Rand Kannenberg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• Strong keep. I object. This biography of a living person (BLP) Rand Kannenberg should NOT be deleted for the following reasons (all according to Wikipedia Deletion and BLP guidelines as cited below):

1. According to Wikipedia deletion policy, " Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again..."^[1] Rand Kannenberg was already proposed for deletion and there was an objection (see: 13:44, 19 April 2007 Darksun (talk | contribs) m (390 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD a3). using TW). Again, this proposed deletion is not allowed.
2. The subject of this article "...is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."^[2] Rand Kannenberg has 72 references listed ("published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on third-party sources").^[3] Only eight of the references (item numbers 9, 10, 11, 25, 40, 41, 43, and 65) may not meet this criteria. 64 references, however, are without doubt reliable. All of the 72 references are "... attributable to a reliable, published source").^[4]
3. The subject of this article, like any other person "...is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards:... [1] has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them;... [2] has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field;... [3] is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; and ... [4] has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.^[5] Rand Kannenberg has an abundant supply of evidence that the subject meets four of the four criteria above for "any biography," "academics," and "creative professionals."
4. Rand Kannenberg is written with a "Neutral point of view... representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."^[6] The article includes "...all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias."^[7] "Criticism and praise of the subject ...relevant to the subject's notability...sourced to reliable secondary sources...that does not... appear to take sides...needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone"^[8] and is in this article. "Praise" material (e.g., "Awards" and "Community Involvement") includes two paragraphs of text. "Criticism" material (e.g., "Controversies" and "Personal and Family") ("Personal and Family" in this article has information about the subject's addiction to drugs and alcoholism, and estrangement from his family of origin) also includes two paragraphs. All views about the subject are presented.
5. "Verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added...has already been published by a reliable source..."^[9], applies to every quotation and other material in Rand Kannenberg.
6. Rand Kannenberg does not include any "original research or original thought...unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position....to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."^[10]

References

--CommCorr (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if the nominator might have accidentally misunderstood the purpose of deletion review? The AfD is still in progress.

  The primary purpose of this page is to challenge a deletion decision, but in this case no decision has yet been made.

  I move that this is speedy closed for the moment.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Never mind the consistency issues with Marcelo Lucero (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcelo Lucero and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_6#Marcelo_Lucero), where there is also an undeniable abundance of sources during the course of over a year and BLP#1E not applying to dead people, this should not have been deleted per our notability policies. Should, at the very least, have been moved to Murder of Luis Ramirez or some equivalent title. (I attempted to discuss this with the deleting administrator before coming here but he is no longer responding on his talk page.) TAway (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Discussion was properly closed, this is not a place to re-fight the AfD. Ray^Talk 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Ray was the original deletion nominator. This isn't an AfD re-hash, it's a matter of whether the administrator should have closed as a move per the available discussion and our policies. No one is denying that the murder's coverage well surpasses our notability guidelines, and instead of deleting on a technicality (that Ramirez didn't warrant his own biography under his name) it should have simply been moved to an article on the murder itself. TAway (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this reasonable close.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, nothing wrong with the decision. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, I would also have closed this as delete. Those advocating delete made a good argument, and those advocating a keep... did not. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse Close, Support Recreation While my personal opinion would have been different, the consensus at AfD does appear to have been for deletion. If there are requisite sources and there has been coverage above and beyond the single event of the murder itself, recreating the article as Murder of Luis Ramirez would appear appropriate. It's a shame that this was not considered at AfD, but of the keep or delete options discussed, delete prevailed. Alansohn (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, standard one-event case. Wikipedia not the news. Sad, but will anyone remember this case in a year's time? Stifle (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the classic response of someone who shows up to vote without investigating any context. Given it's already received over a year's worth of coverage, the answer would appear to be "yes." TAway (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Or endorse per the consensus at the AFD if you prefer; take your pick. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Mountainous Armenia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as no consensus. However, a check for the existence or not of sources shows that the "no sources" side is telling the truth. I got essentially no hits looking for web sources (other than those for copies of the Wikipedia article), no hits at all in Google Scholar, and as someone commented in the discussion, the book sources seem to all be from Armenian authors. There just don't seem to be adequate sources to support the article. I think it would have been better to take at least a cursory check of the claims rather than just count votes, particularly in such a perennially contentious subject area. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this accurate close. This is not AfD round 2, and that debate did not reach a consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Mangoe. The topic has no reliable sources whatsoever, and according to WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Grandmaster 05:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- There was no consensus with that discussion, and, as its been pointed out, this isn't AFD round two. If you don't like the close, you're welcome to re-nominate in a couple months if the article has not been improved. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse decision – Definitely does not look like a consensus for deletion has been established. Of course, that doesn't preclude another AFD down the road provided those who favored retention fail to provide anything reliable. MuZemike 22:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Umbralcorax. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus close. "...the book sources seem to all be from Armenian authors" is not a valid objection to the source material. The requirement is that the sources be reliable, not that they are English. There was no consensus in the AFD, and no sound policy basis to ignore that and delete anyway has been presented. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. According to WP:OR: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.. In this case, claiming the so called "Republic of Mountainous Armenia" based on solely Armenian sources (if any), over the territory of disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region explicitly serves to advance an [Armenian] position in the dispute, thus unfit for the encyclopedia. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure, no consensus — And no prejudice against relisting at AfD once a better case for deletion is put together. The delete case seemed to rest on the belief that histories of Armenia published by reputable presses are WP:OR if the author has Armenian background, which is false, but the keep case fell short of convincing me that the claim to existence of the state was soundly made; hence the closure reflected the failure of the AfD to get to grips with the issue at hand. I note that Richard G. Hovannisian (2004, The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times) talks about the 1918 activities of Andranik Toros Ozanian, according to the article the failed state's founder, in Karabakh and Zangezur without mentioning his founding of any state there. But the sources cited in the AfD have Garegin Njdeh as the founder. The first place to work is to figure out what the article actually should say, and ruthlessly delete anything that can't be properly sourced. Then it should be clear whether the article can be saved or should be deleted. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hermy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Obviously, move and edit-protect this, but "Hagger" has a link to Rubeus Hagrid. This should redirect to Hermione Granger. My cat's breath smells like catfood (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds sensible. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As someone who only included Hagrid on the dab page with my tongue firmly in cheek, I'd agree this is sensible. Redirect and protect. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Are we sure we want a redirect to a popular culture article here? Wouldn't something more scholarly like Hermes or Herma be preferable?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation might be the best idea, like Hagger is. Other possibles are Addie and Hermy and The Adventures of Nilson Groundthumper and Hermy (yes , they're just partial title matches, best I can find on short notice). Additionally, I note that Hermy Granger already exists as a redirect to Hermione Granger. lifebaka++ 14:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My first thought was that it would refer to Hermie and Friends. I think that a dab is certainly necessary here. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It could be a decent disambig page, but it needs to be protected and watched for obvious reasons. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Create redirect or dab page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Americans accused of spying for the Soviet Union (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Consensus was to keep. Category is for people who were accused of spying, and neither confessed or were convicted. The alternative is to list people in category of spies, which is not legally correct. The argument for deletion was libel, but no more libelous than an other category anyone can find offensive. That is why we depend on reliable sources. Almost all the people in the category were deceased and libel doesn't apply to the dead. The most sound solution would have been to remove the two living people if there charges were vacated, not delete the category with 20 dead people in it. And certainly adding them to the spy category is not the solution. Once investigated or tried and found innocent we have Category:Wrongly accused spies for those like Wen Ho Lee. Deletion leaves a gap in the categories, so we end up losing them as spies for people looking for them by categories. The libel canard can be used equally well by any ethnic category or religious category that a person can be put in if it was incorrect and deemed offensive by a living person, even describing someone as the wrong political party could be potentially libelous, that is why networks apologize when they make that mistake. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep. The closing admin erred. Ray^Talk 04:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion CFD is not a vote, as the closer noted, this is an "accusations" category, and accusations by whom? of whom? If I publicly denounce my cat at a Soviet spy, do she get an article so we can populate the category? Seriously, this is little different that people acquitted of something or other, which are routinely deleted as being libelous, and some people would equate being accused of spying for the USSR with child molestation and other types of accusations categories we cannot maintain with BLP because nothing, repeat NOTHING, in the title of the category limits this to dead people, people accused in some formal proceeding, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Keep per Consensus We're not refighting the CfD, we're looking at a close. The arguments were made that the category is defining and that for many of the individuals included the official accusations of spying for the former Soviet Union is their primary defining characteristic. We have to end the process of granting closing admins a supervote that allows consensus to be disregarded and one admin's biases to be substituted. If an argument that "I closed it contrary to consensus because I decided it's wrong" is to ever be accepted, it needs to be accompanied by a rather detailed justification rather than a blanket statement that "Arguments for deleting here are particularly compelling and most of the arguments for keeping here are particularly weak" which merely arrogates a right to overturn any consensus whatsoever. Alansohn (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait. Seriously? Yet another CfD close from Good Ol' being challenged on DRV? This smells of a witch-hunt.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 06:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Witch-hunt or no (I suspect not; maybe I just suck), I continue to think it could be useful if those wanting to challenge these closes actually say something to me prior to starting a DRV. Isn't DRV kind of supposed to be a "last resort"? This is the 3rd consecutive DRV that has been started about one of my closes where the nominator has not said anything to me prior to the DRV. For the ones that go to DRV, no one asks for a clarification, a reconsideration—nothing. There's a chance users might be able to save themselves and the community some time as well as some fairly aggro discussions. I won't bite, honest. Unless you're hunting witches. In which case, by all means carry on. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if it's not a witch-hunt, then there's a different problem: the community seems to disagree with your CfD closes. It's not at all usual that one single administrator is brought so often to DRV, and it's a bit worrying that each time, at DRV there's been significant support for overturn. But I wonder whether that's just because you close so many CfDs and this is, in fact, a representative sample?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyone is free to investigate my history of CfD closes and come to a conclusion. Every time there seems to be any ripples at all, things seem to end up here, without anyone even approaching me beforehand. It seems to be either "all" (DRV) or "none" (not a peep), so I would say if there's any "problem", it's nothing that probably couldn't be well on its way to resolution with better communication from concerned editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • A close that states "Arguments for deleting here are particularly compelling and most of the arguments for keeping here are particularly weak" is a generic excuse to grant yourself the power to close any CfD any way you want it to, in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. If you are generally concerned about a lack of communication, the problem starts with the tendency to override consensus, cast a supervote for your preferred option, and then offer a vague story about why any vote that matches your personal choice is the height of perfection and any vote to the contrary is by definition so utterly worthless as to be unworthy of consideration. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that this has occurred and DRVs have been opened by several different editors independently raising these issues. If you truly feel that you have not received adequate respect for your closes, why not try to take the first steps yourself by trying to exhibit a significantly greater sense of neutrality and distance when closing CfDs -- putting your rather clear personal biases to the side -- and provide far better explanations for why you are disregarding consensus when you do so, offering a modicum of respect for community consensus. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've never said anything about a lack of respect for "my" closes. I'm unsure how focusing on what you see as my shortcomings is productive here. I'm suggesting things would go a lot smoother if there was increased communication prior to a DRV being started. But in the end, I don't really care if users do it or not—they can discuss to their heart's content without approaching me first, but then they have little standing to argue that my behaviour or the close was inappropriate, since they didn't even approach me to seek further details about it. Usually I find that editors who don't approach the closer first prefer to frame the DRV as "CfD #2". And no, I'm not going to pre-empt the questions by writing a dissertation for every close. You have to ask to get the dissertation. I note that you, Alansohn, are one of the only editors who has ever asked about a close prior to coming to DRV, and you did so after I had mentioned at another DRV that doing so is helpful. The only other ones (I believe) have been jc37 and Otto4711. But in the end, users can (and do) suit themselves. I'm just throwing out a suggestion that could possibly help things. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very well, then. Overturn to no consensus, because there was none.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, as there was none. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, as the BLP/ethical argument was not sufficiently countered to convince me that the CfD shouldn't have ended in delete. Consider, for example, if it was instead "Americans accused of child abuse"; the mere mention alone creates neutrality and ethical problems if it is not a proven/generally accepted fact. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse -- This is a belated review from a discussion that began May 14th (almost 2 months ago), and closed May 24th (over 6 weeks ago), after an extended discussion. Its parent and siblings have been deleted. That is, this closure has been repeatedly confirmed; closures by different administrators. Evaluation of strong versus weak arguments is necessary and proper. Moreover, keeping would be against existing policy and guidelines, and closures shall never be against policy – no matter how many voices natter about how "defining" it is to be falsely accused. Smells like a witch-hunt to me, too!
