open

< 2007 January 11
Deletion review archives: 2007 January
2007 January 13 >

12 January 2007

Jizzle me this – Deletion endorsed – 01:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jizzle me this (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Swift and unfair deletion of well-written article Wheresmydanish 23:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was well written. It was also original material, very creative, and not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. Paul 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Two_women_operating_ENIAC.jpg – Withdrawn after clarification – 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Two_women_operating_ENIAC.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Two_women_operating_ENIAC.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Useful, non-policy-violating fair use image. I can't find any record of its deletion--it seems just to have disappeared. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Robert K S 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment was moved to Commons and speedied under I8. However, along the way it changed from a JPEG to a GIF. Hence the understanble confusion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of fictional police detectives – Deletion endorsed – 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of fictional police detectives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Closing admin's comments were "The result was delete. Reasons to keep are neither rooted in policy, nor convincing. Duplicate of the related category." Actual votes cast were 6 keeps (one of them "strong"), 5 deletes, 1 keep which was withdrawn so maybe should be counted as a delete, one abstain (from procedural nominator) and two speedy closes which I think need to be disregarded (one of them from a user who also voted keep). On the face of it, therefore, an obvious no-consensus default-keep, leaving us only to deal with the closing admin's discount of the keep votes and his or her own opinion that the list is duplicated by the category. It's hard to rebut the "not rooted in policy" assertion, since I cannot see what the closing admin based it on, nor what policy he or she thinks the delete votes were based on. I expect Proto will come here and comment, and I will either agree, or rebut, when I see that explanation. For my own part, I would assert that my vote ("nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it") is precisely AS rooted-in-policy, no more no less, than the nomination which asserted that the article should be deleted because it was indescriminate and unmaintainable. That leaves the suggestion that the article was duplicated by the category. The relevant guideline on this, here says "Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes... These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." When looking for "official guidance" (so to speak) on whether a list and a category can be redundant with one another, therefore, the wikipedia guideline says that they are not. I see a keep voter saying "The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition". I do not know why that was considered "unconvincing", and I cannot now look at the page to check, since it has been deleted and I am not an admin. However if David Edgar is right on that point then Proto is wrong. I would argue (and our guideline seems to support the view) that a list is not redundant with a category even if it contains exactly the same information, since it has scope to expand in a way the category does not. AndyJones 14:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (my own) closure. If we have to go through them:
    • Keep as a common and notable character archetype. - OK, so we should have an article about the archetype. This wasn't it. Non sequitur.
    • Keep. Easily defined profession and archetype. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. - see above.
    • Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion - Docu's first vote, ignored as clearly incorrect.
    • Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. - ditto.
    • Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it - fair enough.
    • Keep as per above two comments - ignored as above two comments were to delete, and was Docu's second "vote".
    • keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list for the genre - nothing but keep it as I like it and it's useful.
    • Keep. The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition - good argument, referring to WP:NOT issues and why the user doesn't believe them to be an issue.
So there were two decent "keep"s, three poor ones, and two ignored. Of the deletes:
  • Comment just a response to the statment that we should have an article about the archetye, there are at least two Detective fiction and Police Procedural, and in fact, a version of this list (and several others) can be found at the bottom of the first page. I do not think that information should be removed, does anyone here? FrozenPurpleCube 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness - OK, so asserts indiscriminate (WP:NOT). This in contradiction to one of the keep votes, but I'm not judging whether or not you are right, I'm determining whether the votes are argued well and rooted in policy. So, referencing WP:NOT, good argument.
    • Delete. A stock character of a genre, of which the only thing they have in common is carrying a badge: not nationality, era, medium, personality, hair color, height, etc. Sounds pretty indiscriminate to me. There's this thing called "Categories" which would be more useful - again referencing WP:NOT ("indiscriminate list"), and also pointing out the belief that categories duplicate the content. Good argument. There are then three 'delete per this arguments', which are fine.
So that's five good deletes, rooted in policy. The nomination was also broken up, making it look purely like a procedural nomination despite being done in good faith, but even with discountint the nomination as an argument to delete, it's still five solid delets versus two solid keeps and three very weak ones. I am aware that viewing each argument is always going to be subjective, but I believe the arguments for deletion outweighed those to keep, particularly as most information is retained via the category. Proto::► 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Arguments which are wrong do not count towards the closure. -Amarkov blahedits 15:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, Proto should have made more closings in that group since several of the others were closed incorrectly. >Radiant< 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - There is nothing better about the delete comments than the keep comments. Most of both were "it's useful" or "it's unuseful listcruft". As for the arguments: are you telling me that there's a huge difference between keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list for the genre and The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition? By your reasoning, the second invokes WP:NOT, while the first is WP:ILIKEIT. This is pretty shaky grounds, and I'm worried the admin is reading what he wishes into the comments. Just as bad, he completely ignored Docu's "vote", despite the fact it contained clear reasoning (i.e., look at the reasoning in the previous afd). Patstuarttalk|edits 16:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse closure. I think the actual result probably should have been "no consensus" (thus "keep"); however, this one was a judgment call and the closing admin displayed a reasonable exercise of judgment. Agent 86 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, closer's reasoning was sound and no reason to overturn. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse policy-based closure well within admin discretion. Eluchil404 08:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. User:Iamunknown created this AfD page by error two days after the extensive discussion of various arguments for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors (a listing that included List of fictional police detectives; see the explanation User:Iamunknown later provided at User:Iamunknown/afd).
