The Ongoing Adventures of Rocket Llama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Keep against consensus. Keep arguments unusually weak, as acknowleged on Closing admin's talk page. Given reason for Keep is "the weight of people screaming 'ITS NOTABLE'", which is a new principle to me, and seems to contradict WP:NOTAVOTE (and User:MBisanz/AfD for that matter). / edg ☺ ☭ 15:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom I am the one who has nominated the article as AfD and I want to be a co-nominator for this deletion review since I believe that the reasoning of those who want to keep the article is erroneous. See my last entry in the previous AfD for my argumentation. Thanks for your support, Edgarde. --Shishigami (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I find myself divided between what I feel was probably a correct closure of the AfD and what I would !vote if this came up again. The only thing I can find which is close to meeting WP:Notability (web) is a mention in the Henderson State University "Oracle". Thats a pretty marginal attempt in terms of verifiable notability (WP:WEB Criterion 1, "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"). I think this is a suitable candidate for a Relist in a 2nd AfD since while there was nothing wrong with the closure, I don't see that the article meets notability inclusion requirements. Usrnme h8er (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This DRV should look only at the AFD and whether deletion process was correctly followed; making reference to the article isn't really in order. In this case, there were roughly as many users recommending deletion and recommending keeping. In my view, none of the arguments on either side were so weak as to be discounted, and none were so strong as to be given extra weight. I would have been more inclined to close as no consensus than keep in the circumstances, but no consensus defaults to keep anyway. As such, I endorse the closure, but I would expect the article to be listed again at AFD before long unless substantially improved. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure Whatever may be my sociopathy, I cannot subject my fellow Wikipedians to an excessively long, basically pointless !vote, as otherwise I might do, when Stifle has put the argument so cogently. I would add only that, per Usrnme, I do not know that I should object to one's renominating at his/her leisure in order that we might flesh out more usefully the positions, even as I am likely to fall on the merits on the side opposite that of Usr. Joe 21:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure-- The keep !votes were not only screaming notability, the main argument was that the reason for deletion was not a valid one because the stats from the website were misleading. The keepers also noted that this user 1 created a second account just to nominate an article not following the standard practice in an AfD.--Jmundo (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure DRV is not a repeat of AFD, and while if it were relisted I would most likely fall on the deletion side, the correct procedure was followed, there was clearly no consensus for deletion, whether it would have been better to close it as no consensus is anyone's guess, but regardless of the wording the result would have been the same: keeping the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure/keep. DRV is not a repeat of AfD. An eventual relisting would make sense, but given that AfD closure was proper, it should not be immediate. Give people time to fix the article. While I expected this prompt DRV based on the AfD nominator's actions (creating a single purpose account just to pursue deletion of an article on an utterly non-controversial topic -- possible COI?), this is disappointing to see. Teethmonkey (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Observation: 4 keeps outnumbered 3 deletes so the "Keep against consensus" claim which opened this DRV is inaccurate. It's not a consensus anyway, but don't say there was a consensus, much less a consensus contrary to the facts. Teethmonkey (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse the keep the refs look reasonably good to me,for the topic at any rate,so i predict a 2nd afd will lead to the same result. But after a keep, it's usually considered good to wait 4 to 6 months before trying again. Consensus can change, but it is more likely to do so if given time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. "No consensus" I could see (though I wouldn't agree with it); "keep," however, is an unsupportable closure, given the nature of the arguments presented in the AfD. Deor (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from what you have said, there is no degree of consensus on a keep that you think would justify a keep closure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

• Endorse There was no consensus for deletion in this discussion with no overriding policy arguments made to justify ignoring opinions. Personally would have inclined towards no consensus but keep is not completely outside admin discretion. Davewild (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a good close. Anyway, calling the keeps "unusually" weak is a bit of hyperbole. We sees lots of weak votes/arguments in AfDs (pretty much any one with "cruft" in it, but we even see some that are just votes, i.e. just a keep or delete and a signature with no argument at all), so I would think for something to be "unusually" weak would require a bit more than what we see in this particular discussion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse retention of article -- the principle that "AFD is not a vote" is designed to prevent the process from being disrupted by large numbers of newly registered users, canvassing, or frivolous participation -- e.g., "Keep per WP:ILIKEIT". It is not intended to give administrators a free hand to delete articles against the reasonable, considered opinions of a substantial portion of the editors participating in an AFD discussion (except in the case of articles comprised entirely of unreferenced controversial information concerning living persons, blatant copyright violations, etc), since deletion without or against consensus is effectively to elevate the value of the closing administrator's judgment above the collective judgment of every other editor, including other administrators, participating in the AFD discussion. The only thing worse than "vote counting" is a vote of one. John254 00:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - reasonable interpretation of the discussion, in my opinion the rationales for keeping the article were poor but that was probably at least partially due to the fact that they were responses to a poor nominating statement. Guest9999 (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. When the AfD's nominating statement complained that the article sources "unnotable events," then the nomination invites discussion of the notability of said events. While the creators' status as Comic-Con panelists matters, not everyone addressing Comic-Con's notability said it had anything to do with the webcomic's own notability. Shoester (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure This particular AFD was a mess. Most keep voters claimed that Comic-Con was notable, but that wasn't the article up for deletion. However, if they'd gone a step further and said that just about anyone can attend the event, but only notable comic creators are on panels, keeping it would be a lot less controversial. The nominator's counting of visitors was faulty and although the references definitely includes some dubious entries, there's at least 3-4 solid ones to establish the notability required. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Having participated in the AfD, I feel like I should not enter this DRV because, as people have said, DRV is not meant to be a rehash of AfD. However, when two of the three people who !voted to delete the article get together to raise the DRV, the "single purpose account" user who opened the AfD now indicating that he/she recruited the other into doing this, then I suppose some of the voices which weighed in on the other side should join in again for balance. Anyhow, no real procedural complaint has been raised. This DRV should not have occurred. Shoester (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your vote. For the record, there was no collusion between Shishigami and me about starting this DRV, and I neither expected nor asked for a "co-nom". I also don't see anything in Shishigami's statement that implies I was "recruited". If this Deletion review should not have occurred—which, to avoid confusion, I'll say is certainly not my opinion—then I wish the debit be mine. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and keep. This whole situation has been truly odd. The closing admin closed properly. The DRV lacks sound procedural grounds to do more than rewage the same debate. I am pleased to notice that the article has gained some additional source now. If the original AfD nominator feels compelled to keep gunning for this article, I hope that mysterious individual will at least wait six months before the next assassination attempt. Perhaps we'll get to see this end with this DRV. Dr.Who (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fate: Undiscovered Realms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Creator not notified; notability easily verified[1][2][3]. The link is blue because it was later recreated as a redirect. SharkD (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying the creator is indeed useful as is contacting the deleting admin before requesting a review since restoration of a deletion per WP:PROD is usually uncontroversial. Thus restored. Notability can be assessed at AfD if deemed necessary. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Ethnic stereotypes in American media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

These pages were deleted a year and a half ago, but in a recent AfD it was pointed out that the edit history of these articles contained material which is being used in existing articles (e.g. Stereotypes of African Americans, Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims). Therefore, I believe these articles should be restored and made into redirects or disambiguation pages (as I indicated in my comment in the African American stereotypes AfD) in order to comply with the GFDL. DHowell (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: How are you suggesting we redirect these? The source material pages don't exist under other names. For example, "in American media" can't very well redirect to "of African Americans" as that would be confusing... Should this be a recreation followed by a move to a more useful redirect? Or would that undermine the context of the original edits too much? Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Moving it to a more suitable title before making it into a dab to the different existing pages sounds reasonable, but ethnic stereotype already exists and a history merge would undoubtedly cause problematic overlap of edits in there. Any other suggestions for possible targets? Retaining the GFDL for attribution purposes should happen, but the location of the page should make sense too. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What Mgm said, and endorse on principle the result of not having articles on popular culture artifacts in popular culture. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Given the clear acceptance of the other articles, I think this article might be well stand--I think consensus in this matter has changed. But I would make an effort to not duplicate, and expand the material of the propensity of Americans (and others) to use such stereotypes in general,. Unlike some of the eds. above, I encourage articles on all notable aspects of popular culture,& such I think the current consensus in general. DGG (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and redirect both to Ethnic stereotype and give a link to the page's history on the relevant talk pages to satisfy GFDL concerns. Guest9999 (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Originally a redirect to an article about a living person, currently a redirect to Idiot) Avruch ^T 01:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Didiot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))[reply]