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – I agree with the above remarks of William Allen Simpson. 'Accused of' is too vague. Occuli (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Alanshon. What's the point of AfD if a closing administrator is going to ignore consensus (or arrogantly dismiss keep arguments as "weak")? We need to strictly enforce that deletion can only be achieved if there is consensus.SPNic (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Good judgment call. I specifically remember this cat being used as vehicle for retroactive Commie witch-hunting. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn Was no consensus. I don't see any compelling BLP problem since the category makes clear that it is for individuals who were accused but not convicted. As long as we have good sourcing for the statement there's no issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You might just as well argued that it's neither a floor wax or dessert topping for the relevance your rebuttal has to do with the arguments -- including mine -- I'm reading. Rigid adherence to a standard without reference to its intent (or, in this case, to other reasons for not having this vehicle for retroactive commie-hunting) isn't on. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While the endorsers make much of the claimed BLP issue, the subject was raised and consensus was clear that there was no problem here. As always, we need to rely on descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources, and there are hundreds of sources that use the term to describe and define individuals as accused Soviet spies. The New York Times titled the 1990 obituary "Martha Dodd Stern Is Dead at 82; Author and an Accused Soviet Spy" (see here). The Wikipedia article for Alger Hiss describes him as having been "accused of being a Soviet spy" in the lead paragraph, and this book review discusses "evidence that the accused Soviet spy, Alger Hiss . . . had lied." This article from the Chicago Tribune discusses a deal for "accused Soviet spy Gennady Zakharov". this article from the Los Angeles Times discusses how "Former FBI agent Richard W. Miller testified Wednesday that he went to the beach in Malibu with accused Soviet spy Svetlana Ogorodnikova". There are legitimate concerns about BLP, but the ultimate solution is to rely on reliable and verifiable sources. It couldn't be any clearer that the hundreds of reliable sources from media nationwide in the US and around the world use the term to describe individuals, living and dead, who had been accused of spying for the former Soviet Union by government officials, were never tried or convicted, and for whom their status as accused spies is a defining -- if not their most defining -- characteristic as an individual. To lump then either as spies (which implies that there was a conviction) or to leave them uncategorized on this basis, serves no purpose other than to disrupt navigation across clearly similar articles using the category system. BLP was raised and addressed at CfD and consensus was that there was no issue. There is no place for a closing admin deliberately disregarding consensus by arbitrarily deeming his preferred position "particularly compelling" to ram through his personal preference on the discussion at hand. Alansohn (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say that giving retroactive Commie witch hunters a loophole to exploit makes even less sense. You're free to ignore the BLP concerns, but that doesn't change why it's a bad idea. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Raising issues of BLP does not create a magic bullet for deleting content. It appears that the "witch hunt" was raised about possible BLP issues and rejected. The question here is if the close was based on consensus, or the arbitrary supervote of the closing admin. Alansohn (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - admin clearly looked at both sides of the argument and correctly determined that the arguments against the category, including BLP concerns and the general disfavoring of categorizing by allegation, were stronger than the arguments in favor of keeping. This consensus was confirmed in additional CFDs found here and here. No new information has been offered here to indicate that anything has changed. Otto4711 (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love the circular logic. The close is correct because the closing admin decided correctly, consensus be damned. Naturally, the alternative that the admin ignored consensus and abused policy by imposing his own supervote, which most accurately fits the case here, has been ignored. Do the reliable and verifiable sources that support this as a defining characteristic count for anything here, or is it still against policy to make use of such sources to establish definingness? Alansohn (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing something correctly, footstamping by WP:ILIKEIT voters aside, is pretty much the opposite of "circular logic", it seems to me. Though it's certainly less than clear whether the "circularity" you're seeing actually exists. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus per Alansohn; I do not see that this might have been closed as "delete" but by the closer's substituting his judgment for that of the community. Joe (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Two other CfDs, here and here, are related. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — There do seem to be a lot of editors who will turn up and defend the j'accuse categories, regardless of the merits. I think the category has too fungible a criteria for membership, unlike, say, Category:Americans in the Venona papers (though see the doubts raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Americans in the Venona papers), and it is the right course of action to delete it per WP:NPOV, but that the outcome of the debate was clearly no consensus: observe that many keep !voting participants in the AfD did note the problems with the category and suggested workarounds. Would an RfC aimed at establishing policy with respect to which spying lists and cats be a workable solution? The hope is that with such a policy, the AfDs will behave better in the future. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. As I noted in this original CFD, the problems raised with this subcategory were not particular to it but rather common to the entire "Accused spies" parent category structure, and should have been discussed as a whole. Because that parent category structure has since been deleted, however, the deletion of this particular subcategory is moot and should not be separately discussed. This subcategory has no independent basis for existence from Category:Accused spies, and so its recreation should only be discussed through a comprehensive review of that broader deletion. On the merits of whether any "accused spies" categories should exist, policy and guidelines, including general categorization guidelines as well as more serious BLP and NPOV concerns, weigh against any categorization of mere accusations. Obviously the fact that such an accusation was made can be reliably sourced, and may be significant enough to be described within an article. But a category obviously cannot set forth who did the accusing, whether the accusations were repeated by others and/or sustained over time, or whether there was any basis for the accusation. As a category, this and all other "accused spies" categories, therefore, suffer from a ridiculously low inclusion threshold and are meaninglessly vague. They were properly deleted and should stay deleted. Postdlf (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have cast a wonderful vote, which might have been considered if it had been posted as a vote -- not a comment -- at CfD. The issue of possible BLP concerns was raised by you and others at CfD and clear consensus was that this was not an issue. The question of the propriety of ignoring actual consensus at the actual CfD, our job here at DRV, has been ignored. Neither you nor any closing admin are entitled to a supervote that disregards consensus and turns it into a mockery based on the arbitrary biases of any one admin. Alansohn (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm rather perplexed by your response for a number of reasons, partly because I didn't raise BLP concerns in this CFD. Regardless, I don't see the "clear consensus" in the CFD that you do regarding whether BLP was an issue, as only two people expressly discussed it. One person said that BLP probably wasn't an issue only because most of the included subjects were probably dead, which even if true would not affect its application to however few were still living. The other actually wanted the category substantially changed to omit "accused" so as to avoid libel concerns, presumably to focus on actual spies (however determined). Postdlf (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm all the more perplexed that BLP issues were raised and deemed not relevant, yet consensus was ignored. You obliquely raised issues regarding the word "accused", but you yourself appear to have neither indicated that there was a BLP policy violation requiring its deletion, nor did you actually vote, despite ample opportunity to do so. I know that admins want the opportunity to be judge, jury and executioner in other CfDs, but that hardly seems to be a valid justification to disregard the "clear consensus" you seem unable to see. User:Mazca, an uninterested party who would have voted to delete had he participated, aptly describes below how he "can't see a consensus to [delete] here no matter how hard I squint" yet you and fellow admin and CfD regular User:Good Olfactory have no such problem seeing a consensus to delete that just ain't there. If only this clear discrepancy between community consensus and the judgment of closing administrators were not so perplexing. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I'm not very interested in your assessment of Good Olfactory's close or this specific CFD, because (as I thought my comments above made quite clear) I find it far more interesting and relevant that this entire "accused spies" category structure was subsequently deleted. See comments above of William Allen Simpson for links to those CFDs (one of which was unanimous, and the other of which was 5-1, for what it's worth). I don't think this CFD should have occurred in the first place without considering those parent and sibling categories as well (as my only comment at this CFD observed). But that doesn't matter because that consideration then did occur, and those near unanimous, system wide deletions of the "accused spies" categories helped to retroactively validated the result of this one, assuming arguendo that it was in need of validation. WP:DRV is fundamentally about whether deleted content should be recreated or discussed again, and I do not see any basis for recreating only this category as long as the system-wide deletions stand (which, as I said above, I believe they should because categorizing accusations is untenable under relevant policies and guidelines), regardless of whether Good Olfactory's close at that time of this one subcategory was a proper reading of consensus or policy. Postdlf (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - on a personal opinion note, I completely agree with the outcome of the CfD, in that I absolutely feel consensus should have been to delete it. But I really can't see a consensus to do so here no matter how hard I squint - there was a distinct majority arguing to keep it, and as far as I can see, the keep arguments were generally fairly cogent and founded in reason, even though I disagree with them. I really think there was no consensus to delete here. ~ mazca ^talk 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, on further review I retract my argument to overturn. I maintain that this close was not a very good reading of consensus; but this CfD in particular did effectively validate the close, and ended in a unanimous consensus to delete the entire system of "accused spies" categories. Consensus apparently did change; so overturning this deletion does not appear to be appropriate. ~ mazca ^talk 08:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (closer). Per above comments and original close. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure obviously, AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Questions about closures should be directed to the closer, not immediately brought to review. Good decision on part of closing admin. Drawn Some (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, despite misgivings about the way it was closed — Per my comment before, and per the CfD Mazca cited, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_11#Accused_spies. I note that that CfD did not receive as much participation as this one. An RfC at Category talk:Spies might be useful here. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The category actually had vagueness in the criteria and there is the BLP concerns mentioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as there is nothing improper about weighing the strength of arguments vs. the number of arguments. A gaggle of users calling for "consensus" does not override BLP policy, which does not mesh well with "accused of..." categorization. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (keep). Arguments for deleting (No uniform standard...; Category has been [mis-]used ...; ...are disfavored...; ...we generally do not ...) were not compelling. Reasonable keep rationales by experienced wikipedians were not well answered. CfD is run by a groupthinking clique that doesn't recognise the opaqueness of their reasoning as a problem. The opaqueness keeps newcomers out, stabilising the status quo, and in the meantime wikipedia does not have a categorisation system that works well. Suggest the usual CfD closers take a break and see of other admins keep it working the same way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfounded accusations about CFD participants constitute an abject failure to assume good faith and could be interpreted as personal attacks against regular CFD participants. Wild-eyed conspiracy theories do not constitute evidence that the closing admin misinterpreted the CFD, nor do they constitute new information that compels a re-examination of consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But it does provide more amusing fodder for the CfD Cabal description, if nothing else. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• While some of the points are framed poorly, I can see why someone might say that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no doubt that the questionable closes were done with the sincere belief that the closes were the right decision. Some questionable closes even were the right decision, but to my eyes, fit the description of clique behaviour, where there is little regard to explaining to outsiders/newcomers. I allege no conspiracy. Groupthink and clique behaviour can arise without the intent of any of the participant. It isn’t lightly that I say “overturn (keep)” where others are saying “endorse”. Clearly, there is a problem. This has been mentioned in previous DRVs, but to no effect, which I find extremely worrying. If you seriously think that the close of this CfD is unproblematic, then we have a problem. If you think that the close represents good practice of WP:Consensus, then I say that you have a problem with your perspective. I have a theory for the cause of the problem, and a validation test for the theory. If you find this personally insulting, then I am sorry, but I stand by what I see. There are some CfD regulars who are working hard to maintain a difficult system, but they have run themselves into a rut, and are now disconnected with the inexpert community. As I said, in direct contradiction to the closer, the deletion arguments were weak, and the keep arguments had valid points. Closing the debate like that, with keep arguments not answered, but labelled “particularly weak” is extremely insulting, even ostracising, to the non-mainstream participants. The radical close doesn’t even explain itself – it contains no useful information. It is not useful to know that the closer found arguments for deleting “particularly compelling”. It would have been nice to read why he found them compelling. Similarly, “most of the arguments for keeping here are particularly weak” insults and dismisses, but reveals nothing about why they are weak. My general CfD ruling-clique observations are not specific to particular admins, and the foundations of what I have said are not the point. The point is: Am I right, or wrong? If the current regular closers took a break, would other administrators continue to close discussions in the same way? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It would have been nice to read why [the closer] found them compelling. Maybe someone should have asked me. No one did. That's what I've pointed out above—users are keen to jump into DRVs, but not so willing to do the background work of actually figuring out why things were closed the way they were. Closers don't (and shouldn't) write a dissertation for each close. You have to ask to get the dissertation. But once we arrive at DRV, since the nominator has seemed to assume that my reasons are immaterial, why should I exert the effrot to explain myself? Now that we're here, I generally let the community decide it. (Not to worry—I'm not insulted by your comments or observations, just mildly amused. I suggest if anyone believes there is a broad "problem" at CfD, then raise it somewhere relevant where it can be dealt with, like Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Bringing it up in a specific DRV does little good and distracts from the overall point of this discussion. I've suggested this numerous times to certain users who like expressing themselves in specific CfDs and DRVs using sweeping generalities about the various processes, but not surprisingly nothing ever comes of it.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. Let's go to Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#There_is_a_problem_at_WP:CfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per postdlf. --Kbdank71 09:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Closer acted correctly based on policy and strength of arguments. Determination in such discussions is emphatically NOT based on counting raw numbers. older ≠ wiser 12:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Vickers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Diana Vickers has become more independantly notable since the page's deletion Sumeet 92 (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Vickers has just been given the lead role in the West End play 'The Rise And Fall Of Little Voice' and I think it is fair to say that this makes her notable enough for this page to be restored.

