Mishavonna Henson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reason The article was deleted when the voting was four to three to keep it. The votation was in favour of the article and it was deleted anyway. Facha93 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I didn't read that article, nor the AFD. But please read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. You did not vote, you discussed. You need a better rationale to uphold this deletion review. Cheers. --> RUL3R^*flaming_*vandalism 16:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Like Skomorokh, I'm not seeing the reliable sources that would justify an article here. Myspace and imdb don't cut it, I'm afraid. The key to success in this DRV, Facha93, is citing reliable sources that are independent of the subject.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, AFD is not a vote. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The deletion was right given the discussion, but the discussion was horrible. There are reliable sources out there. [1] lists quite a few. I don't think any of them are on-topic enough for the article to be kept, but the discussion never touched on that. The deletion arguments were all about the article's current state, not about the topic and they should have been ignored. The keep votes were all forms of ILIKEIT and so also should have been ignored. So no consensus or relist is all there is... Hobit (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as AfD nominator. Facha's complaint here is only about vote counting. The delete arguments were that there were no reliable sources and she passed no parts of WP:MUSIC or WP:ENTERTAINER. The keep arguments said she had notability but could not provide any reliable sources or show how she passed WP:MUSIC or WP:ENTERTAINER. As a side note, Facha could also be seen as votestacking by only informing the Keep AfD voters, so I am off now to inform all the Delete voters. Aspects (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus - There just wasn't the consensus here to delete and the arguments to keep were based on the notability of this person (Los Angeles Times interview for example [2]) which there was no valid reason to ignore.--Oakshade (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I voted for deletion in the AfD, but cannot see the article any more. I can see nothing procedurally amiss with the AfD close, as the article's supporter failed to advance any proof as to her notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion AFD is not a vote, the close was well within the discretion of the closing admin in evaluating informed consensus. Ray^Talk 02:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Stifle. Nearly all the arguments (save for maybe one) are pure WP:ITSNOTABLE or WP:JNN arguments. What little actual discussion there was actually attempted to show why the subject was (not) notable. MuZemike 02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It was not clear error to close as delete. Tim Song (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse also as per Stifle, this was a correct weighing of an admittedly less than stellar discussion. We don't make exceptions to the high standards required of WP:BLP sourcing just because the subject has fans, sorry. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No problems with the administrator's role. Fair interpretation. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 00:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama Joker poster (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Userspace copy

Despite a heated debate, the article was deleted under the rationale "The keep votes are significantly weaker that those requesting deletion", and the administrator has been unwilling to reopen it. I believe this conclusion is not in line with Wikipedia policy, and would like to outline why.

The original rationale for deletion was that the topic is "wholly unworthy of a standalone article" (in other words, not notable.) WP:N states that "substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion". These is no doubt that such coverage exists: see eg. [3] (Telegraph), [4] (LA Times), [5] (Chicago Tribune), [6] (Washington Post), etc etc, all of which treat the poster as their primary, substantive topic and easily qualify as WP:RS. The presumption of notability is thus satisfied.

Now, to overturn this presumption, it must be demonstrated that the topic is otherwise not suitable for inclusion. The primary arguments of the "Delete" camp have been WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS.

• WP:ONEEVENT can be dismissed immediately, since this policy is about people famous for one event, while the article in question is about an artwork with multiple creators and interpreters. The essay WP:WI1E goes further to define an event as "a single specific act that has taken place with a defined beginning and end"; while the original plastering of the image around LA would qualify, entirely different uses of the image are still being widely reported and there is nothing like a "defined end" in sight.

• Which brings me to WP:NOTNEWS, or essentially, the argument that this poster is a meaningless flash in the pan. Not so; in the words of User:Smontg2, "this image has legs". A cursory look at Google News indicates 700+ mainstream media references to the image within the last few days, nearly two months after the poster originally hit the headlines. Pundits referenced in the article have described it as (I quote) "a turning of the tide of public opinion", and the poster has been widely adopted by opponents of Obama, most notably the Tea Party protest movement, with the Las Vegas Sun calling it the movement's "signature logo".