Looks like this was deleted mainly because the reasons for keeping provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors were ignored and probably because AndyJones omitted to cross-reference his rejection of Radiant's argument (it was provided on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_heroic_fictional_scientists_and_engineers and cross-referenced after many of Radiant's 11 re-post's on the January 3 deletion pages). -- User:Docu
  • That is false. You are the one that tagged all those pages with those ludicrous "out of process" arguments. In this case I agreed with the good reasoning by Calton, which has nothing to do with what Andy said against me on a different page. WP:KETTLE, you know. >Radiant< 11:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did get to read User:Iamunknown/afd?. -- User:Docu
  • Endorse I agree with Proto's reasoning above. Nothing out of process here. Eusebeus 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Digital Photography Review – Recreated as suggested, no ultimatum on whether to take the new article to AFD; DRV discussion moot in any case – 00:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Digital Photography Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

It is my impression that dpreview.com is _the_ online ressource for cameras. The site was recommended to me, and when I got down to the camera store I found that they used it too. Seems to be an established site, with comprehensive coverage of current high-end camera models, ahve very active forums. Searching for "dpreview" gives me over 4 million hits.

Was speedy deleted after being tagged with ((db-web)). Thue | talk 14:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Three sentence stub had no assertion of notability. That makes a valid WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion. Post it at Wikipedia:Requested articles if you don't have time to to find independent, reliable sources and write an article yourself. GRBerry 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if we just insert a link to [2] which says that dpreview is a top 1000 website, thereby documenting notability, then you would be satisfied that the article should be restored? There doesn't seem to be any complete reviews of the site on the web, but nytimes and cnet regularly link to it. Why not simply undelete the stub and use it as a starting point? It is irrelevant that the speedy deletion was formally correct because the article did not cite notability. Thue | talk 15:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Yes, it is relevant that it was formally correct, because you can and should just start a new article with notability asserted. Understand, though, that since you imply there are no sources, I'll immediately AfD it. -Amarkov blahedits 15:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - again, appears to be an improper speedy. If it's even close, it goes to afd. If it appears notable (as 1 minute of research would show) and is unsourced, then tag it with ((unsourced)) or afd it. Otherwise, it's what one admin decides despite what community consensus may be: and that is definitely against what an WP:ADMIN is not - above the rest of the community. At least undelete it so the poor guy can give sources. Patstuarttalk|edits 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are all missing the point!. I don't care if it was an improper delete (I myself think it was proper). What matters is that I have now (quite strongly IMO) asserted notability, which means that Wikipedia should have an article, and the deleted article should be restored and used as a starting point. What you are doing is meaningless Wikipedia:WikiLawyering about the properness of the original speedy delete, not thinking about improving Wikipedia. Thue | talk 16:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I meant by what I said. Overturn to let you source it. -Patstuarttalk|edits 17:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry. I guess I focussed on your first "appears to be an improper speedy" sentense. Thue | talk 20:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, an after the fact assertion of notability does not mean that the old article should be returned. It means that you believe it is possible to write a decent article - so you should just go write that decent article. GRBerry 20:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you actually did look at the deleted article then you would see that it is very decent, except for the point that it does not claim notability. I am trying to improve Wikipedia here, in a completely reasonable way, and you are working against me. Why? Thue | talk 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Agree with GRBerry. As it stood, the article was an unsourced stub. Even just adding a single link for notability wouldn't have helped much. Rather than working to have it undeleted, a better option would be to rewrite the article, expanding it outside of being a stub and adding more WP:N references, then add it to Wikipedia. Even just a couple paragraphs with references would be good enough to stand as an article. -- Kesh 21:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While sources would be nice, we usually don't delete articles when the facts such as website owner can be verified in 30 seconds by actually going to the website. I think the people here voting delete are acting quite silly, caring more about WikiLawyering than improving Wikipedia, but it is getting easier to just rewrite the article that to convince you of (what I think is) the obvious. Thue | talk 21:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. -- Kesh 21:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Heritage Guitars – Withdrawn by appellant, who is going to apply the "Newyorkbrad solution" – 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Heritage_Guitars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This AfD debate was closed by a non-administrator as a "keep". Per WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators closing discussions, any closes by non-admins must be "unambiguous "keep" decisions". This, in my opinion, wasn't one of those. Note: the current "disputed" tag is not about this sentence of that section, but rather an addition to it regarding closing as "delete" which is unrelated to this DRV. The fact that the section is disputed is non-consequential to this because it is unrelated to the part I'm talking about.

Firstly, remember AfD is not a vote. Donald Albury's input was still under dispute as to whether it brought up a good reason to delete, and the status of that argument is certainly ambiguous. Although some of the keep opinions were explained, a lot weren't, and I would have felt that, at the third-last version[3], a no-concensus close is right on the money.

However, this diff[4], the last before it is closed, is the best argument of the lot, in my opinion. With this, any hint of unambiguity is vanquished and this becomes an AfD which needs to be interpreted on the guidelines of WP:CORP and WP:NOTE by an administrator. I feel that, given Nick's argument, this should either be relisted to gain further input so concensus can be reached, or else the AfD reopened, allowed to run a couple more days to discuss Nick's extremely valid input, and then closed on its merits again.

