Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal – procedural close as DRV cannot overturn a merge, please see WP:ND3 for advice on how to deal with this situation. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) i think i got this right. it doesnt look like there was any consensus to delete the bumblefoot page, and the merge that was done removed almost all information. it also looks like the debate was confused as there were a lot of things being discussed and it was not clear what the feelings were. i think this should be undeleted or at least relisted and posted to the music deletion discussion page since i dont think any real consensus was reached. as far as i know this guy was famous before gnr and is very notable. Aisha9152 (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] also this discussion was not even allowed to run a full week. Aisha9152 (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. The Thal article was the centerpiece of a whole mess of related articles created and/or edited by Thal himself or his associates. Once we trimmed all the fat, the only real meat to the Thal article was that he is a member of Guns N' Roses. According to WP:BAND, this alone is not enough to warrant an article. He has only received trivial coverage outside of his Guns N' Roses participation. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment by closing admin - the discussion did run for a full week, from 13:09 18 Nov to 20:47 25 Nov, and was listed on the list of Music-related deletion discussions immediately after it was opened. I believe I closed it in accordance with a clear consensus. I am not sure whether this DRV is intended to challenge the deletion of the other ~~three~~ four articles concerned, but I have temporarily undeleted them as instructed here. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. The close seems to have followed process and properly reflects the discussion. The arguments for deletion were reasonable and policy-based, and the only keep argument was weak. --RL0919 (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Fairly straightforward. No issues that I can see. If nom wishes to reverse the merge, that should be resolved by a discussion on the appropriate talk page. Tim Song (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] well it was a clear consensus for everything else but for bumblefoot there were weak keeps and maybe merges. i am just suggesting it at least be relisted on its own if not undeleted - i think a lot of people missed the discussion because it was easy to miss that his name was in there - i missed it until it was too late. i think the page can be cleaned up and enough added so it doesnt have to be merged. he is also a record producer for instance and produced stuff for 24-7 Spyz Aisha9152 (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Closure was a completely appropriate interpretation of the discussion and was within process. Nancy ^talk 16:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] I tend to feel that Bumblefoot has a likelihood of being notable on his own outside of the band, but the consensus was pretty solid there. Endorse delete and suggest that the nominator create a well-sourced article in his userspace, and present it back here when it's done for consideration. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Actually, it hasn't been deleted, just redirected; the article as it stood at merging certainly showed notability, with themes and music performed as a solo artist for various TV efforts... I'll have to give this some thought, so my opinion may change. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] yes and the redirect went from size 6000 to like 300. all the information was lost. i think the afd got confused because of so many issues. Aisha9152 (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] It isn't lost; the old version is still available in the history. You could easily copy an old version into userspace to work on bolstering it with more evidence of independent notability for Thal. That doesn't even require help from an admin. What you need DRV for is to provide some endorsement to stop people from reverting you when you try to restore the article. --RL0919 (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Procedural Close as the wrong venue. The article was not deleted, just turned into a redirect. There's nothing for DRV to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] im sorry, im unfamiliar with policy here, i was just following what was said to me at [1] . please advise me how to proceed on my talk page if theres something else i should do. Aisha9152 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking consensus here for undoing the action that was prescribed by the admin closing the AfD. However, no such consensus seems to exist. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal – procedural close as DRV cannot overturn a merge, please see WP:ND3 for advice on how to deal with this situation. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

i think i got this right. it doesnt look like there was any consensus to delete the bumblefoot page, and the merge that was done removed almost all information. it also looks like the debate was confused as there were a lot of things being discussed and it was not clear what the feelings were. i think this should be undeleted or at least relisted and posted to the music deletion discussion page since i dont think any real consensus was reached. as far as i know this guy was famous before gnr and is very notable. Aisha9152 (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also this discussion was not even allowed to run a full week. Aisha9152 (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. The Thal article was the centerpiece of a whole mess of related articles created and/or edited by Thal himself or his associates. Once we trimmed all the fat, the only real meat to the Thal article was that he is a member of Guns N' Roses. According to WP:BAND, this alone is not enough to warrant an article. He has only received trivial coverage outside of his Guns N' Roses participation. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by closing admin - the discussion did run for a full week, from 13:09 18 Nov to 20:47 25 Nov, and was listed on the list of Music-related deletion discussions immediately after it was opened. I believe I closed it in accordance with a clear consensus. I am not sure whether this DRV is intended to challenge the deletion of the other ~~three~~ four articles concerned, but I have temporarily undeleted them as instructed here. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. The close seems to have followed process and properly reflects the discussion. The arguments for deletion were reasonable and policy-based, and the only keep argument was weak. --RL0919 (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Fairly straightforward. No issues that I can see. If nom wishes to reverse the merge, that should be resolved by a discussion on the appropriate talk page. Tim Song (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- well it was a clear consensus for everything else but for bumblefoot there were weak keeps and maybe merges. i am just suggesting it at least be relisted on its own if not undeleted - i think a lot of people missed the discussion because it was easy to miss that his name was in there - i missed it until it was too late. i think the page can be cleaned up and enough added so it doesnt have to be merged. he is also a record producer for instance and produced stuff for 24-7 Spyz Aisha9152 (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Closure was a completely appropriate interpretation of the discussion and was within process. Nancy ^talk 16:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to feel that Bumblefoot has a likelihood of being notable on his own outside of the band, but the consensus was pretty solid there. Endorse delete and suggest that the nominator create a well-sourced article in his userspace, and present it back here when it's done for consideration. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it hasn't been deleted, just redirected; the article as it stood at merging certainly showed notability, with themes and music performed as a solo artist for various TV efforts... I'll have to give this some thought, so my opinion may change. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes and the redirect went from size 6000 to like 300. all the information was lost. i think the afd got confused because of so many issues. Aisha9152 (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't lost; the old version is still available in the history. You could easily copy an old version into userspace to work on bolstering it with more evidence of independent notability for Thal. That doesn't even require help from an admin. What you need DRV for is to provide some endorsement to stop people from reverting you when you try to restore the article. --RL0919 (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close as the wrong venue. The article was not deleted, just turned into a redirect. There's nothing for DRV to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

