what circumstances would lead "keep deleted/endorse" !votes to be valid. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Stifle, that would require a finding that every single editor who's objected to the G10 has been doing so in bad faith. I think that is an unreasonable finding, since I've made it clear that I believe it's a legitimate redirect, acknowledged its offensiveness, and argued at length on the NPOV noticeboard why the rationales given for deletion are inappropriate and not based on policy. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Jclemens seems to be saying that CSD should work like prod and any speedy deletion should be overturned based on a single good faith objection. This is, of course, not hoe the process actually works. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Eluchil404, thanks for actually understanding the issue. Yes, since three editors have argued that it should get a fair hearing at RfD, the WP:CSD "reasonable doubt" clause applies: "These criteria are worded narrowly, so that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." Every !vote to keep this deleted is either an inappropriate deviation from policy, or an accusation that I am acting in bad faith. If it's the latter, I'd really rather people explicitly stated the latter--else I'm left to presume in good faith that the emotional reactions to the offensive nature of the redirect have blinded otherwise reasonable editors to the clear requirements that CSD's not be contested. Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Ah, I see the misunderstanding. A "contested CSD" is one where the CSD tag is removed before the deletion. If the page is actually deleted, then DRV is the correct venue, and Endorse, Overturn and Send to XfD are completely valid responses. Just because someone objects to a deletion at DRV does not make that CSD "contested". Black Kite 00:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• To further amplify my response, if you look at WP:CSD or the section of it that I quoted above, the word "contested" is not used in that section, let alone used in the technical sense of removing a speedy tag. It merely speaks to a reasonable doubg existing. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Without accusing you of bad faith, since I honestly believe you did what you thought was best, I undeleted the redirect once. If that didn't demonstrate that it was appropriately contested, what would have? Note that G10's are often acted upon within seconds or minutes--requiring that someone notice and respond within that time period is unreasonable. Technically, re-deleting a redirect that another admin had restored is WP:Wheel warring. Again, I believe you did so in good faith, but there can be no inherent legitimacy for such an action. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• I re-deleted a page deleted as an G10 attack page, which had been restored without consulting the deleting admin, with an edit summary that showed that you misunderstood the reason for deleting it (BLP is irrelevant). I'm still assuming good faith here, but adding that to your recent comments at ANI about "those who believe such disparagement should be accurately reflected in an NPOV encyclopedia" I have to ask (especially since you asked the question at ANI) - why do you think this redirect has merit? Black Kite 01:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) You re-deleted an article another admin (me) had undeleted: that's WP:wheel warring as is specifically called out on that page. Wheel warring is like 3RR--there's a clear definition of the boundary, and you crossed it--again, I'm not calling it a bad faith action, merely one not permitted by administrators' mutual expectation collegial respect for admin actions of others. I'd left comments amplifying my reasoning for both [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike_R&diff=prev&oldid=267439903 the G10 nominator] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dlohcierekim&diff=prev&oldid=267440342 the deleting admin], (prior to your re-deletion, I believe) in addition to the space-limited edit summary. As far as my personal motivations, I happen to live in Washington State, where the term is probably better known than most places. It has a legitimate use as a redirect, such that if people go to Wikipedia looking for Saint Pancake, they can find her, while not actually being in the article such that people who hadn't previously been exposed to the name won't be unless they select "what links here". If you'll look at my contributions on Wikipedia, I think you'll find me very anti-censorship, and that politely opposing the removal of a perfectly good redirect is well within character. "Desparate" is an inappropriate characterization. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Given the evidence that the only place that someone will encounter this are on sites explicitly referencing and mocking the person in question, the notion that said someone will need to turn to Wikipedia to understand it doesn't hold any water. Wikipedia exists to document usage, not promote it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry, but how did the redirects promote the usage? They existed for over three years each, during which time any number of people attempted to add the epithets to the Rachel Corrie article and were rebuffed. If everyone who heard "Saint Pancake" ever knew that it referred to Corrie, why was the redirect used so frequently? 12 times a month is not insignificant redirect usage for a page that was not linked to and referenced an event that had happened 4+ years ago. Oh, and [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22saint+pancake%22+-%22rachel+corrie%22&aq=f&oq= Google] knows of plenty of Saint Pancake references which are obviously Corrie but don't include her name. Jclemens (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• As has already been explained to you, part of Google's way of building rankings is through the number and quality of inter-connections and links. This is very well-known--there are entire consultancies which exist to maximise these--so I don't understand why you should be surprised. And you've made my argument for me regarding the uselessness of the redirect: twelve times a month is NOT 'significant' usage--and that tiny number appears to somewhat exaggerated, as using [http://stats.grok.se/en this traffic page] reveals that the redirect Saint Pancake/St. Pancake was accessed six times in December, 12 times in November, 18 times in October, and thrice in September. In contrast, Rachel Corrie's stats are 10,221, 7438, 8677 and 7817, respectively. And you'll have to provide evidence that your random Google test proves your claim about context-free use, as all the random clicking I did before losing my faith in basic human decency turn up nothing but context, either explicitly on the page or directly linked from the usage. The more strained your arguments, the less believe in the sincerity of your claims. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• See my next comment below: This is an argument that belongs in MfD, not DRV, since it speaks to the validity of the redirect itself, not the breaches of process involved in its deletion. Jclemens (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• 432 ghits is a total failure of the google test, in particular when it gets reduced to 78[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&pwst=1&q=%22saint+pancake%22+-%22rachel+corrie%22&start=90&sa=N] if you go to the last page. In contrast [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22rachel+corrie%22&btnG=Search "Rachel Corrie"] delivers over 477,000 ghits - if this attack were of encyclopedic value, surely we would find it at least in the low thousands, not the low hundreds, judging by the general quantitative notability of the subject in google. I do not think we should generally accept quantitative information in what should be qualitative evaluations, but if we accept the criteria of ghits, it fails misserably. Now, a perusal of the first results reveals no reliable sources, and not even some of the better known right wing websites (no LGF for example). It does reveal some rather extreme attacks on the subject in question, which furthers the CSD G10 points. So it fails quantitatively to support your point of "wide use", but it helps qualitatively those of us who argue clear CSD G10 criteria. Thank you for bringing this up.--Cerejota (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• That's an excellent argument to bring up in RfD, which this is not. This DRV is about the inappropriateness of the speedy deletion, not the merits of the redirect. Jclemens (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• I hear your point, but the major, salient flaw it has is that CSD is precisely there for Admins to make judgment calls based on the input of the community based on the objective criteria set forth by CSD. The process is not CSD->Delete->Restore->XfD. The process is CSD->Delete->DRV ->restore/keep deleted->possible further XfD if kept). Again, if we follow your logic, we should eliminate CSD in favor of PROD and then XfD if PROD fails - which would greatly increase XfDs as PROD can be disputed by simply removing the tag. That makes no sense. Your argument is -possibly unwittingly- questioning the entire basis of the CSD process, which is that Admins should be empowered to delete a certain class of articles which meet a certain criteria without community discussion, or with little community discussion and even over objections of editors - even multiple editors. The only recourse after a speedy deletion is DRV, which is the recognized "appelate court" for deletions. Admins should never overturn a CSD, but should go to DRV and if there is blatant misuse of tools (ie obvious misuse of the CSD criteria, not just mere disagreement on its application), then go to ArbCom etc. I know WP:BURO, but your procedural arguments simply make no sense in terms of the practice of whatever buro we actually have. --Cerejota (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• CSD differs from prod essentially in the timing--CSDs go immediately, PRODs wait for five days. The wording is slightly different on the deference to opposition, but it's very clear that both CSD and PRODs are to go to XfD's if there's any serious question. I'd like to see you cite anywhere that says that a CSD needs a DRV before recreation. I agree that BLP violations are "delete (or blank) first, as questions later" but we're all agreed that Corrie is dead. Jclemens (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'll come back to my original question, if I might. From what I've read of Jclemens's comments, it appears to me that he feels some or all of the "endorse deletion" !votes have an invalid reason. I would like to ask Jclemens: Under your understanding of this process, what would be a valid reason for endorsing the deletion? Stifle (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• # An assertion that no reasonable doubt exits: "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." This is policy as articulated at WP:CSD. Asserting that deletion is the right outcome is insufficient, or that the !voter agrees that it is an attack is insufficient. The !vote must assert that there is no reasonable doubt that this is solely an attack page.
• # A specific endorsement of Black Kite's WP:Wheel warring. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Pancake&action=edit&redlink=1 logs] are clear: Black Kite reverted a deletion another admin reversed, and declined to reverse this action when this was pointed out to him. This is against policy.
• Every single !vote to endorse has hinged on "the outcome is right"--which is a discussion for MfD, not for DRV. Not one !vote has substantively addressed these two, critical policy violations. Desipte the plethora of WP:IDONTLIKEIT !votes, the only reasonable outcome of this DRV is that the redirect be sent to RfD, since not one poster in favor of endorsing the G10 has dealt with the flaws in "summarily executing" a disputed redirect, rather than sending it to RfD. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• As far as I can see, the only controversial admin action here was to reverse a G10 deletion. Any other CSD criteria, fine. G10? No. Delete and then discuss, as we are doing here. Black Kite 17:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Can you provide any policy to support your assertion that G10 has some special weight in this (non-BLP) case? Note that even if my actions were wheel warring (which they're not. It's 1RR, not 0RR) that would not make your re-deletion any more valid; two wrongs don't make a right. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• G10 always has special weight, because attack pages are always potential problems for Wikipedia whether they're BLPs or not. Erring on the side of caution is never bad. Black Kite 05:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse as a G10. Also per CalendarWatcher. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion "Whether or not Saint Pancake is a legitimate G10 is not a conversation for DRV. The only thing necessary for a G10 CSD (or any CSD, for that matter) to be overturned is that editors disagree with the appropriateness of G10" is self-contradictory. Keep deleted. GlassCobra 17:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Clarification DRV should only need to establish that the G10 is contested to refer the redirect to RfD. The legitimacy of the G10 is contested, and the appropriate full review process, RfD, should be used to evaluate the validity of the arguments. Nothing contradictory about that, sorry if the wording was obtuse. Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• No, that isn't how DRV works in relation to CSD deletions, I'm afraid. See my comment above. Black Kite 00:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per GlassCobra. Just let it go. Wizardman 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Clarification - Merely contesting a CSD deletion is not a reason to overturn it and send it to RfD, if it were, the CSD process would have to be eliminated because it would be the same as PROD. The closing admin here must first determine if CSD G10 was applied correctly, if this is not the case, then s/he shoudl send to RfD. If this is the case, s/he should ensure re-salt to get it on the log as a result of the DRV, so that further wheel warring like what we see here doesn't happen, or if it happens, we can ArbCom it quickly as admin misuse of tools. I also suggest a preventive salting of the related St. Pancake, at least while these discussions are being had. --Cerejota (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment No one has touched the St. Pancake redirect in this entire debate. Presumptively salting it (That is, before RfD concludes) assumes bad faith. Jclemens (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• WP:AAGF. This is a snowball CSD-G10, like it or not. Since there has been a violation of CSD-G10 by recration of a related one, it is in the community's interest to salt. We salt stuff under discussion all the time. You should know this, you are a good admin (in fact you have deleted CSDs I got on NA/RC patrol before) --Cerejota (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Heh, thanks for the complement, but there is no such thing as a snowball speedy, of any sort, nor can there ever be since the processes are orthogonal. Speedy means no discussion and no dissent; snow means a discussion that has an obvious conclusion. These redirects have never had a discussion. This DRV is only about the process failures; RfD is the proper forum to discuss redirects' appropriateness. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Of course there can be snowball speedies, it means overwhelming confirmation ('snowball') of obvious deletions ('speedy'), which the slightest glance at this page would show applies. At this point, any discussion necessary has already happened, and nothing about RfD qualifies it as uniquely suited for any further re-treads. At this point, you're reduced to holding up bureaucratic irrelevancies as your only remaining rationale, and given that that hyper-technical adherence to procedures for no real purpose is already deprecated, even those don't hold up. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• The article has never gotten a hearing for two reasons: first, because those who apparently can't fathom that reasonable objection to its deletion might exist have been not acknowledging a good faith objection. Second, because this is not the forum to argue its merits and I have not done so here--the wheel-warring admin insisted that it come here, which I've complied with, rather than RfD. It's rather inappropriate to accuse me of WP:BUREAUCRACY when those who desire the redirect's oblitteration are the ones putting the bureaucratic hurdles in place to begin with. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Feel free to throw around WP:WHEEL as much as you like, but I'd do exactly the same thing again - especially given the overwhelming sentiment shown here. As I said above, we err on the side of caution with G10s - delete, then discuss. It's the only way to handle them. Black Kite 18:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• CSD is a formalization of WP:SNOW - perhaps the only one we have. Its about skiping the rest of the deletion process to make the encyclopedia better. As to the point that this is not getting a fair hearing, I disagree, it is getting a fair hearing, in here at DRV: I cannot phantom a good reason as to how having this discussion in DRV is different from having it at RfD. However, as I mention above, even procedurally, DRV is the place to have the discussion, there is no such thing as a Criteria for Speedy Undeletion, and deletion appeals go in here at DRV. Instead of pulling wheelies, you should have gone straight to DRV with it. Not that it would have made a difference, as this is an obvious G10 with no encyclopedic value, as it is not part of the article, not mentioned in RS, nor used widely as a pejorative nickname in a fashion that justifies its inclusion.--Cerejota (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Interpreting my actions as a "wheelie" is unconscionable. The admin who deleted Saint Pancake the first time deleted it as G1 and G10. That is the action of an admin who saw something tagged as G10, didn't understand it but AGF'ed that it looked like an attack, and deleted it. Since the redirect still doesn't meet G10 criteria ("...serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject", emphasis mine) and doesn't meet the G1 criteria at all, reverting a clearly erroneous deletion is in an entirely different class than re-deleting the redirect. Per WP:DELETE: "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately." Jclemens (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Except that it does quite clearly meet G10 criteria. I'm not sure how many times I, or any of the others that have commented here, need to say this. It is a disparaging name for a person, it serves no other purpose than to be that. If you were a relative of Corrie - a woman, let us not forget, who was run over by a bulldozer - and someone said "hey, put Saint Pancake into Wikipedia - you know, that encyclopedia - and see what happens", how do think they'd feel about this place? There's no place for this, and I think Guy expressed it best below. Black Kite 07:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• You can say it meets G10 all you want, but the fact remains 1) I assert that it serves another purpose, so 2) there is a reasonable doubt. If any attack page could be immediately deleted there would not be a "serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten" clause limiting those articles to which it applies. You can't get around those two things, which makes it not a valid G10. I really do not want to get into the political aspects of Corrie's death: suffice it to say the very presence of the term "Saint Pancake" demonstrates that there is a segment of the population who does not see things the way you state. The fact that Corrie's article completely excludes references to such postmortem criticism of her actions is not a mark in Wikipedia's encyclopedic favor.
