< April 13	Deletion review archives: 2009 April	April 15 >

14 April 2009

Greece–Jamaica relations – endorse – Aervanath (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Greece–Jamaica relations (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) No consensus for deletion, article was notable and verifiable. Admin said it wasn't closed on the merits of the article but because "recently, several x-y country relations articles have been deleted." Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] That seems a misleading quote of the admins actual statement - "There is not enough content to justify the existence of the article. Recently, several x-y country relations articles have been deleted because the lack of notability and this one is no different." - I've italicised the bit you chose to quote, noting you also included a full-stop which isn't there. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn The commonly deleted articles only list time diplomatic relations were established and the location of any relevant embassies. Since this article also contained information about economic relations, it can not be reasonably compared to the deleted articles. To Richard Arthur Norton: That said, I'd prefer a history undeletion to allow merging rather than keeping the article outright. You said in the AFD "No point in duplicating the info in two articles." when in fact this entry causes information to be split over not two but three articles. Hardly better than what you're trying to avoid. - Mgm\|^(talk) 08:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, there was a rough consensus to delete and the article was about a non-notable intersection of countries. There are around 190 countries in the world, and having articles about each possible pair of relations runs up 35,910 articles, about 34,000 of which will have no information other than "X has an embassy in Y and a consulate in Z", which violates WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment from the closing admin: While I am ~~strongly~~ against x-y country relations articles that include nothing more than list of embassies or like that, I think we need a better guideline for notability of such relations. The debate is taking place each time at AfD and DRV and at AN and who knows where as well and this leads nowhere. So what we need to do is to discuss it in general and not case-by-case this way. I endorse the deletion until we have a consensus about what articles to have and what not. --Tone 09:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] If you have a strong opinion on the subject, doesn't that mean you shouldn't really be closing AFDs? No offense... but it just seems like it would be impossible to be objective in closing any given debate. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I have a strong opinion now, before it was more or less procedural. Well, strong may be a hard word here. --Tone 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) do you mean that at the time you closed a few days ago you had no particular opinion, & judged abstractly by judging the consensus of others, but since then other discussions on the subject have caused you to change your mind that they should always or generally be deleted, and that this is why you have closed no more since, for indeed you properly have not, and do not intend to? DGG (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Indeed, I am not closing any of those AfDs anymore until we have a good notability criteria. Any idea where to start a centralized discussion? --Tone 07:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nothing in the deletion policy prohibits admins from closing AFDs where they have an opinion on the subject, or even recommends against it. I agree that we could use a centralized discussion on this. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, anyone? Stifle (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] There's a difference between an opinion, which I'd hope a closer would have, otherwise they're just counting votes, and a strong opinion, which suggests a pre-formed idea of how the debate should be closed. If there's nothing in policy about people closing AFDs when they are basically going to rule the way they think regardless of what consensus says, then policy is wrong. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Voila, the link above is blue. We should continue the debate there. --Tone 15:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse while it may not have been the strongest consensus, a consensus to delete did exist, and as such this was a proper close. As for the need to establish a notability guideline, I am in full agreement that one is needed. I started a discussion on the AfD tal;k page last night but the above link is probably a better place to have one. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist - We should give a few more days for the "deleters" to address the issues raised by the "keepers" and vice versa. Otherwise, there would not be a clear enough consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Relist I don't see any clear consensus in the XfD at all. Solid points on both sides. Closing statement sounds like a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument to me. — Ched : ? 17:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as a reasonable reading of the XfD debate. Eusebeus (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - broad consensus for deletion; no procedural errors in close identified, as the DRV rules require. Sources purportedly establishing notability were shown early in the debate, but did not sway participants overall. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn & Re list - now come on, there was no consensus established on this it is only fair to relist and allow a few more opinions to be heard. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse This was a fair reading of the discussion and many of the keep votes were by ILIKEIT or NOTABILITYBYASSERTION or even worse, NOTABILITYISNTIMPORTANT. The delete side generally cited policy based reasons. Also can the nominator nte that bad faith and deliberately misleading openiong statements are generally going to cost you support at DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - correctly closed based on strength of arguments. PhilKnight (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Greece–Jamaica relations – endorse – Aervanath (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus for deletion, article was notable and verifiable. Admin said it wasn't closed on the merits of the article but because "recently, several x-y country relations articles have been deleted." Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a misleading quote of the admins actual statement - "There is not enough content to justify the existence of the article. Recently, several x-y country relations articles have been deleted because the lack of notability and this one is no different." - I've italicised the bit you chose to quote, noting you also included a full-stop which isn't there. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The commonly deleted articles only list time diplomatic relations were established and the location of any relevant embassies. Since this article also contained information about economic relations, it can not be reasonably compared to the deleted articles. To Richard Arthur Norton: That said, I'd prefer a history undeletion to allow merging rather than keeping the article outright. You said in the AFD "No point in duplicating the info in two articles." when in fact this entry causes information to be split over not two but three articles. Hardly better than what you're trying to avoid. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, there was a rough consensus to delete and the article was about a non-notable intersection of countries. There are around 190 countries in the world, and having articles about each possible pair of relations runs up 35,910 articles, about 34,000 of which will have no information other than "X has an embassy in Y and a consulate in Z", which violates WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the closing admin: While I am ~~strongly~~ against x-y country relations articles that include nothing more than list of embassies or like that, I think we need a better guideline for notability of such relations. The debate is taking place each time at AfD and DRV and at AN and who knows where as well and this leads nowhere. So what we need to do is to discuss it in general and not case-by-case this way. I endorse the deletion until we have a consensus about what articles to have and what not. --Tone 09:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have a strong opinion on the subject, doesn't that mean you shouldn't really be closing AFDs? No offense... but it just seems like it would be impossible to be objective in closing any given debate. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have a strong opinion now, before it was more or less procedural. Well, strong may be a hard word here. --Tone 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - (edit conflict) do you mean that at the time you closed a few days ago you had no particular opinion, & judged abstractly by judging the consensus of others, but since then other discussions on the subject have caused you to change your mind that they should always or generally be deleted, and that this is why you have closed no more since, for indeed you properly have not, and do not intend to? DGG (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed, I am not closing any of those AfDs anymore until we have a good notability criteria. Any idea where to start a centralized discussion? --Tone 07:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing in the deletion policy prohibits admins from closing AFDs where they have an opinion on the subject, or even recommends against it.
        
