From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrator instructions

Skip to: Active discussions | Recent discussions | Archive

Shortcuts: WP:DRV WP:DELREV

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Deletion yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Images & media Categories (active) User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review
Deletion policy
Process – log – tools Guide – Images – Admins

Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here (administrators may replace with {{TempUndelete}} where appropriate).

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

Contents 1 What is this page for? 1.1 Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates 1.2 Temporary review 1.3 History-only undeletion 1.4 Contesting 'proposed deletions' 1.5 How do I do all this? 2 Instructions 2.1 Commenting in a deletion review 2.2 Closing reviews 2.3 Steps to list a new deletion review 3 Active discussions 3.1 5 December 2008 3.1.1 Kink.com (closed) 3.2 4 December 2008 3.2.1 Argument by analogy (closed) 3.3 3 December 2008 3.3.1 Temporary review (closed) 3.3.2 Jack Schaap 3.3.3 Leroy Jethro Gibbs 3.3.4 List of fictional swords 3.3.5 User:Apovolot 3.3.6 July 29 in rail transport 3.3.7 PART X of the Constitution of India (closed) 3.4 2 December 2008 3.4.1 Category:African American basketball players 3.4.2 Image:KenMcKenna2.jpg 3.5 1 December 2008 3.5.1 MyAnimeList (closed) 3.5.2 Steve Dillard (closed) 3.5.3 Cost per Day (closed) 3.5.4 Apocrypha_Discordia (closed) 3.5.5 Category:United States Senate candidates & Category:United States House of Representatives candidates 3.5.6 List of Universal Century technology 3.6 30 November 2008 3.6.1 Template:Internet_memes 3.6.2 David R. Hawkins 3.6.3 Skyzoo 3.6.4 Image:Elle williams 360.jpg 4 Recent discussions 4.1 29 November 2008 4.1.1 David Krikorian (closed) 4.1.2 Rolando_Gomez 4.1.3 De Sitter invariant theories 4.1.4 Arnolds (closed) 4.1.5 Awesome Color (closed) 4.2 28 November 2008 4.3 27 November 2008 4.4 26 November 2008 4.5 25 November 2008 4.6 24 November 2008 4.6.1 Image:Wpdms nasa topo olympic peninsula.jpg (closed) 4.6.2 U Card (closed) 4.6.3 List of notable people who wore the bowler hat 4.6.4 Kairos Foundation (closed) 4.6.5 Air India Express destinations (closed) 4.7 23 November 2008 5 Archive

[edit] What is this page for?

Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.

[edit] Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates

Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions. Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

Shortcut: WP:DRV

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).

The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in main part of the page — please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.

[edit] Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:

1. The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
2. The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
3. The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.

Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

[edit] History-only undeletion

Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.

[edit] Contesting 'proposed deletions'

Request this if the article was dealt with as a 'proposed deletion'. A 'PROD'-deleted article can be restored by any admin upon reasonable request. Such an article may still be deleted at articles for deletion or under the criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators restoring deleted articles should also restore the associated talk page if it exists and place {{oldprod}} on it. {{ProdContested}} (shortcut {{subst:PC|articlename}}) is available for notifying the original nominator that the article has been restored.

[edit] How do I do all this?

All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

[edit] Instructions

Before listing a review request:

1. discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #What is this page for? (above).
2. please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

[edit] Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

[edit] Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

[edit] Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.

1.	Copy the following line (which is also listed for you in the date page below): {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=PAGENAME|ns=NAMESPACE of page|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ For images, use the following instead: {{subst:NewdelrevImg|pg=IMAGE_NAME|ifddate=DATE|article=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ (where IMAGE NAME is the name of the image without the "Image:" prefix, DATE is the date of the IfD page, ARTICLE_NAME is the name of the article in which the image was used.)
2.	Follow this link to today's log, paste the line at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page), below the date header box. (This box looks like a few lines of hash in the edit page the link takes you to, but look for the "BELOW THIS LINE" tag after the first paragraph, and paste in your request just below that). Then replace PAGE_NAME and UNDELETE_REASON in your addition with appropriate content. Your whole contribution is this single bracketted tag. The tag will create the proper section for you when you save the page, so you don't need to create a new header or do anything else.
3.	Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.	Nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept should also attach a {{subst:Delrev}} tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

