Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 8#Equestria Daily

:{{DRV links|List of important publications in networks and security|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security|article=}}

After the AfD, I tried hard to find references for the article. The group of nominations where procedural as List of important publications in biology had been recently deleted.

I realize that each page must be assessed on their own.

The Keep arguments are that there are references can be found for this page, but none had come up, and results may not come up as easily as other topics because of its narrow scope and the fact that the list groups 2 topics together, "network" and "security".

On a contrary note, adequate references had come up for List of important publications in mathematics because 2 sources which complied a list of important (however this is interpreted) mathematics works was found. What I'm saying here is that a source has complied a list and noted and explained why such a list was important. Another source has done this too. This makes it notable for inclusion on wikipedia.

I have discussed this with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens&diff=454581351&oldid=454581226 closing admin] but received no reply.Curb Chain (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Curb Chain (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

:: On the contrary, the closing admin notes: "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATimotheus_Canens&action=historysubmit&diff=454572055&oldid=454571582 I'm unwilling to stretch the meaning of the word "consensus" far enough to reach a delete conclusion. In any event, the primary argument that "important" is inherently OR has been substantially challenged by those on the keep side.]" Quite right. Geometry guy 22:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

:::If we can find sources for anything that could be semantized as being important, I could see this is the closure-for-keep as applicable.Curb Chain (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse. Your searching skills are abysmal as demonstrated in the List of important publications in mathematics etc. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

:I endorse the decision of that close. I am glad sources were found for mathematics. I don't see them for this topic.Curb Chain (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

:: I admit the marriage of security and networks in the same list appears a bit odd to me, a neophyte. Perusing the list, it seems most papers are about cryptography. I was able to find [https://users.cs.jmu.edu/abzugcx/public/Cryptology/Journal-Articles-on-Crypto-POSTED.pdf this list] by just googling for "cryptography landmark". As for the entries in the Wikipedia list, you'll have little trouble seeing that many of them are described as landmarks, including Shannon's, Diffie and Hellman, Dolev and Yao from a quick search in Google Books after the same phrase. [http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&btnG=#q=cryptography+landmark&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks]. I'm sure a specialist could do better, but DRV surely is not cleanup. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Yes, after looking at the article and the article you provided, must of the entries are similar. After this DRV, I'll move it to List of important publications in cryptography and use the paper you provided as a generalreference if List of important publications in networks and security is kept.Curb Chain (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse There were 11 Keeps to 2 Delete and 2 Rename so there was clearly no consensus to delete. Warden (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse keep and instead relist List of important publications in biology. If any of these AfDs need to be revisited, it is surely Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology, where the closing admin discounted numerous "keep" comments on account of a personal view that such lists are "inherently OR". The community has clearly demonstrated that it does not agree with such a view. Geometry guy 22:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

:And List of important publications in sociology and probably List of publications in law, but the law one may need a rename.Curb Chain (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse keep An editor decides since one article was deleted, he should procedurally nominate a mass of others, and then argue nonstop his point, upset that most people didn't see it his way. Also, deletion review is for reviewing deletions, not for reviewing articles that weren't deleted. Dream Focus 22:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

:That is actually not true DRV is used to review possibile mistakes in deletion discussions (keeps or deletes). I am not saying that this should be overturned but simply stating the claim that DRV is not used to challenge decsions that result in keeping articles is not mistaken.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse and reply @Curb Chain: I already said at the AfD that I am not going to include sources just because you want it but because there are a few issues I would like to discuss first – with serious editors, of which you are none. Here are a couple of links for you that discuss papers on cryptography and security as a "set", as you insisted so heavily but found nothing (obviously due to zero effort on your part): [http://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/crypto-security.html#Bibliographies crypto bib] by Ron Rivest, which includes links to Doug Stinson's lists, [http://pm1.bu.edu/~tt/qcl/pdf/brassarg199305087270.pdf quantum crypto bib] by Gilles Brassard, [http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/006176622 ''An annotated bibliography of cryptography], Daniel Bernstein's [http://pqcrypto.org/ site] on papers on post-quantum cryptography, etc., etc., and of course David Kahn's The Codebreakers on classic cryptography, which I already mentioned in the AfD. I propose that Curb Chain will indefinitely be banned from taken any further articles to AfD. Nageh (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