In summary, the image is notable, and in the same way that the Barack Obama "Hope" poster captured last year's pro-Obama zeitgeist, this image has been eagerly adopted by the anti-Obama camp. It's highly unlikely that this image will go away before Obama himself does, and we are doing future readers of Wikipedia a disservice by not recording what this was all about. Jpatokal (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At first glance, I'm tempted to say there's some mileage in this complaint. That debate certainly looked like a "no consensus" to me.

  Having said that, I certainly agree with Backslash Forwardslash that Wikipedia doesn't need this content. If I'd participated in the debate, I'd have !voted "trim very heavily and merge" to one of the "public image of Barack Obama" family of articles.

  But I can't see how to get from that debate to that closure without a very large amount of admin discretion. Too much, perhaps. I'd like to see Backslash Forwardslash explain in more detail which !votes he disregarded and on what grounds.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (later) After further thought: Actually I think what we have here is a defective debate and a defective closure. On the one hand, the debate failed to give proper weight to WP:UNDUE. But on the other hand, if admins had that much discretion to disregard !votes, then there would be no point in having debates in the first place; we might as well decide that deletion is down to individual admin discretion and dispense with AfD entirely.

  I've decided that there is no explanation that would satisfy me in this matter and the only proper outcome is to overturn the defective closure to "no consensus" and then immediately relist the defective debate, so that the article can be deleted after full and proper consideration.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure - The Wikipedia moved away from the "VfD" (Votes for Deletion) format several years ago. This isn't a tally or a numbers game, it is a careful weighing of arguments, points, and supporting evidence to back them up. There is a disturbing trend lately of "Subject X is in a reliable source, therefore an article must be created", which is resulting in some of the worst, ephemeral crap being created across the project. There needs to be a wider understanding that an over-saturated, tabloid-ish 24/7 media covers EVERYTHING if it has the slightest whiff of connection to a celebrity figure, and a bit of a deeper understanding as to WP:NOTNEWS actually means. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Keep - (copy & paste from closing admin's talk page) It's notable because of the initial international news coverage, the free speech controversy that led to Flickr changing its takedown policy, and the image becoming a standard protest sign. Also, the first four paragraphs in this Los Angles Times article clearly states why the artist is notable. WP:NOTNEWS, which btw I do understand, is not a valid reason to delete this article. If the initial news coverage was the only aspect, then WP:NOTNEWS would apply. But as I've mentioned, that's not the case. APK say that you love me 13:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The topic meets all of our guidelines and consensus by !vote was to keep. That may well say more bad things about our guidelines than about the topic, but I don't see how to reach a delete outcome. Unlike S. Marshall I don't see a flaw in the debate and I don't think WP:UNDUE can be relevant to a standalone article giving undue weight to the topic itself. So I don't see any need for a relist. And the DrV nom does a good job explaining why NOTNEWS isn't relevant here. Hobit (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Again; Number of Votes Are Not the Decider. I was recently reminded of another idiot fad; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxxy's final tally ran roughly 40-30 keep-to-delete and it was still, rightly, deleted. Sources do not directly correlate to notability. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that you chose an MZMcBride deletion from February 2009 to illustrate your point is a masterpiece of unintentional irony.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but who the closing admin was doesn't mean a thing to me, I guess I'm just not in the "in" crowd. Addressing the actual point would've been more helpful. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Explanation: MZMcBride's deletion track record needs to be seen to be believed. His deletions against consensus early in 2009 were controversial, and on 1 March 2009 Arbcom accepted a case about him, which ended with Arbcom ordering him to follow deletion policy more closely. (He resigned the sysop bit during the Arbcom case, and has only just been re-elected as an administrator).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • To respond to Tarc, if there is no policy-based reason to delete, but a vast majority argues to do so, we generally delete. In this case, no valid policy-based reason was given that wasn't successfully refuted in the discussion. Even if that were true and 90% wanted to delete, we invoke WP:IAR and move along. But here we have a deletion with no reason grounded in policy (again as I read the debate) and with a majority wanting to keep. Thus no policy, including IAR applies so we keep. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Keep. The deletion discussion ended up being no consensus, bordering on keep. A clear majority of !votes favored keeping the material, and a plurality favored keeping as a standalone article. Many of the keep !votes offered a simple, accurate rationale: that the article subject met the GNG because of the extensive press coverage, accurately cited in the article. The keep !voters, mercifully, did not elaborate on this point at great length. The delete !votes were not "stronger," just sccompanied by longer/more verbose explanations. No one argues that the keep !votes were not grounded in policy. While a discussion closer has discretion in weighting arguments to the extent they may or may not reflect policy, the closer does not have the discretion to enforce his/her interpretation of policy when editors have reasonable and good faith differences over the ways it applies to particular articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - although I voted against keeping this article and still disagree that it is suitable content for a standalone article, the debate clearly reached no such consensus, and the "keep" votes were not unreasonable. This is at best a borderline case, and not appropriate for a decision by fiat. I am agnostic whether it should be "overturn and keep" or "overturn and re-list", but at the very least the conclusion should be overturned. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and close as no consensus I voted delete, and I still want to see that article be placed in a bucket and sent to hell. But while I (and others too) want that, you also have to recognize that there's a substantial amount of people who want that article to be kept, and their arguments are more than simply "I LIKE IT!". I was very surprised to see that deletion closed as delete; the debate is polarized, and no side comes out as the clear winner. Thus no consensus. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Keep: The suggestion that the keep votes were significantly weaker than the delete votes is just simply not true. Both sides have some badly written arguments. However, the only arguements consistently used for delete were WP:ONEEVENT, WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. WP:N is not a valid reason for deletion because of all the sources available as seen on the userfied article and it's talk page. The strongest point against WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS is it's adoption by critics of Obama seeing as they use it at almost every protest and news coverage which means there is nothing in WP:NOTNEWS that could possibly cover the article. The poster is regularly mentioned in article's just about it [7][8], as well as being mentioned in other articles about critics of Obama. [9] (There was also a really good video link in the original talk page which I'll see if I can find.) _Met^ty 15:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote. Long-held policies like WP:BLP are not supposed to be overridden by whoever happens to show up at AFD one day or another. Historical precedent shows that we generally delete "meme" articles that reflect poorly on living people. This is a clear example of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. A brief mention in some other article might be justified, but this is just too much. *** Crotalus *** 16:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep. This will sound like a textbook example of WP:OTHERCRAP, but WP:NPOV states:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

