Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 20#Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh

:{{DRV links|Stephen Palmquist|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Palmquist|article=}}

I'm new as a Wikipedia editor. I registered a few days ago, soon after discovering that a valuable article that I had consulted previously had been deleted. The article is about a contemporary philosopher, Stephen Palmquist, who, in my opinion, is one of the leading experts on Kant’s philosophy. I located the deleted version, then read the Talk page that ended in the initial deletion decision. I then uploaded my significantly revised version, with numerous changes that I believe satisfy all the requirements of Wikipedia's Notability rules, as I understand them. To my surprise, it was deleted via speedy deletion, without any discussion of the merits of its significant revisions! Dao4Andrej (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Original Admin closure of AFD was as per policy, specifically that there is no proof of notability nor did he meet WP:PROF. Article was recreated and CSD'd accordingly. Above statement shows no policy-based reasoning for keeping. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• My request is not to undelete the original page, deleted in August 2011. I agree that the original deletion decision did follow correct Wikipedia policy. I am asking to undelete the revised version I created on the 14th of October 2011, so that anyone participating in this discussion can have access to the new evidence to show that the subject now passes WP:PROF. On that "Notability (academics)" page, the first and I think most important criteria is: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I guess any living Kant scholar who now has a Wikipedia page would, if asked, say that Palmquist undoubtedly passes this test. As evidence of this, my revised page cites numerous independent reliable sources that were not on the original page but are now included in the footnotes of the revised version I created. These include: (1) several books by scholars who offer lengthy, detailed discussion of this philosopher’s influence and work, including books published by Indiana University Press (2009) and in the Stockholm Studies in Philosophy series (2004); (2) multiple books that contain explicit statements confirming that this person is one of the most influential living philosophers in the field of Kant studies and that go on to expand on this philosopher’s theories in various ways, including books published in Northwestern University’s Studies in Phenomenology & Existential Philosophy series (1997), and by Ashgate (2007); (3) one example of a journal article, published in a major philosophy of religion journal, that is entirely devoted to an analysis of one of this philosopher’s arguments; (4) references to translations of several of Palmquist’s books into both Chinese and Indonesian; and (5) a reference to a new translation of one of Kant’s major works, published by Hackett (2009), with the scholarly introduction written by Palmquist. All of these qualify as reliable sources as per WP:RS, and more could be cited. But these changes surely do provide significant proof that the criteria of WP:PROF have been met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dao4Andrej (talk • contribs) 02:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Can we have the subject material temporarily restored for DRV purposes, please. I would like to see this for myself.—S Marshall T/C 11:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse. Clear Xfd. The nomination argument is that Palmquist is an author of sources for Kantianism. This is true, but does not speak to the wikipedia-notability of Palmquist. Email the deleted verion requested to User:Dao4Andrej for him to build a better article with the sources he mentions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Temp undeleted for review. On a side note, I'm not certain whether I am being reviewed here for the AFD or Fastily for the CSD, but if anyone needs a comment from me about the AFD, you can ping me on my talk page.--v/r - TP 12:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks, TParis. I should be clear that I endorse the August 2011 deletion as a correct reflection of the consensus at the AfD, but I also think that's uncontroversial, since the nominator isn't challenging it. The question is whether we'll allow a replacement article to be created.

  By convention, DRV will allow recreation of an article where the reasons for deletion are overcome. In this case, this is slightly complicated because the AfD's conclusion—"fails WP:PROF"—relates to a specific notability guideline, and DRV will not normally uphold a specific notability guideline. It will be in order to recreate this article based on evidence that the subject passes the general notability guideline.

  Has such evidence been provided? No. Stephen Palmquist's corpus of academic work is substantial, but that does not mean that Palmquist himself is notable. There are no independent sources about him. We have excellent sources by Palmquist, but no independent sources about him. The distinction is important. A topic is suitable for Wikipedia if, and only if, there are reliable independent sources, and the only information we have about basic biographical details comes from one of Palmquist's own publications.