:You mentioned David Kahn, but not the title. It is a good work. The rest are bibliographies which may be used as links at best. I am a serious editor and to say I am not is a personal attack.Curb Chain (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

:: Given your last comment at WP:WQA, you should not complain about others' [in]civility so readily. You are frustrating others with your shallow approach to these lists, and your persistence cannot be interpreted in any way that would cast a positive light on you. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

:: @Curb Chain: Disregarding [http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/006176622 An annotated bibliography of cryptography], a published book, and bibliographies by top researchers in cryptography as applicable for interpretation as a "set" and useful for links at best proves once again your disrespect for serious content work, and your own superficial and non-serious work (with zero efforts on your part to improve the list or verifying the existence of similar lists in reliable secondary sources, despite claiming otherwise). You call it a personal attack (I did not call you names, that would be one), I call it a fact that anyone can verify on the AfD discussions, and once more in this deletion review. Nageh (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

:::You are mistaken. I have not disregarded [http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/006176622 An annotated bibliography of cryptography]David Kahn's The Codebreakers.Curb Chain (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

::::I quote you: "You mentioned David Kahn, but not the title. It is a good work. The rest are bibliographies which may be used as links at best." "The rest" includes An annotated bibliography of cryptography. Now I call you a lier. You have been acting like that throughout the whole AfD process!!! Stop it!!!! Nageh (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::Please avoid terminology like "lier [sic]". See WP:NPA. LadyofShalott 18:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::I consider it an objective observation. From WP:NPA, What is considered to be a personal attack?: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." I would say there is clear evidence. Nageh (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - it sounds as if what Curb Chain wants is not Deletion Review, but AfD Part II. That's not what this is supposed to be. LadyofShalott 22:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• We should probably snow close this, because I don't think there's any possibility at all that T. Canens' close will be overturned here. I must say that Curb Chain does appear to be trying to edit seriously, and I find the hostility expressed towards him at this DRV surprising; presumably there's some kind of history there, but I invite debate participants to leave that behind when they come to DRV, which is a drama-free zone. I think Curb Chain is wrong, but I don't think that makes it okay to disrespect him.—S Marshall T/C 08:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• WP:CIR and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God_Created_the_Integers&diff=next&oldid=454417110]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

::I am a fully competent editor. That's also an essay. This is edging to personal attacks. Stop.Curb Chain (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Stop that.—S Marshall T/C 13:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Stop what? User:Curb Chain objected to the use of the word "important" as POV [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God_Created_the_Integers&diff=prev&oldid=454417110]. But WP:NPOV has no standard of absolute objectivity—whatever that might mean; instead it states "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion." So, if the preponderance of opinion in reliable sources is that the Diffie-Helman paper is important (for instance), than I don't see any violation of Wikipedia policies in relating it as such. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Marshall, we are all just expressing our frustration with this user, that's all. Fruitless discussions like we had at the AfDs can excite such emotions, it's rather human, and this DRV was just another trigger. Anyway, as this DRV is not going to enter another round of discussions I think we can all calm down again. Nageh (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse keep the AfD was a cesspit, but the closure reflected the consensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• overturn & delete - a qualified list with no source. only reasons given to keep were "its WP:OBVIOUSLY Important & WP:Common knowledge". Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Equestria Daily|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equestria Daily|article=}}

There was no consensus to delete it. Talked to administrator at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timotheus_Canens#About_Equestria_Daily]. I believe his closing rational showed mistakes made on his part. Dismissing the single purpose accounts is irrelevant, since there were three keeps and two deletes with few other edits ever. That isn't a significant number. 17 people said it was notable enough to keep, there references found in reliable sources such as Wired magazine, and 12 said it should be deleted. Those posting after a relist do not have more sway than those posting before it, that rational making absolutely no sense at all. Dream Focus 17:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