• The idea that Wikipedia should pander to that tiny, unpleasant, segment of the population that thinks making a joke of a woman's death is a good idea is quite abhorrent, and is clearly something that Wikipedia should distance itself from. The page serves no other purpose, other than to those who are included in that group. Black Kite 19:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• An admin deleting an article under CSD G10 is a deletion within process - as the deletion was not clearly erroneous (even if you believed it so). You are disrespecting and second guessing a fellow admin without discussion by arguing misuse even after a clear edit summary. If you believed that admin was mistaken in applying the CSD G10 criteria, the process was to raise a DRV for undeletion, not pull a wheelie. The admin who deleted and salted actually acted within process, restoring the original action, because the recreation was out of process. WP:DELETE clearly includes CSD as part of the process, this is not open to argument. What might be open to argument is if CSD G10 applied or not, and the place to have a discussion is DRV. --Cerejota (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• So if someone deleted Rachel Corrie as a G10, that would have to go to DRV? This is an example of hyperbole: G10 clearly does not apply, and I would never WP:POINT like that, but let's discuss it as a hypothetical, shall we? Obviously not: even if someone had G10 tagged it beforehand, and even if the deleting admin could be construed as acting in good faith, the preemptive nature of such a deletion is not what CSD is designed for--any admin could and should revert the decision and challenge the deleting admin. Do you disagree? Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Reverting a CSD-G10 when the article clearly isn't one is a different issue - if there's any possibility that it is a G10 (and this one clearly carries that possibility) then that is a different matter. Black Kite 19:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as a proper G10, endorse salting of both redirects. No need to go to RfD. --Kbdank71 21:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion not a G10 any more than many others - do you think that anyone called Louis VI of France "Louis the Fat" to his face? Is that a G10? No. some people use it, but alas we seem to have double standards, let's at least have some rationality by beginning to delete some of these. I wouldn't mind deleting the redirect target since here notability is based on one event either - and merge what's there with the wider conflict of which she was just one story. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for considering the larger issues. I find your stance to be considered and consistent, even if it differs with my own. Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Others, including myself, have indeed addressed the substantive issues. With the danger of repeating myself: This is CSD G10 not just because it is a pejorative nickname, but because it is a pejorative nickname that doesn't advance our encyclopedic mission, has no use in reliable sources, and is not part of the article. These reasons can be taken together and singly. The example that Carlos raises is not relevant to this case, and very similar to Wacko Jacko - which I already brought up: Louis the Fat certainly is an attack, but it is one that serious histographers of the period have used, mentioned, and , hell, titled books with ([http://books.google.com/books?id=HWsLAAAACAAJ&dq=The+Deeds+of+Louis+the+Fat&ei=3DaJSeX3NJPOkASZ2YW2Ag "The Deeds of Louis the Fat"]), to the point that under RS due weight it is mentioned in the lede of the article as a historic name for Louis VI of France - and it returns 47,300 ghits while "Louis VI of France" returns 9,980 and "Louis VI" +france returns 296,000 - clearly a notable, useful, and encyclopedic redirect. Wacko Jacko is similary well sourced and included in the article on Michael Jackson, and returns 285,000 ghits, way more than many BLPs around here. If we assume good faith, this redirect is useless from the perspective of encyclopedic quality, from the logical point of view it is redirect-cruft from the battle to include the term in the article, and if we assume the worse, it is a way to underhandidly contribute to a smear campaing. In non-BLP cases, the inclusion of blatant attacks such as pejorative nicknames should be subjected to a notability test (RS use), a usefulness test and an encyclopedic quality test. This here fails all of them, so CSD G10 applies. Simple, really. --Cerejota (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endose deletion and salting. Although I find myself amused by the term, it's absolutely not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Horologium (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Wikipedia is not Encyclopaedia Dramatica. A crass and grossly inappropriate redirect, deleted to make the project a better place. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note I will be posting a closing statement later today, to summarize issues and help with TL;DRness. Please do not close this DRV until that has been posted. Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• :A closing statement? With respect, I don't think you're qualified to close this DRV. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• ::Well, that's completely not what I meant. :-) How about "A final statement from the submitter summarizing his perspective on the above debate" then? I agree--none of the people who've commented in a DRV should be closing it, least of all the person who brought it up. Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• :::Cool, knock yourself out :) Stifle (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement from Originator

