Comparison of database tools – Permit recreation over speedy deletions. Please note, CSD G4 recreation of material deleted at XfD does not apply since the AfD nomination resulted in CSD G11 blatant advertising deletion, not AfD deletion. – Jreferee t/c 16:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Comparison of database tools (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`CSD G11`)` Last version had developed to a reasonable level of inclusion, no longer G11 or G4 in my opinion. After the first deletion of this page, subsequent pages were not identical recreations. The last full version [1] was fairly well developed. It wasn't perfect but it was certainly not speedy delete material. I believe this new user's page is currently getting unfair treatment. Note: I speedy deleted this article twice at the beginning of its life; my opinion has changed to at least give it a chance for development. (I'm a little unsure of procedure here: Should I undelete the article to show non-admins what it looked like?) Pigman☿ 20:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I just did. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn all, and a thorough troutslapping to all deleting admins. None of the revisions of this article were speedyable spam - though I personally believe they belong elsewhere, perhaps as part of wikibooks on their subjects, there is a very long-established and widespead practice of tables of software comparisons, as would have been shown at the AFD if it had been left open for more than an hour and a third. We don't speedy articles as spam because they're incomplete (particularly when they're an hour and a half old); we speedy them as spam where there is no material that would be included in an NPOV rewrite. The G4 deletions were particularly objectionable, as the article has no complete AFD debate, and the re-creations addressed the reasons for deletion in the aborted debate. —Cryptic 23:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I plead mea culpa on the first speedy deletion and my failure of WP:AGF. The initial version I saw had the feel of a circuitous form of advertising to me. A comparison article with only one product in it? But I should have realized that such a new and ambitious article would require some time to fill in. The creator even put up the "being worked on" template to tell others what was going on. To my deep chagrin, the creating editor's poor English skills in messages also influenced me. My only saving grace is I saw my error through the persistence of the creator in contacting me and I brought it here to rectify the mistake. Once a few others had deleted it as well, it seemed the easier course than merely undeleting it and convincing the others. My shame is boundless but I think I've learned the lesson. (stoically accepting troutslap as just dues.) I intend to offer my sincere apologies to the editor as well. Cheers, Pigman☿ 00:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] As a deleting admin I must say I was going on the other G4s previous. When said user left me a note, however, I re-checked the latest deletion, and the article seemed rather OK to me. I'm all for giving it a chance, it looks fine. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I put the original AFD on the original article, as it looked to me like masquerading spam; (see [2] and especially the edit comments and lead paragraph of the article). However, in its current state, and with the work of several editors, I can see how this could be a worthwhile list article, and comprehensive as any of the other similar comparison tables. I withdraw my original objections, and would say that the article should now be kept. --Jayron32\|talk\|contribs 03:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] He was pretty clearly working from Comparison of eDonkey software's source in order to get the formatting right. —Cryptic 05:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] You're right and I am wrong. I am worthless and should be flogged mercilessly until I learn. --Jayron32\|talk\|contribs 06:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm not trying to attack you, and apologize if I'm coming across like I am; I just want to document what went wrong. —Cryptic 07:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I think everyone concerned has agreed to let the article stand,so i suggest a Speedy Close to this discussion, with the article remaining as kept. Obviously it could be nom for AfD again, but I don't really think anyone would want to. DGG (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Comparison of database tools – Permit recreation over speedy deletions. Please note, CSD G4 recreation of material deleted at XfD does not apply since the AfD nomination resulted in CSD G11 blatant advertising deletion, not AfD deletion. – Jreferee t/c 16:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Last version had developed to a reasonable level of inclusion, no longer G11 or G4 in my opinion. After the first deletion of this page, subsequent pages were not identical recreations. The last full version [1] was fairly well developed. It wasn't perfect but it was certainly not speedy delete material. I believe this new user's page is currently getting unfair treatment. Note: I speedy deleted this article twice at the beginning of its life; my opinion has changed to at least give it a chance for development. (I'm a little unsure of procedure here: Should I undelete the article to show non-admins what it looked like?) Pigman☿ 20:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all, and a thorough troutslapping to all deleting admins. None of the revisions of this article were speedyable spam - though I personally believe they belong elsewhere, perhaps as part of wikibooks on their subjects, there is a very long-established and widespead practice of tables of software comparisons, as would have been shown at the AFD if it had been left open for more than an hour and a third. We don't speedy articles as spam because they're incomplete (particularly when they're an hour and a half old); we speedy them as spam where there is no material that would be included in an NPOV rewrite. The G4 deletions were particularly objectionable, as the article has no complete AFD debate, and the re-creations addressed the reasons for