Note that I am a huge advocate of non-admins closing discussions, and I acknowledge that people do make mistakes; maybe I made one by nominating this for DRV, who knows? I hold nothing against the closer, however I felt that he/she should probably have erred on the side of caution given the circumstances, especially the undiscussed last deletion comment by Nick, and left it for an admin to apply the guidelines to. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 13:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That argument was also made by Donald Albury on 7 January, four days earlier. Had I found (and even looked at) closing that AFD, I'd have closed it as keep. (Although I do think that argument should have been better responded to - either by explaining the depth of coverage in those books or by agreeing with it if the depth is trivial.) Since reopening it and closing with the same outcome is pointless; I endorse closure and award the non-admin closer one light slap on the hand. GRBerry 14:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "subject of the book issue" wasn't mentioned, nor was the specifics WP:CORP. Neither of these were actually discussed in any way, shape or form. What I mean is reopen it, let it run for a few more days while discussing the validity or otherwise of Nick's arguments, then reclose it on its merits. For all we know, the concensus may swing on the basis that a rational argument based in Wikipedia guideline and common practice. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - consensus to keep was obvious and unambiguous. Proto::► 15:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure but Undo closure if you wish - appeared fairly unambiguous to me. But the linked WP:DELPRO section states quite clearly that if a non-admin closes a debate that you think was ambiguous, then you can just undo their closure. -Patstuarttalk|edits 16:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as keep, without prejudice to another AfD in a couple of months if the article is not sourced further. Additional work on the article may (or may not) render the delete arguments moot, and no harm will follow from allowing the article's proponents some time to work on it, rather than overturning closure which will put it back on AfD right away. Newyorkbrad 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure per endorsements above, esp. GRBerry, and also because it's how I would have closed it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. It doesn't matter how good the delete arguments were; the keep arguments were good, so there was no consensus, at the least. And arguing about whether it should have been closed as "keep" or "no consensus" is stupid. -Amarkov blahedits 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That wasn't what I was arguing for...I think you totally missed the point of me requesting this review XD I wanted it to be reopened so Nick's argument, the best of the lot in my opinion, could be discussed/maybe draw more people in/maybe refuted. Meh, doesn't matter, I'll just re-AfD it in a months time, as NYB said, and then it can be deleted. It's quite handy to know that non-ambigious non-admin closes can be reverted - is that only by admins, or can anyone? Responses on my talk page please, as this is withdrawn by candidate. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nothing to Lose (Heroes) – Deletion endorsed – 01:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nothing to Lose (Heroes) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
  • There was clearly no consensus for deletion, episodes of TV series are notable inheritly and encyclopaedic. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted at the AfD, the page was almost devoid of content, because there are no sources for any content, because the show has not yet aired. The only information that is not devoid of content is "The episode's title was originally given to the seventh episode, which was ultimately titled "Nothing to Hide".", which is unsourced. The rest is simply ""Nothing to Lose" is the fifteenth episode of the TV series Heroes." That's not an encyclopedia article, and an influx of fans of the show saying "Every other television show has an article" does not change that; calling every episode of every television series "inherently notable" is bizarre. —Centrx→talk • 13:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. In the vast majority of situations, an article should not exist on an episode that hasn't yet aired. Exceptions would be episodes such as series finales that receive lots of coverages, such as the Seinfeld or Friends finales. While I agree that this episode should have article after it airs, I strongly disagree that TV episodes are somehow "inherently notable". SuperMachine 14:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion WP:V is a policy that trumps consensus. Additionally, the claim that "all episodes of a TV series are notable" has, to the best of my knowledge, never been proven correct, and is not likely to. For certain series, yes, for certain broadcast networks and times of day (prime time), yes, but for local public access TV, absolutely not. GRBerry 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist (if you wish) - agreed page is worthy of deletion, non-notable and unsourced. However, not a single person made that argument (i.e., unsourced) in the discussion, which makes it appear that Centrx paid no attention to the discussion and formed his own opinion on the article. This is a problem precisely because we have a discussion in order to gain consensus - otherwise, any admin could delete any file without community input. If a closing admin disagrees with the prevailing consensus by bringing up a new point which has not been mentioned, it should be placed in the text of the discussion under delete, simply because sometimes, certain arguments to not occur to those in the discussion, and the new idea should be discussed, not unilaterally decided. Bit of a run on statement, but I think I got my idea across. -Patstuarttalk|edits 16:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this comment User:Srose correctly noted that this episode hadn't even aired yet (it won't for nearly a month). It's nearly impossible for an episode to be notable or reliably sourced if nobody has even seen it. AfD isn't a vote, so one insightful comment such as this can have more weight than any number of keep "votes" with weak justification. SuperMachine 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There most certainly can be sourced information on an upcoming episode, even if it's not much. For that matter, I think you may have it backwards: it's actually more likely to be sourceable than not, as the article writer has not just watched the episode (i.e., OR?), but gotten his/her information from other sources. -Patstuarttalk|edits 17:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, but the question is if they're reliable sources. Spoiler sites and the like are often quite inaccurate. SuperMachine 