im sorry, im unfamiliar with policy here, i was just following what was said to me at [1] . please advise me how to proceed on my talk page if theres something else i should do. Aisha9152 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking consensus here for undoing the action that was prescribed by the admin closing the AfD. However, no such consensus seems to exist. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

MogileFS – deletion endorsed. There is no indication in this discussion that there was anything wrong with the closure. – Shereth 21:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MogileFS (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I discovered the deletion when I searched WP for MogileFS after reading This cnet.co.uk article, which quotes last.fm's head of Web development about their use of MogileFS, That quote that in combination with comments during the deletion discussion suggest that MogileFS is notable and it was a bit hasty to delete the article. Thanks. 67.100.125.142 (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Please notify the closing admin of this DRV. That aside, however, I would like to see an expanded rationale for deleting this page, since there were a number of good-faith keep "votes" from experienced contributors. –Juliancolton \| ^Talk 17:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Also, comments at AFD shouldn't be ignored simply because they're from new users. Wikipedia is a project anyone can edit, and anyone should be able to make comments. Comments should be considered based on strength of argument, not number of edits the commenter has made. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - appropriate weight was given to the !votes with policy based rationals and the ones based on GHits and how great the s/w is were discounted. Nancy ^talk 16:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse – proper admin closure and consideration of arguments here (most by the single-purpose accounts were rather poor arguments for retention). MuZemike 17:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Thanks, Secret, for doing a proper close on the arguments. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) Endorse. Not clearly erroneous. Tim Song (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

MogileFS – deletion endorsed. There is no indication in this discussion that there was anything wrong with the closure. – Shereth 21:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I discovered the deletion when I searched WP for MogileFS after reading This cnet.co.uk article, which quotes last.fm's head of Web development about their use of MogileFS, That quote that in combination with comments during the deletion discussion suggest that MogileFS is notable and it was a bit hasty to delete the article. Thanks. 67.100.125.142 (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify the closing admin of this DRV. That aside, however, I would like to see an expanded rationale for deleting this page, since there were a number of good-faith keep "votes" from experienced contributors. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, comments at AFD shouldn't be ignored simply because they're from new users. Wikipedia is a project anyone can edit, and anyone should be able to make comments. Comments should be considered based on strength of argument, not number of edits the commenter has made. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - appropriate weight was given to the !votes with policy based rationals and the ones based on GHits and how great the s/w is were discounted. Nancy ^talk 16:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – proper admin closure and consideration of arguments here (most by the single-purpose accounts were rather poor arguments for retention). MuZemike 17:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Thanks, Secret, for doing a proper close on the arguments. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Endorse. Not clearly erroneous. Tim Song (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mishk'vei ishah – endorsed. Allegations of canvassing are noted but the discussion does not appear to be compromised. – Shereth 21:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mishk'vei ishah (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Overturn to no consensus I'm not convinced there was a clear consensus. It seemed nearly evenly split to me. Consensus is not 50% + 1 Closing admin's rationale is nonsense: "noone hasd clearly rebutted the argument that this is synth and OR". Despite the fact that the second comment made, remarks, in bold, that the article is a merge of two sections from two other large articles. And the fact that the article is covered in cites, and therefore cannot be OR. "vast majority of the keep votes are by assertion". Despite the fact that none of the keep votes are by assertion. Yet there are several delete votes that are nothing much more than a mere vote. There was too much voting without discussion, and no chance was given to rectify this, or allow the discussion to come to a consensus There was rather a lot of involvement by people who had not made a single previous edit in over a month... Newman Luke (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment the consensus did seem to support delete. I think the consensus was wrong, but that's another matter. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Difficult AfD to close, to be sure, but I see no clear error. Nominator's statement itself reveals the flaw in their reasoning - to the assertion that "the article is covered by cites, and therefore cannot be OR", I will simply respond that, "according to the Bible, Judas hanged himself (Matt. 27:5) and Jesus said “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37)". [2] One can cite both of those statements, yet one cannot seriously argue that the Bible instructed people to go hang themselves. That is why there is such a thing that is called original research by synthesis. Tim Song (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure Closing administrator properly implemented consensus on article deletion. The nominator of this DRV may disagree with that consensus, but, per DGG, that does not affect the propriety of the closure. -- Avi (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Oppose closure I was blindsided by the admin's action. I expected that the article would be repaired after the closing of the AfD action, in light of the consistent support from the voting editors. Deleting it with no warning, in flagrant disregard of all the support it received struck me as an arbitrary and inconsiderate action. At the very least the article should have been relegated to private space, so that concerns could be addressed. Haiduc (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Closing admin I was not approached to discuss the deletion before the this DRV was listed nor was I notified that it was being brought to DRV. The close involved a lot of discussion to wade through but policy is clear that rough consensus comes from weighing arguments against policy not head count and that allegations of synth and OR need to be rebutted with proper sources not assertions. I remember closing this as one of the very last AFDs thats were outstanding on that day's log so there was plenty of opportunity to contribute to the discussion and I saw no procedural improprieties in the listing so I Endorse my own close Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure the closing admin followed correct procedures. There was a clear majority to delete this gross violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The assertion by Newman Luke (talk · contribs) that "There was too much voting without discussion" is total baloney, just take a look at the page yourself: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah it overflows with discussions and comments! User:Newman Luke is a sore loser and cannot let go and move on and even worse is now resorting to violating Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as he wages his WP:WAR against editors he disapproves of. How sad. IZAK (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] The deletion nomination statement invites a merger of "whatever is salvageable". Did this merger in fact take place, and if not, what has happened to any sourced content from the article?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Since the article was deemed to be original research by synthasis and the cosensus was that this sythesis wasn't properly sourced, there was no salvagable content to merge, otherwise I would closed this as a merge. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] S Marshall: The consensus was for Deletion and not for any sort of merging. Had users decided upon any sort of "merging" they would have clearly indicated as such as part of their votes. Anyone is free to say either "Delete" or "Merge" regardless of what the nominator may have said. As you know, nominations can start with requests for total "deletes" and end with a "merge" or there can be a request for a "merge" that ends with "deletion" so that it's the consensus of the voting users that the closing admin must base his decision upon that matters most and not the nuances of the nominator's initial wording, otherwise it would seem that it's putting false words into users' mouths/votes, befitting WP:LAWYERING, that they never stated or intended. IZAK (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] ... all I did was ask a question, Izak. I was merely concerned to see that we are complying with our content licences, and I do not see how my remark even begins to warrant so vehement a response.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Vehement"? I was trying to be logical and follow the rules. Sorry for any misunderstanding. IZAK (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] I have to say that in my experience, IZAK seems to respond with quite severe incivility towards anyone who contests his argument, for any reason. I'm not sure he should be editing wikipedia if he has such contempt for WP:CIVILITY. Newman Luke (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Newman: Your record of utter comtempt for anyone who opposes your perspectives disqualifies you from passing judgment on other's words. Kindly adhere to WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and stop WP:WAR, and please stick to the subject at hand rather than trying to score cheap brownie points with your petty and uncalled for WP:NPA here. Wishing you a Shabbat Shalom. Thanks so much. IZAK (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Closure I fail to see the validity of the claim that there was not any ample discussion. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Closure. The closing procedure was done properly, the reasons given for keeping the article seem to me (and to the closing admin) insufficient to refute those given by us who voted for deletion. Restoring the article would only cause unnecessary and incessant arguments over redeleting it. -- Nahum (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close no controversy here, straightforward.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'd like to approach this question from another side. The nominator has been making many edits that had to be reverted for their dubious worth. Likewise he has tried to revert a few merges that had been made with consensus. His first claim is always that "there was no consensus for what you are doing" (or "consensus was feeble", or sth like that). He seems to be on some crusade of his own, which I, personally, find rather destructive. I am therefore reluctant to agree with him. Debresser (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Closure. I did not vote on the original afd since I was to late to review it. However I did review the article now and cannot agree more with the nomination. Besides for the reasons cited, the impression I had reading the article is one I never had on any other WP article regarding Biblical content. Not only did it read like OR, the sources felt somewhat like junk sources and the whole article smelled like one is trying to push something other than encyclopedic content.--Shmaltz (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus default to keep. Yes, I know, a futile vote in all likelihood. This has all the makings of snow. Debresser makes a valid point a few entries above, but I think we should always only take into account the matter at hand and not look into prior offenses unless it is relevant. Nominator's conduct has no bearing here, does it? We are looking at a process of an AfD. I have to say that I humbly agree with editor Haiduc who "was blindsided by the admin's action". This does seem to be a flagrant disregard of all the support the article received, and does reek of an arbitrary and inconsiderate action. When there is sooo much discussion, and an almost split vote with strong arguments on both sides, is that not the very definition of no consensus? Regardless of the fact that delete args do seem stronger, by not deciding no consensus here the admin effectively disregards many editors' opinion and makes a decision that contains too much self rightousness (this is no direct attack on the admin, I respect your work, but similar decisions keep popping up...)and too much power. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Since we don't count noses when closing discussions but rather balance arguments against policy, I was bound to delete if there was a credible argument about SYNTH and this was not effectively refuted by the keep side. I do close a lot of close AFDs, but that's because I'm often the one who closes the last few AFDs - the ones that no-one else wants to deal with. I have a good record at DRV despite closing a lot of close discussions. I'm sorry that you don't agree with the close but there does seem to be an emerging consensus that I got the right outcome here. There is always a degree of subjectivity when it comes to closing deletion discussions and I'm sorry you don't agree with my approach. I do think its unfair to accuse me of self-righteousness in this close and having too much power. I think, if you look at my admin log and contributions that you will see that I am quick to correct mistakes when they are pointed out, quick to apologise where appropriate and I'm hardly block happy, so I'm afraid that I'm not recognising the description of me that you paint. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] You do not recognize the description, Spartaz, because I used a pen and not a paint brush. If you re-read my comment, I explicitly stated it was NOT a direct attack on you and that I respect your work, your contributions and opinions; whether or not we agree. And yes, there is a consensus that your outcome was right, I stated so, and am going against the grain here purposely. When I said similar decisions keep popping up I meant by many closing admins, not you directly. I simply feel that if just as many editors opine reasonably at an AfD for keep as they do for delete, it is self-righteous of anyone to simply ignore all those editors and close on their own interpretation. We are, after all, a community, right? Tell me this, if there was an AfD that had 23 keep votes that were reasonable although not completely policy relevant and 1 delete vote that totally and directly addressed policy only, How would we close? How would you close that one, Spartaz? Turqoise127 (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] I don't know how Spartaz would close that one, but I won't close that. I would !vote to delete if in my view policy requires it and move on; unless of course it's one of the inviolable policies like an attack page or a copyvio, which trumps all else. Tim Song (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] That's a ridiculous hypothetical that puts headcount over the nuances of the actual arguments. How could I possibly comment on that without reading the discussion? Theoretically any discussion with 23 deletes and one really well argued keep can also be kept but it depends very much on the actual arguments deployed. And I'm sorry, but I do consider it to be disingenuous on your part to say on one hand that you have respect for my work and contributions but in the same paragraph accuse me of being self-righteous and abusing power. ((what power by the way? Did I miss a memo somewhere on that?)). The reality is that like most contributors I'm human and sometimes make mistakes and sometimes get it right. I seem to have got it right here so your slurs are particularly unfair here. If you think there is a general problem with my closing of AFDs I suggest you leave me a note on my talk page providing detail of which specific AFDs you are concerned about and why. Otherwise, its just comes across as an unprovoked and unevidenced attack. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Turqoise127, there is an AfD that matches your description. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Host.net and the subsequent DRV which ended in a rough consensus to relist before it was discovered that Host.net was a copyright violation. Cunard (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] OOh, there were a lot of really rubbish keep votes there but a couple of contributions from established editors asserting sources that were not properly challenged. I'd say there was no consensus to delete and that a later relist if the article was not improved woild be left to editorial discretion. I'm really not sure what the exercise is supposed to prove though. No-one covers themself in glory - first thing to do with any article written like an ad is to check for copy vio. Google is a great tool for that. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] What a great find Cunard. See, that is what I am talking about. We are a community, and many editors in that example had reasonable allbeit non-policy based views. No one said "keep, because I like it", or "keep per above". Regardless, the admin who closed took the decision out of the hands of many editors and did it himself. This is abuse of admin power and disregard of community view per admin's own interpretation of consensus, which is oftentimes flawed... Anyhow, I am taking too much of everyone's time, I apologize. And, Spartaz, I do not see why you so passionately defend yourself when I really did not attack you. If I have offended you I apologize. Turqoise127 (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close and deletion The closing comments are exactly correct. The article was not reporting fact, but rather drawing conclusions and analyzing text. This is explicitly out of bounds for Wikipedia, as per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. No one opposing the deletion even attempted to show that it was anything other than OR and SYNTH, and arguments that the material already existed in other articles are irrelevant. If such is the case, they should be removed from those articles as well (see [3] and [4]). The answer to a violation of Wikipedia policies is not more violations in the same vein. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] It cannot be OR if it has multiple cites, by definition. As for Synth, the article was a merge of the material about the topic in The Bible and Homosexuality and in Leviticus 18 (for an explanation of why the merge was necessary, see my comments in the AfD or the article's talk page). I added nothing to it, except adding a few cites to uncited sentences. If it is synth, then so is the material in The Bible and Homosexuality and in Leviticus 18, yet no-one has complained about those. Yet none of the people wanting to delete even addressed these points - they just seem to have wanted to ignore them, and delete anyway. Newman Luke (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yes it can. SYNTH is precisely that, taking unrelated cited material and combining it to create a new meaning not intended by the original writer. You really do need to read up on our basic policies a bit. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] comment. I'm disappointed to see that many of the people commenting above are the people that actually voted on the AfD, and are merely regurgitating their own votes. Newman Luke (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] comment including the nominator of this DRV, I presume? -- Avi (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] I can't nominate it any other way. However, see below.Newman Luke (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] VERY IMPORTANT NOTE FOR CLOSING ADMIN - IZAK has been WP:MEATPUPPETing - [5], and many of the above votes may therefore need to be discounted. Newman Luke (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Firstly, you mean canvassing, not meatpuppeting. Secondly, talk page notices are not only allowed, but encouraged. See Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices. -- Avi (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Talk page notices are supposed to be neutral. Those are not. Tim Song (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] The language is far from perfect but the basic message isn't canvassing as its a pointer to a discussion at the appropriate wikiproject. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Per Spartaz; IZAK is not asking people to vote delete - he is saying the original consensus was delete. Although the first sentence about Newman could have been worded more diplomatically, perhaps. -- Avi (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Mentioning me, expressing an attitude towards me, and emphasising how the AfD was closed, is blatently agitating for a particular outcome.Newman Luke (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Agree that those are probably not attempts to solicit votes. But they could and should have been worded far more neutrally to avoid canvassing concerns. They are far from optimal, per Spartaz. Tim Song (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Newman, when will you stop personlizing the discussions and focusing on me and deal with the real issues at hand which is your clearly-stated intention to totally obliterate any views you don't like, particularly if you suspect they may be coming from an "Orthodox" perspective as you have made abundantly clear again and again on your talk page and elsewhere, as an example please review User talk:Newman Luke#What do you mean by this? and more. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure I don't know how in the world User:Newman Luke can claim there was too much voting without discussion when in fact there was a huge amount of discussion, way more then the average AFD. Shlomke (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mishk'vei ishah – endorsed. Allegations of canvassing are noted but the discussion does not appear to be compromised. – Shereth 21:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn to no consensus

I'm not convinced there was a clear consensus. It seemed nearly evenly split to me. Consensus is not 50% + 1
Closing admin's rationale is nonsense:
- "noone hasd clearly rebutted the argument that this is synth and OR". Despite the fact that the second comment made, remarks, in bold, that the article is a merge of two sections from two other large articles. And the fact that the article is covered in cites, and therefore cannot be OR.
- "vast majority of the keep votes are by assertion". Despite the fact that none of the keep votes are by assertion. Yet there are several delete votes that are nothing much more than a mere vote.
There was too much voting without discussion, and no chance was given to rectify this, or allow the discussion to come to a consensus
There was rather a lot of involvement by people who had not made a single previous edit in over a month... Newman Luke (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the consensus did seem to support delete. I think the consensus was wrong, but that's another matter. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Difficult AfD to close, to be sure, but I see no clear error. Nominator's statement itself reveals the flaw in their reasoning - to the assertion that "the article is covered by cites, and therefore cannot be OR", I will simply respond that, "according to the Bible, Judas hanged himself (Matt. 27:5) and Jesus said “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37)". [2] One can cite both of those statements, yet one cannot seriously argue that the Bible instructed people to go hang themselves. That is why there is such a thing that is called original research by synthesis. Tim Song (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Closing administrator properly implemented consensus on article deletion. The nominator of this DRV may disagree with that consensus, but, per DGG, that does not affect the propriety of the closure. -- Avi (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose closure I was blindsided by the admin's action. I expected that the article would be repaired after the closing of the AfD action, in light of the consistent support from the voting editors. Deleting it with no warning, in flagrant disregard of all the support it received struck me as an arbitrary and inconsiderate action. At the very least the article should have been relegated to private space, so that concerns could be addressed. Haiduc (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin I was not approached to discuss the deletion before the this DRV was listed nor was I notified that it was being brought to DRV. The close involved a lot of discussion to wade through but policy is clear that rough consensus comes from weighing arguments against policy not head count and that allegations of synth and OR need to be rebutted with proper sources not assertions. I remember closing this as one of the very last AFDs thats were outstanding on that day's log so there was plenty of opportunity to contribute to the discussion and I saw no procedural improprieties in the listing so I Endorse my own close Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure the closing admin followed correct procedures. There was a clear majority to delete this gross violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The assertion by Newman Luke (talk · contribs) that "There was too much voting without discussion" is total baloney, just take a look at the page yourself: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah it overflows with discussions and comments! User:Newman Luke is a sore loser and cannot let go and move on and even worse is now resorting to violating Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as he wages his WP:WAR against editors he disapproves of. How sad. IZAK (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion nomination statement invites a merger of "whatever is salvageable". Did this merger in fact take place, and if not, what has happened to any sourced content from the article?