:Not only this, but the nomination of the article was done by a meatpuppet hired by none other than JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis). A banned user, regardless of being a meatpuppet or sockpuppet, should not have ANY INFLUENCE AND ANY EDIT, under any and all circumstances, with no exceptions. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 17:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

::As per Special:Contributions/Havermayer, the nominator was indef blocked 5 days after the start of the AfD, but the page says nothing about being banned.  Also, the AfD nomination as per WP:Banning policy has not been reverted, which is further evidence that the nominator was not banned at the time of the AfD nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

:::It's possible that he didn't even know who JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp is but made the mistake of taking part in a 4chan "raid" that may or may not have been instigated by JA. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not 100% sure that I agree with the closing admin's decision to weight the post-relisting votes more heavily, but I would still Endorse his close here. Also, I don't believe the policy is to speedy close any AfD by a sock/meatpuppet of a banned user, at least not when established users have weighed in to the discussion in support of his view. As far as the AfD discussion itself went: if SPA's are thrown out, the amount of Delete and Keep voters were fairly close in number (9-12 by my count). I think in this circumstance (roughly equal number of voters on each side) it is within administrative discretion to assign more weight to one side based on strength of argument. The delete voters did seem to analyze the strength of the available sources more closely than the keep voters, most of whom based their votes on the site's popularity and vague assertions of coverage. So I think Timotheus Canens made a reasonable decision here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

:That would be casting a super vote. The majority of people said the sources found were fine. A no consensus outcome would've been the right thing to do. Dream Focus 19:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have created a redirect at this pages location before I was aware of there being a DRV, as per my comment at the AfD that we already have relevant information to this topic on another page, thus leaving it a redlink is harmful to readers. It has now been nominated for speedy deletion, despite it not meeting any of the criteria. If this closes as endorse, please restore my redirect and/or nominate it at Redirects for Discussion if you don't believe it should exist, so that consensus can be gained. --Taelus (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• I'm a bit torn on this one. In cases where a discussion has been tainted by sockpuppetry or bad faith, administrators rightly have wide latitude to take whatever steps are appropriate to repair the discussion and uncover what the good faith consensus might have been. In this case, the initial nomination could and arguably should have been closed, because the nominator was not entitled to edit and banned users do not get to nominate articles for deletion. Therefore, I do not entirely approve of The Bushranger's relisting of the discussion. But the fact that he did relist it—even after User:Rainbow Dash had pointed out the sockpuppetry—effectively makes The Bushranger into the nominator of a fresh AfD. In other words, the discussion after the relisting is correctly understood as untainted and may receive greater weight.

  But having said that, although I think T. Canens was right in this case, I don't think it's enough to be right. Good faith users should be able to see why he was right, and if I'd !voted in the first part of that discussion, I might feel aggrieved. I might feel that my good faith !vote had received less weight as a result of other people's bad faith. I think that part of DRV's job is to see that good faith users don't have cause to feel aggrieved: I feel that part of our job is to provide FairProcess on demand. And also, it's possible for a discussion to be so tainted by bad faith that any conclusion based on it is unsafe. Arguably, this is such a discussion.

  I'll go with weak relist, but I make no suggestion that T. Canens was wrong. I think he closed the discussion as he found it as well as it could have been closed in the circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 21:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

