< October 18	Deletion review archives: 2008 October	October 20 >

19 October 2008

Texas Railroad Museum – Overturn and Delete. – Eluchil404 (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Texas Railroad Museum (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (restore \| cache \| AfD)`\|`AfD 2`)` The first discussion was (probably correctly) closed as no consensus. When it was found that there actually were no sources, a second discussion was created. The bureaucracy deemed that to be a "procedural keep" despite the new information. Thus the only way to get this deleted is to take it here, even though we're discussing content rather than process (unless we're saying the second one was closed incorrectly). There are no reliable sources for a planned "Texas Railroad Museum". Therefore this should be deleted. NE2 21:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete. AfD1 was "no consensus". AfD2 was "procedural keep". The museum has not yet been established, and whether this museum will exist is not predictable in the Wikipedia crystal ball. The article was created in 2005, and has had no substantive additions since then. The Weatherford, Texas Railroad Museum is not the museum that the author had in mind. The Museum of the American Railroad (formerly the Dallas Railway Museum) isn't the same museum, because the Dallas museum in existence before 2005. Googling for `"texas railroad museum" "fort worth" -wikipedia -"museum and heritage railroad"` only returns 11 results, none of which are on point. As the originator of the AfD2 for this, I was surprised this was a procedural keep, but was told to take it to deletion review, so here we are. Travisl (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ech, I forgot to check whether or not the nom actually opened up a DRV, my bad. Feel free to revert my close of the second AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] No problem. I thought the process was to talk to the AfD1 closing admin first, which I'd started, but as long as this process keeps moving along, I'm OK with that. The process to appeal deletions is pretty clear. The process to appeal keeps is much more poorly documented. Travisl (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete There was no support to keep this article. I don't understand how the admin came to the decision of "no consensus". -Nv8200p talk 01:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete. The first AFD should probably have been relisted, or closed as delete, rather than as no consensus; and it's a shame the second AFD wasn't allowed to go ahead, as the case against this article is pretty strong. In any case, as it's come here instead, we can give it the result it should have had all along: delete as unverifiable and non-notable. Terraxos (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete. It doesn't make sense to have an article on something that does not exist, and may not even be planned, and might even be incorrectly named by the title of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse AfD1 no consensus close. A no consensus close at AfD can immediately be listed at AfD2 since no consensus means that that is no agreement on record for a keep or delete direction for the article. So AfD2 was a valid AfD. Once someone !voted to delete, the nominator could not validly withdraw the AfD since that would subvert the deleter's right to have their views weighed. The AfD2 keep arguments were weak because they were based on a wrong premise. The delete arguments were ground in process and zeroed in on the lack of reliable source material for the article. The argument was not rebutted, making delete the strongest argument. AfD2 was closed after 1 day discussion, so AfD2 won't lead to any valid keep/delete results. On review of AfD1, what needed to be discussed was reliable source material and that really wasn't done to any sufficent degree either by the keep or delete positions. No consensus seems reasonable when neither keep nor delete argument had much strength behind it. It seems plain that there are not enought reliable sources for this topic, but until there is a valid AfD discussion that reaches such a consensus, there isn't much that can be done. -- Suntag ☼ 05:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] So you think it should go back to AFD3? --NE2 06:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] If this DRV does not result in deleting the article (and it looks like it is going to), AfD3 may be listed immediately and be within process. And if AfD3 doesn't result in a deletion, you still can try ((mergeto)) and ((mergefrom)). See WP:MERGE. -- Suntag ☼ 16:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] If we're !voting, redirect to Weatherford,_Texas#Beginnings since Texas House Resolution 225 (adopted March 3, 2005) says "Weatherford serves as the county seat and is the home to such notable attractions as the Texas Railroad Museum." Galveston Railroad Museum was called the Texas Railroad Museum by Texas Monthly, but that seems overridden by Texas law.