Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 17: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Back to the Future timeline: Endorse, strongly, or overturn and delete outright. Local consensus cannot override official policy, and you will never find a clearer example of original..
Line 46: Line 46:
*'''Endorse''' - A well-reasoned decision, compliant with the AfD. -- [[User:Kesh|Kesh]] ([[User talk:Kesh|talk]]) 23:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - A well-reasoned decision, compliant with the AfD. -- [[User:Kesh|Kesh]] ([[User talk:Kesh|talk]]) 23:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - Closing admin is not bound by the numbers and is charged with interpreting the ''entire'' debate, including the relative strength of the arguments and their concurrence with policy and guidelines. Closing as ''merge'' reflects both the desire to preserve the information in some form and the policy and guideline arguments against keping the article as a separate entity. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] ([[User talk:Otto4711|talk]]) 02:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - Closing admin is not bound by the numbers and is charged with interpreting the ''entire'' debate, including the relative strength of the arguments and their concurrence with policy and guidelines. Closing as ''merge'' reflects both the desire to preserve the information in some form and the policy and guideline arguments against keping the article as a separate entity. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] ([[User talk:Otto4711|talk]]) 02:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
*Endorse, strongly, or overturn and delete outright. Local consensus cannot override [[WP:OR|official policy]], and you will never find a clearer example of original research on Wikipedia than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Back_to_the_Future_timeline&oldid=197186093#References this]. The first and second afds are actually nauseating. —[[User talk:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 21:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


====[[:History of For Better or For Worse]]====
====[[:History of For Better or For Worse]]====

Revision as of 21:06, 18 March 2008

< March 16 Deletion review archives: 2008 March March 18 >

17 March 2008

Myles Dyer blade376

Myles Dyer blade376 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

"Speedy deleted due to a previously deletedArticle of a similar nature, also because of new info that was not included in the previous article. Irejectreality (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the article should be undeleted? AecisBrievenbus 23:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was deleted because it was seen as a "Repost" of a previous article about blade 376, although it is almost completely new. it got a solid structure, it's all referenced, and should at least be given a chance. Although the original article for blade376 was taken down because it was for a "Non Notable Internet "Celebrity" in the past few months he has done a lot of charity work, and is taking part in the competition "Upstaged" which has earned him a large gathering. May i also note that this article is only very slightly based on the original article, which was sent to meby the original author, so is basicallya completely new article, which is follows wikipedias notability guidelines (As far as i can be sure) and is fully referenced. Irejectreality (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you may say that, but other less well known people from that site have fully functioning articles on wikipedia, such as nalts boh3m3 and renetto. If these people are fine to have an article, then why can't blade376?? Irejectreality (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Going (boh3m3) has been covered by i.a. Associated Press, the New York Times, Newsweek, New York Post, CNET and Newsday, to name a few sources. Paul Robinett (renetto) has been covered by The New York Times, New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and BBC News. Kevin Nalty (nalts) has been covered by The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times and ABC News. If you can provide similar sources for Myles Dyer, you've gone a long way towards establishing his notability. AecisBrievenbus 01:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll see what i can find. I do know hes had quite a bit of press coverage, it's just finding it. I'll update this shortly, so if you cancheck bac then, i'll be very greatful Irejectreality (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Future timeline

Back to the Future timeline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to the Future timeline (3rd nomination)