And this article clearly meets significant views published by reliable sources. And the poster it is still being used as a flag by opponents of the Obama administration. Why would we have a Barack Obama "Hope" poster article and not this one? Plus, many of the delete !votes sounded like paraphrasing of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I personally debunked 3 delete !votes of those "strong" rationales. --> RUL3R^*flaming_*vandalism 16:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn: I wasn't even notified of this even though I've moved it, declined a prod, and copyedited it into a short but well-worded aritcle. It's also on the right line of the uneducated opinions of Obama we have to cover. It's of enough weight and not instantly wrong to allow coverage on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep; I can't see a consensus to delete there, all there was was a closer's supervote. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn & Keep this article which satisfied all three of Wikipedia's core content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP: NOR). This deletionism is a travesty, and the deleting admin overstepped when he closed a heated and non-concensus debate. - Draeco (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and keep Consensus for keeping is clear. Has gained long-term international coverage. Croatulus's argument about BLP holds no water since a) the only BLP issue is that someone made a dumb poster about Obama b) we have far more negative accusations about him that we think are fine c) as a matter of do-no-harm, the notion that harm will come to Obama because of a well-sourced article about this topic is absurd. BLP is not an excuse to override AfDs when it is clear that the community consensus is that there's no BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, at least until the closing admin makes the reasons for the decision reached a bit clearer. On the face of it, the debate appears to have resulted in no consensus, with a slight lean towards keeping. Many (but not all) of the reasons given by the Delete crowd were shown to be dubious, if not spurious, and while few posts on the Keep side were particularly well-written, the concerns raised were not adequately addressed. I'd not be against relisting the article for further debate, though. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep. This would be a "no consensus" at best given that the majority !voted keep, and the comments were largely based on policies and guidelines with no evidence of sockpuppetry etc. If the closer thinks that some arguments are "significantly weaker" than others in such a heated debate, especially when closing against the majority, it would be extremely helpful to explain at length which arguments he means and why. --Itub (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn No consensus for deletion nor was there any clear policy violation that would have justified ignoring the consensus (or lack of it) in the AFD. Davewild (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep. I was shocked by the admin's casual and just plain wrong assessment of the debate. Jpatokal makes a very good argument here, and he also did so in the discussion. There was no consensus for deletion, nor did any of the deletion arguments presented have much merit. Lampman (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't like typing long rationales, so forgive me if I wasn't as verbose as the situation required. To begin with, the very nature of the article meant that the subject topic would be controversial. There would likely be editors voting in line with their political ideology less than their responsibility as a Wikipedia editor. Since at this stage everyone thinks I'm the biggest moron ever to close an AfD I'd like to take a moment to explain why the closure, in my opinion, was correct. Firstly, to clarify, while you are all getting up in arms about which bolded word I decided to put at the top of the page, the result wasn't, in practicality a delete. The article had already been merged to an extent to Public image of Barack Obama, and as such this closure is more Merge than Delete. The debate starts with a valid nomination, a worded version of the bluelink WP:NOTNEWS. The initial delete comments added the rationale of WP:OR, WP:N as a deleting reason. The context has been created, and it is now the onus on the keep votes to explain why these guys are wrong. Jpatokal does a great job, and provides a convincing argument for keeping the article in that notability is past by the lasting effects. We are at this stage relatively square on the aspect of notability. A 'per' keep is made, as is a delete vote which disagrees with the notability illustrated and questions the appropriateness of the article. We have a valid merge and a valid delete vote. Just because someone has countered an argument does not mean that others have to agree with the countering, nor does it mean voting along the lines of WP:NOTNEWS is automatically invalidated. The debate continues on: "Keep: The sources in the article show that the poster passes WP:N. I don't see why anyone would match a poster with WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)" Again, the issue of NOTNEWS has not been recognised, and the voters who used that as a rationale are at this stage the consensus. This sort of low level debate continues on without much highlights, save for two additional merge votes. We have a keep vote who agrees a merge will achieve the same end. We then have a late run of keep votes, who fail to do anything more than agree with whats been said. At this stage, whatever closure occurred was bound to end up here. Closing as keep seems like the easy option, the raw numbers agree with me, but the gut instinct over reading the argument says delete. While I was favoring no consensus for some time, I decided the merge compromise would at least keep everyone happy rather than the draw that is no consensus. Merging satisfied those who believed the event had notability, but also satisfied those who believed the notability was not enough to warrant its own article. Indeed, it was the only option that made sense. So I went to find a page that the information should be merged into, and found that a very helpful editor had done the work at Public image of Barack Obama. So, seeing it had already been merged, I closed as delete as thought nothing of it. At the least, it was my error for using the word delete, but the ends were the same. I'm happy to overturn it to a merge closure, but I stand by the decision that the material did not have consensus to have its own page and that merging was the right decision. Apologies for wasting everyones time. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful thank you. There's no need to apologize for wasting our time. DRV is part of the normal process of such and even if your decision is overturned I don't think anyone considers the decision to be so unreasonable as to think that you are at fault in any way. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Another Dark Knight reference can be found in the controversial "Obama Joker" poster, which depicts Obama as Batman villain Joker." is the only mention of Obama in the PIoBO article. Hardly a merge in any sense. The claims of WP:N and WP:OR, especially WP:OR were completely unfounded. WP:OR was not backed up with any evidence. The article is well sourced per User Talk:AgnosticPreachersKid/Barack_Obama_Joker_poster and indeed the sources in the article, which effectively ends the WP:N delete votes. WP:NOTNEWS - the only point on the list that could apply is 4:

Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event...

Routine news coverage, unless I am very much mistaken, does not continue to occur 2 months after the issue is first brought up. Unlike the Barack Obama Fly Swatting incident which gets no new news results, this article's subject continues to get mentioned in the news which means, based on WP:NOTNEWS we have a perfectly valid reason to create a new article. There is absolutely no basis in any of the deletion votes. _Met^ty 01:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and keep. While I understand \/'s closure, I note that the GFDL requires that we retain the history from the original article, through a redirect. Further, the rationale provided by the DRV initiator is a compelling argument to retain the article as a stand-alone article, rather than a redirect. Horologium (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  We've moved on from GFDL, in case you haven't noticed (-: Stifle (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  From the entry box for new articles: "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. " We still need to keep a complete record of the history, and if you think we need not do so, propose it at the village pump. DGG ( talk ) 14:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the license change does not materially affect our on-wiki attribution requirements. However, no content was copied (see immediately below), so no attribution or page history is required. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Not, in fact relevant; we accept CC-BY-SA-only content that was previously published elsewhere. Our terms say "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details." As such, a merge providing the usernames of all the substantial contributors to the other article is sufficient. But this is not the forum to discuss that. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Was any content actually copied to Public image of Barack Obama? The diff of the addition reads differently from the cached version. Flatscan (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it was not. I added that sentence to "Public image" before the AFD. Jpatokal (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the confirmation. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Having read \/'s detailed explanation and the AfD, I'm not persuaded that it was clear error to close as merge/delete. Tim Song (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Which points in particular do you feel were valid? WP:N, WP:OR or WP:NOTNEWS? _Met^ty 15:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd have !voted to overturn, but for the detailed explanation offered. Having read it, I'm not convinced that it constitutes clear error. Whether I would have closed the AfD differently (and I likely would) is irrelevant. Tim Song (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree to that. The door could have swinged either way. It was perhaps not wrong to delete it, but rather it was too soon to make that call. I still think this should be overtuned and kept, though. --> RUL3R^*flaming_*vandalism 18:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete - pretty close to a consensus for keeping at the AFD, and even more so a clear demonstration that the article meets all core content policies. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion, and KEEP article An administrator closed the debate a day early didn't he? Seems a bit odd. Anyway, the overwhelming consensus was it should be kept, and I do believe the keep arguments were far stronger. Dream Focus 21:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep - although slightly obscure its historically notable.Chhe (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - There definitely wasn't a consensus for deletion. If an article can be deleted without there being a consensus, when there's an AfD discussion, then AfD discussions lose much of their value; that would be unfortunate. I believe that either (1) the article should be restored and the AfD discussion resumed, (2) the article should be restored without any further discussion or (3) a substantial portion of the material (including the image) in that article should be merged into Public image of Barack Obama. SMP0328. (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep, possibly no consensus, insufficient support for either delete or merge. If this decision is overturned, a merger can be discussed at one of the articles' talk pages. Flatscan (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • after further thought While merge received some support and is an attractive compromise, I don't see consensus. A focused discussion would not be busywork. Flatscan (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess we could call WP:SNOW and overturn, per overwhelming support for that. - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 06:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to what, though? It matters whether it's overturned to keep (in which case it should not be relisted) or to no consensus (in which case it should). That decision will have to await an experienced, uninvolved admin closing the debate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, a "no consensus" is just that—there is no consensus to delete, which defaults to "keep"—and does not require another AFD. In fact, immediately relisting could be seen as an abuse of the AFD process. We don't relist articles repeatedly until there is a consensus to delete. And FWIW, I am certainly not a hardcore "inclusionist". Horologium (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• By convention, "no consensus" is a result that permits early relisting, while "keep" is not. If the outcome of this debate is "overturn to no consensus" then I shall personally relist it for AfD for reasons I explained earlier, while if it's "overturn to keep" then I will agree with you that an early relisting would not be appropriate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Well..."no consensus" is more reasonable if we take into account only the original debate. Support in this second discussion seems a little more towards "keep". I depends on which discussion could be considered more "valid". - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 18:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only the original debate can be taken to account, though. DRV is not AfD Chapter 2; it is a discussion of the actions of the closing admin only, any extra "keep" calls that appear here are for all intents and purposes extraneous. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be overturned, closed as no consensus, kept by default, with immediate possibility to relist by whoever thinks it is necessary. - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 19:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are we still talking here? Most people I see have said overturn and keep, but either way let's move on please. - Draeco (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It almost always saves trouble in the end to let contested reviews on controversial subjects run the full time. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that this was nominated in the first place is a joke. The picture is a dispicable piece of trash that should embarrass anybody wearing it or using it, but that doesn't mean that it isn't notable or worthy keeping. IDON'TLIKEIT, but I have to say Overturn and close.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ConceptDraw PROJECT (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page was deleted by G11 criterion, while there were just:

