Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:DRV -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

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 – Admin guide

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 8 October 2008 3.1.1 User:EricV89/TeenWiki Cabal 3.1.2 Strappado bondage 3.1.3 User:JoeCool950 3.2 7 October 2008 3.2.1 Image:NewYorkYankees caplogo.svg 3.2.2 Category:Deaths by age 3.2.3 Anglo Marri wars 3.2.4 Tim Chey 3.3 6 October 2008 3.3.1 Holiday Parade 3.3.2 Los Baby's (closed) 3.3.3 Regan Mizrahi 3.4 5 October 2008 3.4.1 CityCare 3.4.2 Template:Biota 3.4.3 KF Lepenci 3.4.4 Tragedy (event) 3.5 4 October 2008 3.6 3 October 2008 4 Recent discussions 4.1 2 October 2008 4.2 1 October 2008 4.3 30 September 2008 4.4 29 September 2008 4.5 28 September 2008 4.6 27 September 2008 4.7 26 September 2008 5 Archive

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.

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.

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.

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.

Contesting 'proposed deletions'

Request this if the article was dealt with as a 'proposed deletion'. A 'PROD' 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.

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.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, 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.

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.

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:Undeletion policy. 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.

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.

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.

 

Active discussions

8 October 2008

User:EricV89/TeenWiki Cabal

User:EricV89/TeenWiki Cabal (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

No consensus for deletion. Those citing WP:NOT#MYSPACE gave no explanation or provided any evidence of how the situation violated WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This page was recently created and the author of the userpage specifically said "It's a humourous cabal nothing more. Not meant for socialization, only discussions on how to improve Wikipedia among teen editors. --eric (mailbox) 04:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)". Those supporting deletion had only unfounded accusations, and didn't even bother to explain their rationale beyond a generic "ew, myspace" response. Policy did not support this deletion. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Google cache version doesn't show that the page was edited (removing the featured movie and track sections) to help alleviate some of the concerns brought up on the MfD. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Er, Policy does actually say that Wikipedia is not myspace and the closing admin clearly took account of the not hurting anyone arguments. There is no policy based reasons why attempts have to be made to improve pages while they are up for discussion and the deleted history shows 8 page edits between nomination and deletion. I see no policy or procedural issues with this close and DRV is not MFD round 2. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• I don't want to color the judgment of those that show up here, so I'll refrain from making arguments. I have undeleted the history of the page though, so people commenting can see the page's content and evaluate the changes that were made to it during the MFD. east718 // talk // email // 05:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Strappado bondage

Strappado bondage (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

No notice of AfD on merge-target article TJRC (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The AfD may be found here. The closure was to merge to Strappado. Given the discussion apparently quickly morphed to a merger proposal, notice should have been given to the target article, to invite discussion from editors of that article. The result of merger was reached with no input of the editors of the Strappado article. Controversial merger discussions generally provide notice on both articles.

I believe that the outcome would have been very different had the Strappado editors been given notice and a chance to participate. The Strappado article is very focused on the actual use of strappado as torture, usually government-sponsored torture, throughout the world. It has a very different focus from the sexual play, and the sexual play aspect has no place in it. I request that the discussion be reopened after the editors of that article have had notice of the proposal and an opportunity to participate. TJRC (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my close is being contested or just the lack of advertising. BJ^Talk 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

To be more clear: I'm not objecting to BJ's action. Given the way the discussion went, it was certainly a good-faith close on his part. I'm contesting the process and result, because it was done without the input of the editors of Strappado, who would have had valuable input to the discussion,and who should have been heard from. TJRC (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:JoeCool950

JoeCool950 (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Need the orignal user page back up. Did not want it deleted and ask that it be restored to the original. Don't like how I had to redue it and want it restored, if you could find where it was originally deleted, then bring it back up for me JoeCool950 (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

7 October 2008

Image:NewYorkYankees caplogo.svg

Image:NewYorkYankees caplogo.svg (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD | article)