• NOTE I have re-deleted this and salted as there is clearly enough concern about this as a BLP violation to justify this action when salted with some IAR. Clearly we need a consensus on what to do with this but I strongly suggest we get that consensus before restoring this. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect deleted by User:Krimpet after two successive, longer-than-one-week deletion discussions ending as "keep" both times. First discussion [4] lasted eight days and ended 24 December; second discussion [5] started 26 December (two days after close) and ended 8 January (13 days later) at 16:48 UTC; the redirect was deleted five and a half hours later, at 22:20 the same day. For disclosure purposes, I was the sole participant in the first discussion, but have nothing to do with either the deleted redirect or the second RfD, which should have been speedily kept as starting two days after a "keep" closure. It simply seems disturbing that in this case, the process was disrupted, first by the second RfD, and then by the admin basically ignoring the result afterward. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I cannot leave the notification on Krimpet's talk page as it's semiprotected and my work computer rejects cookies. I had to ask the admin who closed the second RfD for some clarification, and he/she forwarded my question to Krimpet. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse Speedy Deletion per closing admins rational in log [6] and on his own talk page. CSD:G10 is a general CSD criterion and as such applies to redirects - and this looked like nothing but an attack. A new redirect to Idiot may be suitable, but not with a restored edit history. Remember that !votes are not votes and Admins are not required to follow results of XfD - they are supposed to ensure policy is followed. Usrnme h8er (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per User:Stifles quote from WP:CSD. I stand corrected. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Undelete redirect as this has the effect of overruling the results of two redirect deletion discussions. What's the purpose of the discussion if an admin can arbitrarily overrule a close mere hours later? I participated in the second RfD strictly on procedural bases as the first RfD was closed as keep after an 8 day discussion in which only one person (the IP) actually commented (saying "keep") and then a new RfD was started two days after the close of the first (despite my urging of the speedy keep - as a bad faith nomination - the second discussion lasted almost two weeks, from December 26 to January 8). Edit note by deleting admin overlooked the sourced information in the target article which mentions the contentions between Ms. DiDio and some advocates of Linux... and their use of the epithet in question (a look at the target will reveal that the controversy was explained in a NPOV manner, definitely not a violation of WP:BLP). B.Wind (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per WP:CSD: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements". Stifle (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I think this deletion (G10, attack page) was based on a misunderstanding about spelling and pronunciation. While someone may mistake it for rhyming with idiot, a long 'oo'-sound (as in Edgar Allen Poe) without speaking the t is also possible. Together with the fact that a speedy is inappropriate when 2 discussions have just occured, I think it should be restored and I have done so. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the article and [7], "Didiot" is indeed intended as an attack and as rhyming with "idiot".  Sandstein  19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - attack redirect, pure and simple. No consensus in either to delete, and no consensus should default to delete when regarding BLP violations. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse G10 deletion. The deletion discussions were ludicrously cursory, with one editor each commenting. Disparaging and unhelpful redirect to a WP:BLP.  Sandstein  19:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I need not, I'm sure, to recite the significant reasons for which the community have determined that pages that have survived a deletion discussion may not be speedied; the blanket proscription exists, in any case (rightly, IMHO), such that G10 could not properly have been applied here. Sandstein's analysis of the underlying deletion discussions is probably quite right, but one's recourse to claim that the RfDs were wrongly closed is to raise the issue at DRV; were one to bring the closes here, I'd !vote to relist, as I suppose we ought to now (or, more precisely, upon restoration), even as on the substantive issues I will be a "keep" (I would observe once more, though, that we need not to reach those issues here; the procedural posture is clearly flawed, and we at DRV are obliged to address that first). Joe 20:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD aside, WP:BLP is sufficient grounds for the deletion of an attack redirect. If its deletion is not endorsed here on the basis of it having survived a XfD, I intend to delete it under the authority of WP:BLPSE.  Sandstein  22:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And actions taken pursuant to WP:BLPSE (which has, I think it fair to say, been roundly rejected by the community, to the extent that I am convinced that there no longer exists majority support on the ArbCom for the decision that led to its creation; I am very confident that the Committee will elect explicitly to reconsider the holding after the new members settle in) may be overruled by "clear community consensus" (more simply, consistent with the outcome a consensus-based community discussion), which, at least theoretically, exists here. The RfDs, whatever may have been their insufficiency, represent, at least theoretically, a consideration—and rejection—by the community of the BLP issues, such that the onus was on those raising BLP-based objections to obtain a contrary consensus before acting. You are welcome, of course, to do as you please should DRV counsel recreation, but I imagine that both the community and the ArbCom would look with disfavor on your wheel warring against consensus, although I don't know that anyone (including me) would get particularly exercised over a matter of such little significance. Joe 00:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The outcome of a sparsely attended RfD cannot sensibly be interpreted as a "clear community consensus" - especially when it directly and obviously contradicts the BLP policy. What people are asking for here, in overturning the deletion, is to put process above content and above the BLP policy. The very object of having an IAR policy, and of constantly reminding people that the encyclopedia is what matters (and not our byzantine processes), is to prevent absolutely wrong decisions from being made and upheld based on a narrow and small interpretation of criteria used in an edit summary. Avruch ^T 01:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Get it gone. I can hardly believe we are even having this conversation. WP:CSD#G10 and WP:BLP clearly apply, nuke from orbit, sprinkle the remains with anthrax toxin and post a big sign saying "beware of the leopard". Good grief. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Endorse Deletion and strongly considering deleting under BLP. BLP is a non-negotiable policy, no matter how much as a techie, I don't like her and what she's done. The very idea of the redirect violates BLP. SirFozzie (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per WP:CSD#G10 and WP:BLP. The general principle articulated in the criteria for speedy deletion that "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." is inapplicable to XFD discussions in which participation is extremely limited, and are therefore reasonably believed not to reflect a consensus of the overall community. Unilateral deletions should not be performed after controversial AFD discussions merely due to bare disagreement with "keep" or "no consensus" outcomes. John254 01:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. No question. Avruch ^T 01:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion under BLP this is one of the problems of RfD and the XfD processes generally except AfD--they do not get a sufficient cross section of the community & in practice we do need to review them here. I cannot however see using the heavy bat of BLPSE for something as trivial like this--accepted or not, it is not necesssary. DGG (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree too much with this; my solution to the problem of an RfD's having been poorly visited, though, is for us to return the matter to RfD, again and again if necessary (and not just for the sake of process; it may be argued convincingly that a legitimate [i.e., broadly joined] RfD discussion is more likely to reflect the consensus of the community than a similarly constituted DRV discussion, especially in a case like this, where in the attendant DRV the procedural and substantive issues are unhelpfully enmeshed). Joe 08:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that is a reasonable alternative, if sufficiently wide notice is given. DGG (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The redirect was there for GFDL compliance, as is noted in the edit history. Prose originally written by Dysprosia and 68.100.57.223 was copied into another article by a third party. Uncle G (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • GFDL compliance can be preserved by merging the page history into Laura DiDio (delete Laura DiDio, move the redirect to Laura DiDio, restore all revisions at that page title), then deleting the redirect at the offending title. John254 01:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already know how it can be preserved, thank you. And no, that's not the procedure in this case. I did outline in it what I wrote, but that was lost when I hit an edit conflict. The procedure in this case is more complex, in order to avoid (a) having anything other than those two edits in the merged article's edit history and (b) having undesirable links to didiot in the merged article's edit history at the end of the process. Uncle G (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, one would have to delete the redirect, then restore only the revisions of the redirect merged into Laura DiDio, before moving the redirect to Laura Didio. John254 02:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:Merge and delete has a list of techniques that may be used. Flatscan (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redelete Once the GFDL issues mentioned above have been sorted, redelete this redirect as a BLP violation. Strictly speaking by process should not have been speedy deleted but in this case (IAR) this Deletion Review has become a defacto RFD and is getting a much wider community participation than the original RFDs. Sending it back to RFD would just be a waste of time when the discussion can and is being held here. The basic problem here as DGG said is the lack of participation in RFDs. Davewild (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of extra comments. The present redirect is in many ways worse than the previous one as it now redirects one persons nickname to idiot, which imo is a clear BLP violation. Secondly using BLPSE to delete this redirect, if there is a consensus to overturn the speedy deletion of the redirect on this DRV, will not resolve this case but instead just move the discussion over to WP:AN/AE where we would then hold the same discussion again. Better to just have the discussion here and hopefully reach consensus that this redirect should be deleted. Davewild (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see your point, wrt to the Idiot redirect target, but given that "Didiot" doesn't appear to be a regular nickname for this particular person I'd rather have "Didiot" redirect to "Idiot" than to that persons name. Which one, in your mind, has the more obvious implication? Since I couldn't just delete it myself, redirecting it to the only other possibly sensible target made sense to me at the time. Avruch ^T 21:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can understand your reasoning and it's not as bad as redirecting to the peron themselves for the overwhelming majority of people who would not be aware of the nickname (me included before today). I was thinking more of what the person themselves would think and for them I think it would be worse. (either is bad of course) But anyway it has now been redeleted which I fully endorse so the point is hopefully moot now. Davewild (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse G10 deletion - this is an obvious BLP issue and we simply do not need this redirect. Peripitus (Talk) 10:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, not kosher per WP:BLP. Redirecting a term of disparagement to a BLP isn't very nice :( And a "consensus of one" at RFD isn't :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion BLP attack page. The speedy was valid, and the admin who undid a BLP based speedy should know they are living dangerously. A BLP speedy holds until there's a consensus that it is invalid. Undeletion=desysopping.