[1] (quote, "Tourist attractions everywhere promise to bring out the kid in you, but few deliver as effectively as the Texas Railroad Museum. Through an impressive series of dioramas and hands-on exhibits, the museum not only entertains but also educates. From the Karankawa Indians that roamed island shores long before the arrival of European settlers, to the days of Jean Laffite, the devastating 1900 hurricane, and of course the coming of the railroads, the Texas Railroad Museum can teach as much Texas history in a single day as the average class relates in a month. And it's fun"). Or -- Suntag ☼ 18:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete. If concerns are raised over the actual existence of the subject (in this case, the existence of the proposal), then we have a serious issue which must be addressed by those wishing to keep the article. I would endorse a "no consensus" if the concerns were related to the notability, but issues of the actual truth of the article are for more fundamental and cannot be consensused away. With that said, this website shows there are several rail museums in Texas, some of them probably deserve articles, many of them as historical lines. If there are several such articles, a disambiguation at "Texas Railroad Museum", or a list at a similar title, is probably reasonable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] You mean Category:Railroad museums in Texas? Already exists. Travisl (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ah, good point :-). I rest my case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Railroad Commission of Texas makes no mention of the Texas Railroad Museum. -- Suntag ☼ 18:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete. That seems to be the correct outcome. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete ... WP isn't a crystal ball. When it's established, notability will develop, then an article can be created. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep and move to Trinity Valley Railroad Historical Association. A Google News archive search for the association's name turned up this article about a planned museum in Saginaw, Texas (as distinct from Sagniaw, Michigan, which has its own railroad museum Smith, Jenni (May 7, 2001). "MUSEUM IN THE MAKING Saginaw plans $1 million showcase for train, grain history". Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 2008-10-20. with this Google summary: "It's an important part of life in Saginaw and everywhere, really.' Other items for the museum will be donated by the Trinity Valley Railroad Historical ..." So there's coverage in a reliable source of 2001 plans which may have fallen through. Once this article has been moved, it ought to be possible to create an article for the other Texas Railroad Museum. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] FWIW, the link provided goes to a "buy this full article" page, but I found a copy of the article at a TrainOrders.com discussion forum. The 2001 article says, "the Saginaw Chamber of Commerce Foundation will open a 'train and grain' museum on Saginaw Boulevard, perhaps as early as this summer," but clearly that hasn't happened. The discussion there pinpoints the location of the museum as "across the street just north of Sonic" and jokingly suggests digging a tunnel between the two. Google maps shows what would be a good location, across and north of Sonic (1145 N Saginaw Blvd) at 32°52′48″N 97°22′43″W / 32.8799°N 97.3785°W / 32.8799; -97.3785, but it's just a vacant lot. I'd really hesitate to create Trinity Valley Railroad Historical Association, because I think it fails WP:CORP. The only coverage I've found for the organization is their web site, articles that report meeting times, pages that list links to railroad associations, and the Dallas Morning News article, which only mentions them in passing ("Other items for the museum will be donated by the Trinity Valley Railroad Historical Association. Pieces include a train engine and a caboose.") Travisl (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] There might be enough with an old name, Trinity Valley Railfans, but I'm really not sure. They seem to do some locomotive preservation? --NE2 18:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete There's nothing about this project yet, WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Texas Railroad Museum – Overturn and Delete. – Eluchil404 (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The first discussion was (probably correctly) closed as no consensus. When it was found that there actually were no sources, a second discussion was created. The bureaucracy deemed that to be a "procedural keep" despite the new information. Thus the only way to get this deleted is to take it here, even though we're discussing content rather than process (unless we're saying the second one was closed incorrectly). There are no reliable sources for a planned "Texas Railroad Museum". Therefore this should be deleted. NE2 21:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. AfD1 was "no consensus". AfD2 was "procedural keep". The museum has not yet been established, and whether this museum will exist is not predictable in the Wikipedia crystal ball. The article was created in 2005, and has had no substantive additions since then. The Weatherford, Texas Railroad Museum is not the museum that the author had in mind. The Museum of the American Railroad (formerly the Dallas Railway Museum) isn't the same museum, because the Dallas museum in existence before 2005. Googling for "texas railroad museum" "fort worth" -wikipedia -"museum and heritage railroad" only returns 11 results, none of which are on point. As the originator of the AfD2 for this, I was surprised this was a procedural keep, but was told to take it to deletion review, so here we are. Travisl (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ech, I forgot to check whether or not the nom actually opened up a DRV, my bad. Feel free to revert my close of the second AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I thought the process was to talk to the AfD1 closing admin first, which I'd started, but as long as this process keeps moving along, I'm OK with that. The process to appeal deletions is pretty clear. The process to appeal keeps is much more poorly documented. Travisl (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete There was no support to keep this article. I don't understand how the admin came to the decision of "no consensus". -Nv8200p talk 01:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The first AFD should probably have been relisted, or closed as delete, rather than as no consensus; and it's a shame the second AFD wasn't allowed to go ahead, as the case against this article is pretty strong. In any case, as it's come here instead, we can give it the result it should have had all along: delete as unverifiable and non-notable. Terraxos (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. It doesn't make sense to have an article on something that does not exist, and may not even be planned, and might even be incorrectly named by the title of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD1 no consensus close. A no consensus close at AfD can immediately be listed at AfD2 since no consensus means that that is no agreement on record for a keep or delete direction for the article. So AfD2 was a valid AfD. Once someone !voted to delete, the nominator could not validly withdraw the AfD since that would subvert the deleter's right to have their views weighed. The AfD2 keep arguments were weak because they were based on a wrong premise. The delete arguments were ground in process and zeroed in on the lack of reliable source material for the article. The argument was not rebutted, making delete the strongest argument. AfD2 was closed after 1 day discussion, so AfD2 won't lead to any valid keep/delete results. On review of AfD1, what needed to be discussed was reliable source material and that really wasn't done to any sufficent degree either by the keep or delete positions. No consensus seems reasonable when neither keep nor delete argument had much strength behind it. It seems plain that there are not enought reliable sources for this topic, but until there is a valid AfD discussion that reaches such a consensus, there isn't much that can be done. -- Suntag ☼ 05:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you think it should go back to AFD3? --NE2 06:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this DRV does not result in deleting the article (and it looks like it is going to), AfD3 may be listed immediately and be within process. And if AfD3 doesn't result in a deletion, you still can try ((mergeto)) and ((mergefrom)). See WP:MERGE. -- Suntag ☼ 16:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're !voting, redirect to Weatherford,_Texas#Beginnings since Texas House Resolution 225 (adopted March 3, 2005) says "Weatherford serves as the county seat and is the home to such notable attractions as the Texas Railroad Museum." Galveston Railroad Museum was called the Texas Railroad Museum by Texas Monthly, but that seems overridden by Texas law.[1] (quote, "Tourist attractions everywhere promise to bring out the kid in you, but few deliver as effectively as the Texas Railroad Museum. Through an impressive series of dioramas and hands-on exhibits, the museum not only entertains but also educates. From the Karankawa Indians that roamed island shores long before the arrival of European settlers, to the days of Jean Laffite, the devastating 1900 hurricane, and of course the coming of the railroads, the Texas Railroad Museum can teach as much Texas history in a single day as the average class relates in a month. And it's fun"). Or -- Suntag ☼ 18:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. If concerns are raised over the actual existence of the subject (in this case, the existence of the proposal), then we have a serious issue which must be addressed by those wishing to keep the article. I would endorse a "no consensus" if the concerns were related to the notability, but issues of the actual truth of the article are for more fundamental and cannot be consensused away. With that said, this website shows there are several rail museums in Texas, some of them probably deserve articles, many of them as historical lines. If there are several such articles, a disambiguation at "Texas Railroad Museum", or a list at a similar title, is probably reasonable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean Category:Railroad museums in Texas? Already exists. Travisl (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, good point :-). I rest my case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Railroad Commission of Texas makes no mention of the Texas Railroad Museum. -- Suntag ☼ 18:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. That seems to be the correct outcome. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete ... WP isn't a crystal ball. When it's established, notability will develop, then an article can be created. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Trinity Valley Railroad Historical Association. A Google News archive search for the association's name turned up this article about a planned museum in Saginaw, Texas (as distinct from Sagniaw, Michigan, which has its own railroad museum
Smith, Jenni (May 7, 2001). "MUSEUM IN THE MAKING Saginaw plans $1 million showcase for train, grain history". Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 2008-10-20.