        I agree that we could use a centralized discussion on this. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, anyone? Stifle (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        There's a difference between an opinion, which I'd hope a closer would have, otherwise they're just counting votes, and a strong opinion, which suggests a pre-formed idea of how the debate should be closed. If there's nothing in policy about people closing AFDs when they are basically going to rule the way they think regardless of what consensus says, then policy is wrong. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voila, the link above is blue. We should continue the debate there. --Tone 15:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse while it may not have been the strongest consensus, a consensus to delete did exist, and as such this was a proper close. As for the need to establish a notability guideline, I am in full agreement that one is needed. I started a discussion on the AfD tal;k page last night but the above link is probably a better place to have one. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - We should give a few more days for the "deleters" to address the issues raised by the "keepers" and vice versa. Otherwise, there would not be a clear enough consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I don't see any clear consensus in the XfD at all. Solid points on both sides. Closing statement sounds like a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument to me. — Ched : ? 17:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a reasonable reading of the XfD debate. Eusebeus (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - broad consensus for deletion; no procedural errors in close identified, as the DRV rules require. Sources purportedly establishing notability were shown early in the debate, but did not sway participants overall. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & Re list - now come on, there was no consensus established on this it is only fair to relist and allow a few more opinions to be heard. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This was a fair reading of the discussion and many of the keep votes were by ILIKEIT or NOTABILITYBYASSERTION or even worse, NOTABILITYISNTIMPORTANT. The delete side generally cited policy based reasons. Also can the nominator nte that bad faith and deliberately misleading openiong statements are generally going to cost you support at DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - correctly closed based on strength of arguments. PhilKnight (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:$ – Done -- Thank you, Uncle G! – William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:$ (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) History-only undeletion; talk page, too, please. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:$ – Done -- Thank you, Uncle G! – William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

History-only undeletion; talk page, too, please. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