  I think it's important that we explain to the nominator here the reasons why Wikipedians are very careful, very conservative, and very rules-orientated, when it comes to biographies of living persons. The rules themselves are at WP:BLP, but the context and history that led to the rules is at Wikipedia biography controversy, which makes sobering reading.—S Marshall T/C 16:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse no sign of meeting WP:N, no sign of meeting WP:PROF per the AfD. The discussion had strong support for deletion. I see no basis for undeletion at this time. Hobit (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Updated below based on new article. Hobit (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation The original one was indeed unacceptable, and the combination of CV-like writing and the apparent advocacy of his views undoubtedly contributed to the discussion. Some of the views expressed in that AfD were very aberrant, including the view that h index has any relevance in the humanities. I did not participate in this one, but I would not have found it easy to argue for meeting WP:PROF on the basis of the material presented. In my opinion, the simplest way to go ahead is with WP:AUTHOR--the requirements for that are actually very easy to meet. Do you have available reviews of his books? Two substantial reviews for each of two books will normally meet it. If so, I will help you with the article Let's see them--and where is your proposed new version.? DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Good thought. I'd suggest we hold off on restoration until two such reviews are found. I would think that given the number of books he's written that should be trivial, but I've not been able to locate any after a short search. Not my area though... Hobit (talk)
• Endorse deletion. But I have no prejudice against a new article on Palmquist that makes his notability clear. (By the way, Dao4Andrej, your article is styled a bit like a CV, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. That would have to change too. (Though it's not relevant to whether the article should exist or not.)) Ozob (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• It might be relevant that palmquist started an organization in Hong Kong (I know as I used to live there) called the 'Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe" back in the 90's. It now has lots of branches and a yahoogroup mailing list with something like 700 members last I knew. plus there've been tons of articles in the local newspapers talking about how popular it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeledrop (talk • contribs) 20:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Can you find an article (in any language) that lists him as the founder and discusses the group? It probably won't be enough by itself, but it would help. The more it discussed Palmquist the better! Hobit (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Well, I remember there was a feature article in the South China Morning Post, back in the 90s. I think that's where he first announced to the public his idea of starting the philosophy cafe. The newspaper charges to download its articles, so I can't get a url for the original, but I found the article text on several other websites. Try this: http://geocities.ws/centersophon/press/newagesa.html. I tried to search for some of the other articles on the paper's website, but seems they only let subscribers do the searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeledrop (talk • contribs) 08:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Assuming good faith that that is a copy of a real article, restore. That article is one RS with reasonable level of detail. The other sources added to that give us enough for WP:N. Hobit (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• In his comment on 21 October 2011, S Marshall says "There are no independent sources about him. We have excellent sources by Palmquist, but no independent sources about him." I'm confused by this, as it is not true about my revised version, unless I'm wrong about what counts as an "independent source". In my above posting, I gave examples of five types of new sources (some with multiple examples) that are provided in my revised version, and these are all "independent" sources. That means that none of them are written by Palmquist, right? Also, they are all published in WP:RS venues. Why is something more than this necessary to confirm that WP:RS has been met? I admitted from the start that I imitated the format of the original version when recreating this page. So, if the problem is with the CV format of that original page, then maybe someone who has a clearer idea of what that means can help by revising the text so that appearance is no longer there. Dao4Andrej (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• The sources also need to be independent of the topic. That means not written by him or in a work he controls (introduction to his book for example). Can you identify reliable sources in that article that have that property? Hobit (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Please check the revised text, which is now available online. If you look at footnote 1, you'll see the reference to Quarfood's book published by Stockholm Studies in Philosophy. Likewise, footnote 3 has the reference to Cutrofello's book, published by Northwestern Univresity Press, though I now see that the publisher needs to be added for that one. Footnote 5 has the references to the Indiana University Press book (okay, that one was co-edited by Palmquist, so it doesn't count as fully independent) and the Ashgate book by Peter Byrne. Footnote 7 should have a reference to the entire article by Perovich, but I see now that it only refers to Palmquist's rejoinder, so the details of the original reply article should also be added, once the page is reinstated. The reference to Palmquist's scholarly introduction to Kant's book is in footnote 8; and by the way, I disagree with the claim that this isn't "independent". Perhaps I didn't make clear before: the book is a different scholar's (not Palmquist's) translation of Kant's book on religion, and a publisher will never invite someone other than the translator to write a scholarly introduction like that unless the person is among the most well-respected scholars in the field. Moreover, the author of such an introduction definitely is NOT in control of the book, as it is not his book; in this case, the book is (translated) by Pluhar. Finally, the details of the Chinese and Indonesian translations are given in footnote 15. If an academic has had substantial work translated into multiple languages, isn't that evidence of notoriety? I think one of his online CVs says his articles have been translated into something like seven language. If it is not already on WP:PROF, then perhaps someone should add "a substantial amount of the person's work has been translated into other major languages" to the criteria listed on that page, because surely this is one of the best proofs of notoriety! Dao4Andrej (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• That's a new question; I haven't seen that discussed before. If I write a work, and someone else translates my work into a foreign language, is their translation of my work an independent source about me? My instinct says "probably not" but I have yet to think that through thoroughly, and at this stage I'm very willing to be convinced on the basis of reasoned debate that I'm wrong.—S Marshall T/C 23:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• The things you are listing, from my reading of the article still aren't things about Palmquist. So your note 3 says "For example, Andrew Cutrofello cites Palmquist as the originator of this idea in his Imagining Otherwise" - that doesn't say he writes biographical information about Palmquist. The fact that he was invited to write an introduction, also isn't any actually about Palmquist. The idea his work has been translated into multiple languages also isn't anyone writing about the author. To me all this indicates that people are interested in his work and/or the subject matter of his work, but if no one is actually writing about him, then they aren't particularly interested in the person behind that work. And that's what notability is about for a biographical article, have people taken note of that person such that they write directly and in detail about that person? --82.19.4.7 (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Where did this come from? WP:PROF lists nine criteria for academic notabiliy and none of them say that someone else must have already written a biography of the guy in order for a wikipedia biography to be allowable. Anyway, the link I provided before does fulfil this requirement, if it is a requirement. Much of that newspaper article is about "the person behind" his work. But if this decision is going to be based on WP:PROF, then this shouldnt be an issue. We should be looking at whether or not the article shows that "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeledrop (talk • contribs) 02:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Your first comment in this thread quotes S Marshall on exactly this subject : "...S Marshall says "There are no independent sources about him. We have excellent sources by Palmquist, but no independent sources about him.""
  The first sentence of your quote is exactly this, which is the bit you claim to be confused about. So it seems your confusion is further than that, read S Marshall's original comment in full rather than pulling a small piece out of context. Just prior to your quote he states "In this case, this is slightly complicated because the AfD's conclusion—"fails WP:PROF"—relates to a specific notability guideline, and DRV will not normally uphold a specific notability guideline. It will be in order to recreate this article based on evidence that the subject passes the general notability guideline". So there is your answer, it's a requirement of the WP:GNG that the subject receive coverage, directly and in detail, in multiple third party reliable sources. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Restore. We seem to be talking past each other here. I thought you were saying that someone has to have actual biographical information written about them in order to have qualify for WP:GNG. I don't see that requirement stated anywhere in WP:GNG or any other guidelines. If all your saying is that "the subject receive coverage, directly and in detail, in multiple third party reliable sources", hasn't Dao4Andrej given ample evidence of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeledrop (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Erm no, that's the point. There have been provided references to his work and other people referencing his work, but nothing about anyone writing about the person themselves. I'm not sure how else a third party source can write directly in detail about the person without it being at least partly biographical, so the GNG may not say that directly but it seems pretty much implicit to me. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see how the view being promoted by 82.19.4.7 could be correct. Where is there anything on either WP:GNG or WP:PROF that even comes close to implying that the required independent sources must be "at least partly biographical" in order for a person to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia? The vast majority of references to other persons in academic literature has no biographical content whatsoever. It's about the ideas. If independently published biographical material were an absolute requirement, most current Wikipedia articles on persons would need to be deleted. In any case, this is a moot point, because Adeledrop has provided such a source in this case. Dao4Andrej (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• WP:GNG '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail' - if you can show me material which address a person directly in detail which isn't a least biographical that's fine. You haven't produced any such sources biographical or otherwise. Believe it or not my saying I believe it's implied is not trying to trick you or change the rules, it's actually trying to help you understand why what you've produced so far is not convincing at least some of the people here. The material you've given addresses the persons ideas and works, not the person themself. I'm not going to keep on repeating myself, so if you haven't got it and just keep on waving towards the sources you've got then so be it. If the material references the persons ideas, then that's what people are interested in and that's what we should have an article on.--82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Once again, I repeat, the sources cited in the revised version do "address the subject directly in detail", as does the additional (biographical!) source provided by Adeledrop. The books I listed above are not just "other people referencing his work", as 82.19.4.7 claims; they are massive, detailed discussions extending in most cases to many pages of independently published works. Anyone familiar with philosophical literature will know that this is all you get when you do philosophy! You just don't get "the person", except in extremely rare cases. If we take this "implicit" rule that 82.19.4.7 is suggesting as a new norm, then the vast majority of pages about living philosophers that are currently on Wikipedia will need to be deleted. A quick review of random examples shows that hardly any living philosophers who currently have Wikipedia pages would pass this stringent test. Dao4Andrej (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|UTC+01:30|xfd_page=|article=}}