Nominator reuploaded image after deletion -Nv8200p talk 17:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It got speedy deleted as salted as a g4. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the IFD is here Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed, and the consensus was KEEP. The rationale for deleting was listed as "Any detail need to identify the uniform of the team properly should be shown as a magnified inset in the uniform drawing image not in another non-free image per NFCC 3a", ignoring the discussion which noted that the subset (the subject of this image) was not legible in the other image, and consequently was not helpful to the article, which discusses in detail the differences between the Yankees' uniform, cap and print logos. Without adequately legible versions of all three logos, the article is diminished. In addition, if we are to delete this image we will need to delete hundreds more, as most uniform graphics include images of a team's cap, primary or helmet logo (this is certainly the case with the thirty Major League Baseball articles). If that is to be the policy, I would argue that it would be better to delete the uniform graphics, not the cap or helmet graphics, and adopt a system similar to Template:Football_kit. SixFourThree (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

• Endorse deletion (from closing admin) Adding another non-free image goes against WP:NFCC3a. The detail should be part of the uniform image (already non-free) not a separate image. -Nv8200p talk 16:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem with 3a is that the one item mentioned is not able to "convey equivalent significant information" as the cap logo is not distinguishable from the print logo (which was the consensus of the original discussion), and is arguably not even distinguishable from the uniform logo. To that end, I would suggest again that if any of these graphics violate 3a, it would be Image:ALE-Uniform-NYY.PNG, and that is the one which should be deleted. I personally think that they fail to violate 3a, for the reason noted. The information conveyed is hardly equivalent, if it fails to address the relevant section of the article. SixFourThree (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
• Overturn The decision seems to ignore the facts of this specific case in favor of a broader principle.LedRush (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, correct closure. Multiple non-free images may not be used where one would suffice. Pick one. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The argument seems to be that one does not suffice here. Can you refute that argument and show how one image does suffice? Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Why do we think the "NY" logo is protected by copyright? Postdlf (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• 'overturn There is a clear explanation for why multiple non-free images make sense here so there's no 3a issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep. Not violating copyright is policy; NFCC is a guideline & therefore flexible; the interpretation of the guideline is decided by consensus in the community, not be individual admins. Unilaterally reversing a consensus decision because you disagree with it is abusive. Our role in closing & subsequent actions is NOT to decide whether the community is right--all we do is see which arguments have a reasonable basis in policy,and decide what the consensus of them is--whether or not we feel that way ourselves. anyone who said otherwise at a RfAdmin would not get appointed, and to behave that way afterwards is just plain wrong. The arguments here for deletion are irrelevant--the matter was decided fairly by consensus. This is not IfD 2. If I were to go around, see discussions where everyone said delete, and close them as keep, what would happen ... ? DGG (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  When I go to WP:NFCC it is quite clearly stated as policy. Indeed it also has the note "As per the March 23rd, 2007 Wikimedia Foundation Licensing policy resolution this document serves as the Exemption Doctrine Policy for the English Wikipedia.". Not sure how you can then say NFCC is a guideline. If eveyone said "delete - wibble" closing it other than delete would be fine. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I repeat, why do we think this logo is protected by copyright? It's just an N superimposed over a Y, so why wouldn't Template:PD-font apply? Or even assuming it is copyrighted, wasn't it in public use (i.e., published) prior to 1923, in which case Template:PD-US would apply? Postdlf (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn DGG said it quite well. I also agree with SixFourThree. Hobit (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Deaths by age

Category:Deaths by age (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

CfD can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 30#Category:Deaths by age

The 00:55, 8 October 2008 comment below was merged from a duplicate deletion review