• a short definition (ConceptDraw PROJECT is a project management software tool from Computer Systems Odessa. It presents project data as a Gantt Chart.)
• Mentioning that the software is cross-platform (Mac and Win), and this is not a promotion but a useful fact for lots of Mac-switchers.
• Mentioning that the software is a part of ConceptDraw Office. Just a fact without any estimations and adverticements.
• List of versions
• File formats
• Alternatives
• External link to the official site

And that's all. I even deleted the text about the distinctive feature of creating reports as mind maps, while it was just a statement of fact which might be very interesting for all mindmappers which are trying to find useful information about mind maps usage.

Could you please tell me what part of the ConceptDraw PROJECT article mentioned above you see as an advertisement?

For example you can see the OpenProj article which was admitted as correct with its Popularity paragraph and Comparison with MS Project ("Users of the one software should be broadly comfortable using the other.", "intended as a complete desktop replacement for Microsoft Project"). Is it not a promotion?

I don't want to mention the MS Project article which is far more promotional.CSOWind (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy, send to AfD G11 it ain't. I'm not sure it asserted any kind of notability so it might have been a speedy candidate, but at this point I'd rather see an AfD rather than finding a different criteria to do the same thing... Hobit (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my own closure. It will be deleted at AfD, so going through the process for sake of process is pointless. The entire article was one big marketing piece, and pointing out that other stuff exists isn't a good way to argue for keeping it. If those other articles have issues, they should be tagged as having issues and be dealt with individually. It was previously twice speedy deleted on September 11 by NawlinWiki and Hut 8.5 as well. I've notified them of this discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that previous version was completely promotional, because it wasn't written for Wiki but just copied from the offsite. The third version was written specially for Wiki - without any promotions, comparisons (like "we are better than...") or estimates (professional, best, effective). Just facts. As for the other stuff exists... I don't want to blame somebody. I just want to find out what article is called "promotional".CSOWind (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I maintain that the version I deleted ("an effective tool for new and experienced users with a fine balance of usability and powerful functionality") was spam. However the third version was considerably better. Hut 8.5 14:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. While the latest revision may not have been spam, it did not assert that this software was notable, so I agree with Nihonjoe. Note that the version I deleted read, in its entirety, "Project management software designed to efficiently plan and implement single or multiple projects in one comprehensive view." NawlinWiki (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A7 would have been defensible, but G11 is not.

