Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 28#Buddhism and the body

:{{DRV links|Lori Haigh|xfd_page=|article=}}

If you google Lori Haigh, pages and pages come up about her. She is currently the subject of a HarperCollins book. She is known for not just one single issue as stated in the deletion request. We feel the deletion requests were made and concurred with by malicious individuals in her personal life and we request the page be reinstated. She was the only person in history to be sued by a Catholic priest. Someone has been deleting the facts, changing the facts and then making it appear unworthy for a wiki page. Her art gallery was famous the world over, and the gallery website receives over 10,000 hits a month to it. Please reinstate the Lori Haigh page. 67.164.39.237 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Questions Who are 'we'? And why didn't you discuss with with the editor who closed the AfD {{User|Bjweeks}} as the process asks you to? Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• "We" is someone who is very confused, and who has little to no knowledge of history. It's pretty certain that Scott MacDonald has nothing to do with this person's personal life. And anyone who thinks that Roman Catholic priests don't sue people for libel has never looked into the subject. Hearne v. Stowell (2 A. & E. 719, 6 Jur. 458), an 1840 case where a Roman Catholic priest sued for libel, was cited as case law precedent for many years afterwards, and in fact can still be found listed under libel in law books even today.

  It looks like we are missing an article on Hugh Stowell, and probably Daniel Hearne as well. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse – This is not AFD round 2. Also a deletion review based on bad faith presumptions. MuZemike 18:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Nothing has been presented to show that the deletion process wasn't properly followed, and deletion review is limited to considering whether or not it was. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Noted that the deletion discussion was closed a little early, but there is no point relisting it only for it to be deleted again another five days later. If someone has citations to reliable sources which would change the direction of the AFD, which was clearly tending towards deletion when closed, I'd be happy to reconsider. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• There seem to be numerous news stories and multiple books about this person. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• {{cn}} Stifle (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, deletion procedure was followed correctly. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC).
• Relist I think if I am reading the date stamps right that the AfD was closed after only 3.5 days, and that this deletion review was started about 5 days after the AfD was started. If the AfD had been left open for the full 5 days, then the person requesting this deletion review might have been able to make his or her claims that person is notable (i.e. that they are the subject of a book and run a notable art gallery) in the AfD discussion. Of course, this is probably moot if the claims to notability can't be backed up by reliable sources, as the AfD would just end in delete again. Also, I just want to mention to the person starting this deletion review that you should assume good faith.Calathan (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn Premature close as observed by Calathan. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Relist Close was a bit early and this isn't a clear case. Anything that has this many sources is always debatable and so the AFD should have been allowed to run it's full course. In an AfD I'd suggest we move this from coverage of the person to coverage of the event or actually just delete it. She's got a lot of news coverage, some of which proceeds the one event. But BLP issues and the nature of the material make me feel an article purely about the subject is inappropriate. Hobit (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Relist per Hobit. At the AfD I would argue for a merge, with a mention of the case and the three rather good references from the former "Lori Haigh" article moved to Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Compensation_payouts, and both "Lori Haigh" and "John Lenihan" redirected to there.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Relist Deletions at afd run for 5 days, in the absence of a valid reason for speedy or an explicit snow close that is obviously sensible. DGG (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Relist Not convinced that the article should stay, but Google turns up some information about Haigh's work as an art gallery owner that establishes notability outside of the single incident mentioned in the initial article- she was discussed in the press following an attack on her during the showing of controversial artwork, and operates a gallery that has shown art by some notable people. At the very least, we should get input from more than three editors and let the AfD run its full course before deleting. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse (without prejudice against recreation) I would've preferred if the deleting admin had clarified their reason in the close since it would clearly be controversial, but I can see a BLP issue in there. If the focus is moved to something else, there might just be an article in it. I suggest the nominator makes a draft in userspace first. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• valid AfD + bad faith assuming request for review + BLP concerns + marginal notability = Endorse--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse it's not salted, so if there's something more than what was under consideration, it could be recreated with that additional material consistent with BLP etc... While, that way, it may have a second bite at the apple (another chance of surviving AFD); DRV is not that second bite. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Buddhism and the body|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and the body|article=}}

This page was used for navigation between the pages specified on the removed. Removal does not coincide with one rule. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=db-DAB search request db-DAB]--Andrey! 15:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• For non-administrators: It was a disambiguation article for Sestroretsk railway station and Sestroretsk rail station 1871-1924, each of which has a headnote pointing to the other, and it didn't have "disambiguation" spelled correctly in the title. (I mis-type it too, sometimes. ☺) And it was deleted, as AndreyA observes, through speedy deletion, even though no speedy deletion criterion for such pages exists. (Usually, such disambiguations are sent through Proposed Deletion if someone wants them deleted.) Uncle G (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