This was closed by User:Haemo as "The result was Merge to Back to the Future trilogy", but "merge" was only suggested by one of the twenty participants in the discussion. It appears that merging is Haemo's personal solution, and not a neutral or proper interpretation of the consensus represented in this discussion. There's no possible way that merge can be interpretted from this discussion. Haemo has clearly stepped over the line here. Except for the one merge !vote, the discussion was divided strictly between those who wished to keep and those who wished to delete, with the keeps prevailing either directly or defaulting to keep via no clear consensus. I'm baffled by Haemo's closing of this deletion discussion as "merge". The merge should be overturned and the list kept as per the real consensus. The Transhumanist    21:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the page still unsourced ? Nick (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My closure was not based on merely the bolded !votes — it was based on the arguments made, and their basis in policy. The strongest policy-based argument made was that this article has insufficient 3rd party sources to demonstrate notability — as such, most of the article was some form, or degree of original research. The strongest argument in favor of keeping the subject was that renomination was premature — the "sources exist" argument was not compelling. As such, I found that the consensus of the discussion was that the article was inappropriate. No editors contested the deletion argument, while the keep arguments were roundly contested. However, nearly all of the "delete" arguments argued the content was better dealt with briefly in the articles on the respective films, and that it was the concept of the timeline as being independently notable that was the issue. Consensus clearly indicated that there was some plausible place for the material in other articles — since the clearest suggestion for which article was to Back to the Future trilogy I settled on that.
Your statement that Keep was the "correct" consensus is wrong. AFD is not a vote, and if I had gone merely by the strongest bolded recommendations, this article would have been deleted. Instead, I opted to actually read what people recommended, and decided that consensus was in favor of this content in some form — just not as a stand-alone article. --Haemo (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is "Back to the Future", and it is obviously notable. The word "timeline" is a standard Wikipedia construct, a specialized form of "list", and pertains entirely to the format in which the material is organized - it is not subject to the notability requirement. The contents of articles (including lists and timelines) are not subject to notability (see WP:N#NCONTENT, only the subject of the article is. For example, the List of World War II ships doesn't have to provide notability of the list as a list but only of the subject it displays in list form, the same applies to timelines as timelines, such as the Timeline of World War I -- timelines do not have to have been published elsewhere or referred to elsewhere -- Wikipedians have constructed timelines in the same way that they construct lists and other articles, and timelines are no more a synthesis of their respective topics than articles or lists are of the topics they present. Chronological representation of material is just one of the formats used in Wikipedia to present information, and that's what the word "timeline" in Wikipedia articles refers to. Therefore, the argument that you identified as the strongest in the discussion is actually the weakest, as it has no basis under Wikipedia policy. The Transhumanist    22:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not AFD part deux — this argument was not advanced in the discussion, therefore it would be impossible to close based on it. The notion that a novel collection of original research on a subject becomes immune to notability guidelines because it is called a "timeline" is debatable — and, indeed, was debated. Your rationale for overturning this discussion was that it did not reflect the consensus — I have argued that it does — whereas you have instead advanced a new argument which was not displayed in the discussion as a rationale for keeping it. The core contention you make here was discussed, and was found to be outweighed by the problems of original research, plot summary, and the fact that the material could be better treated in other articles. You seem to be confused about your rationale for overturning this discussion, since you are arguing that the close did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, based on an argument that not made in the discussion. --Haemo (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. My rationale pertains to the strength of an argument which you based your decision on, and as you stated above upon its basis in policy, and I showed how that argument was weak based on Wikipedia's policies and standard conventions - in other words, I was evaluating your interpretation of policy as you applied it to the closing of the AfD. And I provided a more sensisble alternate interpretation. The Transhumanist    22:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, the discussion indicated to me, that your rejoinder to that argument was considered and rejected. This may seem ironic, but I am not trying to interpret policy here at all — I'm determining which policy-based arguments were held to be the strongest in the discussion. I may believe, for example, that WP:NOT#PLOT is a bogus policy without consensus support in the community and any argument based upon it is equally bogus — however, I would still judge these as policy-based arguments, and look at how the discussion perceived their strength relative strengths. If an argument is weak, based on my interpretation of policy over which there is (and was) discussion, but the debate does not agree with my interpretation I should nonetheless defer to the consensus in the discussion. To give a personal example — I dislike "No sources demonstrate notability" arguments in discussions, because they are a negative statement. However, I would not overturn a discussion which held those to be the compelling argument on a subject. --Haemo (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as no consensus, looking at that AFD, I don't see consensus to merge. --Pixelface (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing something as merge, keep, or no consensus won't make a difference, the end result is the same each time. If he had closed it as a 'no consensus', he could've still merged the thing. Even now, anyone who disagrees can revert the merge, since nothing's been deleted. - Bobet 14:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge Haemo's explanation is reasonable. AfD is not a vote. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - A well-reasoned decision, compliant with the AfD. -- Kesh (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Closing admin is not bound by the numbers and is charged with interpreting the entire debate, including the relative strength of the arguments and their concurrence with policy and guidelines. Closing as merge reflects both the desire to preserve the information in some form and the policy and guideline arguments against keping the article as a separate entity. Otto4711 (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, strongly, or overturn and delete outright. Local consensus cannot override official policy, and you will never find a clearer example of original research on Wikipedia than this. The first and second afds are actually nauseating. —Cryptic 21:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of For Better or For Worse

History of For Better or For Worse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