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the article was deemed to be original research by synthasis and the cosensus was that this sythesis wasn't properly sourced, there was no salvagable content to merge, otherwise I would closed this as a merge. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- S Marshall: The consensus was for Deletion and not for any sort of merging. Had users decided upon any sort of "merging" they would have clearly indicated as such as part of their votes. Anyone is free to say either "Delete" or "Merge" regardless of what the nominator may have said. As you know, nominations can start with requests for total "deletes" and end with a "merge" or there can be a request for a "merge" that ends with "deletion" so that it's the consensus of the voting users that the closing admin must base his decision upon that matters most and not the nuances of the nominator's initial wording, otherwise it would seem that it's putting false words into users' mouths/votes, befitting WP:LAWYERING, that they never stated or intended. IZAK (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... all I did was ask a question, Izak. I was merely concerned to see that we are complying with our content licences, and I do not see how my remark even begins to warrant so vehement a response.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Vehement"? I was trying to be logical and follow the rules. Sorry for any misunderstanding. IZAK (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have to say that in my experience, IZAK seems to respond with quite severe incivility towards anyone who contests his argument, for any reason. I'm not sure he should be editing wikipedia if he has such contempt for WP:CIVILITY. Newman Luke (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Newman: Your record of utter comtempt for anyone who opposes your perspectives disqualifies you from passing judgment on other's words. Kindly adhere to WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and stop WP:WAR, and please stick to the subject at hand rather than trying to score cheap brownie points with your petty and uncalled for WP:NPA here. Wishing you a Shabbat Shalom. Thanks so much. IZAK (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure I fail to see the validity of the claim that there was not any ample discussion. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure. The closing procedure was done properly, the reasons given for keeping the article seem to me (and to the closing admin) insufficient to refute those given by us who voted for deletion. Restoring the article would only cause unnecessary and incessant arguments over redeleting it. -- Nahum (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close no controversy here, straightforward.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to approach this question from another side. The nominator has been making many edits that had to be reverted for their dubious worth. Likewise he has tried to revert a few merges that had been made with consensus. His first claim is always that "there was no consensus for what you are doing" (or "consensus was feeble", or sth like that). He seems to be on some crusade of his own, which I, personally, find rather destructive. I am therefore reluctant to agree with him. Debresser (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure. I did not vote on the original afd since I was to late to review it. However I did review the article now and cannot agree more with the nomination. Besides for the reasons cited, the impression I had reading the article is one I never had on any other WP article regarding Biblical content. Not only did it read like OR, the sources felt somewhat like junk sources and the whole article smelled like one is trying to push something other than encyclopedic content.--Shmaltz (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus default to keep. Yes, I know, a futile vote in all likelihood. This has all the makings of snow. Debresser makes a valid point a few entries above, but I think we should always only take into account the matter at hand and not look into prior offenses unless it is relevant. Nominator's conduct has no bearing here, does it? We are looking at a process of an AfD. I have to say that I humbly agree with editor Haiduc who "was blindsided by the admin's action". This does seem to be a flagrant disregard of all the support the article received, and does reek of an arbitrary and inconsiderate action. When there is sooo much discussion, and an almost split vote with strong arguments on both sides, is that not the very definition of no consensus? Regardless of the fact that delete args do seem stronger, by not deciding no consensus here the admin effectively disregards many editors' opinion and makes a decision that contains too much self rightousness (this is no direct attack on the admin, I respect your work, but similar decisions keep popping up...)and too much power. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since we don't count noses when closing discussions but rather balance arguments against policy, I was bound to delete if there was a credible argument about SYNTH and this was not effectively refuted by the keep side. I do close a lot of close AFDs, but that's because I'm often the one who closes the last few AFDs - the ones that no-one else wants to deal with. I have a good record at DRV despite closing a lot of close discussions. I'm sorry that you don't agree with the close but there does seem to be an emerging consensus that I got the right outcome here. There is always a degree of subjectivity when it comes to closing deletion discussions and I'm sorry you don't agree with my approach. I do think its unfair to accuse me of self-righteousness in this close and having too much power. I think, if you look at my admin log and contributions that you will see that I am quick to correct mistakes when they are pointed out, quick to apologise where appropriate and I'm hardly block happy, so I'm afraid that I'm not recognising the description of me that you paint. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not recognize the description, Spartaz, because I used a pen and not a paint brush. If you re-read my comment, I explicitly stated it was NOT a direct attack on you and that I respect your work, your contributions and opinions; whether or not we agree. And yes, there is a consensus that your outcome was right, I stated so, and am going against the grain here purposely. When I said similar decisions keep popping up I meant by many closing admins, not you directly. I simply feel that if just as many editors opine reasonably at an AfD for keep as they do for delete, it is self-righteous of anyone to simply ignore all those editors and close on their own interpretation. We are, after all, a community, right? Tell me this, if there was an AfD that had 23 keep votes that were reasonable although not completely policy relevant and 1 delete vote that totally and directly addressed policy only, How would we close? How would you close that one, Spartaz? Turqoise127 (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how Spartaz would close that one, but I won't close that. I would !vote to delete if in my view policy requires it and move on; unless of course it's one of the inviolable policies like an attack page or a copyvio, which trumps all else. Tim Song (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a ridiculous hypothetical that puts headcount over the nuances of the actual arguments. How could I possibly comment on that without reading the discussion? Theoretically any discussion with 23 deletes and one really well argued keep can also be kept but it depends very much on the actual arguments deployed. And I'm sorry, but I do consider it to be disingenuous on your part to say on one hand that you have respect for my work and contributions but in the same paragraph accuse me of being self-righteous and abusing power. ((what power by the way? Did I miss a memo somewhere on that?)). The reality is that like most contributors I'm human and sometimes make mistakes and sometimes get it right. I seem to have got it right here so your slurs are particularly unfair here. If you think there is a general problem with my closing of AFDs I suggest you leave me a note on my talk page providing detail of which specific AFDs you are concerned about and why. Otherwise, its just comes across as an unprovoked and unevidenced attack. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turqoise127, there is an AfD that matches your description. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Host.net and the subsequent DRV which ended in a rough consensus to relist before it was discovered that Host.net was a copyright violation. Cunard (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OOh, there were a lot of really rubbish keep votes there but a couple of contributions from established editors asserting sources that were not properly challenged. I'd say there was no consensus to delete and that a later relist if the article was not improved woild be left to editorial discretion. I'm really not sure what the exercise is supposed to prove though. No-one covers themself in glory - first thing to do with any article written like an ad is to check for copy vio. Google is a great tool for that. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a great find Cunard. See, that is what I am talking about. We are a community, and many editors in that example had reasonable allbeit non-policy based views. No one said "keep, because I like it", or "keep per above". Regardless, the admin who closed took the decision out of the hands of many editors and did it himself. This is abuse of admin power and disregard of community view per admin's own interpretation of consensus, which is oftentimes flawed... Anyhow, I am taking too much of everyone's time, I apologize. And, Spartaz, I do not see why you so passionately defend yourself when I really did not attack you. If I have offended you I apologize. Turqoise127 (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close and deletion The closing comments are exactly correct. The article was not reporting fact, but rather drawing conclusions and analyzing text. This is explicitly out of bounds for Wikipedia, as per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. No one opposing the deletion even attempted to show that it was anything other than OR and SYNTH, and arguments that the material already existed in other articles are irrelevant. If such is the case, they should be removed from those articles as well (see [3] and [4]). The answer to a violation of Wikipedia policies is not more violations in the same vein. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- It cannot be OR if it has multiple cites, by definition. As for Synth, the article was a merge of the material about the topic in The Bible and Homosexuality and in Leviticus 18 (for an explanation of why the merge was necessary, see my comments in the AfD or the article's talk page). I added nothing to it, except adding a few cites to uncited sentences. If it is synth, then so is the material in The Bible and Homosexuality and in Leviticus 18, yet no-one has complained about those. Yet none of the people wanting to delete even addressed these points - they just seem to have wanted to ignore them, and delete anyway. Newman Luke (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it can. SYNTH is precisely that, taking unrelated cited material and combining it to create a new meaning not intended by the original writer. You really do need to read up on our basic policies a bit. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I'm disappointed to see that many of the people commenting above are the people that actually voted on the AfD, and are merely regurgitating their own votes. Newman Luke (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment including the nominator of this DRV, I presume? -- Avi (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't nominate it any other way. However, see below.Newman Luke (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
VERY IMPORTANT NOTE FOR CLOSING ADMIN - IZAK has been WP:MEATPUPPETing - [5], and many of the above votes may therefore need to be discounted. Newman Luke (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, you mean canvassing, not meatpuppeting. Secondly, talk page notices are not only allowed, but encouraged. See Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices. -- Avi (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Talk page notices are supposed to be neutral. Those are not. Tim Song (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The language is far from perfect but the basic message isn't canvassing as its a pointer to a discussion at the appropriate wikiproject. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Per Spartaz; IZAK is not asking people to vote delete - he is saying the original consensus was delete. Although the first sentence about Newman could have been worded more diplomatically, perhaps. -- Avi (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Mentioning me, expressing an attitude towards me, and emphasising how the AfD was closed, is blatently agitating for a particular outcome.Newman Luke (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agree that those are probably not attempts to solicit votes. But they could and should have been worded far more neutrally to avoid canvassing concerns. They are far from optimal, per Spartaz. Tim Song (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Newman, when will you stop personlizing the discussions and focusing on me and deal with the real issues at hand which is your clearly-stated intention to totally obliterate any views you don't like, particularly if you suspect they may be coming from an "Orthodox" perspective as you have made abundantly clear again and again on your talk page and elsewhere, as an example please review User talk:Newman Luke#What do you mean by this? and more. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure I don't know how in the world User:Newman Luke can claim there was too much voting without discussion when in fact there was a huge amount of discussion, way more then the average AFD. Shlomke (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex – With Juliancolton's consent, I've gone ahead and done a few things in order to try to cut the Gordian Knot here. It's very important to remember that Wikipedia's biographies of living people policy is non-negotiable and is of the utmost importance on this site. But it's also important to respect consensus on a collaborative project like this. I've gone ahead and done the following: (1) I've restored the article content and moved it to User:Benjiboi/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (apologies to Benjiboi for not asking first, but I figured he wouldn't mind); (2) I deleted the resulting redirects and create-protected the article title for a month (this should allow plenty of time to find sufficient sources for the article); (3) I added the ((userspace draft)) tag to User:Benjiboi/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex to prevent search engines from hitting the content while it's in the process of being sufficiently sourced for inclusion in Wikipedia. I see little need for further discussion here, so I'm marking this discussion resolved. All participants are strongly encouraged to work on a properly sourced, respectful, and respectable article. Happy editing. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Overwhelming majority of keep not-votes on AfD. Keep voters gave actual policy reasons, while all delete votes were variants on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Closing admin seems to have acted in terrible faith to ignore the content of discussion and simply delete on his own prejudices. LotLE×talk 03:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Closing admin: I have no "prejudice" or even a personal opinion on the topic. As always, I approached the discussion from a neutral standpoint and closed in accordance with my interpretation of the debate. I'd appreciate not having my actions dismissed as being made in "terrible faith", though. –Juliancolton \| ^Talk 03:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Please also note that the nominator of this DRV has notified two editors who argued strongly for keeping the page in question. –Juliancolton \| ^Talk 03:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Who likely are just as stunned that the article was deleted and may or may not ever know that a DrV was taking place unless notified. -- Banjeboi 03:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note that the two editors I notified (without expressing any opinion directly on their talk pages, but only here), were the two editors most active in editing the underlying article over the last couple weeks (I was probably there in the top 3 too, for recent edits). I