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if there continues to exist broad support for the proposition that BLP-based speedies hold until they are overturned in a consensus-based community discussion (and I don't believe that there does—either in the ArbCom or in the community generally—which fact will, I hope and trust, be borne out soon; just as Travis may have been correct in his widely-quoted assessment of 2006 that "Either [one] get[s] on th[e BLP] train of thought or [he is] going to be left behind, because this is the direction the encyclopedia will go. End of story", so might we now say that there is going to be significant, and ultimately successful, pushback on BLP overreach in the coming months), that proposition cannot be understood to apply to pages (and particularly less visible ones, as, e.g., redirects) about which a deletion discussion has already taken place. You don't mean to suggest that any admin, acting sua sponte, may delete a page he/she believes to contravene BLP where a discussion that is open to the community has already considered and rejected deletion (even BLP hardliners do not submit that it would have been appropriate for an admin to delete summarily Daniel Brandt after many "keep" AfDs), do you? The problem here, of course, is that the discussions that considered deletion weren't particularly compelling, but the general principle by which we look at XfD outcomes must be that we assume that a discussion that has taken a full term reflects the considered judgment of the community and that a "keep" reflects a rejection of all theorized (even unstated) deletion justifications; where it is plain that that assumption is wrong, to DRV we must go, such that if anyone is to be sanctioned for misuse of the tools, it will be he who substitutes his judgment for the presumed judgment of the community, not he who restores the status quo pending DRV. Joe 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This situation is in no way comparable to the inappropriate deletion of Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): the latter article had undergone many controversial AFD discussions with extensive community participation before being speedily deleted out-of-process. Thus, the latter deletion reflected clear defiance of the will of the community. In the case of this redirect, however, we had an RFD discussion with extremely sparse participation, in which a single unregistered user opined in favor of retention, which was inappropriately closed as "keep", and a second RFD again closed as "keep" on account of its chronological proximity to the previous nomination. Such a bogus application of the XFD process is entitled to neither respect nor deference. John254 23:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, there was not enough discussion at the previous RfDs to say a clear consensus was reached, but that doesn't mean the issue should be decided by fiat. Further discussion would make it much clearer whether or not there is consensus to delete. There is sufficient sourcing to indicate that the term is in use and a sufficiently likely search term to avoid claims of BLP, but we still might decide it's undue weight. That's not for fiat decision, it's for discussion. With the additional profile on it, we'll get enough discussion to decide whether or not there is consensus to delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As editors familiar with my participation in deletion review know, there would ordinarily be no one more committed to strict adherence to the deletion process than myself. Why, then, have I endorsed the out-of-process deletion of this redirect? Quite simply, the process is broken. Given the extremely limited participation seen in the first RFD discussion (one unregistered user supporting retention), and the subsequent incorrect closure as "keep", there's no reason to believe that further discussion at RFD is likely to resolve this issue. In this context, we should observe that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and consider the thorough discussion of the redirect here as indicative of a consensus for deletion. John254 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there were an extremely clear consensus here, I would tend to agree (if you're familiar with me, you'll know I'm the last person to insist on process for process' sake when the outcome is clear). That's not the case here, though. I'm not seeing any consensus here, and certainly not the type of consensus necessary for a controversial deletion. That's the type of situation our deletion processes are designed to handle, and we should restore it and let that occur. The problem you run into with this "venue reversal" type of thing is, most consider that it takes consensus to overturn a deletion at DRV, but it takes consensus to request one at XfD. This type of unilateral action to change the standard should not be rewarded. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a consensus for deletion is needed to remove the redirect, or a consensus for restoration is needed to undelete it, is likely to be irrelevant to the present discussion, as a clear consensus that the redirect violates the biographies of living persons policy seems to be emerging. John254 01:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, just in case there's any doubt as to the correctness of the removal of this redirect, I note that it was re-deleted as a result of a new RFD discussion here. The most recent discussion may have been abbreviated, to be sure, but the level of consensus displayed far exceeds the initial RFD. John254 02:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there is no reason to undelete a potentially insulting redirect on purely procedural grounds. Guest9999 (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Two notes. 1) Since this DRV was filed, the redirect was renominated at RfD and re-deleted with lightning speed. 2) Frankly, I didn't originally care one way or another at the beginning if it were to be deleted or not, but having admins ignore the closings of two RfDs within three weeks sounds like the makings of a wheel war. The third RfD should not have been filed at at in light of the two closed RfDs and the DRV listing. I am much more concerned about process and procedure here, and as to whether or not an admin should overrule two previous ones who closed to the contrary within 14 days of the speedy deletion. As far as this DRV is concerned, the most recent RfD is irrelevant. B.Wind (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]