FC de Rakt – Overturn and relist – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
FC de Rakt (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) There was clearly no consensus in the discussion, so the result should have been keep. Furthermore, the closing admin (User_talk:MBisanz#Deletion_of_FC_de_Rakt) admitted that he didn't even bother reading the article, and therefore failed to note its numerous sources - Reuters, The Observer, MTDTV, etc. ðarkun coll 07:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Closing admin Admins do not judge content, they judge consensus. Based on the arguments made at the AFD regarding the sourcing of the article, even after substantial re-writing, I interpreted it as delete. Further the AFD ran the allotted 7 days. MBisanz ^talk 08:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] The AfD ran the allotted 7 days, with no consensus. ðarkun coll 08:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Can an admin temporarily recreate this article for this process? Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Done. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. The consensus seems reasonable, both on a headcount (4 delete, 2 keep) and on the arguments presented. I would have been in support of keeping the article personally, but DRV is about whether the process was followed correctly, and it was. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] The headcount was actually 6 delete, and 5 keep. Not a consensus. ðarkun coll 08:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I don't like headcounts. Endorse as a reasonable call by the closing admin. The keep arguements were made mostly on the grounds that this may or may not be the future of womens (and the Scottish Premiership?) football kit and on the coverage of the skirts themselves. The former arguement fails WP:CRYSTAL, and the latter would be perfectly sufficiently covered in the kit article (if the article is about the kit the subject should be the kit, not the club). In fact, a Women's football kit article would be better motivated than this. The deletion arguements were made with regard to the clubs notability as a club (which was, after all, what the article was about). This should probably have a section in the Kit (association football) article, which would make it reasonable to redirect the subject of this review to that section. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Whatever the points raised in the argument, the fact is that no consensus was reached. Headcount or not, approximately 50% of those taking part wanted to delete, and 50% wanted to keep. Whether you count individual votes or not, this is clearly not a consensus by any stretch of the imagination, and as per policy, under such circumstances the default position is keep. ðarkun coll 10:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] 50% here or 50% there IS a headcount. Wikipedia is not a democracy and in AfD repeating another editors arguement or saying "like he said" adds only very limited further credibility to the other editors claim. Admins have a responsibility to close against headcount (which can be tallied in numbers or percentages, doesn't change what you're doing) if that is the correct close based on strength of argumentation as measured by foundation in policy. You use the term "votes" above, the rest of us stick to "!votes" (to be read "not votes") as that is the context in which they should be taken. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] It was someone else who brought up a headcount here, not me. With regard to the argument, it was those in favour of deleting who were merely repeating what others had said - all the cogent arguments came from the keep side. But the fact remains that there was no consensus reached, whichever way you look at it. So why was it deleted? ðarkun coll 11:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] As the editor who brought the AfD I endorse the deletion. This was an article about a Dutch football club not about a change from shorts to skirts by the female team that are a small part of this club. The news story of the kit change IMO deserves to be mention in the Kit article as stated above. BigDunc^Talk 11:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] And this is precisely the level of argument repeated over and over again by the deletists. This team are by far the most famous of the club's teams, so to draw a distinction between the club and team is artificial. ðarkun coll 11:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] It was repeated because it is policy WP:N states, Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail the sources don't cover this club in detail the sources are about a single trivial news story and Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigDunc (talk • contribs) ~~Endorse deletion~~. First my "head count" left it at 6 "delete" to 3 "keep" (the most interesting fact here is seeing Thumperward going with "keep" while DGG goes with "delete".) Then the arguments: This is, as Hiding said at the end of the discussion, not a situation which is all that well covered in Wikipedia policies and guideline. Given the coverage in several high profile newspapers, I would guess that it passes WP:N, but since all of them are related to a single kit change which brought up a brief controversy over the outfit rules it probably runs afoul of WP:NOT#NEWS, although reasonable people can disagree on that. In a case like this, it is fair to let the community consensus judge the issue. The most prevalent opinion in the discussion is that sporting merits is what makes a sports team notable, and that this team is too far down in the league system to have such achievements, so I think the closing admin was reasonable in evaluating the debate as a rough consensus to delete. I am also generally persuaded by the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" argument in this instance, because this is the kind of issue which piques the interest of newspaper journalists. ("Ladies' team to play football in miniskirts" has the kind of "sexy" tingle to it which sells newspapers, but is hardly the kind of serious event which has deep or long-lasting impact.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Myself, Chris Cunningham, Chandler, EA210269, and Hiding all said keep - that makes 5. It's true that not all of them wrote "keep" in bold at the beginning of their statement, but this isn't necessary. Anyone who had taken the time to actually read it would have seen this. I notice, by the way, that the closing admin has made 43 closures to debates today, as well as literally hundreds of other contributions to Wikipedia - one wonders how he was able to find the time to read it properly. ðarkun coll 13:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] You are right that I overlooked a few opinions, and that consensus was not quite as clear as I thought it was. In addition, with DGG below voting to overturn, I am rather uncertain whether there was a true consensus. I am still leaning towards the side that the team is not notable, and that the article runs afoul of NOT#NEWS. I am going neutral on this one now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn – if there is consensus to delete here, then I am a Dutchman. There is a difference of opinion over whether a widely publicised event for one aspect of the club (in the international press) constitutes notability for the club, with roughly equal numbers on each side. (I am not Dutch.) Occuli (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I gave as my reason: "Notability for a football team is in playing football". This is consistent with my general view that notability is in fact a property of the subject. The people who said keep felt otherwise, essentially using the GNG. Using the concept of the actual notability of something instead of counting how many news writers think it would make good copy is not necessarily an inclusionist argument--on the whole, I think it might go the other way, depending on subject. But I'm saying overturn here because I do not think my view had consensus. I don;t think there is any actual consensus on this general question at Wikipedia and the only reason we have no consensus to replace WP:N is because it (properly) takes a supermajority to change a fundamental guideline like that, and there's not been a single real proposal with enough support. DGG (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Just adding my vote here, in case anyone misses it. There was no consensus in the AfD, so the result should have been keep. ðarkun coll 23:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus Clearly meets WP:N (and no one argued otherwise) and there was no consensus to delete. Further, the argument that a football team can only be notable for football skill isn't an argument that should be seriously entertained and should have been greatly discounted in the close. Hobit (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Clearly meets WP:N? How? Not one source covers the club in enough detail to pass as a worthwhile source - they all solely cover the gimmick of wearing skirts. I can't see how this even got close to being a keep. Strong Endorse Deletion. - fchd (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Please remember that we're not here to reiterate the arguments in the AfD, but rather to argue whether the AfD was closed incorrectly. ðarkun coll 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Certainly. The AfD was managed perfectly propertly, arguments based on policy were given more weight than those based on short-term newsworthy status of a gimmick, so the delete decision was correct. - fchd (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Both sides were arguing from what they believed to be policy. Those who argued for deletion failed to make their case, and no consensus was reached. In such circumstances the default - as per policy - is keep. ðarkun coll 07:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Clearly because the club saw significant coverage in reliable sources. Just because that coverage was significantly on one topic doesn't stop it from counting for WP:N. As far as writing the article, there _is_ enough coverage to write a decent article in RS, and for non-controversial things, primary sources can be used to fill in the rest. Hobit (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist There can't possibly have been a consensus because the majority of the votes lacked proper reasoning based in policy or a reasoning at all. Deletion should never be the result of faulty argumentation, otherwise people can offer faulty reasoning on purpose to get something deleted. (MBisanz is right in sense that admins should determine consensus, but they should also determine if no significant changes occurred in the article since the decision was made and if comments actually applied.) If someone claims it should be deleted because it's unverifiable and looking at the article shows (for example) articles on the subject in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and The Observer than that is a comment that should clearly be ignored. Don't be a robot. - Mgm\|^(talk) 08:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment How can you say the deletion lacked reasoning based in policy the article was basically about the team wearing skirts this fails WP:N Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail the sources don't cover this club in detail the sources are about a single trivial news story. What sourced detail about the club was there. Sources were about the trivial news story. BigDunc^Talk 11:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I didn't say the deletion wasn't based in policy, I was referring to a large amount of the votes in the AFD discussion. One judgement is not enough to form consensus regardless of how wrong or right the assessment is. - Mgm\|^(talk) 12:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Then what was the faulty argumentation you are refering to? In all honesty I cant see any. The article fails Notability guidelines as I pointed out again above the only sources are for a trivial publicity stunt not one source covers the club in detail. BigDunc^Talk 12:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn ~~and relist~~. I was watching this AfD, but didn't vote as I felt 50/50 on the isssue. I was surprised to see it closed as I felt there had definitely been no consensus. I would vote simply to overturn, but I feel the discussion was ended prematurely- there were still points to be made both in favour and against. Stu.W UK (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] With regards to relisting, the original AfD ran its full seven days, opinions and points were aired at great length with no restriction at all, yet still no consensus was reached. Indeed, there was no further activity after the third day, indicating that all those who wished to contribute had already done so. In short, there was nothing wrong with how the AfD was conducted, merely with how it was closed. Since there is such a thing as "debate fatigue", I don't believe opening a new AfD will serve any useful purpose. The best course of action, in my opinion, is simply overturning the deletion and reinstating the article, as should have been the result after a no consensus AfD. ðarkun coll 06:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fair point, retracted relist vote. Stu.W UK (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment I am not sure how this process works but is consensus needed for it to be overturn? If so are we not back were we started with the endorse editors saying that there was no consensus for overturn. Also at the very least it should be relisted as not one piece of evidence has been provided to prove notability apart from one trivial news story about a publicity stunt which fails WP:N criteria. BigDunc^Talk 12:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] It appears that a consensus to overturn is forming. And you are still repeating exactly the same argument from the AfD, even though that is not what this debate is about. But just to answer you briefly - it is only your opinion that it was a publicity stunt, the sources say otherwise. Nor was it a one off event, but a permanent innovation. And a story carried by agencies around the world, including Reuters, Dutch TV, TV Asia, etc. etc., newspapers such as The Observer, and countless other outlets could never, by any stretch of the imagination, be regarded as "trivial". ðarkun coll 12:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and re-list. There seemed to be about an even number of keep and deletes here, with each side making an argument that hinges on interpretation of WP:NTEMP. I think the argument for deletion is the correct one; however, I also think that about half of the editors involved in the discussion were not convinced of the same thing. I don't see how you could establish that the AfD closed with consensus without essentially declaring one side's interpretation to be the correct one. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I still think that relisting would be a mistake. There was nothing wrong with the first AfD (other than how it was closed) - the advocates of deletion simply failed to create a consensus, and that should have been the end of the matter. ðarkun coll 13:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

