Comparison between Roman and Han Empires – closure endorsed. The way this was closed was certainly unusual, but that is not to imply it was bad. There seems to be a general consensus here that Spartaz's reading of the consensus and subsequent stubbification of the article were a decent way forward and reflected the consensus at the discussion. The ultimate solution to the disagreement here is to produce and publish the new and better version of the article. – ~ mazca ^talk 12:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) This article, I feel, was wrongly closed by User:Spartaz. The discussion on the AFD was clearly a no consensus, so the close should have been, by wiki standards, a no consensus closure with encouragement to discuss and improve the article (which has been vastly improved during the AFD, largely ridding it of the concerns that caused the nomination in the first place). Instead, the article was blanked, protected, and moved to a new "article" Comparison between Roman and Han Empires/Draft. This arrangement is a de facto delete/userification, and will only inconvenience the reader, so I propose an overturn to No consensus. I previously contacted the user to explain my concerns, but as they have not been addressed I feel DRV is the only proper course. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment from closing admin Technically I can't see that DRV has any scope here as I haven't deleted the article and the content remains in the article history so this was a technical keep close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] comment I suppose I could agree with Spartaz that this isn't strictly speaking a matter for DRV. But I think it would be reasonable to say something about what the right forum is in which this use of admin discretion could be assessed. The nom here clearly has a concern, and if this isn't the right place for it, fine -- but Spartaz perhaps you could start your own thread on AN or AN/I to get feedback on whether this method of closing an AfD and dealing with a content dispute is appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Xfd. Do not relist for two months. But what the hell has been done with the mainspace page. A hat noted mainspace blank page? That is not OK. We don't do blank pages. Restore a reasonable version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] User:SmokeyJoe and User:Nomoskedasticity, you have stated exactly what I thought; the way this AFD is closed is absurd. I believe that is the consensus here. The dispute here is not whether the article should be kept or deleted (it is clearly keep), but whether a reasonable version should be restored or the current arrangement should continue. I thought DRV was the best place to put this as DRV says it is the place to discuss all disputed "Deletion-related" discussions. (Quote from DRV "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.") If not appropriate, I will put my concerns elsewhere.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment: the problem with this article is that it's dreadfully borderline. It's something (I think) that we would all agree is a potentially interesting topic, and something that has a tiny smattering of academic sources, but there's a ton of room for OR given the undeveloped state of the topic in academia. That itself would not normally be a problem, except that Teeninvestor is really very adamant about his version of the article (despite all the fuss and bother it has generated) and will doubtless - as we can see from this DRV - reinstate it as soon as he is given the opportunity. I've read over his 'new' draft, and while it it has removed a lot of the more obvious synthesis there is still a lot of questionable material (as well as erroneous material and copy edit issues) that need to be addressed. On the other hand, as SmokeyJoe points out, we can't really leave it in a blanked, locked state. I'd suggest the following (sorry, best I can do given the peculiar status of the article): write a quick generic introduction, and add that into the blanked article along with a stub tag get Teeninvestor to formally agree not to edit the article directly until the article reaches a stable, non-stubbed state (though he can edit it indirectly through other editors, such as the Article Rescue Squadron people). If he agrees, unlock the article and let normal editing create a new version - let him make change suggestions and leave other editors to evaluate their scholarly merits if he refuses to agree, leave the article locked and only allow changes through ((editprotected)) requests revisit the article in six months and see if anything useful has come of it. --Ludwigs2 02:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment The current version of the article is relatively well sourced and although not perfect, errors can be pointed out and edited out using the normal wikipedia process. Banning the main contributor from editing the article is not exactly the best process to improve the wikipedia. It is wikipedia policy only to blank article content that is harmful, such as copyright violation, hoaxes, etc.. The current article is clearly nothing of the sort. The version of the article that caused fuss and controversy is not the current version (which has in fact received the support of many ex-delete voters).Teeninvestor (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] it may not be the best process, but when the "main editor" (assuming that can be said in a non-article-ownership sort of way) has demonstrated a broad disregard for wp:OR and a tendentious attitude about including questionable material, then some sort of moderation is required. If you won't agree to self-moderate, then the moderation will have to be done by others. Either way, I don't think it would be appropriate to allow you to blindly reinstate material that is still viewed with skepticism by a good-sized number of editors. --Ludwigs2 03:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ludwigs2, please give me one example of OR and Synthesis in the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment from nominator. I nominated because there were long-standing concerns from several editors on the talk page; but I feel that the present state, while meeting some concerns, has