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • In the vast majority of cases, there's at least some early info about the episode from the network itself, either on their website or from a press release. Articles about movies aren't forbidden until the day of release, are they? Or any other unreleased "product". --Milo H Minderbinder 19:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • A film is usually singular and major; there are typically many articles in newspapers and magazines about upcoming films. The same is true for various other products such as computer software. The analogous product on television, however, is not a single episode, but the entire television series. Most individual episodes of television shows do not have any reliable sources about them even after they air, let alone before. In this case, there was no early info. —Centrx→talk • 01:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (no objection to relisting) - I find it very alarming that an admin would close an AfD with a reason that hadn't even been mentioned by any of the people supporting deletion, it gives the impression that instead of determining consensus, he ignored it and made a unilateral decision. In addition, information being uncited is something that is potentially fixable, if this had been brought up during the AfD instead of being mentioned for the first time at the closing, editors would have had the opportunity to remedy that (if that's possible). If it turns out there's no verifiable info about the episode yet (I don't personally know either way), then the article will only stay deleted until the first information arrives, which is a matter of a couple weeks, if not days. There's no question that this is a temporary deletion, and that there will be a complete article soon. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The idea that episodes are "inherently notable and encyclopaedic" is a statement of doctrine, not an argument to policy. This is not a hugely popular programme, an article per series should be fine. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear, when the episode airs and a full article is written, will you still support deleting it? You do realize that wikipedia has many articles on individual TV episodes, many for shows much less notable than Heroes, right? And what policy supports the notion that shows should only have episode articles if they are "hugely popular"? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hugely popular shows always have reliable sources about them, while unheard-of shows usually do not. —Centrx→talk • 01:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heroes has plenty of reliable sources about it (although it seems like not much about this episode, yet). So would that mean you consider this show "hugely popular"? --Milo H Minderbinder 02:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For some values of reliable, anyway. I wonder why we are considered to be an episode guide for TV shows? I thought this was an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how you come to such a conclusion about its popularity: [5] Overturn per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - For the same reasons Patstuart and Milo H Minderbinder have already placed. It was an unjustified removal.Jacobshaven3 00:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. Unaired episodes must have reliable secondary sources to have articles because the primary source is not availible. After it's aired, it is at least basically verifiable from primary and trivial (TV listing) sources and we can have the WP:N based battle royal discussion of whether to keep the article or move any notable information into a series or season article. But untill then, it can and should stay deleted per policy. Eluchil404 08:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn What the heck is the point of having the discussion if one administrator can over rule many keep votes. At the very least this should have been no concensus. EnsRedShirt 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per above (V, CB, etc...). The assertion that TV episodes are "inherently notable" is certainly not a claim that I agree with. Eusebeus 07:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Oi! – Article that was deleted accidentally as a result of vandalism restored by original deleter – 12:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Oi! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

It was deleted for absolutly no legitimate reason, without any discussion. Oi! is a genuine music genre, and not a "neologism" as described by the editor who incorrectly deleted the article. There are many, many Wikipedia articles that link to the Oi! article. It should be restored immediately. Also, judging by the comments on User:Jimfbleak's talk page, perhaps his powers of deletion should be revoked, at least temporarily until he gets a better handle on Wikipedia policies. Spylab 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and list at AfD, I can attest to this being a very notable term in Australia. Like Wanker before it - which was kept - this is a very grey area, and not one which is solved by CSD. I can't see the content, so if it was not expressing any notability at all then consider this opinion void, but on the face of it this term is notable. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Silly me, this wasn't the term (I should stop guessing) - Oi exists (note that the addition of "Oi! is a genuine music..." was after I commented). I wouldn't have bothered commenting, but now I'm left to, so neutral pending a history restore so I can see the content. Spylab, please leave the deleters credentials, or possible lack thereof, out of this - this debate is about the article, not the deleter. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article appears to have been deleted when it was in a vandalized state. I will restore it now and inform the admin who deleted it. - Mgm|(talk) 12:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Game (game) – Endorse deletion, again. You do not get to repeat DRV every week until you get the answer you like. – 15:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The_Game_(game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