FC de Rakt – Overturn and relist – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was clearly no consensus in the discussion, so the result should have been keep. Furthermore, the closing admin (User_talk:MBisanz#Deletion_of_FC_de_Rakt) admitted that he didn't even bother reading the article, and therefore failed to note its numerous sources - Reuters, The Observer, MTDTV, etc. ðarkun coll 07:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin Admins do not judge content, they judge consensus. Based on the arguments made at the AFD regarding the sourcing of the article, even after substantial re-writing, I interpreted it as delete. Further the AFD ran the allotted 7 days. MBisanz ^talk 08:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD ran the allotted 7 days, with no consensus. ðarkun coll 08:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin temporarily recreate this article for this process? Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The consensus seems reasonable, both on a headcount (4 delete, 2 keep) and on the arguments presented. I would have been in support of keeping the article personally, but DRV is about whether the process was followed correctly, and it was. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The headcount was actually 6 delete, and 5 keep. Not a consensus. ðarkun coll 08:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like headcounts. Endorse as a reasonable call by the closing admin. The keep arguements were made mostly on the grounds that this may or may not be the future of womens (and the Scottish Premiership?) football kit and on the coverage of the skirts themselves. The former arguement fails WP:CRYSTAL, and the latter would be perfectly sufficiently covered in the kit article (if the article is about the kit the subject should be the kit, not the club). In fact, a Women's football kit article would be better motivated than this. The deletion arguements were made with regard to the clubs notability as a club (which was, after all, what the article was about). This should probably have a section in the Kit (association football) article, which would make it reasonable to redirect the subject of this review to that section. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the points raised in the argument, the fact is that no consensus was reached. Headcount or not, approximately 50% of those taking part wanted to delete, and 50% wanted to keep. Whether you count individual votes or not, this is clearly not a consensus by any stretch of the imagination, and as per policy, under such circumstances the default position is keep. ðarkun coll 10:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

50% here or 50% there IS a headcount. Wikipedia is not a democracy and in AfD repeating another editors arguement or saying "like he said" adds only very limited further credibility to the other editors claim. Admins have a responsibility to close against headcount (which can be tallied in numbers or percentages, doesn't change what you're doing) if that is the correct close based on strength of argumentation as measured by foundation in policy. You use the term "votes" above, the rest of us stick to "!votes" (to be read "not votes") as that is the context in which they should be taken. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was someone else who brought up a headcount here, not me. With regard to the argument, it was those in favour of deleting who were merely repeating what others had said - all the cogent arguments came from the keep side. But the fact remains that there was no consensus reached, whichever way you look at it. So why was it deleted? ðarkun coll 11:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who brought the AfD I endorse the deletion. This was an article about a Dutch football club not about a change from shorts to skirts by the female team that are a small part of this club. The news story of the kit change IMO deserves to be mention in the Kit article as stated above. BigDunc^Talk 11:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this is precisely the level of argument repeated over and over again by the deletists. This team are by far the most famous of the club's teams, so to draw a distinction between the club and team is artificial. ðarkun coll 11:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was repeated because it is policy WP:N states, Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail the sources don't cover this club in detail the sources are about a single trivial news story and Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigDunc (talk • contribs)

