LG15: The Last (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

One attempt had been made to address the notability issue but the user didn't notice the article had been edited to change the reference numbers I was referring to in the nomination. Several references which were either primary/unreliable one-off mentions making the original nomination still apply. No other attempts were made to address the notability issues (but there's plenty of bad faith drama not related to the issue at hand thanks to the fans of the article). Admin SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) speedy closed it citing WP:SK 2.3 which I don't think applies considering the previous nomination got flooded by fans of the article thanks to off-site canvassing, but it looks like most are here to stay as shown by this afd.

The admins response on their talk page seems to show that articles failing multiple guidelines isn't a good enough reason to re-nominate and that if there's enough people against it, multiple guidelines can be ignored. So I request this be relisted, or re-opened, to actually allow a discussion to take place, and to give the fanatical fans and other users a chance to show how it passes our notability guidelines. Otterathome (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Two AfDs in as many months? God. Tim Song (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It was justified considering it still failed guidelines before and after both afds, and the lack of outside input.--Otterathome (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Whether some, none, or any of the people arguing for Keep in the first AFD were fans is irrelevant. As the notavote template you are so fond of placing on AFDs states, "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." Obviously the first AFD would therefore have been based on the merits of the arguments, not on the fact that fans liked it. You then took the article to a merge discussion with the exact same arguments, which was also closed as keep. You then took the article with the exact same arguments to a second AFD, which was closed as Speedy Keep "per SK reason 2.3" which states "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected." Therefore, it would seem that the closing of the AFD in that manner was completely within bounds. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Zoeydahling is a fan, and if all the users who participated in an afd were fans of the subject, then the outcome would be obviously only go one way, so it is relevant; see WP:COI. It wasn't the exact same argument as the article had changed since then, the month had given editors to fix the article up.--Otterathome (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Being a fan of something does not mean you have a COI. See the What is a conflict of interest?/examples section on WP:COI. And since arguments are counted on the merits of their policy claims, it is completely irrelevant if someone is a fan or not. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it does, it's the same as writing an article about a web forum you are registered on, But in this case it's a web-series you are a fan of. It especially applies if they are canvassed off-site, which has happened in this case. My original policy based arguments still held true, but the closing user of the first afd wanted to give editors a little more time to the editors to address the problems.--Otterathome (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Otterathome, I think you have an incorrect understanding of WP:COI. Could you please review it and then tell us what part of it supports your above assertion that you can't write about a forum you're a member of? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This group of fans have been in contact with the people who created the show, so I think that's close enough.--Otterathome (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe that's the question I asked you. What part of WP:COI supports your contention that you can't write about a forum of which you're a member?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Contact with the creators and people related to the subject is covered under Wikipedia:COI#Close_relationships.--Otterathome (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, no. That specifically refers to a "high level of personal commitment,..." etc. And that's still not answering the question.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Gentlemen, DRV is explicitly a drama-free zone. Please stop. Tim Song (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Drama is unavoidable when there are a number of upset fanboys and fangirls on the scene.--Otterathome (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps you can start by stop calling others "fanboys" and "fangirls" and instead respond to the merits of their arguments. Tim Song (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to dismiss contributors based on the fact that they like the subject matter is cheap at best. Are you proposing that only people who hate the subject of the page have the deletion discussion?

Are you saying that it's standard on Wikipedia that people only edit pages on subjects they don't care about?

I would also like point out that Otter has yet to prove any "off-site canvassing", and that it is strongly suggested on WP:AFD that interested editors are notified of AFDs, something I'm not sure he, as the nominator, has done for the LG15 AFDs.

~ Renegade - 80.171.128.47 (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of yous, put a cork in it. MuZemike 19:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse

Otter's unproven, throw-away allegation of "off-site canvassing" and the like are a bad faith attempt to gloss over several other issues with the nomination, including, but not limited to:

• He was the only one arguing for deletion
• He had already unsuccessfully tried to get the page deleted last month
• He had already unsuccessfully tried to merge the page away afterwards
• He himself admitted the nomination as it stood was wrong, due to his broken references.
• Parts of his nomination were based on personal opinion, especially about the PR-future of the show
• Parts of his nomination were just plain wrong.
• Parts of his nomination lambasted the sources given on the page for not including information that was only available a month after they were written
• He insisted we look up the outdated revision he nominated on, and failed to show that his nomination applied to the current state of the page as well

After pointing these issues out in the discussion, I invited him multiple times to update his nomination in order to discuss one that was factually correct and applied to the page as a whole, not just an outdated revision of it. Instead of doing that, he firmly refused updating his nomination, insisted that we instead dig up the revision he nominated on for discussion (going so far as to condescendingly linking me to the help page for the history, implying I was refusing because I was too dumb to look it up), and, initially, even tried to make me hide the comment in which I pointed out the flaws in his nomination.