deletion in the aborted debate. —Cryptic 23:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I plead mea culpa on the first speedy deletion and my failure of WP:AGF. The initial version I saw had the feel of a circuitous form of advertising to me. A comparison article with only one product in it? But I should have realized that such a new and ambitious article would require some time to fill in. The creator even put up the "being worked on" template to tell others what was going on. To my deep chagrin, the creating editor's poor English skills in messages also influenced me. My only saving grace is I saw my error through the persistence of the creator in contacting me and I brought it here to rectify the mistake. Once a few others had deleted it as well, it seemed the easier course than merely undeleting it and convincing the others. My shame is boundless but I think I've learned the lesson. (stoically accepting troutslap as just dues.) I intend to offer my sincere apologies to the editor as well. Cheers, Pigman☿ 00:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a deleting admin I must say I was going on the other G4s previous. When said user left me a note, however, I re-checked the latest deletion, and the article seemed rather OK to me. I'm all for giving it a chance, it looks fine. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put the original AFD on the original article, as it looked to me like masquerading spam; (see [2] and especially the edit comments and lead paragraph of the article). However, in its current state, and with the work of several editors, I can see how this could be a worthwhile list article, and comprehensive as any of the other similar comparison tables. I withdraw my original objections, and would say that the article should now be kept. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He was pretty clearly working from Comparison of eDonkey software's source in order to get the formatting right. —Cryptic 05:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right and I am wrong. I am worthless and should be flogged mercilessly until I learn. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not trying to attack you, and apologize if I'm coming across like I am; I just want to document what went wrong. —Cryptic 07:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone concerned has agreed to let the article stand,so i suggest a Speedy Close to this discussion, with the article remaining as kept. Obviously it could be nom for AfD again, but I don't really think anyone would want to. DGG (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

JAMAA – Deletion endorsed – Core desat 05:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
JAMAA (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` (DRV1) The deletion of this article was entirely unjustified and biased. The article was well-sourced and provided citations as to its origins and to its existence as a high school and college service club. Policies such as WP:CSB have been blatantly violated, and Metros, who has a personal bias against me, has once again used his influence to have this legitimate article deleted. See the AfD for more information. Also please see the article's first deletion review, after its absolutely ridiculous speedy deletion. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Deleting admin's comment. WP:SYN is part of the WP:NOR policy, and forbids us from synthesizing sources to support a claim that is made in none of the sources. None of the sources presented established that any two of the various groups called JAMAA had any relationship to one another. Accordingly, that claim is forbidden by policy. The consensus of the debate recognized this. With both policy and numbers going this way, there was no other way to close this debate than delete, because the article as written relied upon that original research claim. So I closed the debate as delete the existing article about the international movement/organization. There were a pair of reliable sources about the JAMAA group in Burundi, hence it is probably notable, and an article focused solely on it would probably be viable. Nominator is overly concerned about bias of editors, and inadequately concerned with the core content policies WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. (Additionally, WP:CSB is a group of editors, not a policy or guideline.) Articles that go beyond the available sources aren't viable. Endorse closure. GRBerry 01:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure (keep deleted). I see no process problems in the deletion discussion. I do not see any evidence of systemic bias in this deletion decision. Rossami (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted/speedy close - The same issues were raised fifteen days ago at DRV1. The present DRV2 request -- "I am unwilling to put together a draft article based on reliable source material but my assumption of bad faith about another editor is reason enough to permit article recreation" -- is not a basis to permit recreation of an article whose deletion review was proper. -- Jreferee t/c 16:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure there was nothing wrong with the closure of this debate. I see no evidence of systematic bias, or that an administrator misused "influence" and no-one has provided any. Hut 8.5 17:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment How can so many people be so ignorant? How could two organizations named JAMAA, in all capital letters, not have anything to do with eachother, when they both are based on racial unity? Sources were provided as to its origins and to its existence in U.S. schools. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I closed this in error - I thought this was a rerun of DRV1. Sorry. Now open again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, valid AfD. The claims that this article is being deleted due to "personal bias" against you is both ludicrous and dangerously bordering on a personal attack. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