~~Endorse deletion~~. First my "head count" left it at 6 "delete" to 3 "keep" (the most interesting fact here is seeing Thumperward going with "keep" while DGG goes with "delete".) Then the arguments: This is, as Hiding said at the end of the discussion, not a situation which is all that well covered in Wikipedia policies and guideline. Given the coverage in several high profile newspapers, I would guess that it passes WP:N, but since all of them are related to a single kit change which brought up a brief controversy over the outfit rules it probably runs afoul of WP:NOT#NEWS, although reasonable people can disagree on that. In a case like this, it is fair to let the community consensus judge the issue. The most prevalent opinion in the discussion is that sporting merits is what makes a sports team notable, and that this team is too far down in the league system to have such achievements, so I think the closing admin was reasonable in evaluating the debate as a rough consensus to delete. I am also generally persuaded by the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" argument in this instance, because this is the kind of issue which piques the interest of newspaper journalists. ("Ladies' team to play football in miniskirts" has the kind of "sexy" tingle to it which sells newspapers, but is hardly the kind of serious event which has deep or long-lasting impact.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, Chris Cunningham, Chandler, EA210269, and Hiding all said keep - that makes 5. It's true that not all of them wrote "keep" in bold at the beginning of their statement, but this isn't necessary. Anyone who had taken the time to actually read it would have seen this. I notice, by the way, that the closing admin has made 43 closures to debates today, as well as literally hundreds of other contributions to Wikipedia - one wonders how he was able to find the time to read it properly. ðarkun coll 13:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- You are right that I overlooked a few opinions, and that consensus was not quite as clear as I thought it was. In addition, with DGG below voting to overturn, I am rather uncertain whether there was a true consensus. I am still leaning towards the side that the team is not notable, and that the article runs afoul of NOT#NEWS. I am going neutral on this one now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn – if there is consensus to delete here, then I am a Dutchman. There is a difference of opinion over whether a widely publicised event for one aspect of the club (in the international press) constitutes notability for the club, with roughly equal numbers on each side. (I am not Dutch.) Occuli (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I gave as my reason: "Notability for a football team is in playing football". This is consistent with my general view that notability is in fact a property of the subject. The people who said keep felt otherwise, essentially using the GNG. Using the concept of the actual notability of something instead of counting how many news writers think it would make good copy is not necessarily an inclusionist argument--on the whole, I think it might go the other way, depending on subject. But I'm saying overturn here because I do not think my view had consensus. I don;t think there is any actual consensus on this general question at Wikipedia and the only reason we have no consensus to replace WP:N is because it (properly) takes a supermajority to change a fundamental guideline like that, and there's not been a single real proposal with enough support. DGG (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Just adding my vote here, in case anyone misses it. There was no consensus in the AfD, so the result should have been keep. ðarkun coll 23:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus Clearly meets WP:N (and no one argued otherwise) and there was no consensus to delete. Further, the argument that a football team can only be notable for football skill isn't an argument that should be seriously entertained and should have been greatly discounted in the close. Hobit (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly meets WP:N? How? Not one source covers the club in enough detail to pass as a worthwhile source - they all solely cover the gimmick of wearing skirts. I can't see how this even got close to being a keep. Strong Endorse Deletion. - fchd (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please remember that we're not here to reiterate the arguments in the AfD, but rather to argue whether the AfD was closed incorrectly. ðarkun coll 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Certainly. The AfD was managed perfectly propertly, arguments based on policy were given more weight than those based on short-term newsworthy status of a gimmick, so the delete decision was correct. - fchd (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Both sides were arguing from what they believed to be policy. Those who argued for deletion failed to make their case, and no consensus was reached. In such circumstances the default - as per policy - is keep. ðarkun coll 07:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clearly because the club saw significant coverage in reliable sources. Just because that coverage was significantly on one topic doesn't stop it from counting for WP:N. As far as writing the article, there _is_ enough coverage to write a decent article in RS, and for non-controversial things, primary sources can be used to fill in the rest. Hobit (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist There can't possibly have been a consensus because the majority of the votes lacked proper reasoning based in policy or a reasoning at all. Deletion should never be the result of faulty argumentation, otherwise people can offer faulty reasoning on purpose to get something deleted. (MBisanz is right in sense that admins should determine consensus, but they should also determine if no significant changes occurred in the article since the decision was made and if comments actually applied.) If someone claims it should be deleted because it's unverifiable and looking at the article shows (for example) articles on the subject in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and The Observer than that is a comment that should clearly be ignored. Don't be a robot. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can you say the deletion lacked reasoning based in policy the article was basically about the team wearing skirts this fails WP:N Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail the sources don't cover this club in detail the sources are about a single trivial news story. What sourced detail about the club was there. Sources were about the trivial news story. BigDunc^Talk 11:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the deletion wasn't based in policy, I was referring to a large amount of the votes in the AFD discussion. One judgement is not enough to form consensus regardless of how wrong or right the assessment is. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then what was the faulty argumentation you are refering to? In all honesty I cant see any. The article fails Notability guidelines as I pointed out again above the only sources are for a trivial publicity stunt not one source covers the club in detail. BigDunc^Talk 12:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn ~~and relist~~. I was watching this AfD, but didn't vote as I felt 50/50 on the isssue. I was surprised to see it closed as I felt there had definitely been no consensus. I would vote simply to overturn, but I feel the discussion was ended prematurely- there were still points to be made both in favour and against. Stu.W UK (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to relisting, the original AfD ran its full seven days, opinions and points were aired at great length with no restriction at all, yet still no consensus was reached. Indeed, there was no further activity after the third day, indicating that all those who wished to contribute had already done so. In short, there was nothing wrong with how the AfD was conducted, merely with how it was closed. Since there is such a thing as "debate fatigue", I don't believe opening a new AfD will serve any useful purpose. The best course of action, in my opinion, is simply overturning the deletion and reinstating the article, as should have been the result after a no consensus AfD. ðarkun coll 06:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point, retracted relist vote. Stu.W UK (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure how this process works but is consensus needed for it to be overturn? If so are we not back were we started with the endorse editors saying that there was no consensus for overturn. Also at the very least it should be relisted as not one piece of evidence has been provided to prove notability apart from one trivial news story about a publicity stunt which fails WP:N criteria. BigDunc^Talk 12:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that a consensus to overturn is forming. And you are still repeating exactly the same argument from the AfD, even though that is not what this debate is about. But just to answer you briefly - it is only your opinion that it was a publicity stunt, the sources say otherwise. Nor was it a one off event, but a permanent innovation. And a story carried by agencies around the world, including Reuters, Dutch TV, TV Asia, etc. etc., newspapers such as The Observer, and countless other outlets could never, by any stretch of the imagination, be regarded as "trivial". ðarkun coll 12:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-list. There seemed to be about an even number of keep and deletes here, with each side making an argument that hinges on interpretation of WP:NTEMP. I think the argument for deletion is the correct one; however, I also think that about half of the editors involved in the discussion were not convinced of the same thing. I don't see how you could establish that the AfD closed with consensus without essentially declaring one side's interpretation to be the correct one. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think that relisting would be a mistake. There was nothing wrong with the first AfD (other than how it was closed) - the advocates of deletion simply failed to create a consensus, and that should have been the end of the matter. ðarkun coll 13:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paul Conneally – relist to consider new sources – Aervanath (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Conneally (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Is it possible to review the deletion of Paul Conneally? Some reasons below: Hi am working on a piece for a journal on haibun and renga and noticed that the page at wikipedia on Paul Conneally (which was never comprehensive) has been deleted - in these fields (including being one of the widest quoted when it comes to the definition of haibun)Conneally is widely known (also former editor of World Haiku Review and Simply Haiku) - in the world of haikai arts including renga (renku), haiku, haibun and haiga Conneally is very well known and I think meets notabilty criteria - probably also for his wider artistic stuff too - psychogeographic and situationist explorations using haikai and other processes. There are a number of references to him in other articles in wikipedia that now link to nothing when it comes to Wikipedia - maybe its a lack of knowledge of the area of haiaki arts that's resulted in the deletion? From the cache of the page it looks as though someone very recently placed some references that were all 'locked' due to being from 'access my library' but there are other references to him around the web and in paper literature. I believe Conneally was also a member of seminal post-punk uk band Dum Dum Dum (around 1979/80whose work has recently been relreased in the Messthetics series although that wasn't on the original wiki page about him. Could it be reinstated? With maybe a call to get it updated properly? <http://www.contemporaryhaibunonline.com/pages_all/haibundefinitions.html> <http://www.worldhaikureview.org/2-1/masthead.shtml> http://www.poetrymagazines.org.uk/magazine/record.asp?id=4876 (from ORBIS archived at the British Southbank poetry archives) http://www.slashseconds.org/issues/003/001/articles/conneallypugh/index.php from /seconds academic art journal <http://www.archive.org/details/circleoffire> http://home.clara.net/nhi/mg0177.htm (Review of journal of British Haiku Society including work by Conneally) <http://www.knex3.org/x/extra/ex02.html> Many more... 86.26.196.80 (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Those don't seem to be reliable sources. Reliable sources include mainstream newspapers and formal academic journals, and their absence was a main feature in the deletion of the article. Unless you can present substantial information which would have made a difference in the deletion discussion, or point out how the deletion process wasn't followed, it is unlikely that the article will be undeleted. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'd argue that the Journal of the British Haiku Society in a discussion around around a haiku poet is a reliable source and the British Southbank poetry archive is a National Archive funded by the British Government and /seconds is an accademic arts journal funded by Leeds Metropolitan University and supported by an international editorial and advisory board of academics, artists and curators. 86.26.196.80 (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Whether one accepts some of these sources as reliable or not, having your work included in a poetry magazine does not confer notability, and neither does having been a coeditor at such a magazine. Centrally, there appears to be nothing here which could have altered the deletion discussion.--Yumegusa (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] comment I've met and liked Conneally but he needs to get a whole book published by a well known press, and/or be mentioned several times in national papers for his other activities, rather than local ones, to get a wikipedia article, IMHO. Tell him to go for it:) Sticky Parkin 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] comment Sticky Parkin, Stifle. I hear what you say, but we like him around here and think he should be on wiki now :) Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] comment Hey - all I know is that it is difficult to have a discussion about haiku and renga practice especially in the uk without someone mentioning him. He must be one of the only western poets to be asked to deliver haiku workshops inside the Japanese Embassy. Also judged Japan Airlines' (JAL) haiku competition in 2008. So the Japanese Emnbassy and Japan Airlines must see him as notable. We even had to devise a piece on our masters course based around one of his haiku intervention pieces. Much of his work is that of 'animateur' rather than the traditional 'on the page' poet though he has books published including 'Parade of Life' published by Bristol Museum and Art Gallery. I bought one at the British Museum last year. PARADE OF LIFE: POEMS INSPIRED BY JAPANESE PRINTS Selected by Paul Conneally & Alan Summers ISBN: 09539234-2-8 Booklaunches: Bristol, U.K. & Akita, JAPAN "'Parade of Life' is very impressive." HIROAKI SANO Japanese Embassy He also guided the creation of the book 100 verses for the three estates. [1], page five. I think they got a government grant to do it. Sticky Parkin 11:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Here's more on 100 Verses: http://www.jameslangdonwork.net/index.php?/project/100-verses-for-3-estates/ available here : http://www.alecfinlay.com/bookshop_other.html and at amazon and someone let one free.... http://www.bookcrossing.com/journal/5601255 The Poetry Society has selected some of Conneally’s sites of works as UK Poetry Landmarks including the Memory Tree in Sandhurst Memorial Park: http://more.poetrysociety.org.uk/landmark/display.php?id=1195 and on the music front: Conneally fronted and wrote for UK punk / post-punk band Dum Dum Dum now featured on The Best of Messthetics – got rave reviews in The Guardian, Wire, Uncut etc http://hyped2death.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=31&products_id=90&osCsid=76b9069a8bce68519f28bc326e6a6947 And more recently 2004 the track Rainfall by 7HQ (written by Conneally) was a big House hit and made high positions in the dance and DJ charts – paper archive Music Week (BPI music industry weekly journal) Up Front Club Top 40 July 3rd 2004 and here’s its listing at Discogs: http://www.discogs.com/7HQ-The-Rainfall/release/310966 Relist to consider the additional sources. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn & Relist as per stifle - the original page didn't have any of the references here - needs updating - oh and here's a link to the [ http://www.hsa-haiku.org/pdf/hsanews.17.34.pdf Haiku Society of America Newsletter](page 16 /17) reporting on the first Global Haiku Tournament which was organised by WHC with reporting on each round in the Japan Times - the Conneally was the Tournament Director of this huge tournament which featured haiku legends such as George Swede, Michael McClintock and Yasuomi Koganei - the tournament was covered in the Japan Times
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Paul Conneally – relist to consider new sources – Aervanath (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is it possible to review the deletion of Paul Conneally? Some reasons below: Hi am working on a piece for a journal on haibun and renga and noticed that the page at wikipedia on Paul Conneally (which was never comprehensive) has been deleted - in these fields (including being one of the widest quoted when it comes to the definition of haibun)Conneally is widely known (also former editor of World Haiku Review and Simply Haiku) - in the world of haikai arts including renga (renku), haiku, haibun and haiga Conneally is very well known and I think meets notabilty criteria - probably also for his wider artistic stuff too - psychogeographic and situationist explorations using haikai and other processes.