 

[edit] Active discussions

[edit] 5 December 2008

[edit] Kink.com (closed)

Kink.com – Article has been undeleted by deleting admin – Stormie (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kink.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD) This article was deleted by User:Orangemike under CSD criterion A7: 'doesn't assert importance or significance'. I would argue that the previous article did that; here is a cached version of the deleted page: [1]. It includes in-depth references from reliable sources such as the New York Times[2], the San Francisco Chronicle[3], the Village Voice[4] and 7x7 Magazine[5]. This article would arguably have passed AFD, had it been submitted. It may be on a topic distasteful to some (the website is a publisher of fetish pornography), but it definitely meets Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Hollis Mason (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Restored, per Hollis' arguments. Could somebody please clean up the bad writing, etc.? I'm not about to. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

[edit] 4 December 2008

[edit] Argument by analogy (closed)

Argument by analogy – Everybody happy now. – Tikiwont (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Argument by analogy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD) (RfD) The redirect is destructive, since it implies that there is already an article for "argument by analogy" and thus decreases its chances of being created as a separate article. Argument by analogy and false analogy are not necessarily the same thing. The discussion page shows that another user has also been frustrated by the redirect, during his attempt to learn about argument by analogy. I argued to remove the redirect and found that "the result of the debate was Keep" because I stopped arguing and lost by default. B. Wind's "argument" ("we are left with two options: either deletion or keeping the redirect. Clearly the latter is the better option. . . there is no valid reason to delete the redirect right now") is merely an expression of opinion that cites no reasoning behind it, and Rossami's reply is actually an argument to keep the page history, but similarly makes no attempt to justify the opinion that the redirect should stay. Neither B. Wind nor Rossami say anything to refute my reasoning to remove the redirect Minaker (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse closure - no other conclusion but keep is reasonable from the discussion and DRV is not RFD round 2. Is there some reason why you can't put together a brief article on the topic and just post it? Otto4711 (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse closure but you can change the redirect to an article as soon as you've got a reasonable one written. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse closure since the weight of the arguments favored keep. Personally, I would have suggested redirect to analogy and would not find fault if someone made such a change. If you so desire, feel free to bang out a stub using material from Find sources: "argument by analogy" — news, books, scholar. Also, Wikipedia's "analogy" titled articles include Acoustic analogy, Analogy, Analogy (biology), Analogy of the divided line, Capacitor analogy, Car analogy, Chilton and Colburn J-factor analogy, Domestic analogy, Elastic Membrane Analogy, False analogy, Hydraulic analogy, Image analogy, Israel and the apartheid analogy, Membrane analogy, Nikwax Analogy, Reynolds analogy, and Watchmaker analogy. Maybe one or more of them are relevant to argument by analogy. Once you have an article, feel free to post the article over the redirect. -- Suntag ☼ 15:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC) I wrote a section on argument by analogy and revised the redirect to Argument#Argument by analogy.-- Suntag ☼ 17:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC) I disagree that "the weight of the arguments favored keep" unless by "weight" you mean "number of"; as I have noted, most of the "arguments" in favor of keep were not arguments at all, just expressions of opinion not backed up by any attempt of justification. In any case, it's moot now, because there is now a section on argument by analogy! Not its own article, but its own section, sure enough! Thank you Suntag, honest to God, you're my hero of the day, I've been trying to get this topic recognition for too long now! Thanks, Suntag! a very happy Minaker (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

[edit] 3 December 2008

[edit] Temporary review (closed)

Temporary review – Content userfied as requested – Stifle (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The articles for The Mary Pearl Willis Foundation and Lela Howard restored to user:Dembravesfans, so I can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.Dembravesfans 19:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Jack Schaap