Umbrella nomination of hierarchy. Closing admin disregarded a clear consensus and instead made an argument based on precedents to support deletion (and in effect also discounted WP:CCC). Close should be overturned. meco (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn I had contacted the closing admin asking for a reconsideration, but it appears that the DRV was created before the admin would have had a chance to respond, I will be more than happy to address any response from the admin in question, but he seems to have anticipated a DRV in the close. To go through the arguments presented in the close. 1) Precedent - The three CfDs offered as "precedent" are poor matches for the series of categories discussed here: this prior CFD and this prior CFD both involve deaths (and more irrelevantly, births) in the specific month of October, and I know of no source that groups by month; This prior CFD seems to be one of those "quadruple intersections" that solely address entertainers. The death by age category structure addresses only age, provides clear inclusion and calculation criteria, and is not a multiple intersection. 2) Not Defining - While I understand that many voters, including the closing admin, have called age at death "trivial" or "not defining", I have provided examples of numerous obituaries that include age in the title, including one day's worth of obituaries in The New York Times in which all four articles included age of death in the brief title. All three of the obituaries in today's New York Times include age in the title. I also showed examples where the exact calculation of age was relevant for someone who died the day before a birthday. I could provide millions of references showing that age of death is a defining characteristic, above the four I already provided. Given Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, it was demonstrated that the media deems age of death to be a rather strong defining characteristic. 3) WP:NOT - Wikipedia:NOT#INFO states that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Age of death meets none of the criteria specified here, and this is a policy about articles. We would not have an article List of people born in 1937, but we certainly have Category:1937 births. The relevant standard for categories is not "would we have an article about this", but "is this a defining characteristic" and reliable sources have been provided to show that it is. 4) WP:DEATHAGE - WP:DEATHAGE is an effort to come to agreement on a structure by which age of death would be organized into categories and to provide clear inclusion criteria for its use. It appears to have been established in good faith to reach consensus on the subject, and the claim that it was "created to try to hold off a CFD exactly like this one" appears to be both in extremely bad faith and a rather poor argument for deleting this, or any other, category structure. The arguments provided in the close appear to have been written in the form of a vote for deletion reflecting personal preferences and biases, rather than a balanced and dispassionate consideration of relevant Wikipedia policy based on the evidence provided by all participants in the CfD. As the arguments for deletion have been shown to be irrelevant to supporting deletion under Wikipedia policy, and as it appears that well-sourced, and unrebutted, evidence showing that the age of death is a rather strong defining characteristic appears to have been disregarded, it seems that this close as out of process and should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse as closer. I stand by my close, and I'm not going to go tit for tat on each point. I will respond to the trivial/not defining reason, though. As in the discussion itself, and above, it was not established that age of death is a defining characteristic. Just because the NYT prints it in the title doesn't make it defining. Example: if I asked you what defines George Washington, would the first thing you'd reply with be "he died at age 67"? Would it even be in the top ten? Just because you can cite a fact about someone doesn't make it defining, nor does WP have categories about every little tidbit about a person. --Kbdank71 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • To someone asked at random, age at death may not be the first characteristic listed about George Washington, but it would rank up there with "born in 1732" or "died in 1799", all of which establish a clearer precedent and are covered by a thorough categorization system. That age of death is not the first characteristic listed in a hypothetical original research project about George Washington is not a valid argument for deletion, nor are we limited to one category per article. I have Monday's edition of The New York Times on my desk, which has three articles titled "Donald Blakeslee, Who Commanded Fighters Over Berlin, Is Dead at 90", "Aaron Katz, 92, Advocate for Rosenbergs" and "A. Biran, 98, Archaeologist Who Studied Biblical Sites". For that matter, every single obituary listed at The Times' obituary web portal includes age of death, including historical ones listed in its archive, and I could provide thousand of other sources from each of thousands of other publications showing that media sources deem it to be a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Characteristic, yes. Defining characteristic, no. Is Aaron Katz known for dying at 92 or is he known for being an advocate for the Rosenbergs? 500 years from now, are we going to remember Donald Blakeslee for dying at 90? Are they going to start A. Biran's eulogy with "A. Biran was 98 when he died"? Again, just because you can cite a fact about someone doesn't make it defining. --Kbdank71 18:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Again, I have offered reliable and verifiable sources to show age of death as a defining characteristic, which stands fairly strongly against an imaginary anecdote. 500 years from now, we won't know the ages these people died at, let alone who they were. We won't know what year they were born or what year they died. We won't understand why anyone would fly a plane driven by a spinning propeller and we won't know who the Rosenbergs were or care about their death (circumstances, year, or ages). But I am pretty sure that Wikipedia will still be around. Archaeologists studying the early history of our universal encyclopedia will try to answer the question on the minds of many, "why was so much time wasted by so few trying to delete so much useful information?" If only a fictional time traveler would come back and tell us (with reliable sources) whether "age of death" will be a defining characteristic and if it will stand the test of time. Alansohn (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
        • The fictional time traveller would probably consider both sides to be wasting their time. The information is still there, no matter what the result of this discussion. This is merely presentation. Where and how, and how many times, should this information be presented? You do realise that even if the categories are deleted, it is still possible to use various methods to generate lists using the deathage template in the infoboxes, right? What you do is include a custom-formatted "invisible" link, and then use "what links here" for that specific invisible link to find all the people who died at a certain age. I think someone (Rick Block?) suggested doing this for maintenance categories. I'll ask him. Carcharoth (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse This seems like over-categorisation to me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, properly closed as over-categorization. Supporters mainly argued that other existing categories were no worse than this scheme; it was never explained why it was useful to group biographical articles together based on their age at the time of death. That it is a relevant and important fact means it should be noted in articles; it does not mean it's defining of the subjects (not every fact worthy of inclusion in an article is), or that it's meaningful or helpful to group individuals on the basis of that fact without any context. This is particularly true given the wide range of life expectancy between cultures contemporaneously and the range even within a given culture across human history. Postdlf (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, closure was proper and within admin discretion. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - admin closed a difficult discussion and his closing statement indicates that he took arguments into account on all sides as well as other similar CFDs before making the decision. No procedural error in this close. Otto4711 (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - Per above, difficult but well argumented decision. Note, I voted delete myself, still see no use at all in these categories. Garion96 (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. The closer's own words in the CFD are "nobody has made any good arguments to delete/keep" which is tantamount to saying there is no consensus. Reading the arguments presented on both sides of the issue, I find reasonable arguments for, as well as against, delete. There is clearly no consensus. The closer used his own opinion, bordering on original research to try to resolve this and that is not within the scope of the closer's responsibilities. The close as delete was done in contravention of Wikipedia policy, which is grounds enough to overturn. The additional arguments for the validity of the category expressed above further solidifies a no consensus for delete opinion of the Wiki community. At an absolute minimum, the closer should recuse himself from this discussion and let community consensus (or lack of it) rule. Truthanado (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, where exactly did I say "nobody has made any good arguments to delete/keep"? --Kbdank71 20:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Answer: second line of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 30#Category:Deaths by age after "The result of the discussion was ..." I assume your signature at the end of the paragraph means you wrote them. Truthanado (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • That was clearly Kbdank71's characterization of others' comments; he was noting that anyone saying "keep" or "delete" purely because they didn't think anyone had offered good arguments to the contrary was themself not offering a good argument. Postdlf (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
        • First of all, not making valid arguments for or against delete is a good argument because Wikipedia policy requires consensus to change things; if there is no consensus, you leave things as they are ... status quo. Secondly, the use of quotation marks infers that someone actually made that exact statement, which is not found in anyone's comments. Therefore, one can only conclude that this is the closer's opinion. In which case, there is no consensus. Truthanado (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
          • For fuck's sake, the whole first sentence was as follows: There are many arguments here on both sides which are along the lines of "keep/delete: nobody has made any good arguments to delete/keep", which is not a good argument to keep or delete. Disagree with his conclusion if you like, but let's not pretend we can't understand what was and wasn't his own opinion as if we have no better than a first-grader's reading comprehension level. Postdlf (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
            • This part of the discussion needs a cup of WP:TEA. Swearing, assuming pretence and comparing people to first-graders will not help. Thouhg for the record I agree with you that people are misunderstanding what Kbdank71 said. Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Missing the point - seriously, why do people seemingly not want to look at the bigger picture here? I raised it at the CfD discussion (suggesting a hidden category), but the timing was bad as the discussion was nearly due for closing and not many people saw my comments. Year of birth, year of death, age at death, name, index sorting value (i.e. DEFAULTSORT), and so on. All these are standard biographical values that can be requested and (where available) supplied on practically all biographical articles. The fact that people try and do so in different ways (plain text in the article, templates in the infoboxes, categories, persondata, DEFAULTSORT) suggests that the disparate systems need integrating and consolidating. This would need a co-ordinated effort with much discussion and bots to implement the changes, but would allow people to extract the stats to their heart's content, as well as avoid perennial discussion like this one. I realise the "category" people want to put an end to the categories before they spread (though actually, they can be implemented using templates and enabled and disabled at the flick of a switch on the template), but the aim here should be for people to work together to get a result that satisfies everyone, not for people to stick to and focus on their "specialities", whether that be categories, biographical data, or whatever. So to return to what I said at the start of this comment, deleting or keeping these categories is misssing the point. The real need is to improve the way biographical data is handled on Wikipedia's biographical articles. I've made attempts towards this in the past (and others have tried to and achieved more, and have done stuff quietly with bots), but the task is so massive that it really needs a co-ordinated effort and if some of the people here would be prepared to devote some time towards that, it would really, really help. If anyone agrees with this and has advice or wants to help out, please comment here, so the closer of the DRV can take this into account. Carcharoth (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually I had considered the possibility of a hidden category when I saw this one. I'm not sure that this is the right solution, but it could be a good starting point for a compromise that includes an automated system to create the entries. This specific problem is yet another instance of AfD deciding that something should not be an article but it should be a category. So some articles get deleted and some categories get created. Then someone points out that the categories are not the right solution so those editors who wanted the data are left out in the cold and frustrated. To complain about the CfD process is anger misdirected. The real problem in my mind is the lack of foresight at AfD when someone presupposes that a category will in fact be considered the best solution. I like the talking points raised by Carcharoth since that could produce a broader solution then a discussion here. The issue would be making sure that all of the parties are at the table. Not sure how to make that happen. Considering that there is a discussion about linking or not linking the birth and death dates, or at least I think that discussion is still happening, then maybe the best solution here would be to defer to the other discussion. If the dates are to be linked, then create a template to do that and calculate the age. The including of links or hidden categories becomes a simple template change. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. The action is supported by the previous related CfDs, the fact that apparently this attribute about a person is not mentioned in most bio articles and the strength of the reasons presented in the discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus which is the fair evaluation of the situation. There just wasn't any. It's not a question of when it's balanced, the closer decides. As there's 1500 of us, that's a prescription for chaos. When it's balanced, it's no consensus. Additionally, as Vegaswikian points out, there were various suggestions for automation that may make this moot. DGG (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. My personal opinion is that the categories could be kept—on a strictly personal level, I wouldn't mind having them for my own use. However, whatever the result, I don't think the closing admin can be faulted in this case, as it appeared to be a hard situation. Why I say this is that while I think in terms of numbers there was somewhat of a "balance", if not a tilt towards keep, but the arguments in favour of keeping were, in my opinion, not very good, while those for deletion were quite strong. So at first glance it really looks like a no consensus, but on closer examination I think it comes clear what the decision needed to be. The closer could have taken the easy route and just closed as no consensus, but he actually read the arguments and considered them. There is no procedural error here, and the decision seems well within the discretion of the admin. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this were true, then the CfD would have been closed with a statement like There is Clear Consensus to delete based on strength of arguments. But the closer didn't do that. He gave a wordy opinion (some of it not based on the arguments presented, reflecting his own opinion) and that is not proper process. Truthanado (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't pretend to know exactly how another admin will enunciate comments based on his or her own thoughts. It never ceases to amaze me how many editors can read the mind of admins and how many know exactly how an admin should write about what they are thinking. But since from the above it looks like you've had a hard time discerning the difference between the closer's own opinion and his paraphrasing of others' comments, I won't put too much stock in your Kreskin-esque suggestions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• This comment was merged from a later discussion above on this page.