An article which clearly completely fails a standard policy WP:NOT#PLOT, but was kept. Not only does the article contain plot summary, it is nothing BUT plot summary. Given the recent RfAR on fiction, where editors described WP:NOT as "disputed", this could set a precedent. Black Kite 20:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete. Article clearly fails WP:NOT#PLOT, which was the whole point of the nomination, and the Keep votes in this AFD do not answer this. It seems the closing admin just counted noses. This was a terrible closure. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Although there was no consensus to delete (and at the very least, the AFD should have been closed as "no consensus" rather than as "keep"), no one in favor of keeping the article presented any argument that it is not a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Rather, the "keep" arguments were based on the article's being "useful" and the fact that it was previously removed from the main For Better or For Worse article. Frankly, neither of those arguments outweighs the fact that the article is a policy violation. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your claim that "no one in favor of keeping the article presented any argument that it is not a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT" is false. At least two people in that AFD mentioned that the article was split off and could be merged back in (which renders WP:PLOT moot). The simple fact is that the content is not a "policy violation" if it's put back where it came from in the first place. I should point out that the article actually complies with the initial wording of WP:PLOT: "Wikipedia articles should not act solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction, but should offer summarised plots in conjunction with sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series." --Pixelface (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion [this is a typo, see below], based on what the AfD closer had to work with. A good close, by those means. If the "history" of this particular comic strip is "notable", I don't see why it can't be included in the parent article, as expressed by those in the original debate. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean endorse closure? It wasn't deleted. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree the place for this is in the parent article, except that this is far too long and detailed, and a useful summary of the important plot points already exists there. Black Kite 20:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's of course what I meant. Too many AfDs and DRVs. Here is my revised statement:
  • Endorse closure' as keep, based on what the AfD closer had to work with. A good close, by those means. If the "history" of this particular comic strip is "notable", I don't see why it can't be included in the parent article, as expressed by those in the original debate. However, the closer followed what the discusssion seemed to want. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Unsourced, nothing but plot summary, utterly misconceived. This isn't what Wikipedia is here for. Perhaps someone could put it in Comixpedia; it doesn't belong here, though. Nandesuka (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure' as keep - the community has decided to keep this, which provides the opportunity to fix it. If it isn't fixed in a reasonable amount of time, it can be nominated for deletion again. In the meantime, we should respect the consensus. There is no procedural point upon which the AfD should be overturned, and therefore it should be upheld. The Transhumanist    21:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clearly procedural - "The community" doesn't get to rewrite policy, and the AfD should've been closed in line with policy - which it wasn't. If it was WP:BLP that was the issue here, there would be little argument - why is WP:NOT different? Black Kite 21:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy is written by the community; that is not the same as a small cadre of editors choosing to ignore policy and claim it as "consensus". Consensus is what created the policies in the first place. If you wish to rewrite WP:NOT, then WT:NOT is the correct venue. Black Kite 22:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no procedure on display here at all. The full text of the closure was "The result was Keep." With an obvious result that is probably okay to do, but in this AFD the glaring WP:PLOT was simply ignored—the article has simply no other content except plot summary—with no rationale given for this Keep. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly, if the material is put back in the main article then this doesn't need to exist any longer. (It shouldn't exist separately anyway, hence the DRV - but a summary of this material is unobjectionable as part of the larger topic). Black Kite 22:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge always needs a redirect (unless there is no edit history). However, since this article is entirely plot summary, it can be deleted wholesale. None of this makes a point; it just recaps what happened in the strip for 25 years. That said, if this information is considered helpful in the parent article, a merge would be an acceptable solution. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was created on October 12, 2006 by JenKilmer[1], who spun it out from the main article[2] since the article was getting too large. We have plot summaries for 2 hour films and years and years of soap operas, so why not plot summaries for comic strips that have been published for nearly 30 years? DRV is to determine whether the closing admin interpreted the debate correctly and so far I have seen nobody here who says there was consensus to delete in that AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no, it applies to everything. Essentially, it's there to keep Wikipedia from turning into a bureaucracy. If blindly following the "rules" leads to a conclusion that is clearly absurd, or is at odds with the consensus of interested editors in a particular situation, you ignore the rules and do what's not absurd/in accord with the wishes of those participating in the discussion. Bureaucracy is bad. Avoid it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But in this case, Pixelface is invoking IAR in order to achieve a situation that is clearly absurd, namely that an article that has no encyclopedic value whatsoever, and never can have any encyclopedic value whatsoever, should be kept. The rule Pixelface would have us ignore is the "rule" that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 00:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is it that makes an article encyclopedic? Can you give a concrete definition, or are you just using it as a cover for your destructive ambitions? There's nothing absurd about it--its contents are perfectly appropriate for an encyclopedia. I fail to see how anyone could ever think otherwise? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support closure as keep or no consensus. The parent article covers a comic strip which has has a 27 year history. This article does needs clean-up but deletion is not the answer. The parent article, which existence would seem to negate the entire WP:NOT#PLOT issue, seems well-balanced and it looks like this was spunoff to deal with size issue, seems cruel to now delete content when they were trying to follow protocol. If WP:NOT#PLOT is such a big deal then add a lede summary to address that concern. If it otherwise needs rewriting then perhaps that should be addressed. Benjiboi 22:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse closure. First, the article as it stands is nothing but plot summary, which is not -- absent real-world information -- encyclopedic. I would have recommended deletion had I participated in the AfD. However, it is clear that there was no consensus to delete the article among those who did participate. While I realize a closure must take into account the strength of arguments, I believe a "delete" result cannot be reasonably supported given the discussion that occurred. I personally would have closed it as no consensus, based on the weakness of the "keep" arguments, but I don't find that to be grounds for overturning. I would support a relisting to clarify consensus. Powers T 23:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete - The article even states itself at the beginning: Story outline by year. Violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, with no rationale by closer as to why this should be kept over policy. -- Kesh (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can I just ask again those endorsing - at which point did we allow a small "consensus" (actually, it wasn't even a consensus at 6/4) of users to agitate to keep utterly unencyclopedic material in this encyclopedia completely against policy. What on earth is the point in having policies if we completely ignore them? I have never, ever, seen such a clear-cut example of an XfD which is a clear Delete where policy is being completely ignored. "If WP:NOT#PLOT is such a big deal...." - it's a POLICY. I find this DRV so far utterly unbelievable and a shocking indictment of what we have allowed Wikipedia to become. Black Kite 23:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the interpretation is that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is policy, but the specific application of that policy to (in this case) plot summaries, is not writ in stone. Alternatively, if you prefer, the consensus was not that the current content of the article is encyclopedic, but rather that the article topic ("the fictional history of the characters in the comic strip For Better or For Worse") is encyclopedic -- and thus that the article should be improved rather than deleted outright. That opinion is within the bounds of What Wikipedia Is Not policy. Powers T 23:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disagree. WP:NOT#PLOT is quite clear, and we don't keep articles that "might be improved" if they utterly fail policy. After all, we wouldn't keep a WP:BLP violation on the basis that someone might fix it, or a WP:BIO violation just in case that person became notable in the future. Black Kite 23:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't about WP:BLP and this isn't an article about living person, which has stricter standards. Go read the editing policy. --Pixelface (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, just tell me - which bit of WP:NOT#PLOT is unclear, or doesn't apply to this article? Tell me that, and I'll withdraw this DRV. Black Kite 23:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You should have withdrawn it right after you said "It needs to be merged back into the parent, then." --Pixelface (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • And again - tell me which bit of WP:NOT#PLOT is unclear, or doesn't apply to this article? Black Kite 23:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:PLOT says "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." It doesn't say articles lacking that should be deleted outright. The For Better or For Worse article *does* contain real-world context and sourced analysis, as well as detail on the comic strip's historical significance. This is a sub-article of that article — which is evident by the presence of the {{main}} template under the ==Key storylines== heading. If you *insist* that this article be viewed as an island, information about the work's development and real-world context can be merged from the main article to this one. Or this sub-article can be merged back into the For Better or For Worse article. Now what makes you think Keilana interpreted the AFD incorrectly? --Pixelface (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So you are proposing that an article composed entirely of plot summary can be saved by adding a token amount of non-plot content? Solutions based on raising article quality from unacceptable to merely bad-but-WP:ILIKEIT demonstrate that this AFD could only have been closed as Delete. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • One of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that poor articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. I've already offered a solution — merge the content back into the article it came from — which shows that the AFD could not only have been closed as delete, and that Keilana actually closed it properly. --Pixelface (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay there's something wrong with my browser. When I type in WP:NOT#PLOT, I come to a page that looks like Wikipedia, but it says

        Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot.

        Please tell me what it says when you go to WP:NOT#PLOT, cos when I scroll up on this page, I swear it says it's a Wikipedia policy. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ahem, please save the snarkiness for off-wikipedia use; to both your points this article is the plot of the parent article and as such WP:NOT#PLOT wouldn't seem to apply. That is, if we put all this content back into the parent it wouldn't be a WP:NOT#PLOT issue. DRV process is to see if the AfD was closed properly. Benjiboi 23:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia works by building consensus. When there is no consensus to delete during an AFD, the article is kept. If referring to policy is all that was required, it would be unnecessary for editors to comment in deletion discussions. --Pixelface (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AFD was not closed properly, as stated above. And WP:NOT#PLOT also means excessive plot summary is still not desirable even in an article that contains other content. WP:SUMMARY does not make the presence of a parent article into a policy escape clause. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Kite, those policies were built by community consensus, and even if those expressing opinions on AfD aren't citing the policies you wish the person closing the AfD also needs to look at the consensus of the AfD. edg, this article wasn't created nor does it exist in a vacuum. Benjiboi 00:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly not, but if we're starting to ignore policy in favour of ILIKEIT votes in AfD discussions, then we need to look very carefully at some very problematic areas that this could lead us. That is my concern. Black Kite 00:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. When a handful of editors ignore a policy, that indicates we ought to correct their misunderstanding here at deletion review. --Dragonfiend (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Angr's argument is compelling. — Dulcem (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete — per Angr's argument which puts it well. --Haemo (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and keep Pixelface makes some good points. A merge discussion on whether it should be in the main article or kept separate is more appropriate than deleting this material outright. Buspar (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as keep; comprehensiveness requires the existence of a subarticle for greater detail. We have to reconcile the idea that articles should not be solely based on plot with the need to expand content. Certainly one could write more about the history of this strip than just the history of its storyline, so isn't that a solution? If someone could just expand the scope so that the article discussed the author's ideas about the strip, syndication and popularity over time, awards...any kind of "real world" history, we could avoid this argument. Everyking (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per Angr. Keep !votes had no basis in policy. Resolute 14:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. No policy asserted that would justify retaining this. Eusebeus (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as keep Storyline of a notable comic strip is an encyclopedic topic, and articles of legitimate subjects should stay as it has every chance to be improved. A page of this type is acceptable in that it allows for a clearer and more logical orgnization of a large topic, see WP:NOT#PLOT where it says "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." (that does apply to stand-alone articles) Clean up the article, trim it down to just one or two paragaphs as you see fit; it's still not a reason for deletion. I'm surprised that some editors have asked to overturn the close and even delete the article; there is no consensus, by any means, for any act of deletion in that AfD. DRV cannot go blatanly against the will of AfD participants. The most they should ask out of this DRV is a relist, not deletion. A merge or a no consensus would require keeping the article anyway. Good close. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & Delete Consensus should be judged against policy not headcount. Spartaz Humbug! 18:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete; Weight of keep argument: WP:ILIKEIT = 0. — Coren (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin (closed)