:A relisting is to gain additional input, not to start over again. You don't just invalidate everyone who said something previously, that never being how its been done before, nor would it make any sense at all. The process wasn't "tainted" by a small number of possible sockpuppets that went one way or the other. Most people are regular editors, and certainly not socks at all. Whether they found their way there and commented before or after the relisting isn't relevant at all. Also there was a suspicious account[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nekopan] say delete after the relisting. Does that mean we should invalidate everything and start again once more? I'm against relisting. He made a mistake, he doesn't have the right to ignore everyone because of a relisting, and there was clearly no consensus to delete. Dream Focus 22:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse. Consensus is not a headcount. In this case, some keep-!voters' argument were merely WP:VAGUEWAVEs and WP:ITSNOTABLE; discounting these !votes, the closing admin was faced with two opposing, well-argued positions (the former, that Equestria Daily is notable because it has received much coverage in reliable sources; the latter, that the website is not notable because said coverage is not substantial and does not addresses the subject directly in detail). An administrator closing a deletion discussion is expected to assess the strength of the respective arguments; and he who does so is not casting a !supervote. In this case, {{u|Timotheus Canens}} considered the deletes-!votes more persuasive and more grounded in policy; this was within the discretion accorded to a closing admin and it was reasonable too. Therefore, I see no reason to overturn his close. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• In general, if there are two opposing, well-argued (and valid) viewpoints and the !vote is close, NC is the way to go. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• While that's generally true, it's not necessarily so; in this case, the delete-!voters argued that the argument put forth by the keep-!voters was flawed, in that the coverage received by the website was not significant. This confutation had to be taken into account by the closing admin; {{u|Timotheus Canens}}, therefore, acted properly. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• I'm sure most Keep voters felt the same way about the delete voters' views. Some felt and still feel it is significant, while others do not. Administrators may not cast a supervote. Dream Focus 10:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• But can and should assess the strength of the respective arguments, which is what the closing admin did, in this case. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• If the closing admin had given that for a reason, deletion would still be a stretch. If WP:N isn't black-and-white in a given case, we look to the community to figure out where to draw the line. But that's not the reason that was given. It was counting some !votes more than others for reasons that had nothing to do with their strength of argument. That's problematic. Hobit (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

*Relist for another round. It was obvious that the AfD was tainted the second the puppet made the nomination. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 00:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• relist or overturn to NC I don't think it makes sense to weigh the later !votes more--should people have !voted a second time after the relist? As much as I respect Tim's judgement, I think he's got this one wrong. Deletion may well be reasonable here--sources seem thin. But looking at the discussion as a whole, minus the SPAs, it looks like NC. It was unclear if the sources were more than trivial mentions, but the debate looks largely like a "is/is not" debate. I've not yet looked closely at the sources, but it looks like they are above the WP:N bar. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse: Tim used his administrative judgement in dealing with a split headcount, errors in regards to the page's original listing, and with his interpretation of policy. It does not matter if the original nominator is a user who has been banned from the project, and the nomination was never "tainted" as Rainbow Dash suggests. Subsequent comments by several users in good standing at the AFD fulfill the policy aspect "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content."—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

::No, that quote is taken out of context, and refers to material restored as a function of reverting the banned editor.  In other words, the banned editor removed material, so the revert "reinstates" the questionable material.  What WP:Banning policy says is, "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content."  Unscintillating (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn The reasoning made absolutely no sense. The majority of the participants were in favor of keeping the article. It sure takes a twisted sense of logic to distort that into a consensus to delete. But I'm not surprised, really, Wikipedia has always been driven by personal politics and has never been anywhere near objective in these types of discussions. Dr. WTF (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

::"The majority of the participants were in favor of keeping the article. It sure takes a twisted sense of logic to distort that into a consensus to delete." First, that was a very, very slim majority. I think by only one or two votes. Next, AfD are not majority vote. I'll quote the Template:Not a ballot: "...please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

:::A consensus, by definition, cannot occur when the majority are rightfully in opposition. It has nothing to do with voting. Dr. WTF (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

::::I'll just point out that you yourself cited WP:NOTAVOTE in the AfD. The !vote you commented on was part of engaging in an act of consensus-building. One should avoid confusing pile-on, I-like-it, and I-don't-like-it !votes with the !votes that are done through research of the article and a knowledge of policy. After having reviewed the article, the !voter may have come to the same conclusion as other experienced !voters, and does not need to repeat everything they said if that conclusion is the same. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::What you've pointed out has absolutely nothing to do with the present discussion. If you have a problem with me personally, let's talk. Otherwise, I'd prefer we not abandon the topic at hand and lose sight of Wikipedia's core principles. Dr. WTF (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Whatever the sock/nominator wanted, do the opposite. We can't allow socks to influence things just because we don't know they're socks yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse, or alternatively Relist so we can have a discussion untainted by SPAs; I am unsure how the canvassing occurred (certainly not on-wiki) but having so many accounts that had never been near an AfD before main it fairly obvious what was going on. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