It is not covered in South African Standard Time, the deleter User:Jimfbleak didn't even bother to make a statement in the talk page, where it clearly says "Namibia is NOT covered in the article South African Standard Time.". TZ master (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Jim restored it. But User:Fastily did again delete under A10 - A violation of the rules since Namibia is mentioned in the article and is not covered by the other one. He even did so without tagging it first [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UTC%2B01:30&action=edit&redlink=1]. Fastily should be de-admined. TZ master (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

:*From the logs, Fastily seems to have violated the sentence in bold in WP:WW, but I'm sure that was an accident. You're right to say that summary desysopping is technically possible for wheel warring, but that does not seem to be a reasonable or proportionate response in this case. I'm sure Fastily will restore the contested material as soon as he becomes aware of this discussion.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

::*From looking further into the revision logs, it appears that when Jimfbleak restored the article, he didn't remove the CSD template which put the article back into view of the CSD admins. No doubt it was an oversight that Fastily hadn't seen that it was recently restored. I cannot find a reason for the restore though. Jimfbleak didn't leave a edit notice in the restore, there is nothing on their talk page, and nothing at WP:REFUND giving us a hint what their rationale is. Either way, TZ master's request to desysop Fastily just isn't going to happen over a matter as small as this and it's a bit personal attackish.--v/r - TP 12:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

:::*Fastily did it twice to articles of mine within several hours, see Time in Portugal. If he is not following CSD A10 he should be stopped from the ability to delete under CSD A10. There is nothing specific to him as a person in my request, I would ask this to be enforced on every user. You may like to read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/New pages experiment, this kind of new page deletion behavior seems to be a larger issue in WP. TZ master (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

:NOTE: I now see that the 3rd A10 undeletion request on this review page, namely Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh was also deleted by User:Fastily. Big problem with that user. TZ master (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

::Your turning this into a witch hunt against Fastily. He made a mistake so did the admin who restored It by not removing the tag. The issue involving Walsh is completly different. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Five pages are listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 20. Of them 3 deleted under CSD A10, all by Fastily. You can call that "a mistake", but counting brings it to "3 mistakes". At Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/New pages experiment it is described what trouble these deletions cause. How many editors left WP due to deletions that violate CSD A10? TZ master (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