with this Google summary: "It's an important part of life in Saginaw and everywhere, really.' Other items for the museum will be donated by the Trinity Valley Railroad Historical ..." So there's coverage in a reliable source of 2001 plans which may have fallen through. Once this article has been moved, it ought to be possible to create an article for the other Texas Railroad Museum. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the link provided goes to a "buy this full article" page, but I found a copy of the article at a TrainOrders.com discussion forum. The 2001 article says, "the Saginaw Chamber of Commerce Foundation will open a 'train and grain' museum on Saginaw Boulevard, perhaps as early as this summer," but clearly that hasn't happened. The discussion there pinpoints the location of the museum as "across the street just north of Sonic" and jokingly suggests digging a tunnel between the two. Google maps shows what would be a good location, across and north of Sonic (1145 N Saginaw Blvd) at 32°52′48″N 97°22′43″W / 32.8799°N 97.3785°W, but it's just a vacant lot.

I'd really hesitate to create Trinity Valley Railroad Historical Association, because I think it fails WP:CORP. The only coverage I've found for the organization is their web site, articles that report meeting times, pages that list links to railroad associations, and the Dallas Morning News article, which only mentions them in passing ("Other items for the museum will be donated by the Trinity Valley Railroad Historical Association. Pieces include a train engine and a caboose.") Travisl (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There might be enough with an old name, Trinity Valley Railfans, but I'm really not sure. They seem to do some locomotive preservation? --NE2 18:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete There's nothing about this project yet, WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Burnt Oak Records – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice against the creation of a new sourced version. – Eluchil404 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether the deletion process was properly followed in deleting this article. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|''username''))

This article on one of southern Ontario's foremost indie labels wasn't considered notable, in spite of the fact that two Wikipedia pages have already been designed for its artists by separate parties, it has collectively garnered a slew of coverage on the Internet and in print (consider the links on the Elbow Beach Surf Club page; google more if you wish), and it is widespread enough in operations to encompass artists from cities as far as NYC, not to mention musicians who migrated to Guelph solely for the purpose of signing with it. It might be worth noting, too, that it has been covered nationally by Much Music in Canada, and that one of its artists is currently engaged in a deal with Blocks Recording Club in Toronto, which houses artists such as Owen Pallett, winner of the Polaris Prize. Can we restore it? I can provide vigorous evidence of its significance, if necessary. -- The Thought-Fox 15:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion; I'm not seeing any reason why the consensus at the AFD should not be held. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - The article was weakly sourced. I did not notice any errors in the AfD or in the closure. The above mention of the Elbow Beach Surf Club doesn't comment on the vast number of red links in that article, which seems over-promotional and weak on reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No other outcome was really possible for that AfD. If you've got some sources (hopefully online, as they're easier to verify), I'd be happy to userfy the article for you to work on. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's admittedly a large number of red links in both EBSC and Richard Laviolette's articles -profiling southern Ontario's burgeoning indie music scene is an ongoing project, after all - but the situation certainly isn't abetted by the decision of Wikipedia to delete culturally relevant and contributive articles. Perhaps the problem lies in the notion that the significance of a phenomena such as an indie label can be assessed by trying to weed out references made to them in "credible sources", which usually result in deletions because institutions associated with youth underground culture usually aren't documented vigorously in community papers aimed at seniors or the mainstream media, who have no interest in such things. The end result of this is that half of Guelph's city councillors have Wikipedia articles that cite to the Guelph Mercury, whereas Burnt Oak - which is obviously of greater significance to the community than a Ward representative, if not Southern Ontario at large - can't foot an article without continual scrutiny (I should note that the Mercury and Tribune have covered Burnt Oak variously - along with other papers - it's just that local politics are their forté). That said, I will cite several links commenting on the label, and will hope that those voting have the good sense to realize the comparative examples of significance mentioned above and make the logical decision on that basis:

Article on Richard Laviolette and Chris Yang in Queen's Journal: http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2007-09-25/arts-entertainment/laviolette-takes-chance-makes-friends-and-music/

Article on Elliott Jones of Brides in the Guelph Tribune: http://www.guelphtribune.ca/news/article/144088

Article on Wolfgang Eberhand of Slow Hand Motëm in The Current: http://media.www.thecurrentonline.com/media/storage/paper304/news/2006/10/02/ArtsAndEntertainment/Slow-Hand.Motm.Mixes.Psychedelic.And.Pop.Rock.In.brosis-2326394.shtml