This is intended to be a summary of the arguments from the perspective of the editor who raised the issue. While I am not seeking to intentionally mischaracterize anyone's position, this is not intended to be an unbiased or impartial view of the situation.

Issue 1: Should this redirect exist at this time? Let's get this one out of the way first: No. While it's never gotten a fair hearing, it's clear that a substantial number of editors believe that reliable sourcing should be in place before recreation. I originally asked for the discussion to follow process and be held at RfD, but it's not clear that there's a snowball's chance of a different outcome.

Issue 1.1: Should this redirect be salted against recreation? No.

• Per WP:SALT, creation protection is only for articles that have been repeatedly recreated.
• The possibility should exist of this article being recreated when and if reliable sourcing is established.

Issue 2: Should G10 have been used to delete it? No, for three reasons: It did not exist solely to disparage, a good faith difference of opinion exists, and the re-deletion of an administrator-restored page violated WP:Wheel War

Issue 2.1: Does it exist solely to threaten or disparage? No. Insistence that the redirect does solely disparage Corrie notwithstanding, it is and has been a search term in Wikipedia, because it reflects a name routinely applied to Corrie by her detractors.

That has never been contested by those on either side of this discussion. Belief that such usage lacks human decency, is unwarranted, or is somehow forbidden by Wikipedia policy flies in the face of WP:NOTCENSORED.

Issue 2.2: Did a good faith difference of opinion exist? Yes. This has never been challenged--and barely even addressed--in the above discussion, primarily because it's rather difficult to argue that multiple editors who dispute the appropriateness of G10 are all acting in concerted bad faith. When a good faith difference of opinion exists, XfD should take precedence; that's not my idea, that's straight from WP:CSD. Much of this drama could have been avoided if, instead of going to the NPOV noticeboard and ANI, the redirect had simply been nominated for RfD. Many arguably more inappropriate redirects are discussed--and routinely deleted--at that venue. The argument that speedy is a manifestation of WP:SNOW is inappropriate and unfounded--this deletion sets a dangerous precedent that some unpopular opinions are unworthy of a proper discussion, which I dislike: I honestly thought WP:STEAM was just a joke... until now.

Issue 2.3: Was BlackKite's deletion Wheel Warring? Without accusing him of bad faith or intentional misconduct, yes. It's straight from WP:Wheel war: "specifically, [...] undeleting and redeleting". Some have tried to imply that I started a wheel war, (which I dispute, as undeletion of an out-of-process deletion is clearly allowed by WP:DELETE, as cited above) but even if that were true, it would not justify or excuse Black Kite's violation.

Thus, the redirect should remain deleted but be unsalted so that a future recreation can proceed if reliably sourced. I'm not proposing any sanctions for the abuse of administrative tools, since they were used in good faith, but I would like the record to be clear that this was handled badly by those wanting it deleted. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not going to rebut each point in turn, because I think everything has been covered above, but I'd just note that I disagree with practically all the above (except the fact that the redirect should not exist). Black Kite 07:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)