JAMAA – Deletion endorsed – Core desat 05:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deletion of this article was entirely unjustified and biased. The article was well-sourced and provided citations as to its origins and to its existence as a high school and college service club. Policies such as WP:CSB have been blatantly violated, and Metros, who has a personal bias against me, has once again used his influence to have this legitimate article deleted. See the AfD for more information. Also please see the article's first deletion review, after its absolutely ridiculous speedy deletion. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin's comment. WP:SYN is part of the WP:NOR policy, and forbids us from synthesizing sources to support a claim that is made in none of the sources. None of the sources presented established that any two of the various groups called JAMAA had any relationship to one another. Accordingly, that claim is forbidden by policy. The consensus of the debate recognized this. With both policy and numbers going this way, there was no other way to close this debate than delete, because the article as written relied upon that original research claim. So I closed the debate as delete the existing article about the international movement/organization. There were a pair of reliable sources about the JAMAA group in Burundi, hence it is probably notable, and an article focused solely on it would probably be viable. Nominator is overly concerned about bias of editors, and inadequately concerned with the core content policies WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. (Additionally, WP:CSB is a group of editors, not a policy or guideline.) Articles that go beyond the available sources aren't viable. Endorse closure. GRBerry 01:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). I see no process problems in the deletion discussion. I do not see any evidence of systemic bias in this deletion decision. Rossami (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted/speedy close - The same issues were raised fifteen days ago at DRV1. The present DRV2 request -- "I am unwilling to put together a draft article based on reliable source material but my assumption of bad faith about another editor is reason enough to permit article recreation" -- is not a basis to permit recreation of an article whose deletion review was proper. -- Jreferee t/c 16:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure there was nothing wrong with the closure of this debate. I see no evidence of systematic bias, or that an administrator misused "influence" and no-one has provided any. Hut 8.5 17:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can so many people be so ignorant? How could two organizations named JAMAA, in all capital letters, not have anything to do with eachother, when they both are based on racial unity? Sources were provided as to its origins and to its existence in U.S. schools. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I closed this in error - I thought this was a rerun of DRV1. Sorry. Now open again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid AfD. The claims that this article is being deleted due to "personal bias" against you is both ludicrous and dangerously bordering on a personal attack. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mary G Peterson Elementary School – Consensus was to endorse the status quo. The same argument about a different article may be interpreted differently, given the shift in circumstances; this is why deletion here does not work by precedent. – Chick Bowen 02:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mary G Peterson Elementary School (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD \| AfD2`)` I closed this AFD as no-consensus. The immediately following entry on the AFD-day was closed by another editor as Delete with almost identical input from discussants: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrtle E. Huff Elementary School. I did not provide a detailed argument for my no consensus decision at time of closing - my reasoning is based on all three potential outcomes providing valid (in my opinion) arguments for their suggestions. I don't like to see this inconsistency between two closures that have very similar inputs. Therefore, I'm asking for a review of both decisions to see whether I made the wrong judgment or, in fact, different judgments were justified in this case. Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] P.S. There remains one unclosed AFD in the same day-set along a similar vein: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millburn School, Wadsworth, Illinois (2nd nomination). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I have closed this related debate as delete, based on a lack of sources after two years of existence. Xoloz (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Millburn School District 24 has two K-8 Schools: Millburn Central School and Millburn West School.[3] I believe the one you deleted was actually called Millburn Central, not Millburn School. It's old name probably was Millburn School. If no one cared to fix the name in over two years, I don't see this article as being missed. -- Jreferee t/c 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse both, ~~speedy close~~ This seems to be an appeal to write policy on notability for schools rather than a procedural issue. As much as we strive for consistency, borderline cases such as elementary schools will end up in keeps, merges and deletes depending on the merits of the article (and a certain random element) until an agreed-upon guideline is established in the appropriate forum. But DRV is not that forum. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I had no intention of this being "an appeal to write policy on notability for schools". I am more concerned about whether I properly closed the AFD that I brought here on my own accord because I have been accused before of improper AFD closure and wish to avoid similar incidents going forward. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I don't see how you could've closed this any differently. The nomination rationale was weak, the discussion was mostly along the lines of "elementary schools are not notable - yes they are - are not" - etc. If the article itself is too poor to keep you can set a redirect with the stipulation that if improved upon the article can be restored. But I don't see a sufficient consensus for deletion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Ignore, I was looking at the wrong AfD. As about the Nov 2007 AfD, I would've closed as a delete. The sole keep argument is unpersuasive after a year of no improvement. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse both closures above (and my own of the related debate, if that is discussed.) As Trialsanderrors says, inconsistent results over a field of related articles are an expected fact of wiki-life. The articles may have displayed differentiating elements, not necessarily obvious from the AfD discussions, that led to conflicting results. A speedy closure of the DRV doesn't seem necessary to me, however. It may be that commenters (including the other closing admin) can offer evidence that will prove whether or not such differentiating elements existed -- in which case, an overturn of one decision or the other might be supported by a consensus. Xoloz (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy close - What about article x? is not a basis to request a deletion review. Comment Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument. Even if all three potential outcomes providing valid arguments, the closer still needs to determine the strength of the arguments. The nominator stated "Article still has no citations indicating any notability", there was a prior AfD that brought up the same concerns, and no one in AfD2 rebutted the lack of reliable source material. Delete seemed the strongest argument to me, but just about all of the discussion centered around the non-policy personal opinions "it's important"/"no it's not" which doesn't make the strongest argument strong. In any event, the present DRV review request is not directed towards such a review and I have no problem with a no consensus close. -- Jreferee t/c 17:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I was the closer on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrtle E. Huff Elementary School referred to above. Perhaps I haven't been keeping up on the broader consensus on elementary school inclusion on WP but the opinions on the AFD definitely leaned to the delete side. I considered a redirect to the school district but when my investigation showed the school district mentioned in the article didn't include this particular school, this seemed to both cast doubt on the accuracy of the info in the article and its verifiability. The sole keep opinion, while detailed in its links, boiled down to referring to another AfD decision. While precedent is a legal method I am quite familiar with, my understanding is that Wikipedia operates on policy and consensus in these cases so I based my decision on those. I realize this DRV isn't about the AfD I closed but I thought it worthwhile to detail my decision-making process since it's referred to here. Pigman☿ 18:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the delete Overturn the no consensus and relist in AFD in the other one. If an article is loaded with merges/deletes only, it's under the admin opinion rather to merge the article or delete, no close as no consensus, as that's a keep. It's better to overturn the AFD for a better outcome This is a Secret ^account 23:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - the only point I would make is that a relist should not be made procedurally in isolation from the present state of the page; the article has been radically improved since the close; I think the relist should only be supported if you are both unhappy with the close and you still think it's deletable. TerriersFan (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] While we are sometimes inconsistent (and acknowledging that that's not always a bad thing), I don't see any reason not to relist this particular decision. "No consensus" decisions can be renominated pretty-much at will. In the relist, please mention the related discussions. Rossami (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Amazing that we don't even trouble ourselves to look for consistency--the true sign of an primitive system, with neither explicit standards nor tacit agreement on either basics or details.. DGG (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse both - this article had a couple of sources and some encyclopaedic content with a claim to notability that was slight but present. Consequently the delete !votes who stated no claim to notability, rather than challenging the extent of the notability, could be devalued somewhat. The other article had no sources and no claim to notability. Consequently, I don't think that the decisions were so inconsistent as to be of concern. TerriersFan (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse both within closer's discretion - I might have closed the first as delete and kudos to Xoloz for the cojones to delete the other. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mary G Peterson Elementary School – Consensus was to endorse the status quo. The same argument about a different article may be interpreted differently, given the shift in circumstances; this is why deletion here does not work by precedent. – Chick Bowen 02:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I closed this AFD as no-consensus. The immediately following entry on the AFD-day was closed by another editor as Delete with almost identical input from discussants: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrtle E. Huff Elementary School. I did not provide a detailed argument for my no consensus decision at time of closing - my reasoning is based on all three potential outcomes providing valid (in my opinion) arguments for their suggestions. I don't like to see this inconsistency between two closures that have very similar inputs. Therefore, I'm asking for a review of both decisions to see whether I made the wrong judgment or, in fact, different judgments were justified in this case. Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There remains one unclosed AFD in the same day-set along a similar vein: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millburn School, Wadsworth, Illinois (2nd nomination). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed this related debate as delete, based on a lack of sources after two years of existence. Xoloz (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millburn School District 24 has two K-8 Schools: Millburn Central School and Millburn West School.