"The Game" is the name of a legitimate game that does not exist on any physical medium. That it does not exist physically is one unique aspect of The Game, another being that no one can ever win The Game, though that point is debated by some. The way The Game works is as follows: when you think of The Game, you lose The Game. The Game restarts after one who loses The Game "forgets" about The Game, i.e. when it leaves the person's present state of thought. When one loses The Game (meaning he thought about the game), he anounces it to those around him which technically makes them lose The Game, however the loss does not count for them in when this happens. The Game deserves a page on Wikipedia for the same reasons that Monopoly or The Game of Life deserves a page on Wikipedia. Just because it is not well known, is not tangible, and is simple does not mean that it is illegitimate. Please consider this appeal. Spylab 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Tumbler Ridge coa.png – Deletion endorsed pending sourcing information – 01:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Tumbler Ridge coa.png (edit | [[Talk:Image:Tumbler Ridge coa.png|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Deleted here, requested undeletion here, used here: Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. It was tagged with ((coatofarms)) but I didn't upload or watch it so I did not get the notice that its (what-they-thought-was-a) "copyright tag" was removed. I request that it be restored, tagged with ((symbol)), and kindly moved to a better name, so that it can be used that article again. Also, same with Image:FSJ Flag.jpg deleted here, used here. Thanks. maclean 04:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image was deleted as lacking any copyright information. Do you have the source information? Guy (Help!) 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Baker's Dozen – Deletion endorsed – 01:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Baker's Dozen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The Baker's Dozen is a accapella singing group from Yale which was Deleted on December 26, 2006 due to lack on notability. However a week later, the group has gained a great deal more notablity in the United States (and possibly worldwide) due to an assault on the entire group which is allegedly being mishandled by the San Francisco Police Department, below are a few sources

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbmixpro (talk • contribs)

  • Relist The AfD closure was completely correct, so that's not a particularly contentious issue. This atack has certainly made the news, but we must recall that WP:NOT Wikinews. Thus, I'd suggest a relisting (with the news sources added to the restored article) as opposed to a simple (kept) restoration to decide if the group has any actual notability. -- Kicking222 03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist because of new information with the usual pointers about "multiple coverage of a single day's news event counts as one coverage". I am unclear, having read the AFD, whether there was consensus on anything that would count as a second source for notability. GRBerry 04:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep deleted I'm convinced by the arguments of Bwithh, and Guy. GRBerry 03:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep closed Group has gained a little bit of news notability for being assaulted and being a minor news item. No substantive claim of encyclopedic notability from new sources. Wikipedia is not a news report archive. Bwithh 09:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted This is a pretty good example of how "notability" and "verifiability" are similar but not necessarily identical concepts. For a music group, getting beat up does not equal additional notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, Wikinews is over there on the right. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per above. Eusebeus 07:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or relist... they've suddenly found notability. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Catholic-link – No consensus closure overturned, relisted at TfD – 06:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Catholic-link (edit | [[Talk:Template:Catholic-link|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|TfD)

Catholic-link is a talk page template which recommends the use of the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Such a template is unprecedented for Wikipedia. This will open the way for similar banners from other sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and many others in the public domain or otherwise, resulting in conflicts over which sources should be given special lobbying treatment. Already there is considerable conflict over this (the TfD was "no consensus"), but the issue is bigger than that - do we want users lobbying with banner templates for a particular source to be used? Recommend a change from no consensus to Delete. Thank you. Stbalbach 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure The closing admin was correct, there was no consensus to delete. Nominator here does not cite a policy that overrides consensus. We frankly could use more pointers to old historical sources; we aren't very good at using them in our daily editing. Concerns about competition could be improved by a template that takes a list of sources and links; something akin to ((historical-free-sources|source1=[url|name]|source2=[url|name]|...)). GRBerry 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is true multiple listings could be created. But I've rarely see someone who is an expert on a topic use old encyclopedia articles, so why encourage it? Wikipedia is beyond the stage of having to fill up blank space, it needs to improve quality, not encourage old material that has not been properly vetted by an expert who knows if it is still accurate or not. It takes someone with a lot of skill, time and knowledge to properly import an old article into Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 20:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, you provided no reason why the closing was bad, just reasons you disagree with it. DRV is not XfD round 2, most especially not for things which weren't deleted. -Amarkov blahedits 03:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you see, you're doing the same thing again. The fact that you think there is a problem doesn't mean we can ignore consensus (which is not just a majority). -Amarkov blahedits 16:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there's no problem if you believe the consensus in the debate was for deletion ... I don't see a single well-founded argument for keep and the delete arguments address three of the four TfD criteria (not useful/encyclopedic, redundant and isn't NPOV and can't be fixed). It only escaped the fourth (is not used) because editors who disagreed with it's WP:BEANS application to articles had not made a concerted effort to remove it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They thought it was useful, so that's gone. If you claim it's redundant, that implies that there's another template that you don't intend to delete, so that doesn't really make sense. And POV claims are absurd; saying that there is an article on the subject somewhere else is objectively true. -Amarkov blahedits 22:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It goes beyond objective fact. The template says "could be used as a source in this article" - it is encouraging users to use it as a source. Why this source and not another? We all agree links should be in External Links - but object to the "could be used as a source" sentiment of the template. -- Stbalbach 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what you're saying. Yes, you could use another source, but the template says "Hey look, here's a source someone found, you can use that!" -Amarkov blahedits 23:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, here's two I made earlier. As it says on the page, others are easy. Writing the PBW/PIR/PmBZ articles will only take a little while. Let's all get writing talk page templates to recommend the sources we'd like to see used. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from a classic illustration of WP:POINT what are you trying to show? If there are a multitude of sources that can be usefully used to expand an article then we could use a multiple template as in ((Oldafdmulti)). JASpencer 23:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I happen to know Angusmclellan is sincere in wanting to use that source as he added it to another resource list earlier today. Let's get past all this personal stuff - the idea of a general "resource" template is a great idea and resolves some problems - although I fear it may have larger un-intended consequences, this is virgin territory that has never been done on Wikipedia before - I can see room for abuse, but it's worth a try. -- Stbalbach 23:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amarkov, it is redundant in comparison to the effects that a simple, plain text notice and signature can produce on an article's talk page. It duplicates a very simple effort that any interested editor can perform, but it adds a pseudo-official feel to the suggestion, especially for new editors who mistake templates for official endorsement. But its function can be accomplished by plain text; that's how it's redundant. And I've addressed the POV-and-can't-be-fixed criterion below, especially in my replies to Gimmetrow. — coelacan talk — 02:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and encourage edit-warring over JASpencer's templating rampage. No, on second thoughts that's a bad plan. At least one keep opinion was entirely misinformed (MrDarcy (talk • contribs) confused these templates with ((Catholic))), one was a simple vote (but TfD is notavote). There was no consensus here to keep these templates and the concerns from a wide variety of editors (including me: I've written articles for the Saints wikiproject, as have Stbalbach and Wetman) were real and justified. We should not encourage the addition of any more CE or EB material. Overturn and delete per clear consensus at TfD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal opinion. I beleieve that my closing was correct (obviously) but I believe that according to policy, the template should have been deleted. However, consensus comes before what I personally believe policy says, so take my vote here with whatever grain of salt you would like to. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse No clear consensus at TfD and no overriding policy (as opposed to pragmatic) reason to delete. I would not be opposed to a relist (as I am generally not opposed to relists of no consensus closes). Eluchil404 08:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure There are a number of items here that have not been addressed. Despite what Angus McLellan says the original summary is right in one respect, there was "considerable conflict" on this subject. The nominator also overlooked the negative response to an attempt to drum up indignation here, which he did revisit later without deeming to pass this on. Although this has nothing to do with the fact that there was no consensus it should be pointed out that his was an admitted attempt to insert a "late-twentieth century secularist systematic bias" to Wikipedia articles. This makes the original nomination, and even more so the review, an inappropriate nomination. If the two objectors wish to enforce a bias against pre Vatican II Catholic beliefs and practices through a purge of links to an online source they really should try to change WP:NPOV first. Doing it through deletion votes looks to me to be gaming the system. JASpencer 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop this campaign to paint anyone who disagrees with you as being biased, it is distasteful and wrong. No one has a problem with linking directly to the Catholic Encyclopedia article in the External Links section. -- Stbalbach 20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't get personal. I was merely repeating what you said. It is perfectly legitimate to prefer a "late-twentieth century secularist systematic bias" to the aims of WP:NPOV but it should be argued openly, not through template deletions and deletion reviews. JASpencer 20:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followed up on your talk page. -- Stbalbach 21:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist This one needs a further discussion, especially as it is being abused by being placed on pages containing any pre20th c content, even when the articles was in fact derived in large pt from that dictionary. Everyone writing on the range of subjects covered knows about it. If it was an attempt to counter unfair 20th c POV it has backfired. The reason for a deletion relist is to get this deleted with enough of a message that people wont try the like again. If opinion is to do a 2nd listing, that's OK too.DGG 09:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Consensus was clear. Thirteen votes for deletion, five for keeping. One of those keeps (Mr. Darcy) was obviously an argument for keeping Template:Catholic by mistake, and another (Grutness) was almost certainly making the same mistake of conflating with Template:Catholic. Three clear votes for keep, one of which (Goldfritha) made no argument. So, two actual arguments for keeping (JASpencer and Freder1ck).
Of these two arguments for keeping, Freder1ck's was the strongest ("I would like to see more articles that integrate historical points of view with contemporary points of view", but Wetman countered this argument ("In general, no template for Wikipedia articles can be automatically applied. A cut-and-pasted note on a talkpage — "This article might benefit from material in the Catholic Encyclopedia" — where explicitly relevant, might be a useful head's-up") as did Sugaar ("The appropiate way to do it is to use Template:Expand and, if appropiate, suggest that this or that source may be helpful (in the talk page)") and myself ("There isn't usually any useful information there to be had. When there is, an editor can take eleven seconds to make explicit note of it on the article's talk page. The templates sitting around add very little helpful direction. ... They mention that the CE could be used. A nice sentiment in theory but in practice it's practically cruft"). Thus Freder1ck's argument should have been considered adequately answered, and then it's just JASpencer against the world. In the face of thirteen Deletes, I fail to see how this one argument standing could be considered No Consensus, and so I believe that RyanGerbil10 closed the TfD incorrectly.