Jack Schaap (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted on April 18, 2007, almost two years ago, and salted from creation. I have now created a full length, non-stub, referenced, notability-establishing article in my sandbox here. I would like to have the page unprotected so I can move the article that is in my sandbox, as it is quite notable, into the Jack Schaap article. Thank you. American Eagle (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Seems fine, permit recreation. Stifle (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. A year and a half has passed so he may be more notable now. I can't tell from the AfDs why this was protected in the first place except for the OTRS point but there seems no reason to retain the protection. The proposed article has a slightly POV tone but that's no reason to stop it being put in the article space now. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Unsalt. Allow recreation. If anyone has a problem with the article that results, they can restart the deletion process anew. Bucketsofg 00:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• May I strongly suggest we look at the OTRS tag before we undelete? That seems to have been a non-issue since after that deletion the article was created and then went through an AfD. But it would be nice to have confirmation that the OTRS report isn't an issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Weak don't-restore - The original article apparently had some POV and soapboxing problems, which led to BLP problems. This article doesn't have that, but it was also deleted due to a request from the subject and because he was very marginally notable. The proposed article still doesn't seem to go past marginal notability, so I'm not really inclined to suggest it be recreated. Most of the sources seem to be from organizations that he's associated with and it seems to mostly be some inherited notability from the organizations he leads. (otrs:718714, otrs:647767, and otrs:621092 for reference). Mr.Z-man 07:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Did he object to the content of the article a specific incorrect statement in the article or to the presence of an article per se? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The article in its entirety and it wasn't just once. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Echo Mr Z man This looks like a perfectly defensible deletion of a marginally notazble individual by request. This is allowed under BLP and until notability improves there is no reason to revisit this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation; the original article simply did not show notability. The present does make a plausible claim, although the first half is a little hagiographic. (and I use the word in a more literal sense than usual). I haven't the least idea whether or not the subject wants the present version of the article, but I now think it's irrelevant. DGG (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The OTRS tickets suggest the subject simply doesn't want and article and I'm not seeing any reason to believe that just because the article gets rewritten they would change their stance. I'm curious why you think their opinion is irrelevant because in the case of a marginally notable BLP it is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leroy Jethro Gibbs

Leroy Jethro Gibbs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• Relist. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leroy Jethro Gibbs (2nd nomination) was inappropriately closed after less than 24 hours without any clear consensus (views were evenly split) and on incorrect interpretation of the debate. The AfD was proposing deletion, per lack of real world notability and per precedent of related characters, not merger. The result of speedy keep. and reject nomination reflected the closing admin's view but there was no consensus on that result. This is a substantive procedural error. The AfD should be reopened and allowed to run its course. McWomble (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Articles should not be sent to AFD to force a discussion on merger, and that seems to be what you were aiming for. However, if you actually want to delete the article, then open a new AFD and say so. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse my own closure. As stated in the AFD, the merger was discussed, but there wasn't consensus about it yet. Using AFD to get around a merge discussion and delete the material instead is even less appropriate than listing mergers on AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reinstated the original redirect made by McWomble because the person who disagreed with it said "Undid revision 254919632 by McWomble (I want to read a detailed page about each main character. We should improve this article, not delete it." That is a personal opinion, not rooted in policy and mistakenly assuming the article was deleted when a suitable amount of material was kept elsewhere. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Additional note Since the material was already merged (by McWomble), removing the article history for the original character articles would violate GFDL rules. (this also applies to the other characters on AFD at the moment) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure- it, and the other NCIS character articles, were rather pointy nominations made after a merge discussion went awry. Closing it was the proper course of action. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome of conversion to a redirect. I do not think WP needs biographic articles on every fictional character in a TV series. The appropriate place for that would be on a website provided by the makers of the series. TV series tend to be ephemeral, here this year gone next. An article on the series may be encyclopedic, but I consider the character to be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• '
• Wait If it does get merged, there won't be anything to discuss. If not, wait until consensus clears up a little on these characters before renominating. DGG (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional swords