::::You're oversimplifying the WP:DRV process. DRV isn't a "Mistake or not" discussion. It discusses the merits of deletion discussions and rationals on a broader scope than what normal processes allow. It's more like a "Meta"-discussion. Getting overturned at DRV doesn't necessarily mean someone is wrong and likewise, getting endorsed at deletion doesn't mean someone was exactly accurate either.--v/r - TP 17:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::IMO, the time wasted on this would have perhaps been better spent researching misapplication of CSD A10 as a whole and then considering a community wide RFC. We've already had RFCs on other forms of CSD in the past, and if there is a larger pattern of misapplication of A10, then a well written RFC with links to such cases would be of benefit to the community. This particular DRV here with jabs at Fastily does not benefit anyone, however. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

:having been involved at new pages I agree that New users could be discouraged through speedy deletion. However in most cases it is the correct outcome if not a bit harsh initially. In this case a mistake was made by two admins which has been acknowledged. Please remember we are all volunteers and our admins do a job that is hard to please everyone. In at least one of the other cases on this page it could of been deleted under several codes. Although I am not an admin I feel that this should be lesson learn and moved on from I do not see how Fastily should have his admin powers removed over this. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)J

::If Fastily applies CSD A10 with a lower error quota in the future and would show that he understood the mistake - I have no objection at all of him remaining an admin. TZ master (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

:::{{ec}} I'm going to be frank. Your objections to Fastily's adminship are noted but irrelevant to this WP:DRV. WP:RFC/U is the proper location for such proposals.--v/r - TP 18:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy close this nomination because TZ master is using it as a platform to attack Fastily.—S Marshall T/C 18:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

:* That's your opinion, fact is I am revealing his mistakes and make suggestions how to avoid further such mistakes. What would you suggest how to avoid deletions by Fastily in the future that violate deletion rules? TZ master (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

:**Its fairly obvious you have an issue with Fastily you have been doing so here and on his talk page please stop attacking him. How many times. This is not the place you have been advised where to go if you want to take further. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

:::*Yes, my opinion is that you're using this DRV as a platform to attack the deleter. Yes, that's a big no-no at DRV. DRV does not discipline administrators. We have no mandate to do that and we do not want one. DRV is about content, not conduct. If you think there's an issue with Fastily's conduct or judgment then the correct venue is supposed to be RFC/U, but the honest truth about that is that RFC/U will not avail you, because (1) there's no real problem with Fastily and (2) even if there was, it's still practically impossible to get someone desysopped unless they've done something completely egregious. For the vast majority, adminship on Wikipedia is for life.—S Marshall T/C 19:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy close We don't really seem to need this DRV as the deletion was apparently a mistake and has since been turned into a disambiguation page. Any further discussion of where to locate the content itself and/or if {{noredirect|UTC+01:30}} should redirect somewhere can take place on one of the article talk pages. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Close AND restore. It simply does not meet CSD A10. TZ master (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Donald Braswell|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Braswell|article=}}

First, I'm a novice at wikipedia and probably will not have the proper editing in this request I find working in Wikipedia very complicated and difficult. So I beg forgiveness in advance. That being said, please consider restoring this page (Donald Braswell). It was deleted with a speedy delete without any discussion. I requested it be restored and it was, but before I knew it was back, it was deleted again without discussion and I was not able to modify it. The info in the article is accurate and sanctioned by the talented gentleman I'm trying to honor, but he has been relatively unpublished. He authenticated the data in the article. Could it be put back at least with a brief mention of his achievements that any of these sources can help show that he did exist and was important in his day and enhances the information in wikipedia? Couldn't the pieces that people don't think are documented well enough just be deleted from the article, rather than deleting the entire piece? In my discussions with the admin who did the final deletion, he (politely) felt the additional sources were not enough to overturn the deletion and that there had to be more documentation than this. I'm hoping someone will help me get the page in acceptable format and restored with at least a minimal mention of his career on Broadway. (Without making it a full time job for me to do it.) I do hope those reviewing this deletions will read the original article (if they know how to find it, which I don't). Thank you.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001341/otherworks

http://www.ibdb.com/person.php?id=96795

http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Fanny_4457/

http://broadwayworld.com/people/Don_Braswell/

http://www.science24.org/show/Donald_Braswell

http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/DonaldBraswellSr

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Donald-Braswell-Sr/227932103885580

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_srch_drd_B00498VEK4?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=digital-music&field-keywords=Donald%20Braswell%2C%20Sr

http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/Donald+Braswell,+Sr./a/albums.htm

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/jackfishman/2011/03/whats-braswell-singing-this-weekend/

http://www.amazon.ca/American-Tenors-Patinkin-Stanley-Robinson/dp/1155841042

http://www.instantcast.com/AllStars/Donald_Braswell

http://www.donaldbraswellfanclub.org/don_bra swell_sr.html

http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Fanny_4457/

http://www.guidetomusicaltheatre.com/shows_l/lil_abner.htm

http://www.ibdb.com/production.php?id=2585

http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Li%27l_Abner_5574/

http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/people/Don_Braswell/

http://www.mindenmemories.org/Don%20Braswell.htm

These are the factual highlights of his career that I had in his wiki article, but there is little out there to source it.