Regarding the template itself, now that I've addressed the procedural problems, I'd like to make something clear that was not fully discussed in the TfD. Templates carry a weight of authority. Multiple IPs and new users have mistaken me for an admin just because I left warning templates with stop-signs on their talk pages. This has happened to me often enough that I am certain others among you have experienced it as well. Wikipedia should not be giving the appearance of officially endorsing a partisan source, and regardless of intention, this template gives that appearance. This template is a blinking POV barrier to many potential new users, and will discourage participation from many communities whose participation we need in order to thrive. When there is actual useful information in the Catholic Encyclopedia for an article, a plain old text note on the talk page, followed by a user's signature, will make that clear to everyone without inadvertently suggesting any official endorsement. JASpencer loses nothing when this template is deleted; that user is perfectly capable of using unadorned text to make notes. But the unintended consequences of this template upon the rest of Wikipedia are not worth the convenience it may serve for JASpencer. — coelacan talk — 09:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Freder1ck, do you believe that the template adds something (besides the appearance of authority and endorsement) that a plain old text note on the talk page would not add? Does it accomplish some measurable purpose that unadorned text, with a section header and signature, cannot accomplish? — coelacan talk — 05:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per coelacan, to whose eloquent summary of the concensus I have little to add. Persuasive points were made against suggesting articles be sourced from a dated source with a singular world view. Minority keep opinions were well rebutted during the debate and at least one keep voter was clearly thinking of another template altogether. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 05:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I said delete during the discussion stating it be recreated fresh as a progress template for wikiproject CE. This same argument could be used to support a keep, and contrary to nominator there is precedent for templates which "suggest" some other text be used. Neither of these arguments were addressed by other "delete" voters. I personally think the history surrounding this template makes deletion necessary so a progress template can be created without baggage. However, I endorse RyanGerbil10's assessment of the discussion. Gimmetrow 05:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neither of these arguments were addressed by other "delete" voters" I believe I have addressed this in my (apparently TLDR) post above. The problem with using a template to suggest this particular text (the CE) is that it gives an appearance of official partisanship on the part of Wikipedia. Templates are mistaken by new users for being something that only admins can apply. Shouldn't be that way, but that's how it plays out. An appearance of official Catholic partisanship on the part of Wikipedia cannot be a good thing. As to the progress tracker for a wikiproject, this is something the wikiproject can handle on their own project page, isn't it? It's one thing to say "this page is within the scope of the Catholicism WikiProject"; it's quite another to use a template to suggest that the Catholic Encyclopedia needs to be consulted before this article can be considered finished. It's not a huge deal to say "try consulting the old Brittanica too" but the suggestion that an openly partisan source like the CE must be consulted is a different thing entirely. — coelacan talk — 05:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: Neither of these arguments were addressed by the "delete" voters during the TfD, and there were about five days from my making them until close of TfD. Therefore I agree with the admin's closure based on the discussion at the time. I disagree that you have addressed these arguments even here. I agree with you the template text should be rephrased, but that's not the point. Gimmetrow 06:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there's nothing wrong with addressing things that were not addressed during the deletion discussion. Deletion review is also for considering new evidence, and I believe my argument above should be considered the same as new evidence. Now, can you explain to me how I have not addressed your concerns? Because it seems clear to me that I have. You cannot "agree with [me] that the template text should be rephrased" because I hold no such stance. No template of this kind should exist, because it gives entirely the wrong impression to new users. And a progress indicator can be handled at the Wikiproject's own internal page. What's not addressed? — coelacan talk — 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) There is a precedent for templates suggesting some text could be used to improve an article. The nominator said there was no precedent. I see nowhere you have addressed this.
  • 2) This template was (AFAIK) intended as some sort of progress template, apparently created as an alternative to a category. If you now want to offer yet more alternatives for the wikiproject, we would need to revisit the entire discussion that resolved on a template. I don't think WP:DRV is the place for that.
  • I hold that the current text is unacceptable for (I'm going to assume) much the same reasons you do, however that does not preclude some other template that functions as a wikiproject progress template. Thus, this template could also be rephrased in that way. How could you possibly object to an unknown template you've never seen? Gimmetrow 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is certainly no precedent for templates suggesting openly partisan sources, nor should there be; this template would be the beginning of such a precedent. The template cannot be considered an alternative to a category, because it adds a category. And the template is not being used as a progress tracker, because as DGG points out above, it is being abused and applied even to articles that have already long since passed the point of potentially being helped by CE material. Read the TFD again. JASpencer will not let the template be removed unless an article "has all the usable text from the Catholic Encyclopedia article". This is not a progress tracker; it is an attempt to force Wikipedia to mirror all CE partisan content. I object to any templates that would be applied whenever a Wikipedia article has not used "enough" of another particular source yet. We should not be beholden to any particular sources, and we should not have to carry around templates reminding us that we haven't used the CE or any other source "enough" yet, as though we should or must and cannot shed such templates until we do. On a side note, if it your opinion that there should be further discussion of the template's actual usefulness, then a vote of "relist" is more in line with your thinking than one of "endorse". Endorsement will not lead to further discussion, only acceptance of the current template's status quo. — coelacan talk — 07:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for telling me how to vote and telling me to read the TfD again, but I disagree. The TfD was closed correctly as "no concensus", even though it was closed opposite to my view. It is now up to JASpencer and/or wikiproject CE to rephrase the template and use it appropriately as a progress tracker, such that the delete arguments are irrelevant. If the template is abused, bring it up for TfD #2 in a few months. Gimmetrow 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry if you felt I was insulting or patronizing you. You've raised objections and I have tried to answer them. In doing so, I needed to refer back to something that JASpencer said earlier. That's all. Forget I said anything to you about relisting. I should have kept my mouth shut. So anyway, please, can you explain to me why two arguments for keeping and over ten arguments for deletion should be construed as "no consensus"? And how could the template possibly be used in such a way that the deletion arguments would be irrelevent? Any kind of CE progress tracker template, no matter how worded, would effectively mean that Wikipedia has not used "enough" CE yet, and still needs to use more. This is