While there was no concensus to keep, there was no concensus to delete either. Should have been closed as "no concenus, default to keep." The closing administrator was concerned about the triviality, though I personally feel this is not trivial, this is of high importance. People are compared constantly for having lived to the same age. For example, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford are two presidents who have lived to age 93, the oldest of any U.S. presidents. There are connections that are commonly cited at times between historic figures who live to the same age, even if centuries apart. A category like "deaths from falls off the roof" or "deaths after x amount of time of hospitalization" may to a little too trivial and fit under WP:NOT#INFO, but this is not a collection of statistics or any other indiscriminate information; in fact, this does not provide statistics on age of death. It does, however, show who shared a common age of death with the subject in the article, which does have importance as to what the reader views as a "long" or "short" life. There was plenty of concensus to keep this set of categories. Sebwite (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Anglo Marri wars

Anglo Marri wars (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closed as "no consensus". I'd like to relist it because the nomination had a strong basis in WP:VER and WP:POV and the author himself seems to admit these points when he commented that "I agree with you at some extent, that there's no such thing as the Anglo Marri wars previously but it doesn't mean that it cann't be in future". But there were very few contributions and the nomination wasn't properly discussed. andy (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse own closure, WP:RELIST discourages relisting when more than one or two people have contributed, and the keep !voters were satisfied with the references as they stood. I would be ignoring them and doing them a disservice to have deleted the article. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree if there were any references but it was clear from the debate that there weren't (have a look at the article) and the subject gets zero ghits. I think that where there's such a clear difference of opinion and relatively few people contributing it's necessary to look into the matter before closing. We had two deletes, two keeps including the author and a comment which agreed that there were no acceptable references. andy (talk)