Diana has now separated herself from the X Factor and has become a notable individual; it seems pointless in denying her a wikipedia page.

Sources:

• Permit recreation. That's certainly more than enough coverage for a separate article, and I see that it includes national newspapers. (Although I shudder to think that The Sun is a reliable source, it probably does count for this).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as not requesting anything within the purview of this process. It's not salted...so, why are we here? If it gets recreated and it's sufficiently different from the last go-round, it won't get WP:CSD#G4'ed and if someone wants it gone - it'll go to WP:AFD again on its new merits - the DRV was closed properly, which is what this process is for,,,. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, Sumeet already tried to do that one month ago, and it turned into an edit war. Consensus then was to keep it redirected. If it were to be reversed again without a discussion it would probably not go unchallenged. decltype (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sumeet's first port of call was to edit-war, in direct disobedience of the instruction on the redirect page. -- Smjg (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My first port of call was not to edit war purposefully; I was new to Wikipedia and was genuinely oblivious to the guidelines in place and I apologise for the disruption I caused. However, I think it is clear that the recreation of this article will do no harm to Wikipedia as it is only increasing the level of information available to users and Diana Vickers is certainly a person who, with the recent west-end play news, will be searched for.

--Sumeet 92 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation I'd have no objection to the article being recreated without this DRV, but you never know when we'll see another kneejerk deletion of recreated content. The question has been appropriately raised here and the sources establish independent notability. Alansohn (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation I strongly supported deletion when she was notable only for the X Factor appearences, but she now has coverage in reliable sources which look beyond that. I agree with the wisdom of bringing here; recreation without doing so would have been against recently confirmed consensus and IMO would almost certainly have been challenged. I42 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No notification was posted at Talk:Diana_Vickers about this Deletion Review. I have now done this, but this is 2.5 days after the start. I suggest that this be borne in mind when closing, and that the close date be adjusted if needed. I42 (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit Recreation, given the volume of sources presented, it appears this person has crossed the line into notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• I'm still not convinced. This same user has been pressing for it again and again. And trying to find more and more sources in the hope that it'll convince us she's notable now. A lot of the articles cited seem to be accounts of the exact same story. How many people are in the cast of a typical West End production? Why should this girl be deemed any more notable than the others on this basis? Which notability criterion, exactly, is being claimed???? -- Smjg (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be the GNG. Significant coverage, check. Multiple reliable sources, check. Independent of the subject, check.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Original Material Leaked. On the 10th July 2009 a studio recorded single of Diana's was leaked and is now circulating around the internet which is evidence of original material which further separates Diana from the X Factor and establishes her as an individual artist.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIkgexHIgQI --Sumeet 92 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. Reasonable request. No future prejudice against future AfD nominations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer tan hoax (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion was completely unreasonable. The final count was four to keep, three to delete. Four is greater than three, so how the hell did the closer get delete from that? The article was obviously notable enough to be featured on the Main Page, and Cazort effectively refuted the delete votes, but no explanation was given for the final vote. It was obviously made in bad faith and the closer needs to be trout slapped.SPNic (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it probably would have been pointless.SPNic (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It probably wouldn't, per below. is that idiomatic? decltype (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus because there wasn't one.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn If anything that close should have been a straight keep. I have a lot of trouble seeing how deletion is at all a reasonable outcome given that discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn absolutely no consensus to delete. – Toon 16:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• OH WHAT THE FUCK DID I DO???? overturn - Seriously, I thought I hit the keep button. This could probably be speedy overturned. (X! · talk)  · @952  ·  21:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, Weakly Endorse trout slap :) decltype (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It was an accident? In that case, sorry about saying you should be trout slapped.SPNic (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The clear consensus was to keep, based on numerous reliable and verifiable sources specifically discussing the hoax. Alansohn (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Might as well speedy this since the closer wants to overturn himself. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've restored it since the closing admin notes that it was an accidental "delete" close. – Toon 01:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]