presume editors active in a topic have an interest in a DrV pertaining to it. If I missed any other active editors of the List itself, please notify them (I only went from memory, since obviously I cannot see the article history as a non-admin). LotLE×talk 04:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] I have to say that this really isn't accurate, and that both Scott Mac (Doc) and I edited the article more substantially over the last two-three weeks than the notified editors did, and that we both argued prominently in favor of deletion -- and that our editing was described in the discussion, often caustically, so that it's hard to see how we wre overlooked, unless memory, as it so often does, tends to favor our own opinions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus, surprising result from a healthy discussion that simply pointed out the list needed some regular clean-up including possibly changing the title. I'm stunned this was seen as a delete though closer did explain the rationale from their POV. All the issues raised were addressed so discussion likely should take place on the list's talkpage. Claiming something is hopelessly OR, or anything, seems quite defeatist when obviously these are regular editing issues that we fix every day. -- Banjeboi 03:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to keep. I don't think even "no consensus" would be the right outcome. The only way the closing admin could get to the result he did was by ignoring the discussion, ignoring the policy and notability arguments, ignoring the consensus, and simply deciding on his own. In fact, both policy and consensus of not-votes clearly point to keep. LotLE×talk 03:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure The closer appears to give a fair summary of the deletion discussion. Whilst there was a numerical majority advocating retention, a number of arguments which gave sufficient grounds for deletion were not refuted. CIreland (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus at a minimum. While I recognize that Juliancolton feels the strength of the arguments was unbalanced towards the 'delete' opinions, I personally don't see it; there were reasonable arguments and notes about sourcing that were presented by the 'keep' opinions that I don't feel were well answered in the end. I'd have to say a no-consensus at the least here. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus at a minimum. per Tony fox and Benjiboi. Ikip (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to Keep The overwhelming majority of opinions to keep the article should be respected. Censorship issues, and reasonable opinions mandate the retention of the article...Modernist (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Moved from November 29's log. Tim Song (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to Keep The overwhelming majority of opinions are to keep. Wikipedia is about consensus, and regardless of what the closing admin thinks, the consensus is blatently to keep it. This is the third occasion, in less than a month or so, that I've disputed the way this admin has appeared to somewhat disregard the discussion, and invent some reason to close the AfD in a particular way; if I had less respect for WP:AGF, I'd might have assumed they had a hidden agenda. I'm beginning to wonder if all of this admin's closures should be investigated. Newman Luke (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Please understand that I have no "hidden agenda", "personal prejudice" or anything of the sort. I close hundreds of AfDs each month and so many are disputed by various contributors, but if you feel I'm not preforming well as an admin you can always initiate my recall process. Otherwise I'll happily undo my closure if you can find any sort of evidence that I have a personal opinion on this particular topic. –Juliancolton \| ^Talk 05:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. The AFD discussion went off in many directions, quite a few irrelevant, and resolving the issues by a simple !vote count would have been inappropriate. The most important issue in the AFD, not always addressed by contributors to the discussion, was whether the general subject involved could be addressed by the list-formatted article in compliance with WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. I believe that, weighing the policy arguments involved, the closer's decision was correct, but more importantly fell within the consensus-recognized range of administrator's discretion. In terms of some of the unresolved problems, despite years of editing the article never settled on a coherent distinction between "mainstream" films and others, and did not consistently conform to reliable sources on that distinction -- for example (chosen with mischief aforethought), LotLE, the initiator of this discussion, added an entry for The Raspberry Reich to the article, sourced to an interview with the film's director[6], which was a reliable source regarding the film's sexual content, but ignoring the fact that the director quite plainly said the film was not mainstream, but "the second installment in a trilogy of porn movies." The underlying premises of the list, that the arbitrary, simplistic binary distinctions made (hardcore/not, mainstream/not) are inappropriate for dealing with a complex subject. As is noted in its article here, as well as in this reference [7], the original The Devil in Miss Jones film had much more in common with the "mainstream" films of its time than with the routine pornography of its day, yet it went entirely unmentioned in the article. In summary, the closing admin handled a complex discussion sensibly, sensitively,and reasonably, and certainly within the established bounds of administrative discussion. Rather than haggling over the reasons for keeping a poorly conceived article, Wikipedia wold be much better off if the editors who are so vocal here turned their efforts instead to creating an actual article on the subject (not a list) which isn't hamstrung by insisting on black-and-white criteria requiring subjective calls in an area that is undeniably nuanced and mostly shades of grey. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion - to what, I don't know and do not consider necessary to figure out. I can discern no consensus to delete, even after reading the debate multiple times, both before and after the close, and before and after reading the closer's rationale. While I can understand the reasons behind the close, I simply do not find it persuasive to such a level that would support discounting the keep side so much as to say that there is a consensus to delete. The issues listed by the closer - BLP, OR and POV - seems to remediable through methods short of deletion. The keep side argued that the POV issue is likely cured by a rename, and the BLP and OR issues may be addressed through editing and diligent monitoring of the content. I do not see that the delete side has sufficiently rebutted them. The question is close, but I think I can bring myself to say that the closer clearly erred. That said, I strongly disagree with the plainly unwarranted and inappropriate assumptions of bad faith in the nomination statement and several comments above. DRV is explicitly a drama-free zone, and "listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias" may be speedily closed. I doubt that it would happen here given the good-faith !votes to overturn, but I would request that they be refactored to remove those unsupported assertions, or an uninvolved admin do so. Tim Song (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex – With Juliancolton's consent, I've gone ahead and done a few things in order to try to cut the Gordian Knot here. It's very important to remember that Wikipedia's biographies of living people policy is non-negotiable and is of the utmost importance on this site. But it's also important to respect consensus on a collaborative project like this. I've gone ahead and done the following: (1) I've restored the article content and moved it to User:Benjiboi/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (apologies to Benjiboi for not asking first, but I figured he wouldn't mind); (2) I deleted the resulting redirects and create-protected the article title for a month (this should allow plenty of time to find sufficient sources for the article); (3) I added the ((userspace draft)) tag to User:Benjiboi/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex to prevent search engines from hitting the content while it's in the process of being sufficiently sourced for inclusion in Wikipedia. I see little need for further discussion here, so I'm marking this discussion resolved. All participants are strongly encouraged to work on a properly sourced, respectful, and respectable article. Happy editing. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overwhelming majority of keep not-votes on AfD. Keep voters gave actual policy reasons, while all delete votes were variants on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Closing admin seems to have acted in terrible faith to ignore the content of discussion and simply delete on his own prejudices. LotLE×talk 03:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin: I have no "prejudice" or even a personal opinion on the topic. As always, I approached the discussion from a neutral standpoint and closed in accordance with my interpretation of the debate. I'd appreciate not having my actions dismissed as being made in "terrible faith", though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the nominator of this DRV has notified two editors who argued strongly for keeping the page in question. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who likely are just as stunned that the article was deleted and may or may not ever know that a DrV was taking place unless notified. -- Banjeboi 03:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the two editors I notified (without expressing any opinion directly on their talk pages, but only here), were the two editors most active in editing the underlying article over the last couple weeks (I was probably there in the top 3 too, for recent edits). I presume editors active in a topic have an interest in a DrV pertaining to it. If I missed any other active editors of the List itself, please notify them (I only went from memory, since obviously I cannot see the article history as a non-admin). LotLE×talk 04:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that this really isn't accurate, and that both Scott Mac (Doc) and I edited the article more substantially over the last two-three weeks than the notified editors did, and that we both argued prominently in favor of deletion -- and that our editing was described in the discussion, often caustically, so that it's hard to see how we wre overlooked, unless memory, as it so often does, tends to favor our own opinions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus, surprising result from a healthy discussion that simply pointed out the list needed some regular clean-up including possibly changing the title. I'm stunned this was seen as a delete though closer did explain the rationale from their POV. All the issues raised were addressed so discussion likely should take place on the list's talkpage. Claiming something is hopelessly OR, or anything, seems quite defeatist when obviously these are regular editing issues that we fix every day. -- Banjeboi 03:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. I don't think even "no consensus" would be the right outcome. The only way the closing admin could get to the result he did was by ignoring the discussion, ignoring the policy and notability arguments, ignoring the consensus, and simply deciding on his own. In fact, both policy and consensus of not-votes clearly point to keep. LotLE×talk 03:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure The closer appears to give a fair summary of the deletion discussion. Whilst there was a numerical majority advocating retention, a number of arguments which gave sufficient grounds for deletion were not refuted. CIreland (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus at a minimum. While I recognize that Juliancolton feels the strength of the arguments was unbalanced towards the 'delete' opinions, I personally don't see it; there were reasonable arguments and notes about sourcing that were presented by the 'keep' opinions that I don't feel were well answered in the end. I'd have to say a no-consensus at the least here. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus at a minimum. per Tony fox and Benjiboi. Ikip (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep The overwhelming majority of opinions to keep the article should be respected. Censorship issues, and reasonable opinions mandate the retention of the article...Modernist (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Moved from November 29's log. Tim Song (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep The overwhelming majority of opinions are to keep. Wikipedia is about consensus, and regardless of what the closing admin thinks, the consensus is blatently to keep it. This is the third occasion, in less than a month or so, that I've disputed the way this admin has appeared to somewhat disregard the discussion, and invent some reason to close the AfD in a particular way; if I had less respect for WP:AGF, I'd might have assumed they had a hidden agenda. I'm beginning to wonder if all of this admin's closures should be investigated. Newman Luke (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I have no "hidden agenda", "personal prejudice" or anything of the sort. I close hundreds of AfDs each month and so many are disputed by various contributors, but if you feel I'm not preforming well as an admin you can always initiate my recall process. Otherwise I'll happily undo my closure if you can find any sort of evidence that I have a personal opinion on this particular topic. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. The AFD discussion went off in many directions, quite a few irrelevant, and resolving the issues by a simple !vote count would have been inappropriate. The most important issue in the AFD, not always addressed by contributors to the discussion, was whether the general subject involved could be addressed by the list-formatted article in compliance with WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. I believe that, weighing the policy arguments involved, the closer's decision was correct, but more importantly fell within the consensus-recognized range of administrator's discretion. In terms of some of the unresolved problems, despite years of editing the article never settled on a coherent distinction between "mainstream" films and others, and did not consistently conform to reliable sources on that distinction -- for example (chosen with mischief aforethought), LotLE, the initiator of this discussion, added an entry for The Raspberry Reich to the article, sourced to an interview with the film's director[6], which was a reliable source regarding the film's sexual content, but ignoring the fact that the director quite plainly said the film was not mainstream, but "the second installment in a trilogy of porn movies." The underlying premises of the list, that the arbitrary, simplistic binary distinctions made (hardcore/not, mainstream/not) are inappropriate for dealing with a complex subject. As is noted in its article here, as well as in this reference [7], the original The Devil in Miss Jones film had much more in common with the "mainstream" films of its time than with the routine pornography of its day, yet it went entirely unmentioned in the article. In summary, the closing admin handled a complex discussion sensibly, sensitively,and reasonably, and certainly within the established bounds of administrative discussion. Rather than haggling over the reasons for keeping a poorly conceived article, Wikipedia wold be much better off if the editors who are so vocal here turned their efforts instead to creating an actual article on the subject (not a list) which isn't hamstrung by insisting on black-and-white criteria requiring subjective calls in an area that is undeniably nuanced and mostly shades of grey. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion - to what, I don't know and do not consider necessary to figure out. I can discern no consensus to delete, even after reading the debate multiple times, both before and after the close, and before and after reading the closer's rationale. While I can understand the reasons behind the close, I simply do not find it persuasive to such a level that would support discounting the keep side so much as to say that there is a consensus to delete. The issues listed by the closer - BLP, OR and POV - seems to remediable through methods short of deletion. The keep side argued that the POV issue is likely cured by a rename, and the BLP and OR issues may be addressed through editing and diligent monitoring of the content. I do not see that the delete side has sufficiently rebutted them. The question is close, but I think I can bring myself to say that the closer clearly erred.
That said, I strongly disagree with the plainly unwarranted and inappropriate assumptions of bad faith in the nomination statement and several comments above. DRV is explicitly a drama-free zone, and "listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias" may be speedily closed. I doubt that it would happen here given the good-faith !votes to overturn, but I would request that they be refactored to remove those unsupported assertions, or an uninvolved admin do so. Tim Song (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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