other fatal problems and said so at length, quite late in the process. Teeninvestor saw and responded to this; he knows my concerns were not met. This solution is innovative and may well work; DRV has every right to review it, but it is functionally equivalent to Userify which would have been a perfectly routine closure to such a discussion. Please note that this DRV is immediately preceded on the draft talk page by an inquiry by Teeninvestor whether anybody objected to simply restoring the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Uh huh, Pmanderson, it's fatal problems appear to be that it doesn't fit your views; you didn't write a single piece of actionable advice in that diff, instead resorting to personal attacks. This solution is definitely not a routine close to the discussion, which would be No consensus. Work was already being done on the article by several editors, some of which had formerly voted delete, until it was disrupted.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment Would it be feasible to place this article in the WP:INCUBATOR and temporarily salt the title in the mainspace, so it can be worked on easily without having that unsightly notice out in the front of the house? (This would retain the current requirement of at least one admin reviewing it and judging the new version ready to "go live") Quite frankly, I think a few red links scattered around is better than having this "stub" out there. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] I had no idea that possibility existed, and I think I'd support it. --Ludwigs2 03:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure as "stubify and rework" but overturn turning the article into this, which is really not acceptable in the mainspace, as SmokeyJoe wrote above. This is also unacceptable; as WP:SUB states, subpages in the article namespace are not permitted. In fact, one of the explicitly disallowed uses of subpages is "writing drafts of major article revisions, e.g., [[Example Article/Temp]] in the main namespace." I suggest userfying or moving to the article incubator as an alternative. I think "stubify and rework" was a fair read of the consensus, but I also think the closing admin's subsequent actions must be reversed, and soon. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] I have moved the draft to Wikipedia:Article Incubator:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires and properly stubbified the page. I trust that this meets the above objections. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. That stub is much better than the earlier version. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse removing the draft from article space, either WP:Userfication or WP:Article Incubator is fine. I prefer moving the page rather than making a copy, but that's a minor preference. A simple "no consensus, default to keep" would not be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Unless the article is rewritten entirely from sources, the prior history must be kept and should be histmerged, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I do not see an issue with the close. Tim Song (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the current status quo (genuine stub, article moved to the incubator). Some of the concerns above about handling of pages in transition are valid, but I think they've now been adequately addressed. Chick Bowen 17:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Sounds all quite technical and surely highly relevant, but I fail to see the point in it. Now the same old contents which were voted for delete, are just copied and pasted by the main author into the incubator only to appear again in the main space. What was the long discussion at the AfD for then? Does the term "article laundry" ring a bell?. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Just to clarify, it doesn't go back up until the problems are resolved and my original intention was to start with a blank canvas. Teeninvestor jumped the gun by starting the draft from his own preferred version but there is nothing lost if a majority of you working on it decide to scrap what is there and start again. The main point is that until both sides of the dispute are happy with the content it can't go back up. That's why I fully protected the page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] The editors didn't vote to delete, Gun Powder Ma. The majority of editors voted to keep, and the way this AFD has been closed makes wiki guidelines a scrap of paper. They was No consensus to delete (in fact, a small consensus to keep), so it should have defaulted to keep. As it stands, it is a backdoor delete.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Please read WP:CONSENSUS; it is not about simple majorities. Nev1 (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] It isn't, but the arguments from the keep side at least overwhelmed the arguments from the delete side on the AFD, as well. You can tell there's a consensus to keep when several strong deletes are switching to keep and starting a section on the AFD called Salvaging and restructuring. And there's no inherent way that both sides can be happy with the outcome; see Gun Powder Ma's comments on the talk page, where he wants to delete the article because it doesn't let him include his original research about how the Romans invented Yin and Yang and had superior roadssee this link when Gun Poweder Ma argued that not being able to insert his pro roman POV was a reason to delete the article. Teeninvestor (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] I actually took a look at the link (and read Gun Powder Ma's post) and I was simply unable to found anything along these lines. Gun Powder Ma points out that many statements of Sinologist (historians who have studied ancient China) are faulty (perhaps because the scholars in question know alot about ancient China but precious little about ancient Rome). Gun Powder Ma didn't write that he was unable to insert a pro-Roman POV (or anything similar). He correctly points out that historians who have dedicated themselves to only one of the two empires will be ignored in this article because they don't make a comparision between the two. In other words: You (Teeninvestor) are seeing things where there are none. Flamarande (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - I am not seeing an issue with the closing admin's actions. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I am not at all a specialist of this subject, and I am also not at all a specialist of conflict resolution in wikipedia. I also don't know the whole story of this so maybe I miss something. I am just looking due to the request for comments. My feeling is that the solutions found are too complex. In my simple knowledge of wikipedia, I thought that: deleting a page needs some good reason for that. This is obviously not the case here, since everybody recognizes that the subject is notable. if there is consensus to believe that this page has a right to exist, then what is happening should be seen an edit conflict and treated like all edit conflicts: those who criticize the version of Teeninvestor should just bring some edit of their own until a final better version is found. The solution that has been found seems to me: a bit unusual a bit one-sided: those who criticize a version should not simply request the guy who had made the work to redo it. They should bring their own modifications. On the wikipedia page about wikipedia, it is written that the growth of the number of pages is slowing and also that "A 2009 study suggested there was "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content."^[1]". When there is such risk I would err on the side of accepting the content.Voui (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close In effect, saying "stubbify and rewrite" has the same effect as saying "non-consensus"--in both cases, it means, it needs improvements, or it will be nominated again. In this case, it goes a little further to recommend that pretty drastic improvements are needed--but I think that was the consensus of those who wanted to keep it--the basic argument was that the topic was notable, not that the article was satisfactory. DGG ( talk )
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires – closure endorsed. The way this was closed was certainly unusual, but that is not to imply it was bad. There seems to be a general consensus here that Spartaz's reading of the consensus and subsequent stubbification of the article were a decent way forward and reflected the consensus at the discussion. The ultimate solution to the disagreement here is to produce and publish the new and better version of the article. – ~ mazca ^talk 12:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article, I feel, was wrongly closed by User:Spartaz. The discussion on the AFD was clearly a no consensus, so the close should have been, by wiki standards, a no consensus closure with encouragement to discuss and improve the article (which has been vastly improved during the AFD, largely ridding it of the concerns that caused the nomination in the first place). Instead, the article was blanked, protected, and moved to a new "article" Comparison between Roman and Han Empires/Draft. This arrangement is a de facto delete/userification, and will only inconvenience the reader, so I propose an overturn to No consensus. I previously contacted the user to explain my concerns, but as they have not been addressed I feel DRV is the only proper course. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin Technically I can't see that DRV has any scope here as I haven't deleted the article and the content remains in the article history so this was a technical keep close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I suppose I could agree with Spartaz that this isn't strictly speaking a matter for DRV. But I think it would be reasonable to say something about what the right forum is in which this use of admin discretion could be assessed. The nom here clearly has a concern, and if this isn't the right place for it, fine -- but Spartaz perhaps you could start your own thread on AN or AN/I to get feedback on whether this method of closing an AfD and dealing with a content dispute is appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Xfd. Do not relist for two months. But what the hell has been done with the mainspace page. A hat noted mainspace blank page? That is not OK. We don't do blank pages. Restore a reasonable version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmokeyJoe and User:Nomoskedasticity, you have stated exactly what I thought; the way this AFD is closed is absurd. I believe that is the consensus here. The dispute here is not whether the article should be kept or deleted (it is clearly keep), but whether a reasonable version should be restored or the current arrangement should continue. I thought DRV was the best place to put this as DRV says it is the place to discuss all disputed "Deletion-related" discussions. (Quote from DRV "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.") If not appropriate, I will put my concerns elsewhere.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the problem with this article is that it's dreadfully borderline. It's something (I think) that we would all agree is a potentially interesting topic, and something that has a tiny smattering of academic sources, but there's a ton of room for OR given the undeveloped state of the topic in academia. That itself would not normally be a problem, except that Teeninvestor is really very adamant about his version of the article (despite all the fuss and bother it has generated) and will doubtless - as we can see from this DRV - reinstate it as soon as he is given the opportunity. I've read over his 'new' draft, and while it it has removed a lot of the more obvious synthesis there is still a lot of questionable material (as well as erroneous material and copy edit issues) that need to be addressed. On the other hand, as SmokeyJoe points out, we can't really leave it in a blanked, locked state. I'd suggest the following (sorry, best I can do given the peculiar status of the article):
1. write a quick generic introduction, and add that into the blanked article along with a stub tag
2. get Teeninvestor to formally agree not to edit the article directly until the article reaches a stable, non-stubbed state (though he can edit it indirectly through other editors, such as the Article Rescue Squadron people).