simply not something we should carry around on article talk pages, no matter how worded. The meaning behind it, "Wikipedia needs more Catholic Encyclopedia" is tantamount to taking articles hostage. There's no wording that would change the effect of such a template. — coelacan talk — 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, xFD is not a vote, arguments do matter. MaxSem 07:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per Stbalbach, Angusmclellan, Coelacan, MaxSem. I feel the arguments to delete it (the huge problems with old encyclopedic material, the redundancy with some existing templates) outweigh the keep votes in that particular AfD. — mark ✎ 08:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought this was a debate not a vote, so as far as I can see the consensus was clearly for delete (see Coelacan's thorough analysis). The delete arguments are stronger if improving this encyclopaedia is your chief concern. The Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1913 fails WP:RS in too many areas (the same goes for the 1911 Britannica). The whole idea of this template is based on the false premise that the longer an article is, the better it must be. But less is more in this case. I've improved articles by chopping material from out-of-date sources, including this one. We should be aiming for increased accuracy, not increased length. The "Catholic Encyclopaedia" is available online anyway, so what's the point of reproducing it here? Just give an external link. When you access the CE site, you know what you are getting; it's quite clear what POV the authors are working with and the era they were writing in. That isn't the case with Wikipedia, which aims at WP:NPOV. It's also offensive to editors who have been working with more recent sources trying to create a more accurate article to have this template slapped on their work; it might be seen as a violation of WP:CIVIL. --Folantin 08:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The admin closed the debate properly. This is turning into a second AfD attempt, with most of the delete votes based on "it might be misused", which is not an argument for deleting anything that has even a small set of positive uses. --tjstrf talk 09:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that none of the deletion arguments are just "it might be misused". Every single deletion argument has pointed out that consensus was overlooked. There were two arguments for keeping, and they were well addressed already in the Tfd. Tell me, what is the "small set of positive uses" for this template that cannot be achieved by plain text on a talk page? And what is it that overrides the fact that JASpencer has already stated intention to use this template to hold articles hostage until full mirroring of CE content? Again, it's very convenient to say "oh this is turning into tfd again" because that gives the impression that we're just using DRV to argue about content, but please, point out exactly who is not attesting to broken procedure and overlooked consensus? Yes, there will be discussion of content. That is pretty much unavoidable, but it doesn't negate the fact that every deletion argument is also about procedure. Please don't set up straw men. — coelacan talk — 10:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also, above, that the closing admin has already said "according to policy, the template should have been deleted". So the question is only whether the keep arguments were properly counted, (I have argued they were not) and whether the remaining keep arguments were sufficiently answered (I have argued they were). Why don't you scroll up to my analysis, starting with "Overturn and delete. Consensus was clear. Thirteen votes for deletion ... two actual arguments for keeping (JASpencer and Freder1ck)." Read that, please, and actually respond to it, tell me precisely where I'm wrong about the consensus, instead of claiming that all we're doing here is whining "it might be misused". — coelacan talk — 10:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and deleted; good arguments trump a headcount, but I see few good arguments on the 'keep' side of the debate (one is a plain "vote", one says "doesn't match the TFD criteria", one is circular). >Radiant< 10:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - there was clear consensus to delete; what is more, even if there hadn't been, XfD is not a vote and we should be encouraging editors to stay away from this kind of material at all costs. We simply should not be using this kind of POV pushing source, which run into a severe collision with WP:RS. Improper closure based on arguments and number crunching. Moreschi Deletion! 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete I did not vote in the deletion discussion, although I made I think three comments. I was hoping that the proponent(s) of the template would engage in discussion, which unfortunately did not happen before the vote was closed. Some of my objections have been addressed (now to be on talk page, text made more tentative by Stbalbach) but I still have not seen a convincing case for the retention of the template, if used en masse. The anon comment above, welcoming similar templates for all comparable encyclopedias, just makes me shudder. I am not criticising the admin, but in my own case, despite watching the page, the closure took me by surprise (I don't follow many of these & am not clear on the form), before I could vote - which would have been delete, as JASpencer, when he did finally comment, just chose to abuse those editors on the other side rather than argue the merits of the template. Johnbod 16:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see what the point of that would be. There aren't any single purpose accounts here. I notified everyone who commented in the Tfd but not here yet to give input here. That's why Freder1ck and Gimmetrow showed up here and endorsed closure. No one is merely "voting" here anyway; everyone is giving their comments on whether or not the consensus was observed and whether or not the Tfd was closed correctly. What exactly is the problem that you'd like to solve with that template? — coelacan talk — 20:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete per the summary laid out by coelacan. Eusebeus 07:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete diddo. I'm somewhat new to the wikipedia, but I also thought there was consensus. Jeff Carr 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I agree that the original voting yielded a supermajority for deleting; I do not agree that it yielded a consensus. As the discussion above shows, there are clearly 'unresolved issues'.
Both in the original argument and supra there were suggestions of making an improved and more general template for referring to old sources. If this is not done within a couple of months at the longest, I think that a new RfD is due and has greater chances of success.
As to the matter itself: IMO, a reference to available old sources on talk pages is far from automatically bad. Old sources should be used with caution, but so should new sources, and the older ones may be a means to balance the recentism bias.--JoergenB 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is definitely nothing wrong with a simple list, "a reference to available old sources on talk pages". That is not what we are talking about here. The template functions as a requirement that the CE be used more, until it has been used "enough". I'm sorry, but your argument raises no new issues that the simple response of "use a plain text note with a signature instead" does not address. And you do not address any of the issues raised in this DRV or in the TFD concerning the appearance of official endorsement, the functional redundancy of using a template (see my response to Amarkov. above), nor the fact that there was not a supermajority but a clear consensus with every objection (that is, both objections) adequately addressed. Nor do you address the fact that even the closing admin endorses deletion by our NPOV and RS policies here,[6] and the only thing standing in the way of that is the counting of the votes and the weighing of the arguments. If two fifths of the keep votes were erroniously applied to the wrong template entirely, and one fifth had no argument, and the remaining arguments were refuted, then there can be no claim that consensus was anything but delete. — coelacan talk — 04:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
More