List of fictional swords (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Bad Faith & very Disparaging Nomination. Charges of "useless" & "unmaintainable list of indiscriminate information" were completely unfounded. Undue weight was given to "delete" (without reasonings) & "delete per nom" !votes. Lack of any reasoning has led to further discussions on closing admins Talk page Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn I see an erroneous closing, but I don't see bad faith in the slightest. The closing did not take into account the changes and improvements and narrowing in scope of the article during the discussion. I think this needs either a relist of consider these factors, or a non-consensus close--which i suspect would be the result of a relisting. DGG (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Either relist of overturn per nom. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Relist or overturn to no consensus. Although I !voted to delete I do not believe there was a clear consensus. Nor do I believe there was any bad faith. McWomble (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse reasonable closure. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Relist or overturn to no consensus. The nominator's reasoning was faulty, so all the !votes that said per nom should be discounted along with the votes that gave no reason. Then there's also votes that simply call the page ridiculous without giving valid reasons to delete. And per DGG, the closing did not take into account changes made to the article since the early delete votes were made. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - despite incivility of nomination, reasonable closure.--Boffob (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus- There was enough argument and reason on both sides that it was clear no consensus was reached. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse although I would have closed no consensus. There is nothing to indicate that the closer didn't consider the improvements in the article when he closed the afd, and certainly there were numerous delete comments that came after the primary cleanup. I would, however like to trout-slap those editors who !voted "per nom" - that was among the least civil nominations I've seen. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Isnt that part of the point of WP:Civil(a Core Principal and Policy)? By endorsing this closure and all the "Per Noms" that followed suite, they (and all whom criticise WP), in affect, are being told that this kind of behaviour is "Right" and "the Norm" for WP. I am still wondering what the Deletion Rational is useing as its basis for deletion, as no style guide, policy, guideline or actual problems were pointed out in the Article itself. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not at all. It is quite possible to condemn the nominator's incivility while still judging all the other participants' arguments on their merits. That's what I've done in my endorsement. Reyk _YO! 04:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• If there is no merit to the Nomination, and thus to all the "Per Nom" !votes, it plainly moves into the No Concensus territory, does it not? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't take any of the "per nom" or incivil arguments into account. I still think the "delete" arguments were stronger then the keep. Reyk _YO! 14:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• But then it goes into territory I do not understand. Please explain to me how the 6 additional !votes ascribing WP:IINFO (or whatever other shortcut to the same place) actually applies to this list? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• overturn Removing the nom and people who voted per nom makes this arguably a straight keep without any issue of it being no consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• overturn to no consensus Nominations like that shouldn't be rewarded and arguably the article should have been speedy kept immediately. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Relist IF the nomination itself is the problem for some people that seems to be an easy solution. Protonk (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Further...endorsing the deletion is an appropriate route, too. If we don't get upset about the nomination itself and judge the deletion on the basis of gauging consensus, "delete" is a reasonable conclusion. By adding this I only mean to say that when this DRV is closed I don't want my suggestion to relist the debate as being in contravention to my suggestion that the decision was a proper one. Protonk (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse despite the tone of the nomination, a delete close was a reasonable interpretation of that AfD. RMHED (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse- the original nomination may have been quite hostile but there was no bad faith or pointy behaviour. And there were plenty of additional reasons for deletion given, both before and after the attempted cleanup. The closing admin made a judgement based on the evidence and arguments presented, and almost certainly made the right call. Reyk _YO! 02:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn to "no consensus" — looking at the AFD again, I have observed the following:
  • The !votes between siding deletion per WP:INDISCRIMINATE versus siding keep per WP:SK/WP:CIVIL were split down the line.
  • Most of the other reasons for deletion were either WP:NOREASON (i.e. no reason at all were given) or even WP:PERNOM.