Darren M Jackson

Darren M Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

If you ignore the extra keep vote by User:Diamonddannyboy, the multiple comments by him, and the comment by the single purpose ip of 90.208.51.74, then there is indeed a consensus to delete. Furthermore, nearly all of the keep votes admit that there are no reliable sources for the subject of the article. RogueNinjatalk 17:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the AFD entry page there is Five keeps indepentent of daidannyboy and four deletes and one weak delete. why is put up again for a review. This again due to it being part of the Romany project. 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamonddannyboy (talk • contribs)
  • As the closing admin, I endeavored to clean up various repeated comments by Diamonddannyboy (talk · contribs) and sort these things out, I obviously missed one bolded keep, but that didn't affect my close decision. My close was based on a few things...I don't count votes when I close AfDs, but I can't help but notice there are six different editors that registered some form of a "keep" comment and five going the other way. If I was a countin' type, that's a no consensus for sure. As noted in my brief closing comment, "Keep working on WP:BIO sourcing", I was aware of the general concerns brought up and sympathize with the arguments that the current sourcing is gray-area for notability guideline purposes. I took that into account as I viewed the large changes that occurred over the course of the AfD (compare: before/after and the addition of several references). These changes, and the comments from later in the AfD leaning towards keep (weak or otherwise) indicated to me that there was a trend of improvement within the article that merited a no consensus decision to allow further progress. I stand by my close, obviously, and also add that reference and notability tags may be appropriate for the article, and an AfD renomination--after vetting the new references--is a perfectly valid option (though I would hope substantial improvement time will be allowed). I would, naturally, have explained all this to RogueNinja if it had been brought up to me first... — Scientizzle 18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain keep a reasonable close;; the article was improved during the afd, and most of the keeps followed that improvement. DGG (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this should be revisited. One of the keeps, for example, argued: It seems to me that an unfortunate combination of an underground sport and a long-repressed ethnic group requires sketchy sources. In fact, information from this secretive people is so rare that Mr Jackson must be notable for even courting attention this far into the mainstream. That could be read as countering systemic bias, or it could be read as "keep despite failing core policy because it's hard to cover this subject otherwise". Yes indeed, bare-knuckle fighters are not widely covered. Neither are fighting dog breeders or cock fight promoters. Do we take whatever we can find in order to cover these subjects, or do we simply decide that they are too much of a niche for us to be able to cover without violating policy? Guy (Help!) 20:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain keep I argued for a weak keep of the article after making changes to layout converting to prose (sorry realised that it was more than layout) and trying to track down references. Still, in spite of that bias, I would argue that the article started off as unsuitable for Wikipedia, and after the work of several editors (in which I was involved) during the AfD it reached a point where it is worth giving it more time. My impression of the AfD debate was that most commentators had moved to that point as well - not that there was a strong desire to keep, but instead a belief that the article had been improved sufficiently over the course of the AfD to warrant keeping for now. As recommended by Scientizzle, I'll continue to chase down and verify the remaining references, and if they can't be verified (or aren't sufficient), and if no other support for the article is found, I expect to see the article renominated in a couple of months. - Bilby (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain keep The primary editor is a newby and as such botched all sorts of things including dealing with those who came along to delete their work. Right now they're trying to figure out how to cite a magazine interview even though that work isn't online. If, as has been suggested there simply isn't enough RS to support this then I'm quite confident someone will quickly AfD at the first chance possible. Until then I'm willing to AGF. Benjiboi 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to simply say what I have said from the start of the afd, and that it the aticles proves notable under wiki guide lines AP:ATHLETE must compete in a fully professional league. See pro record from sherdog this proves Jackson competed in a fully professional league, it does not say is in AP:ATHLETE is Jackson a fully professional. Enough is done, come on guys!!! its a great article thanks to all those that helped 07:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamonddannyboy (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Added more reliable source from the Romany Routes website. see Darren M Jackson ref 7. 10:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Diamonddannyboy, the primary author and contributor has been blocked for one week so is unable to make further corrections or contributions until then. They were blocked for sockpuppetry apparently to sway articles from being deleted. Benjiboi 19:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rnb

Template:Rnb (edit | [[Talk:Template:Rnb|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The template was deleted without any prior discussion or voting about this template. There was a voting about the project page connected to it, but NOT about this template. If there was any discussion about this that I didn't notice, please inform me. This request also concerns the subpage Rnb/button. Freestyle 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous deletion discussion which was closed as "Userfy" - that is when material not suitable for the main namespaces (article, template, wikipedia etc) is moved to the userspace rather than being deleted. The Random Button was deleted because the creator moved the template back into the Wikipedia namespace. The nominator was well aware of this prior discussion - he took part in it, after all, but for the benefit of others Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Random Button. I'm also a little disappointed this was brought to deletion review by the nominator without any discussion, I was never asked to undelete or explain the deletion first. That's just not cricket, I'm afraid. Nick (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This template was deleted also without giving me (one of the main contributors) any notice or a chance to give my opinion prior to deletion, so I recognise this disappointment in a way, although you didn't quite put hours of work in deleting this template as I did making it. Still I do agree with you that it would've been better if I'd came to you before starting this request. Sorry about that.
As I said the discussion that took place earlier was about removing the project page connected to this template. I can see that having a project around a template would be not wanted, but deleting the project page does not grant the right to delete the template alltogether. At least I was not aware that the discussion was about the project page and the templates. This should have been made more clear by the nominator at the time, and I seriously doubt this was clear to all other voters. I think this unclearness might even be the reason why it has been put back in the first place. Freestyle 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia:MFD#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Random concludes with the project being kept, I'll restore the random template into your userspace. Nick (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SwordSearcher (closed)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_17&oldid=199177902"