There are a number of references to him in other articles in wikipedia that now link to nothing when it comes to Wikipedia - maybe its a lack of knowledge of the area of haiaki arts that's resulted in the deletion?

From the cache of the page it looks as though someone very recently placed some references that were all 'locked' due to being from 'access my library' but there are other references to him around the web and in paper literature.

I believe Conneally was also a member of seminal post-punk uk band Dum Dum Dum (around 1979/80whose work has recently been relreased in the Messthetics series although that wasn't on the original wiki page about him.

Could it be reinstated? With maybe a call to get it updated properly?

<http://www.contemporaryhaibunonline.com/pages_all/haibundefinitions.html>

<http://www.worldhaikureview.org/2-1/masthead.shtml>

http://www.poetrymagazines.org.uk/magazine/record.asp?id=4876 (from ORBIS archived at the British Southbank poetry archives)

http://www.slashseconds.org/issues/003/001/articles/conneallypugh/index.php from /seconds academic art journal

<http://www.archive.org/details/circleoffire>

http://home.clara.net/nhi/mg0177.htm (Review of journal of British Haiku Society including work by Conneally)

<http://www.knex3.org/x/extra/ex02.html>

Many more... 86.26.196.80 (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't seem to be reliable sources. Reliable sources include mainstream newspapers and formal academic journals, and their absence was a main feature in the deletion of the article. Unless you can present substantial information which would have made a difference in the deletion discussion, or point out how the deletion process wasn't followed, it is unlikely that the article will be undeleted. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that the Journal of the British Haiku Society in a discussion around around a haiku poet is a reliable source and the British Southbank poetry archive is a National Archive funded by the British Government and /seconds is an accademic arts journal funded by Leeds Metropolitan University and supported by an international editorial and advisory board of academics, artists and curators. 86.26.196.80 (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether one accepts some of these sources as reliable or not, having your work included in a poetry magazine does not confer notability, and neither does having been a coeditor at such a magazine. Centrally, there appears to be nothing here which could have altered the deletion discussion.--Yumegusa (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've met and liked Conneally but he needs to get a whole book published by a well known press, and/or be mentioned several times in national papers for his other activities, rather than local ones, to get a wikipedia article, IMHO. Tell him to go for it:) Sticky Parkin 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Sticky Parkin, Stifle. I hear what you say, but we like him around here and think he should be on wiki now :) Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hey - all I know is that it is difficult to have a discussion about haiku and renga practice especially in the uk without someone mentioning him. He must be one of the only western poets to be asked to deliver haiku workshops inside the Japanese Embassy. Also judged Japan Airlines' (JAL) haiku competition in 2008. So the Japanese Emnbassy and Japan Airlines must see him as notable. We even had to devise a piece on our masters course based around one of his haiku intervention pieces. Much of his work is that of 'animateur' rather than the traditional 'on the page' poet though he has books published including 'Parade of Life' published by Bristol Museum and Art Gallery. I bought one at the British Museum last year.