:Most people there were not SPA thought, so what difference would it make? Most who participated are regular Wikipedia editors. And you can just ignore the SPA entirely, they just stating keep or delete, and not making any discussion whatsoever, so nothing they said could've affected anyone else. Dream Focus 21:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Relist or overturn to NC - I puzzled over this at the time as well. At most, it's no consensus - there was absolutely no consensus to delete, even if you account for SPAs. And regardless of whether or not the meat/sockpuppet was blocked/banned at the time the AfD was created or not, it was still a meat/sockpuppet, and thus bent on causing disruption. If it was indeed a meat/sock of JaraxleArtemis/Grawp, it should be thrown out on that grounds alone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and if anyone wants to start a new AfD , let them. A bad faith nomination , which includes the circumstances here, should be thrown out as soon as possible--it has been incurable contaminated. If we didn't catch it in time, it should be completely invalidated. If the article is a true problem ,someone else we nominate it. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn due to DGG's argument. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 22:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. Salvio's position here is well reasoned. Closing administrator properly exercised discretion in weighing policy and arguments; no point in re-litigation the matter. Large numbers of the "keep" votes were either single-purpose accounts with very low edit counts or comments that were unpersuasive (basically blanket assertions of notability). Neutrality^talk 23:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Neutrality^talk 23:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Relist. It seems that both sides pretty heavily used SPAs (and some bad faith) and I see only a handful people really making any sort of good argument. I admit I am guilty myself of basically slapping down a vote. But the fact stands that, at 17 keeps to 10 deletes, and with about 4 substantial votes per side (by my count), this was, at the very least, closed down prematurely. Clay^Clay_Clay 00:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse All sorts of things wrong with the AfD, but the close reflected the policy-based arguments put forward. The number of actually votes is meaningless. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. Why was it deleted? No consensus stating is must be deleted was reached.

: since the AfD was not properly transcluded, - we can have another properly transcluded discussion.