Hence, at the very least, there exists no clear consensus to delete, and if we even exercise the option of ignoring the rules and endorse this AFD result, we would be setting a poor example for AFD nominations, not to mention opening the door for other tendentious editors to nominate articles for deletion, use whatever personal volition/agendas they have, and get away with it. I would also, as others, like to hear the rationale for deletion from the closing admin. MuZemike (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note that WP:AADD is an essay and reliance on it when it is not supported by consensus should be done cautiously. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Seeing as how NOREASON is a basic violation of policy (it would allow for votestacking) and supporting the nominator in this case is a variation of the same thing, I see no reason not to rely on AADD here. It's received a nice amount of support in the past, so I would like to see it made into a guideline. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I would vehemently oppose that, but this is the wrong place to discuss that. May I point you to Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument for some alternative views? Stifle (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
      • You cannot just say Delete and then your signature (same with keep). It does not contribute anything at all to the discussion. Even the deletion policy is clear that AFDs are not determined by a simple "head count," which is what that portion of WP:ATA addresses. MuZemike (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, that's not 100% true. If I had a deletion debate with 3 well reasoned "keeps" and 100 "deletes" with no reason from longstanding editors, I would be more hesitant to close it as "keep" than if I had one with 3 well reasoned "Keeps" and no delete votes. I think that demanding the articulation of a reasoning is important but that a comment presented without reasoning isn't inherently rejected. These discussions aren't determined by headcount but they aren't determined merely by weighing reasoning regardless of how many people hew to it. "Weighing consensus" in the absence of unanimity or near-unanimity means balancing those two poles. Protonk (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Relist A bad-faith nom can still result in a consensus to delete if most of the delete votes ignore the nominator. Many of the delete !votes ignored the nominator's "rationale" and focused on Wikipedia policy (although it is is troubling that three delete !votes were "per nom"). Most of the keep !votes were directed at the nominator and not the article in question. A relisting that ignores the bad-faith of the nominator will achieve a more accurate consensus which focuses on the merits of the article and not the motivation behind it's nomination. Themfromspace (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Relist and discuss the topic in a more civil manner this time. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Apovolot

User:Apovolot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

{{{no consensus}}} Apovolot (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment by Closer - I guess the user is saying that he believes there was no consensus for deletion based on the number of !votes or the content of the comments. Editors who are familiar with MfD will understand that discussion is often pretty thin, especially on relatively inoffensive userpages, which may often bring in fewer of the more experienced editors than a highly controversial userbox. At the same time consensus isn't determined by counting the !votes and there are well established precedents at MfD for deletion of userpages that violate WP:USER based upon many, many, discussions of these issues. The close calls that generate a lot of discussion are those where an individual does some level of editing but spends most of the time in userspace and has a lot of personal information on the userpage - the borderline MySpace pages that arguably tell more than necessary about the user. I close a lot of MfDs and I always err on the side of the user; however, I am very familiar with community consensus on userpage material and the keep comments were not in line with policy or its past interpretation at MfD. This was a clear attempt (not necessarily in bad faith, more likely through misunderstanding) to use Wikipedia as a publishing medium for the user's own theories. A review of the user's edits shows that he has used usertalk for forum like discussions of these same theories and has spent a fair amount of space complaining of censorship when others complain that his pages should be deleted; although these are both beyond the scope of this DRV they further show his misunderstanding of the project. These theories as published on the user's page were not likely to ever result in an article because any such article would be WP:OR/WP:COI. If the theories were published elsewhere in reliable third party sources, someone else might have made a good article about them but the material on the user's page would then have been superfluous. If the user had published these theories and they had proved significant enough in the field to result in third party reports, awards, etc. it might be OK to note them on the user's page to indicate the level of expertise the user has in the field; particularly if he were an experienced editor. But that set of facts is not before us and I believe that it is recognized at MfD that allowing people to turn their userpages into OR publishing sites would violate policy and at some level eventually do real harm to the project.