::To me a navigating template to make in the beginning of article or standard methods we will manage?--Andrey! 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. While nothing strictly permitted this page's deletion, it is extremely unlikely that someone will type in both a misspelling of the station name and "disambiguation". As such, while process has not been strictly followed, there is no sense in undeleting it and putting the page through a deletion discussion only to have it properly redeleted. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted, not a valid speedy deletion, and the deleting admin should be slapped over the wrist for that, but as Uncle G points out above, a disambig for two articles that reference each other and which has a spelling error in the title is not going to be all that useful. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC).
• Keep deleted per Stifle.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Stifle and Lankiveil. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Stifle. The sort-of procedural violation (a liberal application of criterion G6 could justify the deletion) in this case was not so significant as to warrant undeletion on that grounds alone. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Buddhism and the body|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and the body|article=}}

Requesting a 'history-only' undeletion. The original article was poorly focused and suffered from extensive essay-type OR. I initially !voted for its deletion. Several participants in AfD cited my and another editor's (User:Mitsube) comments in their move to delete. Late in the process, I came to feel that some of the referenced material in the article could be preserved in a properly focused and sourced article on the topic (which is discussed in a number major publications on Buddhism). I created a draft version of a new article in my userspace which deleted the OR, and added a new introduction and subject headings to refocus the article, sourced (in my comments though not explicitly in the article, as it was intended as a working draft) from the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism. I linked to the new article in the AfD, and several editors commented that it appeared to be an appropriate starting point for an acceptable Wikipedia article on the topic. My hope was that after a little back and forth on AfD, we could post the new version of the article and close the discussion. However, the AfD was close by an admin (User:MBisanz), I think on the basis of the consensus before the new version of the article was offered, after just a couple on the article by the participants in the AfD. I went ahead and moved the new version of the article into the old space, forgetting about the need to keep the history for the old contributions. User:Aleta caught this and started Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Second opinion needed about recreation of deleted material to discuss the situation. People seemed to feel that DR was the best solution; resurrect the old history for the article, and the current version will be the next edit if DR ops to restore. Clay Collier (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn The discussion at AFD did not establish a consensus for deletion (7 keep, 2 merge and 9 delete). As we see above, some of the delete !votes were made without a proper understanding of the process. The closer failed to provide any explanation of his finding in such muddled circumstances and so the original article's history should be restored and the AFD result amended accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Allow the requested history-only undeletion. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Agree entirely with Colonel WardenVote Cthulhu (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• History-only-undeletion is fine here. Hobit (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree. The AfD result was clear and the merge votes were against retaining the substance of the article. One of those merges was "merge and delete" and the other was "Merge anything that is salvageable". The opinion is clearly that the original article was fundamentally flawed. If Clay Collier is inspired to create an entirely new article suggested by this one then good luck to him - choose a new title and find a new rationale. andy (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

::I'm not sure the result was that clear. By my count, it was 11-6 for deletion counting all merges as deletes before the introduction of the new version of the article. Mitsube and I changed our view after the new version was posted; another user stated that their vote was based on the arguments that that Mitsube and I had made for deletion. Taking out just Mitsube and I makes it at most 9-8 for deletion. Given that people involved in the discussion who were in favor of deletion have said that they were fine with the new version, that seems like no consensus to me. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

:::Collier has the point here. Why Andyjsmith continues in his relentless crusade against this and a handful of other articles even in the face of consensual opinion and fact itself is beyond me.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

::::Comment on the edits and not the editor, please. Aleta ^Sing 02:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse AfD close, but allow history-only undeletion. As neither Clay Collier nor Mitsube amended their original rationales, it is unreasonable to expect the closing admin to interpret their later comments as retractions or reversals. The situation has been clarified, and the new article appears substantially different from the initial copy to user space. Flatscan (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse original close, but allow history-only undeletion. I hate to say "me too", but I think Flatscan sums up my opinion fairly well for the most part. The original AfD could have remained open a little longer after the new version was posted, but I think this process will take care of it. Care should be taken that no article on this subject become a synthesic essay - I think there is a high potential for it. Aleta ^Sing 02:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 15#Current satellites|article=}}