1946 Singer/Entertainer At 17 years old Braswell, Sr opened the inaugural ball of newly elected

governor of Louisiana, Earl Long

1952 Singer/Entertainer The Vic Dimone Show, Fort Bliss TX

1952 Singer/Entertainer El Paso Symphony Concert

1953 Touchstone Shakespeare's play "As You Like It" - A. A. Milne's play "The Fourth Wall"

6/1954-6/1955 Singer, dancer, & sailor The musical "Fanny" (on Broadway with Florence Henderson)

1955 Singer, dancer & Dogpatch Character The musical "Li'l Abner" (On Broadway)

1956 Singer, dancer & Dogpatch Character The Ed Sulivan Show - episode with skits from Li'l Abner

1956 Filch The opera "The Beggar's Opera" (at the Met)

1956 The Soldier The opera "The Soldier" by Lehman Engel (At the Met)

1958 Finalist Competition with the Met

San Antonio Career:

1960-65 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Cantor High Holy Days

1960 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Handel's "Mesiah"

1961 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Verdi's "Requiem"

1962 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Saint-Sans Christmas "Oratorio"

1963 The Count The opera "Barber of Seville"

1963 The Count The opera "Barber of Seville"

1963 Freddie The musical "My Fair Lady"

1965 Gangster, Guts Regan Ayn Rand's play "The Night of January 16th"

1968 Cocky The Texas-Mexico Border Tour with the San Antonio Symphony Concerts

1968 Singer/Entertainer San Antonio Symphony Concert

1968 Singer/Entertainer Hemisfair concert with the San Antonio Symphony (World's Fair 1968)

1965 Balthazzar The opera "Amahl and the Nights Visitors"

1966-69 Singer/Entertainer San Antonio Symphony Children's Concerts

1972 Pertruchio The musical "Kiss Me Kate"

1974 Hajj The musical "Kismet"

1998 Singer/Entertainer Shreveport Symphony Concert (Louisiana) Wikiauthenticity (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

:Deleting admin comments: This is a breakdown of the sources that I had left on my talk page:

::* http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001341/otherworks - IMDB is not considered a reliable source, per WP:RS

::* http://www.ibdb.com/person.php?id=96795 - This is a mere mention of him, not significant coverage per WP:GNG

::* http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Fanny_4457/ - Another mere mention, not significant coverage per WP:GNG

::* http://broadwayworld.com/people/Don_Braswell/ - Another mere mention, not significant coverage per WP:GNG

::* http://www.science24.org/show/Donald_Braswell - This is a Wikipedia mirror and not a WP:RS

::* http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/DonaldBraswellSr - Another mere mention, not significant coverage per WP:GNG

::* http://www.facebook.com/pages/Donald-Braswell-Sr/227932103885580 - Facebook is not a WP:RS and besides that page is a Wikipedia mirror.

::* http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_srch_drd_B00498VEK4?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=digital-music&field-keywords=Donald%20Braswell* %2C%20Sr. - List of songs that meets WP:V but does not meet WP:N.

::* http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/Donald+Braswell,+Sr./a/albums.htm - List of songs that meets WP:V but does not meet WP:N

::* http://blog.mysanantonio.com/jackfishman/2011/03/whats-braswell-singing-this-weekend/ - This is a promotional piece and fails WP:SPAM and WP:RS

::* http://www.amazon.ca/American-Tenors-Patinkin-Stanley-Robinson/dp/1155841042 - This isn't about the him and fails WP:GNG

::* http://www.instantcast.com/AllStars/Donald_Braswell - This is a Wikipedia mirror and not a WP:RS

::* http://www.donaldbraswellfanclub.org/don_braswell_sr.html - This is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and fails WP:RS

::* http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Fanny_4457/ - This isn't about the him and fails WP:GNG

::* http://www.guidetomusicaltheatre.com/shows_l/lil_abner.htm - This isn't about the him, has a mere mention, and fails WP:GNG

::* http://www.ibdb.com/production.php?id=2585 - This isn't about the him, has a mere mention, and fails WP:GNG

::* http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Li%27l_Abner_5574/ - This isn't about the him, has a mere mention, and fails WP:GNG

::* http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/people/Don_Braswell/ - Barely more than a mention, only lists a few details. Does not have significant coverage per WP:GNG

::* http://www.mindenmemories.org/Don%20Braswell.htm - This is largely a self-published source that appears to be done by a fan and does not go through an editorial process as required by WP:RS.