Review of the Brides' album 'Queens' in Exclaim!: http://www.exclaim.ca/musicreviews/generalreview.aspx?csid2=850&fid1=27246&csid1=114

Review of Elbow Beach Surf Club's self-titled album in Exclaim!: http://www.exclaim.ca/musicreviews/generalreview.aspx?csid1=110&csid2=850&fid1=25360

Review of Tin's album 'Activity' in Exclaim!: http://www.exclaim.ca/musicreviews/generalreview.aspx?csid1=118&csid2=850&fid1=29601

Review of Elbow Beach Surf Club's album 'Billy Club' in Eye Weekly: http://www.eyeweekly.com/music/ondisc/article/12807

Review of Brides' album 'Queens' in Eye Weekly: http://www.eyeweekly.com/music/ondisc/article/12813

Review of Tamsen and Elliott's self-titled album in Broken Pencil: http://www.brokenpencil.com/music/reviews.php?reviewid=16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.201.151 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those links don't show that the record company is notable. Schuym1 (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page stays Wikipedia always finds ways to delete culture pages that deserve better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.44.126 (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. That other users fail to see the significance of this local record label is not our (Guelphites) problem, but it is an integral part of the local community.99.225.42.190 (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete Burnt Oak is important to Canada, far more so than a lot of what is on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.40.148 (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deny I would've said delete, but the links seem credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.177.2 (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't AFD — what is up for discussion here is whether the deletion process was correctly followed. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea that is cut-and-dry seems silly, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.40.65 (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No sources seem to exist, despite all the whining from the IPs above. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No sources for what? If you sift through all the above links and the ones on the old Burnt Oak, Elbow Beach Surf Club, and Richard Laviolette pages (now deleted; but that will have to be appealed - RL is well-known in indie music circles in Canada), you'll find that more than enough exists to prove that Burnt Oak is of greater notability than, say, Guelph City Councillor Maggie Laidlaw, whose claim to fame is voting against Wal-Mart moving into said city (she hasn't garnered dozens upon dozens of articles devoted to her, for example, as Burnt Oak's artists have - including Brides, Tin, Griffin and the True Believers, Chris Yang, etc). What the issue really is here is the double standard that was applied in the deletion of the Burnt Oak page when compared to other articles; a charge no pro-'Endorse' editor has been able to refute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.201.151 (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'TPH - maybe your otters need a chat with you about not being disrespectful to new and unregistered users. That was quite uncalled for. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse but allow recreation - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. However, there does appear to be substantial new information listed in this DRV from which an article could be created. I can't vouch for all the links above (and it does not help to intermix blogs and websites with legit Wikipedia sources), but Burnt Oak Records is covered in Wikipedia legit sources such as Guelph Mercury, Guelph Tribune, Hamilton Spectator, Kitchener Record, and the Waterloo Region Record. It remains debatable as to whether there is enought information for a Wikipedia article, but I think the best approach is to allow recreation of an article, give it a chance to develop over a few weeks, and list at AfD2 if needed. -- Suntag ☼ 07:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Paul Robinett – No consensus to overturn or relist, defaulting to endorse. – lifebaka++ 13:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Robinett (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (restore \| cache \| AfD)`)` <--- This one at DRV (as AfD4?) -- Suntag ☼ 16:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Renetto (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (restore \| cache \| AfD)`)` (AfD2) (DRV1) (DRV2) (AfD3)[reply] Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (the article was about the YouTube Celebrity -- Suntag ☼ 16:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC))[reply] Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Besides there being only 5 "votes" that came in only on the first day of this AfD, the nom and the 3 delete "votes" had nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines or policies (including one "Per Nomination") while the 2 keep ones directly addressed WP:BIO, which this topic easily passes. This should at least be allowed to go to another cycle to gather a real consensus. -- Oakshade 15:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] 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) 16:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] it remains permissible to take things here--and in this rather complicated case, it seems a good idea to get a community view early on. Good choice, imho. DGG (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] List as AfD5 - Given that the article was kept at AfD3 with experienced editors each !voting keep, I think it was process error to not have the AfD3 brought into the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Robinett discussion. List as AfD5 with links to all prior AfDs and DRVs to allow for a complete