• Endorse closure. I think that the author's words quoted above were simply a case of less than perfect language by someone with English as a second language rather than an admission that the wars didn't exist - that's pretty clear from the the author's other comments. And there is a reference - the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I located the EB article and linked to it in the AfD. It doesn't contain any references to "wars" in any sense. andy (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse keep would also have been an acceptable outcome here with an EB source and unchallenged assertion of urdu sources. Sourcing does not need to be in English and there is already too much western centric systemic bias in Wikipedia. This nomination looks like reasons to fix the article not delete it. 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC) That was me by the way Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought of fixing it but since there have never been any "Anglo Marri wars" (not in the EB or anywhere else) I couldn't quite work out how... andy (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You could always move the article to a better name that more accurately reflects the EB reference and then work from there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought of that but it's already covered in Marri, almost word for word. I'd redirect there except it would fail CSD R3 since there were, err... exactly zero Anglo Marri wars. Whatever, I'll stick some Caveat Emptor tags on it and let other people worry about verification. andy (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm if its already covered word for word then just redirect as this is the more logical place for the article. I wouldn't worry about R3. Its not that implausible a search term and if you carry any data across when you redirect then the GFDL requires the redirext to be preserved. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim Chey

Tim Chey (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was originally closed as "keep", but the closing administrator reversed that decision to "delete" after the discussion here and here. I do not accept that there was a consensus to delete. The first editor to support the AfD nomination said that he would support keeping the article if further sources were found, which they were, and the other "delete" supporter based his comment on a Google News search where he had omitted to select "all dates". During the AfD three further reliable sources with substantial coverage of the subject were identified (The Sacramento Bee, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and La Crónica de Hoy) on top of the two that were already in the article (Christianity Today and Christian Spotlight). Overturn Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Have I missed it or have you not tried discussing the decision with the admin yourself? Did you read the instructoons on listing DRVs that states that you should do this before raising a discussiom? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You have missed it: here and here. I brought this to DRV on the suggestion of the deleting admin. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you. My apologies if my tone was overharsh. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion or Relist - As the AFD nominator, I endorse the deletion close, but would be content to see this relisted to arrive at a less ambiguous consensus. There simply isn't enough coverage of Chey in reliable sources to support a claim of notability. The sources from the article ([1] & [2]) are simply reviews of Chey's film. Likewise, of the additional sources offered, one is clearly a movie review, one is is a very short Spanish-language piece, and the SacBee piece is a review of an earlier documentary, although without being able to read it, it may be unclear how much mention it makes of Chey. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Reviews of the subject's films are sources about his work, which is what makes him notable. The majority of articles about people such as politicians, businesspeople, academics, sportspeople, rock stars etc. are based on sources about their work. Why apply a different standard to film directors? Having said that, I'd be perfectly happy with a relist. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, valid closure. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Relist. #1 changing from keep to delete seems like an obvious case of no consensus. #2 sources came late in the AfD and those that !voted delete argued for deletion because of a lack of sources. The second delete !vote was flawed (claimed there were no google news sources at all due to a flawed search. Closing as delete after sources are provided and no other comments come in is probably the wrong call 9 times out of 10. In this case, it clearly was. Keep would also be a poor call. So either relist or no consensus would be fine, and I'd lean strongly toward relist. Hobit (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also this is an article solely on the subject.