: The pre-relist section was plagued by SPAs - so what? No WP page (or AfD vote) is protected form SPA`s/unregistered contributors because this is how WP works - everyone is able to edit. Teyandee (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn Invalid nomination by banned user, no consensus to delete and multiple reliable sources covering the subject.  Grue  12:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse Not one of the votes to keep the article ever showed there was non-trivial coverage of the subject. Passing mentions do not cross the threshold for WP:GNG. The closing administrator used his judgment and didn't just count heads, that's the kind of critical thinking we want from our admins. Finally, even if a banned user nominates an article for deletion, we do NOT close the discussion once good faith edits have been made. There's areason that WP:Speedy keep specifically states that it is not an option, and a bad faith nomination does not over rule the good faith comments. AniMate 12:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: The closing statement by the admin that "The pre-relist section was plagued by SPAs, and in any event, since the AfD was not properly transcluded, does not represent a fair cross-section of the community, and so is entitled to substantially lesser weight." is especially concering to me. SPAs should be considered appropriately, yes. But this reads to me as "yes, Twinkle failed and didn't put the AfD on the deletion log. Therefore, those who commented before that was caught, your opinion is less valid". Why? It was relisted to get a broader community consensus, but why are earlier, good-faith comments/!votes "entitled" to being second-class Wikizens? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• I see that what I wrote doesn't really reflect what I meant to say. I follow a two-step approach in closing an AfD: first I consider the numerical balance between the two sides (though not to a mathematical certainty), then the quality of the arguments. I use a sliding scale: the greater the numerical difference between keeps and deletes, the greater the difference in quality of arguments must be to overcome that difference. What I meant to say is that when you are considering the numerical balance (but not the quality of arguments), I considered the post-relist (or really, proper list) discussion to be more indicative of where the keep:delete line really is instead of the pre-relist discussion, since the post-relist portion of the discussion was properly advertised, while the pre-relist discussion was likely seen by mostly readers of the article (who are more likely to !vote keep). In my view it is analogous to canvassing - whereas inappropriate canvassing influences debate by making it more easily seen by people likely to !vote one way, here the non-listing influenced the debate by making it less easily seen by people less likely to !vote that way. I can assure you that I fully considered each comment in terms of the quality of arguments in the same way; no distinction was made in that respect between pre-relist and post-relist comments. T. Canens (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. The closer's decision to discount the early round of discussion is unsupported by policy or guideline, and irredeemably taints their decision since the outcome was otherwise unclear. Moreover, it has the perverse impact of discounting the views of those interested in the subject and overweighting those of editors who follow the deletion process itself, which is also unsupported by the deletion policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse Regardless of who nom'd it, and regardless of the fact it didn't originally properly get listed and needed an extra week, the deletion was based on policy, and based on the arguments at AfD once it did get properly listed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse Most of the keep votes did not argue for notability, just said it was. The sources only mention Equestria Daily in passing and instead focus on the show. Fansites should only get wiki pages if they are truly notable for themselves and have had an impact of somekind. So, the admin made the right decision by putting less weight into the !keep votes. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn to NC and revisit it again in 3 months. Failing that, relist with notifications to all and a careful eye towards SPAs. It is almost always wrong to close an XfD against the numerically more prevalent side: policies are descriptive, not prescriptive, such that if the majority of the good faith community contributors (that is, excluding SPAs) finds an argument more compelling, then that argument should be acknowledged, rather than thrown out as not being policy-based. Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• (ec)Overturn to No Consensus without prejudice to an immediate renomination  In looking at the redirect, I see that the sources discussed in the AfD have been hidden.  There was not a single !vote at the AfD that this material was objectionable, yet the closing admin does not mention suitable merge targets for the reliable material.  There is massively no consensus at this time for a complex of reasons, including that it appears that the nominator was improperly blocked, to which effect I have notified the blocking administrator.  I don't agree with a relist, we already know that there are a ton of problems in evaluating the current !votes.  Better would be a WP:IAR decision to restore the edit history in the current redirect along with closing the DRV as an "endorse".  And the last thing we need is a "procedural nomination" to force a bureaucratic continuation of a tainted process.  So either WP:IAR soft endorse the closure by restoring the edit history, or restore the article and turn it back to editorial control, but stop this process.  BTW, the keep !votes argued to WP:N "worthy of notice", which the delete !votes ignored.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• How is restoring the history a "soft endorse" of a delete close? Redirect, delete and redirect, and delete are distinct outcomes. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Ah, but many participants at AfD overlook the idea of redirecting at all. The fact this was closed as delete, when our redirect policy points out that this is a perfect place to have a redirect, proves this. Plus I have seen at least one article in the past that gets voted to be redirected at AfD, then voted to be deleted at RfD, but because it has history it gets restored, then re-redirected... and eventually you have a policy breaking redirect sitting in place, or a deleted article sitting in place. AfD is not good at handling redirection. --Taelus (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• I see your point, but creating a redirect after deletion, as you did, is an ordinary editing action. A potential problem with redirecting without deleting (or protecting) is that an editor will simply revert. I think that is more likely with enthusiastic and inexperienced editors. Do you remember that past article? It might be a candidate for WP:Merge and delete. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

::*(ec) Actually, what I said was that this was a WP:IAR outcome, and that such a WP:IAR outcome would be better than a relist.  Further, please see Talk:Equestria_Daily, it seems that a so-called "Endorse" !vote here means "endorse the status quo", which is more precisely stated as, "Overturn from delete to delete and redirect".  But if my WP:IAR concept focused on getting to closure instead raises questions, it serves no purpose, so I am strking it.  I continue to support DGG's proposal, which I state as, "Overturn to no consensus, without prejudice to an immediate renomination".  Unscintillating (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

:::: Thanks for your response. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::Yes, that statement of my intent was correct. The cure for a AfD nomination done as wrongly as this , is to do it over. Beyond a certain degree of disagreement, there's no point in persisting to say there was or is consensus. (I would not be surprised if the new AfD resulted in a merge or redirect close of some sort, such as has been suggested by several people, but the place to discus what is best, is there, not here.) DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse - Policy based closure based on the arguments at AfD. Off2riorob (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• overturn per DGG. Many issues and potential sourcing. If necessary, have another AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)