discussion. -- Suntag ☼ 16:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] For what it's worth, I think between Paul Robinett and Renetto, there is enough info for the topic to pass WP:N. Given the number of times this has come up for deletion discussion, I think we need a full and complete discussion with everything on the table for all to review to ensure that everyone has a chance to feel that the outcome is fair. -- Suntag ☼ 07:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Relist and it does seem to clearly pass WP:BIO, as currently construed. DGG (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion Closing admin here, AFD was open for proper amount of time, all participants commented in good faith, but there were more participants citing policies to delete over those citing policies to keep. Pretty clear in my mind that it was just a disagreement over the degree of notability, with more people seeing non-notability. MBisanz ^talk 20:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Actually none of the 3 participants in favor of deletion cited policies in their initial arguments. One only later mentioned WP:BIO in response to a Keep advocate citing WP:BIO, and that response was pretty weak imho. --Oakshade (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment: The person was featured in a few reliable sources such as The New York Times. The closing admin could have ignored consensus and used WP:IAR to close the AFD as keep. Schuym1 (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] endorse The cited sources are about youtube rather then the subject and there is still no non-trivial sorcing specifically about this person. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] This is an AfD argument, not about the closure of the AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] I don't care one way or another, but this is over, if it stays deleted, can someone redirect it to Paul Robinette (as a common misspelling)? --B (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Paul Robinett as the admin correctly read the discussion. Relisting is only appropriate when there are just one or two contributors to the AFD. No opinion on Renetto. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] None of the three delete advocates based their arguments on Wikipedia policies or guidelines whilst the two keep advocates did.--Oakshade (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor a debating society. You don't "win" discussions by making "better" points than other users. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] LOL! I've never seen the "better arguments are irrelevant" argument. I've got to remember this one. --Oakshade (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Better arguments aren't irrelevant, but Wikipedia works on a consensus model. Admins can (and do) take matters like this into account in close cases, but twice as many users recommending delete as those recommending keep isn't a close case unless it's 2-1. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] relist discussion for deletion was fairly weak and the sources appear fairly reasonable. As WP:N would seem to be met arguments for delete should be largely discounted if all they say is "not notable". Some of the delete arguments didn't but I think relisting or no consensus was the right way to go here... Hobit (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Further, once sources were identified the !vote was 2 to 2. And even then, one of the !votes was a "delete per nom" with no evidence that the sources had been looked at. I disagree with Stifle. Another time a relist is appropriate is when sources are provided and the general sense of the discussion seems to be moving to keep. This one is boarderline, but I think it's there. Hobit (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Paul Robinett – No consensus to overturn or relist, defaulting to endorse. – lifebaka++ 13:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (the article was about the YouTube Celebrity -- Suntag ☼ 16:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Besides there being only 5 "votes" that came in only on the first day of this AfD, the nom and the 3 delete "votes" had nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines or policies (including one "Per Nomination") while the 2 keep ones directly addressed WP:BIO, which this topic easily passes. This should at least be allowed to go to another cycle to gather a real consensus. -- Oakshade 15:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it remains permissible to take things here--and in this rather complicated case, it seems a good idea to get a community view early on. Good choice, imho. DGG (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List as AfD5 - Given that the article was kept at AfD3 with experienced editors each !voting keep, I think it was process error to not have the AfD3 brought into the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Robinett discussion. List as AfD5 with links to all prior AfDs and DRVs to allow for a complete discussion. -- Suntag ☼ 16:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think between Paul Robinett and Renetto, there is enough info for the topic to pass WP:N. Given the number of times this has come up for deletion discussion, I think we need a full and complete discussion with everything on the table for all to review to ensure that everyone has a chance to feel that the outcome is fair. -- Suntag ☼ 07:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist and it does seem to clearly pass WP:BIO, as currently construed. DGG (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Closing admin here, AFD was open for proper amount of time, all participants commented in good faith, but there were more participants citing policies to delete over those citing policies to keep. Pretty clear in my mind that it was just a disagreement over the degree of notability, with more people seeing non-notability. MBisanz ^talk 20:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually none of the 3 participants in favor of deletion cited policies in their initial arguments. One only later mentioned WP:BIO in response to a Keep advocate citing WP:BIO, and that response was pretty weak imho. --Oakshade (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The person was featured in a few reliable sources such as The New York Times. The closing admin could have ignored consensus and used WP:IAR to close the AFD as keep. Schuym1 (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse The cited sources are about youtube rather then the subject and there is still no non-trivial sorcing specifically about this person. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an AfD argument, not about the closure of the AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care one way or another, but this is over, if it stays deleted, can someone redirect it to Paul Robinette (as a common misspelling)? --B (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Paul Robinett as the admin correctly read the discussion. Relisting is only appropriate when there are just one or two contributors to the AFD. No opinion on Renetto. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the three delete advocates based their arguments on Wikipedia policies or guidelines whilst the two keep advocates did.--Oakshade (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor a debating society. You don't "win" discussions by making "better" points than other users. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I've never seen the "better arguments are irrelevant" argument. I've got to remember this one. --Oakshade (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better arguments aren't irrelevant, but Wikipedia works on a consensus model. Admins can (and do) take matters like this into account in close cases, but twice as many users recommending delete as those recommending keep isn't a close case unless it's 2-1. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
relist discussion for deletion was fairly weak and the sources appear fairly reasonable. As WP:N would seem to be met arguments for delete should be largely discounted if all they say is "not notable". Some of the delete arguments didn't but I think relisting or no consensus was the right way to go here... Hobit (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, once sources were identified the !vote was 2 to 2. And even then, one of the !votes was a "delete per nom" with no evidence that the sources had been looked at. I disagree with Stifle. Another time a relist is appropriate is when sources are provided and the general sense of the discussion seems to be moving to keep. This one is boarderline, but I think it's there. Hobit (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Comparison of web based file managers – Withdrawn. – lifebaka++ 15:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Comparison of web based file managers (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (restore \| cache \| AfD)`)` Deletion did not reflect consensus, similar content is already on Wikipedia, and my arguments for not deleting were not addressed in part or whole Archer1742 (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Please explain why you did not bother to try and discuss the close with me before raising this DRV? The consensus of the close was clear and you were the only voice arguing keep. The article was not properly sourced and only one outcome was possible from the discussion. Endorse Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Your talk page said you were away from Wikipedia. Anyway, I added sources to the article, and I fail to see why the article was deleted after I had done this. Archer1742 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] fair point but I'm afraid the sourcing didn't pass muster. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] OK, see my comment below. I'll drop this request and make a new List of web based file managers article that does not have the higher burden of verification and notability. Archer1742 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, you were the only person among five contributors who suggested keeping. Wikipedia is not a court of law nor a debating society — discussions are not "won" by making arguments which are not addressed, and consensus is, for the most part, based on the number of contributors on each side. Spartaz could not possibly have possibly closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] I wasn't talking about "winning", and I know consensus is a general rather than complete agreement. However, the article was sourced, see my response above. Archer1742 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] To that, I would point out that deletion review is a place to indicate how the deletion process wasn't followed, not to try to advance new arguments (or re-advance old ones) which support your point. In short, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment - A List of web based file managers having a table that allows a reader to make their own comparision would be a better approach that using "comparison" in the article name since comparison implies original research without reliable sources making the comparison. On the other hand, see Comparison of file managers. As background, see File Manager (Windows), File manager, Gentoo (file manager), KNC (file manager), Kae's File Manager, Nautilus (file manager), Open File Manager, PCMan File Manager, Spatial file manager, and Xfm (file manager).