[3] I believe the one you deleted was actually called Millburn Central, not Millburn School. It's old name probably was Millburn School. If no one cared to fix the name in over two years, I don't see this article as being missed. -- Jreferee t/c 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse both, ~~speedy close~~ This seems to be an appeal to write policy on notability for schools rather than a procedural issue. As much as we strive for consistency, borderline cases such as elementary schools will end up in keeps, merges and deletes depending on the merits of the article (and a certain random element) until an agreed-upon guideline is established in the appropriate forum. But DRV is not that forum. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I had no intention of this being "an appeal to write policy on notability for schools". I am more concerned about whether I properly closed the AFD that I brought here on my own accord because I have been accused before of improper AFD closure and wish to avoid similar incidents going forward. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how you could've closed this any differently. The nomination rationale was weak, the discussion was mostly along the lines of "elementary schools are not notable - yes they are - are not" - etc. If the article itself is too poor to keep you can set a redirect with the stipulation that if improved upon the article can be restored. But I don't see a sufficient consensus for deletion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Ignore, I was looking at the wrong AfD. As about the Nov 2007 AfD, I would've closed as a delete. The sole keep argument is unpersuasive after a year of no improvement. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse both closures above (and my own of the related debate, if that is discussed.) As Trialsanderrors says, inconsistent results over a field of related articles are an expected fact of wiki-life. The articles may have displayed differentiating elements, not necessarily obvious from the AfD discussions, that led to conflicting results. A speedy closure of the DRV doesn't seem necessary to me, however. It may be that commenters (including the other closing admin) can offer evidence that will prove whether or not such differentiating elements existed -- in which case, an overturn of one decision or the other might be supported by a consensus. Xoloz (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - What about article x? is not a basis to request a deletion review. Comment Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument. Even if all three potential outcomes providing valid arguments, the closer still needs to determine the strength of the arguments. The nominator stated "Article still has no citations indicating any notability", there was a prior AfD that brought up the same concerns, and no one in AfD2 rebutted the lack of reliable source material. Delete seemed the strongest argument to me, but just about all of the discussion centered around the non-policy personal opinions "it's important"/"no it's not" which doesn't make the strongest argument strong. In any event, the present DRV review request is not directed towards such a review and I have no problem with a no consensus close. -- Jreferee t/c 17:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was the closer on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrtle E. Huff Elementary School referred to above. Perhaps I haven't been keeping up on the broader consensus on elementary school inclusion on WP but the opinions on the AFD definitely leaned to the delete side. I considered a redirect to the school district but when my investigation showed the school district mentioned in the article didn't include this particular school, this seemed to both cast doubt on the accuracy of the info in the article and its verifiability. The sole keep opinion, while detailed in its links, boiled down to referring to another AfD decision. While precedent is a legal method I am quite familiar with, my understanding is that Wikipedia operates on policy and consensus in these cases so I based my decision on those. I realize this DRV isn't about the AfD I closed but I thought it worthwhile to detail my decision-making process since it's referred to here. Pigman☿ 18:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the delete Overturn the no consensus and relist in AFD in the other one. If an article is loaded with merges/deletes only, it's under the admin opinion rather to merge the article or delete, no close as no consensus, as that's a keep. It's better to overturn the AFD for a better outcome This is a Secret ^account 23:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the only point I would make is that a relist should not be made procedurally in isolation from the present state of the page; the article has been radically improved since the close; I think the relist should only be supported if you are both unhappy with the close and you still think it's deletable. TerriersFan (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we are sometimes inconsistent (and acknowledging that that's not always a bad thing), I don't see any reason not to relist this particular decision. "No consensus" decisions can be renominated pretty-much at will. In the relist, please mention the related discussions. Rossami (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amazing that we don't even trouble ourselves to look for consistency--the true sign of an primitive system, with neither explicit standards nor tacit agreement on either basics or details.. DGG (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse both - this article had a couple of sources and some encyclopaedic content with a claim to notability that was slight but present. Consequently the delete !votes who stated no claim to notability, rather than challenging the extent of the notability, could be devalued somewhat. The other article had no sources and no claim to notability. Consequently, I don't think that the decisions were so inconsistent as to be of concern. TerriersFan (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse both within closer's discretion - I might have closed the first as delete and kudos to Xoloz for the cojones to delete the other. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jamie Szantyr – Deletion endorsed. The named articles will be salted. If notability is claimed come back here to present the case with sources, please, and if consensus determines that notability has been established or warrants a new AFD, then an unsalting can be done. – Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jamie Szantyr (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`(DRV1) (DRV2) Miss Talia (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Talia Doll (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Talia Madison (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Talia Madison (Jamie Szantyr) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` (see One Night In Hackney's post below) Velvet Sky (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Velvet Sky (TNA) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Currently employed as a pro wrestler by TNA, I believe that makes her notable now Emurphy42 (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note Some relevant pages include: User:ThisDude62/sandbox -- Jreferee t/c 01:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Have any reliable sources to back that up? Whispe ring 11:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment This has been discussed previously also with respect to the name Talia Madison and at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_19.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted - I added a salt list above. -- Jreferee t/c 18:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted until someone creates a proper article in userspace, which I'm sure someone from WP:PW will be working on. It's also salted at Talia Madison (Jamie Szantyr). Practically every version I've seen (and there's been many) has only consisted of sources that consist of her website, Myspace or other sources affiliated with her. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted for now. At the moment, I believe that the best option for the proposer is to create an article in userspace that is properly sourced from independent reliable sources and unambiguously meets the WP:BIO criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep all listed articles deleted and salted until someone can show that an article is possible with reliable source material that shows the subject meets WP:BIO. As of yet no one has done so, and it doesn't seem likely that will be the case any time soon. --Core desat 07:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted, unless some reliable sources can be found. Mushroom (Talk) 09:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted perennial candidate who STILL has no reliable sources. Suggest future DRV attempts that do not include additional new reliable sources be deleted on sight. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Recreate All the things/problems have been addressed and corrected (noteUser:ThisDude62/sandbox) as for Jreferee's claim to keep deleted, salting does not make for valid reason to keep keep deleted what if people were to delete Tyra Banks and salt it for sources/notability problems and we had every source known to man on Tyra thus making her notable and sourceable but we couldn't recreate because of salting where does that leave you? --KingMorpheus (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Unfortunately, that article has nothing new in it. --Core desat 05:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jamie Szantyr – Deletion endorsed. The named articles will be salted. If notability is claimed come back here to present the case with sources, please, and if consensus determines that notability has been established or warrants a new AFD, then an unsalting can be done. – Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently employed as a pro wrestler by TNA, I believe that makes her notable now Emurphy42 (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Some relevant pages include:

User:ThisDude62/sandbox -- Jreferee t/c 01:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have any reliable sources to back that up? Whispe ring 11:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has been discussed previously also with respect to the name Talia Madison and at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_19.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - I added a salt list above. -- Jreferee t/c 18:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted until someone creates a proper article in userspace, which I'm sure someone from WP:PW will be working on. It's also salted at Talia Madison (Jamie Szantyr). Practically every version I've seen (and there's been many) has only consisted of sources that consist of her website, Myspace or other sources affiliated with her. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted for now. At the moment, I believe that the best option for the proposer is to create an article in userspace that is properly sourced from independent reliable sources and unambiguously meets the WP:BIO criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all listed articles deleted and salted until someone can show that an article is possible with reliable source material that shows the subject meets WP:BIO. As of yet no one has done so, and it doesn't seem likely that will be the case any time soon. --Core desat 07:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, unless some reliable sources can be found. Mushroom (Talk) 09:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted perennial candidate who STILL has no reliable sources. Suggest future DRV attempts that do not include additional new reliable sources be deleted on sight. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate All the things/problems have been addressed and corrected (noteUser:ThisDude62/sandbox) as for Jreferee's claim to keep deleted, salting does not make for valid reason to keep keep deleted what if people were to delete Tyra Banks and salt it for sources/notability problems and we had every source known to man on Tyra thus making her notable and sourceable but we couldn't recreate because of salting where does that leave you?

--KingMorpheus (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Unfortunately, that article has nothing new in it. --Core desat 05:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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