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn The keep arguments were the better based in policy. It was held , and held correctly, that an article on this material was not yet justified, being the first publication of original research. But the presentation here is simply a summary of the authors thinking on the subject--a sketch of ideas to be worked out elsewhere. Many of us have undeveloped ideas about fields we are interested in on our user pages --material which well might never result in a Wikipedia article, but none the less is relevant in showing what we are thinking about. I do not see what harm this serves--a user can speculate in a reasonable way if he chooses.This is well within acceptable content. Now, if he were to develop this into full scale proofs at the level of a potentially publishable article, then it should go elsewhere on space of his own, and he could refer to it. But I don't see it as that far developed. Perhaps those who still have doubts would feel better with it on a subpage? DGG (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus, as there wasn't a visible consensus to delete. I support DGG's suggestion of using a subpage though, because the main userpage should be about the user. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. The material violates WP:UP. A Wikipedia is not a free webhost for extensive material completely unrelated to the project, especially if it involves original research of the user. What was posted here is rather more than a few general throughts about "life, universe and everything" that are typically acceptable on a userpage in broader context. Per WP:UP, a Wikipedia userpage is for things that are related to the user's activities here, on Wikipedia, such as articles the user created or worked on, wikiprojects and general interests, barnstars, brief personal information and so on. Some general comments about one's interests are certainly acceptable, especially if given in broader context of what a user does do here on Wikipedia. But the sort of thing the user had on this page went well beyond that and into the realm of specific mathematical research: three very specific mathematical conjectures, due to the user himself, that, as the page indicated, he intends to publish elsewhere. Using a Wikipedia userpage for publicizing specific research of this nature is inappropriate. This belongs somewhere else: on an external personal webpage, or a newsgroup (such as sci.math.research), or a chatroom or bulletin board or a preprint server. The material is not suitable for a subpage either. As pointed out both by myself and by the closing admin in the MfD, there is no likelihood of this material being able to become a Wikipedia article any time soon. The material is unpublished and can only become notable, in the sense of WP:N, a few years after (and if) it is published. Nsk92 (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. I believe in, and feel both policy and common practice permit, giving considerable lattitude in user space. I think the concerns here could be addressed by making it a sub-page as DGG mentioned, and placing a {{noindex}} template on the page. If the user is agreeable to those things, there shouldn't be a problem. If the tag were to be removed, that could be an indication of a purpose inconsistent with permissible use here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Rants like this one on Jimbo's talk page don't help the subject's cause. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done}
• {{{no action needed at DRV}}} Seriously now. Let's not be cute. Protonk (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn When I saw this DRV I expected something much longer and more obtrusive than what I see in the google cache version of the user page. Discussing, deleting and reviewing such minutiae takes more time, detracts more from encyclopedia improvement than just letting things lie possibly could. De minimis non curat lex. WP:USER says user pages are appropriate for "helping other editors to understand with whom they are working." and frowns on "Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) ". As it is, it tells us the author has made these conjectures and thinks they're important, and so IMHO is quite helpful in informing other editors with whom they are working. As it is not so "extensive" to be prohibited, it seems to comply with our policy. And besides, there was no consensus to delete.John Z (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] July 29 in rail transport