:My opinion that the consensus in the AFD was to delete remains the same.--v/r - TP 17:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think the whole question is made much more complicated by the fact that we have an article called Donald Braswell II, who I understand to be the subject's son. The AfD began to examine the question of whether to redirect Donald Braswell to Donald Braswell II, but that conversation was never finished, as perhaps it should have been. I think the AfD's finding, properly understood, was that Donald Braswell I should not have his own article. It does not preclude a redirect. Also, it's clearly unhelpful that Donald Braswell is a redlink when Donald Braswell II is an article, and would clearly be confusing if a redirect was not explained. All in all, although I think TParis' close was a reasonable interpretation of the consensus at the AfD, I also think there's a solution that makes more sense, so I'll go with endorse but as a separate matter of editorial judgment undelete and smerge to Donald Braswell II.—S Marshall T/C 18:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Donald Braswell II, where he is currently named. The brief description of the father's related occupation ("Donald Braswell, Snr, is a classical crossover and musical theater tenor") is suitable for mention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• since the article was deleted I wonder if those of you who are in this discussion can even see the article in question as it was before summerPHD removed all of the paragraphs in the article. SummerPHD claimed it was copyright infringement, which it was not. The wiki article was taken largely from Donald Braswell II's fan club site, which was written by me in conjunction with Donald Braswell (the senior) and with the approval and consultation of his son. The information was taken from the "horses mouth" so to speak. There is nothing untrue in the article and it has the blessing of the person being discussed. He is noteworthy having 1) sung for the inauguration of Governor Earl Long in Louisiana; 2) performed in a number of plays on Broadway (including "Fanny" and "L'il Abner") with people like Enio Pinza, Florence Henderson and Tina Louise; 3) appeared on the Ed Sullivan show; 4) performed in the opening ceremony of the 1968 World's Fair; and 5) performed in many Symphony concerts not to mention countless off-broadway shows. He has his own album. All of this was documented in the original article, but I don't know that you all can see that. I cannot. Isn't one of the goals of wikipedia to give the public the opportunity to learn about history they may not have known before? Is it right to get hung up on technicalities and throw the baby out with the bathwater?Wikiauthenticity (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

::To answer your question about visibility, as of today, the "Article" page has versions in the "View history" link.  The "Discussion" page is not currently visible to non-admins.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Thank you unscintillating for this and for your other analysis below. I don't understand it much I'm afraid, but it sounds like your are trying to be even-handed. I hope someone will see the value in the history of the fifties entertainers. A lot of hard work went into researching and publishing the page a year ago and it is disheartening to have someone in one week toss it into the trash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiauthenticity (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

:I've linked this to you several times, but have you read WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.--v/r - TP 12:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn to Soft Delete 

:*(1) Regarding one of the two !votes at the deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just pointing at a policy or guideline states,

::::Examples:

::::* Keep Meets WP:NOR – Policylover 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

::::* Delete per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. – Pilingiton 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

::::While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why...

::::As noted above, deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus....Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article.

:*(2) Given that only the nominator and one !vote gave reasons for deletion, and that nominator acknowledged not preparing the community by reviewing the WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion in the nomination, WP:Deletion process#No quorum states,

::::If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. Common options include, but are not limited to:

::::* relisting the discussion (see the section 'Relisting discussions');

::::* closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination (NPASR); and

::::* closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. Soft deletion is the closing of an AfD with minimal participation as "delete" with the understanding that anyone who wishes to contest the deletion at a later date may request restoration for any reason at WP:REFUND. This achieves an effect similar to WP:PROD.

:Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment  Regarding analysis above by administrator TP:

:*(a) One of the statements is:{{quote|http://broadwayworld.com/people/Don_Braswell/ - Another mere mention, not significant coverage per WP:GNG}}But WP:GNG does not use the term "mere mention".  Here is a quote from WP:N#General notability guideline:{{quote|* "Significant coverage" is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.}}

:*(b) IMO, the analysis shows a pattern indicating a lack of impartiality, for example, the statement, {{quote| "Barely more than a mention, only lists a few details. Does not have significant coverage per WP:GNG"}}could have been written, "More than a trivial mention, lists a few details, by itself lacks sufficiently significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG."

:Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

::::: I believe that he deserves an article because of the references that wikauthenticity mentioned --alireza5166 02:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh|xfd_page=|article=}}

Wrong to speedy since reason given, "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Jackson Walsh", does not apply because the criteria for A10 deletion were not met. Article was also speedied a very short time after creation without a chance to discuss. Deleting admin has so far refused to discuss his rationale, other than to say he endorses another editor's remarks. I initially recreated the article, but have re-deleted it to request deletion review. Please see also discussion on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fastily#Another_overly_hasty_speedy_deletion the deleting admin's page]. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

DeleteThere is nothing that can be said in the article that isn't said in the stand alone articles. All reception that exists or development info can be placed at Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh - The storyline information already exists in both of those articles, and has been edited and condensed down. What we do not need is yet another article documenting the fictional lives of these two characters - and basically saying the same development information, just reworded by you. Another thing is that this couple have not been documented in reliable sources as a "Supercouple" - they have been relatively popular with viewers of Emmerdale alone, there is no evidence to support a following outside of the serial. So there isn't enough weight behind this topic to jusify a split-off article. Your choice in sources was bad, episode summaries are not saying a thing to do with why these two are notable and why we should grant them an extra article. In US Soaps during the 80s-90s ratings boom there was a real phenomena around supercouples - ratings declined and there haven't really been the same following since - do not think that some fans of forums and the net is sufficient representation of societys whole view. The sourcing for this article relies heavily on DS, youtube videos which are copyvios, blocks of quotes which are copy vios and two non free images where there fair use is only applicable to there stand alone articles.RaintheOne ^BAM 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• 'Delete' would clearly be duplicated information from Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh. No more can be added as one character has left the soap and i do not feel sources merit this additional page. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Probably doesn't merit, but also probably doesn't meet WP:CSD#A10. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• overturn I really can't imagine this will be allowed to stay, but I've been known to have a limited imagination. In any case, A10 is designed to be extremely narrow and I don't think this meets the criteria. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Just in response to comments above, the article's structure was based on the article John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean, which survived a deletion attempt although both characters have their own stand-alone articles as well. Like those two characters, Aaron and Jackson are a highly popular couple whose story was central to the programme for about 18 months, and generated some of the show's highest ratings. In general, it's better to merge duplicate information into a different article. The Jackson character is gone, and his article probably can't be expanded much further, but Aaron is a long-running and continuing character and his article inevitably will be expanded. The two characters are inextricably linked by the nature of their storyline. We currently have much the same information in both the characters' articles; since only having it in one of their articles wouldn't work, because they're inextricably linked, it seems far better to place it in its own article, which is why I created it. There is also ample evidence to support a following outside the serial, plus a lack of sources isn't a valid reason to speedy delete an hours-old article. Additionally, for A10 to apply the article must duplicate an existing topic and not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article on the subject, and have a title that is not a plausible redirect. Also articles that expand or reorganise existing ones or that contain referenced, mergeable material should not be deleted under A10. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: If it was recreated it would have to be straight to an AFD. You may have a point about the code used on the speedy delete however i doubt it will survive an AFD without you greatly expanding sources and proving they are a supercouple. Without that it is basicly a complete duplicate of the original articles. Also you really shouldnt of recreated it without coming here first when you did it was full of copy vios which mean you cant do that. If article stays will you be able to adequately source it without those copyvios. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