• Relist Given that new sources were produced at the end of the discussion (and above on here) I think a relist to allow a full discussion of whether people believe notability has been established seems sensible. Davewild (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn/Relist Sources provided support notability which were correctly noted in the original close as Keep. Alansohn (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and probably relist since there still seems to be some objections to keeping. I see the sources for notability as adequate, but that can be discussed DGG (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

6 October 2008

Holiday Parade

Holiday Parade (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD) Baselineace (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Overturn. New information was detailed about a television performance, which among other reasons proves it worthy of inclusion. There was no argument after this information was noted in the article and AfD discussion.--Baselineace (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment this new material was available for several days and no further people made comments either to keep or delete, nor did it change the minds of any of the deleters. The reference in question was here and WP:MUSIC criteria is "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that it didn't change the mind of those calling for delete on the basis of notability. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "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". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The AfD was very clear-cut and reached decisive consensus. Deletion Review should not be instigated simply because you disagree with an AfD result. Come back when your band is signed and passes WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Not only does the group pass WP:MUSIC (which in it of itself says that it's not an absolute judge), there was no clear consensus as evidenced by the AfD in which several people argued in favor of its inclusion. Further, you are suggesting I have a personal tie to this band, which is not the case. As a music industry professional, I find it appalling that you have personally attacked me for taking my time to create a page for such an obvious inclusion candidate. Your recommendation that a band must be signed to be included is not only in direct conflict with WP:Music, it suggests that you have a biased view of this group.--Baselineace (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It's true that there's no concrete rule that bands must be signed to have an article, but in 4+ years dealing with Wikipedia deletion issues, I can't off the top of my head think of a single unsigned band that was kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Did not take me long to find one...--Baselineace (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
        • As far as I can tell, that article has never been up for deletion, and probably wouldn't be kept if it were. Just because something hasn't been deleted yet doesn't mean it has some official Wikipedia seal of approval. Unsigned bands are pretty much guaranteed to be deleted when they come up at AfD, just like this one was. It's just the way it goes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
          • If this is the case (which is not a problem), WP:MUSIC ought to be updated to reflect this notion.--Baselineace (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
            • That's an excellent point. I expect the reason it isn't made clear in WP:MUSIC is that that guideline focuses mainly on imclusion criteria rather than exclusion criteria, and that particular concept doesn't work in reverse (Unsigned bands are virtually never notable, but that doesn't mean signed bands always are). We should also remember that MUSIC is meant to cover the whole spectrum of music, and it's possible there are historical artists and artists in unusual genres who might have significant contributions to music history without ever releasing a record. Leadbelly is the most famous example I can think of. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Tough call on this one. I think the close was reasonable considering the opinions offered, so endorse for the moment. Baselineace, you're obviously passionate about the band; I suggest that you keep track of their media coverage during the upcoming tour, and see if it adds up to a few more reliable sources that will back up another portion of WP:MUSIC. I'd be more comfortable if they were in fact signed to a notable label as well, but as I feel that [[Never Heard Of It][ is (despite the comment right above) notable enough with the refs it has, I could be convinced otherwise. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion given the AfD, that was clearly the right call. That said, I'd actually like a relist as there seem to be sources [3] [4] both look fine, though I'm not 100% sure the second isn't self-published. Yes, this isn't AfD2, and yes the close was correct, but deleting something that's notable isn't the ideal outcome. Hobit (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • So is your decision endorse or relist?--Baselineace (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Don't forget, it already was relisted, and ran for more than 10 days. The consensus at the time of relisting was 3-to-1 to delete, and it ended at 9-to-2. There is no reasonable way the closer could have closed this differently, nor would a relist do anything but gather more delete votes and more ill will. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • In answer to Baselineace, I'm saying that the deletion was correct and I endorse the closure. I personally think this is notable enough, and with the sources I listed, I personally would !vote to keep this. Yes I'm being wishy-washy. To starblind, if I'm correct and those are additional sources, I think the consensus would move to keep as notability is (IMO) well established. Hobit (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Los Baby's (closed)