July 29 in rail transport (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn: In this AfD, I believe there was a consensus to delete but the closing admin closed it with a no consensus because he said as we weren't trying to get the article deleted, but trying to reorganize it, so it wasn't deleted. I feel like this call was made in error and deleting the articles would be best way to "reorganize" as it is just a bunch of trivia. The closing admin also has to keep in mind that this nomination was in good faith, and I don't find it to be flawed in any way. I saw an article that could use deletion, and I used AfD. Simple as that.Tavix (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• How about moving to portal space? --NE2 01:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to any of the participants to let the debate go on this long, with this much discussion, and then close it with "This debate is flawed, because WP:AFD is not the place to have debates about content." Nor is the closing admin's suggestion to start this all over again, somewhere else (WikiProject Trains), at all productive. The debate was never about trains, but about whether day-by-day articles of this nature are consistent with policy. The nominator tagged each of the articles and went through the nomination procedure, people discussed Wikipedia policy, and the admin even noted that "the weight of community opinion in this debate is substantially against this structure." Stating at the end of the debate, that it didn't matter -- that's not a satisfactory way to close this. Mandsford (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly my point. It did take a long time to get everything nominated and to have it closed the way it did is messed up.Tavix (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. Though I want to continue with "… and reclose as delete," which I think is the result justified by the arguments offered in the discussion (particularly the WP:NOT-based ones), I will not do so. It appears that the closer's "no consensus," instead of constituting an actual interpretation of the discussion, expressed a refusal to interpret the discussion, with a suitably noncommittal choice from the closure options. For this reason, the closure is flawed. Someone else should close this who is willing to engage with the arguments presented; whether the result turns out to be "keep," "delete," or "no consensus," at least the discussion will have been judged rather than brushed aside. (Note: I did not participate in the AfD itself.) Deor (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I now notice that the nominator here doesn't appear to have attempted to discuss the closure with Mangojuice, the closer, before bringing this to DRV. I wish he had, per the instructions at the top of this page. Deor (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oops sorry, I missed that part. This is my first ever Deletion review, so I didn't really know how to go though with it. I'll go talk to Mangojuice. Tavix (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - as it's a clearcut case of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization (day and train related events in completely different years), but essentially I concur with Deor, it would be preferable to see what the closing admin has to say first.--Boffob (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Regardless of the closing admin's actual statement, a no consensus close is perfectly reasonable here. Opinions were well divided and many of the arguments on both sides were weak. Further, the full list of pages was added after more than a dozen people had already commented on the AFD. If anything is improper in the AFD, that was. Mr.Z-man 03:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reply I already explained myself on the AfD, that I became busy right after I nominated it and couldn't get back on for a little while. If someone really would change their vote because I nominated the other articles (of the exact same nature), they had 4.5 days to do so. Tavix (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• That really has no bearing on "a no consensus close is perfectly reasonable here." The late listing was really just a side note. Mr.Z-man 03:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse my own close, because in the end there wasn't consensus either way. I was trying to suggest how consensus might be built in my closure statement but it seems people would rather continue the contentious route than seek points of agreement. "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" was the only remotely appropriate deletion reason. First of all, this isn't a category. Second, this is surely a cross-categorization of information, but what is non-encyclopedic about it is entirely in the eye of the beholder. There's an argument that organizing by date is uninteresting but clearly some disagreed, and it was pointed out also that categorizing information by calendar date is hardly arbitrary. So how about following my suggestion and discussing the matter with those who edit rail articles instead? Mangojuice^talk 03:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Sad There was a censensus, if you actually read the whole lot, the keep excuses are really quite sad and were all rebuffed. Its amazing that the closing admin does not seem to understand what cross-categorization is. The events have absolutetly NOTHING in common with each other, apart form having occured on the same day of the same month. The only keep argument is that its useful for browsing is nonsensical, who browses between events which are related only by the day of the year they happen to have occured in? No one. The average article has 3 or 4 enteries. I am sure some users have emassed many thousands of edits scrapping all this together. endorse because wikipedia is crazy, only the original article should have been nominated and it would have got deleted, because it wasn't we will now be stuck with all the articles, non of which we will be able to delete.--Dacium (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse and applaud Mangojuice's interpretation of AfD policy. Content or merge disputes need to be settled on the article's talk page or the talk page of the Wikiproject. There was a three-way debate at the AfD between people who wanted the article left as stood, who wanted the content moved elsewhere, and who wanted the article and content deleted. A three way debate like this is not what AfD is about and clearly no consensus was achieved from it. The content dispute should be taken up elsewhere first and that could result in a consensus to move the information elsewhere and redirect the article. If the article stands for some time after this decision then I have no prejudice against the article being renominated. Themfromspace (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse I wasn't and still am not convinced either way about the merits of the articles themselves. However, having followed the AfD closely, I'd agree that there was no consensus formed — much heat and not enough light. Additionally, the nomination was a mess, what with the bulk of the articles being added after the additional listing but not tagged until a day-and-a-half after the addition and with the nominator inappropriately removing another user's comments (mine) from the discussion. I agree with the closing administrator that opening a discussion with the Railway project would be a useful next step — if that doesn't gain any traction, then one of the articles can be renominated for deletion after an appropriate time has passed in an effort to both develop a consensus and establish a precedent that can be applied to the remaining articles in the set. Mlaffs (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Stop and talk I also looked at closing this but got distracted by RL before I could follow through. There was an overwhelming majority of policy based reasons given in the discussion to delete and most of the keep arguments were of the ITSUSEFUL and ILIKEIT type but, and here is the kicker, I wouldn't have closed this as delete either. Close reading of the discussion showed that many of the delete votes were variants of "this is badly laid out and needs to be merged somewhere but no idea where". There are far too many articles to summarily delete them without exhausting the merge discussions and I would have had closed this as "go away and discuss this with a wider community first and only come back if there is no chance of finding the right merge target". Please bear in mind that I am about as deletion minded as you can find in an admin and I absolutely would not have pressed the button. Please go and have a proper discussion with all stakeholders and see if you can come up with an agreed format for a merge target. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, with some grumbling since I voted to delete these articles. I still think that the encyclopedic value of these articles is dubious, but while I think the reasons given to delete are solid, they are not so powerful that they will trump consensus or the lack of consensus. I concede that those arguing "keep" were not altogether unreasonable in pointing out that "this day in..." topics are of some interest to a layman reader, and that anniversaries are sometimes covered in media, although I disagree with them that this is the kind of topic which sho