::Well, again, a lack of sources isn't a valid reason to delete a new article, and as I've already said, the intention was to merge information from two other articles into it, but it was deleted before I had a chance. If there were copyvios, which I wasn't aware of, they came directly from the original articles, which I didn't write. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - ExplodingBoy - you say Aaron and Jackson gave Emmerdale some of its highest ratings? Only I know of two time periods the serials ratings were much higher off the top of my head - compare Aaron and Jackson's 8 million era with the 1990's Emmerdale plane crash 18 million and the 2005-06 when it hit 10 million again - it has not since. Not sure you should be citing WP:OTHERSTUFF either - I've already explained that the obvious difference is that JP/Craig described in media as a super couple - these are not. So there is no real weight behind having a seperate article. Jackson's whole Storyline was built around Aaron - from begining to end - so everything you could say would be already placed in his article. Most of Aaron's notability came of the fact he was a gay characters, thew sources support my claim - as there are more on that subject that any other - Jackson was the main story arcs for that storyline - so why have an off-shoot article taking away what simply can be said in the stand alone. Also Wikipedia is not a fansite, so a group of fans in a forum doesn't prove anything - there are hundreds of things that gain a niche following that we wouldn't dream of including here. However the characters themselves have enough weight behind them to establish notability. The whole point of a super couple article is to prove they are one, discuss the hype in the media, the fan following etc - it is minimal here - with the usual old rags, entertainment websites and expectedly lgbt websites reporting on them.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

::The copyvio is your fault then - you just copied information from Aaron Livesy - and you claim it wasn't a copy of another article? LOL If you were familiar with any policy on here you wouldn't have done it in the first place. Just like you recreating the article before coming here first.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Hold on. First, as you say Jackson's whole storyline was built around Aaron. But the same information about their shared storyline is now still in both the Jackson Walsh article and the Aaron Livesy article. I've already explained this twice before. Second, whether or not Aaron and Jackson are a supercouple is actually irrelevant to this deletion discussion: the supercouple question is a minor content issue, separate from both the speedy deletion issue and the question of whether the article should exist. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "expectedly lgbt websites," as though it's somehow strange or less valid for LGBT media to report on a same-sex couple. Third, since when is it a copyvio to copy information from one WP article to another? It's one thing if the original information is a copyvio (which nobody has thus far actually demonstrated), but it's quite another thing if you're talking about information merely merged from 2 source articles into a third article. This article was deleted before I had a chance to finish what I was doing anyway, so it's hardly fair to criticize it (or me) on those grounds: this article was not sitting around for months, it was no more than a couple of hours old when it was deleted. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

:A lack of sources proving notability is a reason for an article to be deleted as it does not sufficiently indicate why the subject is notable. Anyway thats not the issue it is if its recreated can you establish notability. I personally would vote overturn if you agree to it going straight to an AFD.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

::I don't think there's any question of notability: if there were, then we wouldn't have the two stand-alone articles either. And yet again, a lack of sources isn't a valid reason to delete a brand-new article. Frankly, I don't see why my agreeing to send the article to AFD should be a consideration in the discussion here either, because anyone's free to nominate an article for deletion if they think it should be deleted, but for what it's worth I've already said that AFD, not speedy deletion, is how this should have been dealt with in the first place. And if it does get AFDd then I'll make the same arguments in favour of keeping it, it will get input from the wider community, and it can stand on its own merits. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Clearly an unnecessary WP:FORK and deleted as per policy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Could you explain what policy you are referring to here? Is there something other than A10 that allows for a speedy of a fork? Are you saying A10 reaches this far or that clear forks should be speedied per policy? Thanks Hobit (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• I believe Bwilkins was referring to a WP:Content fork. But as that guideline states, "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject . . . editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material . . . This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article." Exploding Boy (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Also, I'd just like to remind everyone that what we should be discussing here is whether it was valid to cite A10 as the criterion for speedying the article. A10 is to be used when a new article simply recreates an existing one, which this one clearly does not. A10 explicitly does not apply to content forks, and it does not apply to articles that have a title that is a plausible redirect or that contain referenced, mergeable material. If people feel strongly that the article shouldn't exist because the characters aren't important enough or because there's not enough information to justify it, those are separate issues and they can discussed in context of an AFD. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