  - If he agrees, unlock the article and let normal editing create a new version - let him make change suggestions and leave other editors to evaluate their scholarly merits
  - if he refuses to agree, leave the article locked and only allow changes through ((editprotected)) requests
3. revisit the article in six months and see if anything useful has come of it. --Ludwigs2 02:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The current version of the article is relatively well sourced and although not perfect, errors can be pointed out and edited out using the normal wikipedia process. Banning the main contributor from editing the article is not exactly the best process to improve the wikipedia. It is wikipedia policy only to blank article content that is harmful, such as copyright violation, hoaxes, etc.. The current article is clearly nothing of the sort. The version of the article that caused fuss and controversy is not the current version (which has in fact received the support of many ex-delete voters).Teeninvestor (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - it may not be the best process, but when the "main editor" (assuming that can be said in a non-article-ownership sort of way) has demonstrated a broad disregard for wp:OR and a tendentious attitude about including questionable material, then some sort of moderation is required. If you won't agree to self-moderate, then the moderation will have to be done by others. Either way, I don't think it would be appropriate to allow you to blindly reinstate material that is still viewed with skepticism by a good-sized number of editors. --Ludwigs2 03:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ludwigs2, please give me one example of OR and Synthesis in the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. I nominated because there were long-standing concerns from several editors on the talk page; but I feel that the present state, while meeting some concerns, has other fatal problems and said so at length, quite late in the process. Teeninvestor saw and responded to this; he knows my concerns were not met.

This solution is innovative and may well work; DRV has every right to review it, but it is functionally equivalent to Userify which would have been a perfectly routine closure to such a discussion.

Please note that this DRV is immediately preceded on the draft talk page by an inquiry by Teeninvestor whether anybody objected to simply restoring the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh, Pmanderson, it's fatal problems appear to be that it doesn't fit your views; you didn't write a single piece of actionable advice in that diff, instead resorting to personal attacks. This solution is definitely not a routine close to the discussion, which would be No consensus. Work was already being done on the article by several editors, some of which had formerly voted delete, until it was disrupted.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would it be feasible to place this article in the WP:INCUBATOR and temporarily salt the title in the mainspace, so it can be worked on easily without having that unsightly notice out in the front of the house? (This would retain the current requirement of at least one admin reviewing it and judging the new version ready to "go live") Quite frankly, I think a few red links scattered around is better than having this "stub" out there. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had no idea that possibility existed, and I think I'd support it. --Ludwigs2 03:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure as "stubify and rework" but overturn turning the article into this, which is really not acceptable in the mainspace, as SmokeyJoe wrote above. This is also unacceptable; as WP:SUB states, subpages in the article namespace are not permitted. In fact, one of the explicitly disallowed uses of subpages is "writing drafts of major article revisions, e.g., [[Example Article/Temp]] in the main namespace." I suggest userfying or moving to the article incubator as an alternative. I think "stubify and rework" was a fair read of the consensus, but I also think the closing admin's subsequent actions must be reversed, and soon. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the draft to Wikipedia:Article Incubator:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires and properly stubbified the page. I trust that this meets the above objections. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That stub is much better than the earlier version. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse removing the draft from article space, either WP:Userfication or WP:Article Incubator is fine. I prefer moving the page rather than making a copy, but that's a minor preference. A simple "no consensus, default to keep" would not be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless the article is rewritten entirely from sources, the prior history must be kept and should be histmerged, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I do not see an issue with the close. Tim Song (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the current status quo (genuine stub, article moved to the incubator). Some of the concerns above about handling of pages in transition are valid, but I think they've now been adequately addressed. Chick Bowen 17:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sounds all quite technical and surely highly relevant, but I fail to see the point in it. Now the same old contents which were voted for delete, are just copied and pasted by the main author into the incubator only to appear again in the main space. What was the long discussion at the AfD for then? Does the term "article laundry" ring a bell?. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, it doesn't go back up until the problems are resolved and my original intention was to start with a blank canvas. Teeninvestor jumped the gun by starting the draft from his own preferred version but there is nothing lost if a majority of you working on it decide to scrap what is there and start again. The main point is that until both sides of the dispute are happy with the content it can't go back up. That's why I fully protected the page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The editors didn't vote to delete, Gun Powder Ma. The majority of editors voted to keep, and the way this AFD has been closed makes wiki guidelines a scrap of paper. They was No consensus to delete (in fact, a small consensus to keep), so it should have defaulted to keep. As it stands, it is a backdoor delete.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please read WP:CONSENSUS; it is not about simple majorities. Nev1 (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It isn't, but the arguments from the keep side at least overwhelmed the arguments from the delete side on the AFD, as well. You can tell there's a consensus to keep when several strong deletes are switching to keep and starting a section on the AFD called Salvaging and restructuring. And there's no inherent way that both sides can be happy with the outcome; see Gun Powder Ma's comments on the talk page, where he wants to delete the article because it doesn't let him include his original research about how the Romans invented Yin and Yang and had superior roadssee this link when Gun Poweder Ma argued that not being able to insert his pro roman POV was a reason to delete the article. Teeninvestor (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually took a look at the link (and read Gun Powder Ma's post) and I was simply unable to found anything along these lines. Gun Powder Ma points out that many statements of Sinologist (historians who have studied ancient China) are faulty (perhaps because the scholars in question know alot about ancient China but precious little about ancient Rome). Gun Powder Ma didn't write that he was unable to insert a pro-Roman POV (or anything similar). He correctly points out that historians who have dedicated themselves to only one of the two empires will be ignored in this article because they don't make a comparision between the two. In other words: You (Teeninvestor) are seeing things where there are none. Flamarande (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I am not seeing an issue with the closing admin's actions. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not at all a specialist of this subject, and I am also not at all a specialist of conflict resolution in wikipedia. I also don't know the whole story of this so maybe I miss something. I am just looking due to the request for comments.
- My feeling is that the solutions found are too complex. In my simple knowledge of wikipedia, I thought that:
  - deleting a page needs some good reason for that. This is obviously not the case here, since everybody recognizes that the subject is notable.
  - if there is consensus to believe that this page has a right to exist, then what is happening should be seen an edit conflict and treated like all edit conflicts: those who criticize the version of Teeninvestor should just bring some edit of their own until a final better version is found.
- The solution that has been found seems to me:
  - a bit unusual
  - a bit one-sided: those who criticize a version should not simply request the guy who had made the work to redo it. They should bring their own modifications.
- On the wikipedia page about wikipedia, it is written that the growth of the number of pages is slowing and also that "A 2009 study suggested there was "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content."^[1]". When there is such risk I would err on the side of accepting the content.Voui (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close In effect, saying "stubbify and rewrite" has the same effect as saying "non-consensus"--in both cases, it means, it needs improvements, or it will be nominated again. In this case, it goes a little further to recommend that pretty drastic improvements are needed--but I think that was the consensus of those who wanted to keep it--the basic argument was that the topic was notable, not that the article was satisfactory. DGG ( talk )

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

^ Jim Giles After the boom, is Wikipedia heading for bust? New Scientist 04 August 2009