  Bad speedies are pernicious, and DRV needs to send a very clear message to the effect that if you're going to speedy something, you need to get it right. Overturn speedy and list at AfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the final version was a purely descriptive article not promotional at all. There's no G7 for products, so it fits no speedy category. If nawlinwiki wants a G7 for products, he can try to get that into policy, not invent it here--his argument will do fine for AfD, but does not apply to a speedy. (nor is it likely to be accepted as a new category--its hard to rule out that a product might be notable on the face of the article without letting the community have a chance to source it). Nihon Joe needs to understand that speedy is not for "whatever article I=he thinks will not stand at AfD. If the speedy criteria mean anything, the articles that don't fit speedy have to be sent elsewhere, and if individual admins ignore that, this is the place to do it. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said speedy was for articles I didn't think would stand at AfD. What I did state is that there is no reason to go through the process now as the outcome will be the article being deleted for lack of notability. There's no reason to go through a process simply for the sake of going through the process if the result is going to be exactly the same. It's a complete waste of time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DIdn't mean to imply you had. But in practice amounts to the same thing, at least as others will do it (and in fact do it). One would be able to delete whatever one felt should be deleted, and that make that argument to sustain one's decision. It's been argued here repeatedly as you have argued, that there's no point just going through the procedure, but this encourages admins to make such deletions. And, as CSOWind says, how can any admin make such decisions about what will be obviously deleteable by themselves? The community has made it plain this can be done only under limited circumstances. I am normally anti-bureaucratic, except when exact rules are actually needed--the CSD limitations are among such rules. DGG ( talk ) 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • With all respect, how you are measuring the lack of notability? Or it's your own opinion? Do you know lots of such software products? Also, by the A7 criterion you can delete only "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content". CSOWind (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There were no reliable third-party references indicating any such notability existed. If a piece of software doesn't even have reviews in reliable sources, then it's not notable. If such reviews and discussion can be provided, then I'll be more than happy to change my mind on that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per DGG. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The version showing in the Google cache is not the final one deleted; Based on NawlinWiki's description I believe the cached version is the one that Hut 8.5 deleted. I can't see the third version deleted by Nihon Joe and don't have enough data here to form an opinion. Sometimes, the best solution to a persistent article creator is discussion with them by the deleting admin or recent change patroller. I don't see any of that, just templating. Nor do I see it by Nihon Joe when he was specifically asked "I describe why this page hasn't to be deleted on the talk page of ConceptDraw PROJECT article. Do you disagree with my arguments? Why? What was "unambiguous promotion" there?". Volunteers can't be required to do anything, but educational communication by a deleting admin can sometimes avoid the need for us all to be here. GRBerry 21:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can submit the third version (which was deleted last) for your consideration. I haven't any objections in connection with previous deletions. It wasn't my text and they were completely promotional. I just want to create a good and correct Wiki page. CSOWind (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD automatically as a challenged speedy (and not attack, copyright..) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn last speedy deletion, was not blatant advertising and software does not fall under the A7 speedy criteria. Davewild (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• So can I rewrite and recreate the page? CSOWind (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This discussion will last for seven days, after which an administrator will close it based on the comments here. As things stand, it looks likely that the deletion will be overturned and the page restored. Until then you will need to wait.

  P.S. you can produce your username and the current time by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message; no need to type it out for yourself. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting that User:CSOWind is the filer of this DRV^[10], I would support userfying to User:CSOWind/ConceptDraw PROJECT for him to work on, if he requested this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also support userfying the article until it met the basic requirements for inclusion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. You don't get an article on your company just by successively recreating it until it just doiesn't quite make the blatant spam cut. It's spam. It's advertorial written by a WP:SPA for promotional purposes. Let them ask at WP:RA if they want an article on thier product, this is out and out abuse of a volunteer run project for commercial gain and is reprehensible. There is an obvious and blatant WP:COI here, every single edit by this user has been related to a single company's products. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And when they are taken to AfD, if not improved considerably and with good references they will be deleted by strong consensus; this will be much better than arguing here. Rather than argue whether to sustain a challenged speedy, get a definitive community result and we will be done with it. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but let him rewrite a userspace version and ask again. There are too many junk software articles at AfD that get kept because of a few ILIKEIT votes, regardless of notability or sourcing. If this deleted article didn't have any obvious reliable sources for notability, it isn't worth sending to AfD. Miami33139 (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you arguing we should WP:IAR or do you feel there is a speedy criteria which this meets? Hobit (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• So what is the decision? Could I recreate the article?CSOWind (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait another day - DRVs last a week - and an admin will close this discussion and decide what the decision is. Tim Song (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]