:I feel it does not expand or improve upon what is already there so is a dupliacate so a10 applys. If you could prove with good sourcing they are a super couple then maybe but as expressed above by another editor I don't think you can. It could of been deleted for copy vios as well. The deleting admins opinion would be helpful though. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

::I've addressed all those issues EW. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Restore Does not meet "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Jackson Walsh", topic is broader. TZ master (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD. The nominator's argument is plainly of sufficient quality to merit a full airing at AfD. T. Canens (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn A10. The wording of A10 does allow deletion of articles that duplicate more than one topic, which many people clearly feel this does, but there's enough disagreement to suggest that discussing this at AfD would be fairer. (I'll be arguing for deletion btw.) Alzarian16 (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• List at AfD which is the default action we should be pursuing in cases of disputed speedies. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• List at AfD per Jclemens and T. Canens.—S Marshall T/C 09:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Take to AfD. Per Alzarian16 really. I don't feel the article should have been deleted under A10 and think AfD would be a better place to discuss this. - JuneGloom Talk 20:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Restore if anyone wants to take it to AFD then of course they are able to. I'm of the general view that the ill A10 is trying to address is generally moot when dealing with an experienced editor once it's been drawn to their attention it apparently meets the criteria and they still have a reasonable wish to pursue it (if that's by deletion then probably restoration should be on request) - I'm sure I can wrap lots of nuance around that view and leave definition of "experienced" vague. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD This would be the best course of action given debate on whether a10 is valid or whether the article is merited. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Time in Portugal|xfd_page=|article=}}

Grossly wrong to delete it since "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Time_zones)" is not met. TZ master (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Restore. I think that this is more duplicative of List of time zones by country rather than Time zones but in neither case does it seem to be a valid A10 since this is a reasonable way to present the material with some precedent behind it. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• But only partial duplicative, since it contains other content. Or partial duplicative of zone.tab. In the end both are lists with limited scope, while Time in Portugal gives an overview of several aspects of timekeeping in Portugal. Initial speedy deletion proposer recently also supported undeletion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fastily&diff=456454677&oldid=456450619]. TZ master (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion does not suitably expand on original topic - deletion of this and all similar articles was as per policy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Given that there's a {{Europe topic|Time in}} template (which doesn't transclude properly here for some reason, although it's fine in article space) having an entry for each country, one would assume that these articles are not all redundant to some tz database. I didn't look at them in any detail, but it seems to me this may be a haphazard deletion when a centralized discussion on the suitability of this type of article may be needed. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

::I think the problems there are (a) TZ master is working on a LOT of articles that are linked - this means many will be redlinked or have templates that don't properly transclude, and (b) (which created a situation where I proposed other 5 speedies), he's not using the underconstruction template or completing work on one particular item before moving on.

::I do not think the articles and potential for additional Wikipedia content should suffer due to that - I think instead that some help for him and his efforts would be a better solution. If one were to look at some of his contributions, I am sure you will come to the conclusion that they are A10 worthy, as they are copy/pastes of existing information. I did that same thing. BUT, if you dig deeper into his contribution history, you'll see previous other articles that, for the same reasons, were A10 worthy, that are now articles with a lot more depth and with no word-for-word duplication in the main article. I thus suggest patience and help instead of further A10s. And the discussion suggested above by "Have m..." Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Restore. I don't see how this duplicates either time zones or zone.tab or List of time zones by country or any other article. Asking readers to peruse three huge lists to find all this information about a given country is absurd. The is some material in common between the article and those lists. But this is not a straightforward duplication so CSD A10 is quite inappropriate. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn A10 is narrow, as are most speedy criteria. This kind of thing is what people worried about when A10 was proposed. It's a reasonable way to present the material that has a history here. It's not someone recreating an existing article in a clueless or malign way. Hobit (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• RESTORE - *I* proposed this for speedy deletion because duplicate information existed in the two time zone pages in MAP form. In (a) giving it further thought and (b) in seeing the expansion TZ master has been working on for all such articles, and (c) in rethinking things and realizing the text information provided by TZ on the page, though duplicative to the maps, is actually accurate on a "scientific"/mapping level and provides the information in a different type of context that's more suited to certain audiences (namely an entire class of viewers interested in such coordinate precision). Thus, as the speedy tagger I strongly support restoration. I've also already asked the deleting admin to do so. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

:*Clarify: The maps at time zones do not show the three tz database zones. TZ master (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Restore If we can have 1000s of articles about every known genus and species of plant and animal then there is no reason we can't have articles about various time zones. If it later turns out some of the information in these time zone articles would be better organized into larger articles, they can always be merged and redirected at a later date. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• This type of article is not even about a timezone. It's about the timezones and related timekeeping information (e.g. daylight saving) in a country. It's precisely the stuff that the average reader would look for. The geek/technical lists by a particular subtopic (e.g. which countries are in the timezone UTC+1) are fine too, but they address a different audience. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps I was generalising a little, but I wanted to keep it simple ;) --Tothwolf (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore per Hobit. This is not what A10 is for, any editor should be free to AfD it appropriately if desired. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)