PARADE OF LIFE: POEMS INSPIRED BY JAPANESE PRINTS Selected by Paul Conneally & Alan Summers ISBN: 09539234-2-8

Booklaunches: Bristol, U.K. & Akita, JAPAN

"'Parade of Life' is very impressive." HIROAKI SANO Japanese Embassy

He also guided the creation of the book 100 verses for the three estates. [1], page five. I think they got a government grant to do it. Sticky Parkin 11:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's more on 100 Verses: http://www.jameslangdonwork.net/index.php?/project/100-verses-for-3-estates/ available here : http://www.alecfinlay.com/bookshop_other.html and at amazon and someone let one free.... http://www.bookcrossing.com/journal/5601255

The Poetry Society has selected some of Conneally’s sites of works as UK Poetry Landmarks including the Memory Tree in Sandhurst Memorial Park: http://more.poetrysociety.org.uk/landmark/display.php?id=1195

and on the music front: Conneally fronted and wrote for UK punk / post-punk band Dum Dum Dum now featured on The Best of Messthetics – got rave reviews in The Guardian, Wire, Uncut etc http://hyped2death.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=31&products_id=90&osCsid=76b9069a8bce68519f28bc326e6a6947

And more recently 2004 the track Rainfall by 7HQ (written by Conneally) was a big House hit and made high positions in the dance and DJ charts – paper archive Music Week (BPI music industry weekly journal) Up Front Club Top 40 July 3rd 2004 and here’s its listing at Discogs: http://www.discogs.com/7HQ-The-Rainfall/release/310966

Relist to consider the additional sources. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn & Relist as per stifle - the original page didn't have any of the references here - needs updating - oh and here's a link to the [ http://www.hsa-haiku.org/pdf/hsanews.17.34.pdf Haiku Society of America Newsletter](page 16 /17) reporting on the first Global Haiku Tournament which was organised by WHC with reporting on each round in the Japan Times - the Conneally was the Tournament Director of this huge tournament which featured haiku legends such as George Swede, Michael McClintock and Yasuomi Koganei - the tournament was covered in the Japan Times

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

Assassin's Creed II – Moot point; page unprotected, sources now exist. Original decision endorsed, recreation allowed. – –xeno (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Assassin's Creed II (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) -- Please unprotect Assassin's Creed II and similar links. It was a 'C' class article with several reliable citations. Also, there has been a consensus and supermajority vote to split it HERE. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] It was redirected to Assassin's Creed#Sequel and protected with the reason "per AFD", but I've been unable to find a relevant AFD. I've asked Rootology, who protected it, to clarify the matter. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ah, found it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassin's Creed 2. Some reliable, third-party sources would be nice in the new article, I think. Got any? Stifle (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse AFD but allow recreation – Please read WP:SPLIT, more specifically If an article meets the criteria for splitting editors can be bold and carry out the split, although discussion on the article talk page or associated WikiProject is a way of seeking a consensus. What I see in that split proposal section is clear evidence of canvassing (likely off-wiki due to the high volume of single-purpose accounts present), and a lack of any discussion to split. The discussion is not a vote. There is no discussion present. With that being said, there are some reliable secondary sources (Joystiq, The Guardian (UK) blog, Kotaku, Shacknews, Gamepro), all ow which came up a couple of weeks after the AFD closure. There is certainly enough coverage to establish notability, but is there enough there for another article? I say 'barely', provided we stick to only the inclusion of verifiable information via these sources and not delve into unverifiable speculation aka crystal ball. MuZemike 13:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Would this magazine scans help? The information given fully passes the notability guidelines and plus it has got loads of information.--SkyWalker (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I undid my protections on Assassin's Creed II & Assassin's Creed 2. That sourcing plus what was originally there would sail through even the most stringent of AFDs. rootology (C)(T) 15:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Assassin's Creed II – Moot point; page unprotected, sources now exist. Original decision endorsed, recreation allowed. – –xeno (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

-- Please unprotect Assassin's Creed II and similar links. It was a 'C' class article with several reliable citations. Also, there has been a consensus and supermajority vote to split it HERE. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was redirected to Assassin's Creed#Sequel and protected with the reason "per AFD", but I've been unable to find a relevant AFD. I've asked Rootology, who protected it, to clarify the matter. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, found it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassin's Creed 2. Some reliable, third-party sources would be nice in the new article, I think. Got any? Stifle (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AFD but allow recreation – Please read WP:SPLIT, more specifically If an article meets the criteria for splitting editors can be bold and carry out the split, although discussion on the article talk page or associated WikiProject is a way of seeking a consensus. What I see in that split proposal section is clear evidence of canvassing (likely off-wiki due to the high volume of single-purpose accounts present), and a lack of any discussion to split. The discussion is not a vote. There is no discussion present.
With that being said, there are some reliable secondary sources (Joystiq, The Guardian (UK) blog, Kotaku, Shacknews, Gamepro), all ow which came up a couple of weeks after the AFD closure. There is certainly enough coverage to establish notability, but is there enough there for another article? I say 'barely', provided we stick to only the inclusion of verifiable information via these sources and not delve into unverifiable speculation aka crystal ball. MuZemike 13:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would this magazine scans help? The information given fully passes the notability guidelines and plus it has got loads of information.--SkyWalker (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid my protections on Assassin's Creed II & Assassin's Creed 2. That sourcing plus what was originally there would sail through even the most stringent of AFDs. rootology (C)(T) 15:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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