Los Baby's – Restored as a contested PROD – lifebaka++ 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Los Baby's (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD) Contesting PROD of a phenomenally successful Mexican pop/rock band. See es:Los Baby's. Chubbles (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Regan Mizrahi

Regan Mizrahi (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Survived an AfD in which it was deemed notable, thus perhaps should not have been A7 deleted. the skomorokh 14:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. Unless every version somehow became non-notable since the AfD, there's no way it was A7 material. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• A little torn; the AFD was withdrawn by the nominator after one other comment, and while that comment was a keep, the article really doesn't do a huge amount to define the notability of the subject's roles. (Can't say entirely, I don't watch Dora the Explorer...) However, there was at least something there, so overturn and send back to AFD. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• When I deleted the article, its entire content was "Regan Mizrahi is an american child actor.", clearly an A7 candidate. The next deleted revision (sorry, admins only) also did not assert notability. Merely having a page on IMDB does not make an actor notable, and the presence of references (only two, with no links) does not assert notability either. Regarding the AfD, I submit that it was closed incorrectly as keep when in fact the nominating editor actually withdrew the AfD. To close it as keep implies a consensus was reached, when in fact it was only open for fifteen minutes and only two editors expressed any view at all - and one of them was the nominator.

Having said all that, it seems an appropriate thing to do would be to restore the article with a re-open of the AfD for a full discussion. It's possible this actor is sufficiently notable and the article simply needs rescue. I personally might normally be inclined to CSD it again, which is why I'm suggesting an immediate full AfD so the matter can be laid to rest. I have a preference for re-opening the AfD simply because creating a second one will result in questions that aren't relevant to the matter at hand, which is "does the subject merit an article or not?"  Frank  |  talk  16:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. This young actor is the voice of a significant character on Dora the Explorer, which is enough of a claim to notability to at least merit a complete AfD discussion, in my opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way I'm the one who withdrew the AfD. Boots is one of the main characters on Dora- Dora's bestest monkey pal- and when I realized that, I was embarrassed that I'd AfDed an obviously notable actor on the weakness of the article, so I withdrew and closed it before anyone noticed, which was a bit out-of-process, but I wanted to avoid wasting the community's time with a frivolous AfD. Clearly my plan to avoid spending time or drawing attention to my error didn't work, and if I was wrong about this being a clear-cut case, well, that makes me wrong three times at once, which I think is grounds for a trout-slapping. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and anyone can list at AFD as required. Articles which survive an AFD should not be speedy deleted (except for copyright) however short the AFD as that AFD has already shown that it is not the uncontroversial case that speedy deletion is for. (With the exception, of course, of a blatantly bad faith AFD nomination then immediate withdrawal, which was not the case here) Davewild (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "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". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I was unfamiliar with the convention, so I asked at ANI because I wanted to gauge consensus from those in the know on how these things ought to be handled. They sent me here. the skomorokh 19:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That doesn't explain why you followed some of the instructions here and not others. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)]
      • I didn't want one editor's opinion (i.e. that of Frank or Schumin Web), I wanted to known what the convention is and where to go from here with the article. In other words, I didn't think it in the interest of the encyclopaedia to do so. That clear enough for you? the skomorokh 19:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

there is no prohibition against doing it this way, but it was so clearly not an A7 that probably they would have overturned it themselves & it would have been easier and quicker. Stifle, stop pretending policy forbids coming here directly. If you want to propose a change, do so, but don't badger the editors. DGG (talk) 01:14, 8 Oct