I believe that not only was this category moved without any clear consensus but it is now adding clearly false information to dozens (or perhaps hundreds of articles). Satellites which are famously known to be sunk to the bottom of the sea or impacted into land are now categorized as "orbiting Earth". Including Sputnik 1 itself! I have no idea why the editors at Categories for Deletion are apparently allergic to using the term "former" as to me indicating the difference between something that is currently or is not currrently is a simple fact that is easily encyclopedic. But I also believe that there was no consensus for this move based on the discussion comments, several of which raised concerns about it. Category:Artificial satellites currently orbiting Sun was also moved by the same editor also without consensus (and possibly also introducing the same basic error of fact into some articles, I haven't checked.) In that case the category was moved to one that no discussion participant even mentioned. Rmhermen (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Rmhermen (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Relist for wider discussion As with many CfDs,the participation in the discussion was insufficient. As a minimum, appropriate workgroups and wikiprojects should be notified, as at AfD, and time allowed for the possibly interested people to comment. CfD is an obscure process,and nobody who is actually concerned with working on articles will know about it. Any reasonable appeal from it should be allowed & result in a relisting, until we figure out how to fix it so it gets representative and knowledgeable participation. DGG (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse as closer. There was nothing wrong with the close, there was consensus for the move. --Kbdank71 23:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn The discussion was inadequate and did not arrive at a decisive conclusion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse – there is clear consensus for the move. There are very few current/former categories - membership of :Category:Presidents of the United States implies nothing about current status. Occuli (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

:::That one doesn't but as soon as you include the word "orbiting" into a sentence about satellites without any qualifiers currency is implied. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Relist per DGG. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Relist to get broader participation. 'Former' might be appropriate here, even if it isn't for other situations. I'm sure there are space flight and astro WikiProjects that should probably be tipped as to the discussion on this particular category. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn No amount of consensus should result in introducing factual errors. If outright overturning doesn't gain enough support, a relisting should discuss possible alternative titles that address this. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

::We also have Wikipedia former featured articles and categories like former monarchies (removing it there, also implies currency of the fact when it actually isn't. Does anyone know where the supposed rule that was being used is documented? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

:::See User:Good_Olfactory/CFD#Current_or_former. Call it "custom", "tradition", "precedent", "long-standing consensus", or what you will. I think on balance it's fair to say that it's been most often applied to categories for people or objects and not to organizations or institutions, like monarchies. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

::::Just to clarify- what's the rationale for the avoidance of the 'former' modified in this case, or in general? I can see that we wouldn't want categories for something that might change on a regular basis, but 'Satellites Formerly Orbiting the Earth' seems pretty definitive. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see anything wrong with the close other than I disagree with the result (per Mgm's reasoning). Hobit (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

::I do think the right thing to do, IAR perhaps, is to relist. Hobit (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - there was no error made in the close by the admin and there has been no new information presented here suggesting that reviewing this decision is warranted. There is no minimum required participation for CFD so the idea that there was insufficient discussion as at best a misunderstanding of how CFD works and at worst expressive of a desire by an extreme inclusionist to radically transform the CFD process itself. Otto4711 (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

:* By the way, the claim that no one interested in working on articles will be aware of the CFD process is not only patently false and patently ridiculous, it is patently insulting to editors who participate heavily in CFD. As one who is involved in the AFD process, CFD process and manages to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Otto4711 bang out the occasional article], my experience has been that, with a couple of extreme inclusionist exceptions, the editors who participate heavily in CFD have a far better grasp and understanding of both the process and the relevant policies and guidelines than do the editors who pop in and out of AFDs when their pet articles are up for discussion. Perhaps you might want to "refactor" your comment? Otto4711 (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. No error made here by the closer in interpreting the discussion. The main issue raised by the nominator here was raised at the discussion itself, so this cannot be said to be "new information" that wasn't considered at the time. The current name may be misinterpreted by some, but that would be a good reason to re-nominate the categories for a potentially better name—something like {{cat|Artificial satellites sent into orbit around Earth}} or something more elegant. But the fact that an even better name can be found is not a good reason to overturn the decision and revert back to names that fairly clearly went against one of the long-standing practices of good categories—to avoid "current" and "former" designations. (With Otto I also think the comments about the degree and quality of participation at CfD is purely POV/speculative with little basis in fact.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn This CfD contains a huge mistake in the way it was presented and no CfD should ever result in this sort of error. I can see this happening due to the way the categories were listed/grouped in the CfD itself:
  :Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth to :Category:Artificial satellites orbiting Earth
  Because of the way this was grouped with the other proposed renames people were caught unaware of this key change. Anyone not looking closely would assume this to be a typical rename to a better title, when actually this meant non-orbiting satellites would get recategorized as orbiting.
  :Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth fulfills a purpose and should exist.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)