-- Suntag ☼ 16:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your very constructive comment. I'll put the article up again as a List of web based file managers. Archer1742 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. Any closing admin who took a look at the qualify of the sourcing would be likely to come to the same conclusion as Spartaz. In software comparison tables, I would normally expect to see that each program listed would have its own Wikipedia article. There were none in this case. All the data included in the table came from the programs' own web sites, and no third-party reviews were cited. In my opinion that should not be considered 'sourcing.' EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] commentIn cases where decisions are passed by an admin following the majority view of those making responsible comments, it gets objected that they should have more closely evaluated the arguments; in case they do evaluate the arguments and select, it gets objected he should have followed the majority of responsible comments. Given the amount of discretion involved in which course to follow, it seems every non-unanimous decision ever made is reviewable here, and subject to overturn if the consensus here is that it was the wrong result. Perhaps that's realistic--the decisions at AfD tend to have such an element of randomness that perhaps almost everyone should be entitled to a second hearing. I'm not sure whether to say I'm being ironic or serious. DGG (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] I completely agree with you. But it's not at all clear what, if anything, to do about that. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Comparison of web based file managers – Withdrawn. – lifebaka++ 15:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Deletion did not reflect consensus, similar content is already on Wikipedia, and my arguments for not deleting were not addressed in part or whole Archer1742 (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you did not bother to try and discuss the close with me before raising this DRV? The consensus of the close was clear and you were the only voice arguing keep. The article was not properly sourced and only one outcome was possible from the discussion. Endorse Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page said you were away from Wikipedia. Anyway, I added sources to the article, and I fail to see why the article was deleted after I had done this. Archer1742 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fair point but I'm afraid the sourcing didn't pass muster. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see my comment below. I'll drop this request and make a new List of web based file managers article that does not have the higher burden of verification and notability. Archer1742 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, you were the only person among five contributors who suggested keeping. Wikipedia is not a court of law nor a debating society — discussions are not "won" by making arguments which are not addressed, and consensus is, for the most part, based on the number of contributors on each side. Spartaz could not possibly have possibly closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't talking about "winning", and I know consensus is a general rather than complete agreement. However, the article was sourced, see my response above. Archer1742 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - To that, I would point out that deletion review is a place to indicate how the deletion process wasn't followed, not to try to advance new arguments (or re-advance old ones) which support your point. In short, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A List of web based file managers having a table that allows a reader to make their own comparision would be a better approach that using "comparison" in the article name since comparison implies original research without reliable sources making the comparison. On the other hand, see Comparison of file managers. As background, see File Manager (Windows), File manager, Gentoo (file manager), KNC (file manager), Kae's File Manager, Nautilus (file manager), Open File Manager, PCMan File Manager, Spatial file manager, and Xfm (file manager).-- Suntag ☼ 16:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your very constructive comment. I'll put the article up again as a List of web based file managers. Archer1742 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Any closing admin who took a look at the qualify of the sourcing would be likely to come to the same conclusion as Spartaz. In software comparison tables, I would normally expect to see that each program listed would have its own Wikipedia article. There were none in this case. All the data included in the table came from the programs' own web sites, and no third-party reviews were cited. In my opinion that should not be considered 'sourcing.' EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
commentIn cases where decisions are passed by an admin following the majority view of those making responsible comments, it gets objected that they should have more closely evaluated the arguments; in case they do evaluate the arguments and select, it gets objected he should have followed the majority of responsible comments. Given the amount of discretion involved in which course to follow, it seems every non-unanimous decision ever made is reviewable here, and subject to overturn if the consensus here is that it was the wrong result. Perhaps that's realistic--the decisions at AfD tend to have such an element of randomness that perhaps almost everyone should be entitled to a second hearing. I'm not sure whether to say I'm being ironic or serious. DGG (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree with you. But it's not at all clear what, if anything, to do about that. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.