As you can see above, in this review, he is attempting the same argumentation: He insists on only discussing supposed notability issues with the page, but refuses to point out the exact notability issues based on the current revision of it, rather than an outdated one, and tries to gloss over the massive flaws of his nomination and the fact that, purely on basis of last month's two attempts to get rid of it, his renomination as a whole was frivolous anyway.

He tried to AFD last month on notability concerns. He tried to merge away last month on notability concerns. Both times he failed. Now he nominated again over notability concerns. WP:SK 2.3 says SK are applicable in case of "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected".

Two failed attempts to get rid of the page on notability concerns last month should be strong enough.

~ Renegade - 80.171.128.47 (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my fault if you are unwilling to use the page history feature.--Otterathome (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my fault your nomination only applied to the history, not the current version.

~ Renegade - 80.171.128.47 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: In brief, and devoid of drama: The question is whether "the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly," as DRV is to "correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions." DRV requestor is simply rearguing "reasons previously presented" which have now failed twice --Milowent (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Milowent (another one of the lg fans), no error? You mean apart from the only people taking part in the discussion are fans of the series. Right.--Otterathome (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In your view everyone knowledgeable about webseries is a "fan"; again, this is rearguing what has already failed.--Milowent (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close of AFD2 as a speedy keep. No new argument for deletion was presented, no significant support for the old reasons was present in AFD1. GRBerry 20:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You did read the part about "got flooded by fans of the article thanks to off-site canvassing", right? Nobody else took part, the issues weren't addressed, so there was good reason to nominate again.--Otterathome (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure s/he also read the part where you left your bogus claims of "off-site canvassing" completely unproven, and the part where you were the only person in the discussion arguing for deletion...again.

Not to mention that your nomination was factually incorrect, expected time travel, only applied to outdated revisions...

~ Renegade - 213.39.196.230 (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close as no new argument was presented. Billbowery (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sure your first DRV edit has nothing to do with my nomination of your article does it.--Otterathome (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Frustrating as it is, sometimes, on Wikipedia, you've just got to accept that the consensus is against you and do something else. Endorse.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 06:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  A bunch of fans of telling somebody they want to keep an article isn't consensus.--Otterathome (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A single editor telling somebody they don't want to keep an article isn't consensus.

~ Renegade - 213.39.196.230 (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The AfD was clear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  2 day long afds are clear?--Otterathome (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I hadn't noticed that. Changing !vote. Relist for a debate for the full seven days. Speedy keeps and and SNOW keeps that lead to controversy are, with hindsight, bad closes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I understand why you would say that, but I would just like to provide some background that might help explain the situation a little better. The first AfD ran for the full 7 days and was closed as keep. The nominator immediately went to a merge discussion with the same arguments, which was also closed as keep. Less than a month later he renominated the article for deletion, with the exact same arguments. That's why it was closed as speedy keep. As for the controversy, the reason there is so much drama here is because the editor in question appears to be engaging in a pattern of questionable behavior, including AfDs for LG15-related articles, which can be read about in full here. Of course, you are not required to read that, and it may not even be relevant to DrV discussion as a whole, but I just wanted to provide some context for the closes and the "controversy" that has ensued. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, I don't see any controversy ensuing from the speedy close: all I see is one person refusing to accept that the article is not going to be deleted at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• SmokeyJoe: While I see how Otter's remark, the way he phrased it, could imply that there was doubt about consensus, please keep in mind that the article had been officially kept in an AFD on August 10th, and a merge attempt of his directly afterwards was ultimately ended as failed on August 31st, because he was the only one supporting it. In the two days of AFD, he, again, was the only one supporting deletion.
  In the original discussion, next to his nomination, there were only two votes for deletion: By user Joe Chill, and by user Atama. Joe Chill only pointed to a policy and was never seen again, and user Atama ultimately supported an alternative merge structure I suggested. In other words: By the time the first AFD ended, the only person arguing for deletion was Otterathome. For over a month now, Otter has tried to get rid of this page, and he has, consistently, been the only person supporting that effort.
  Yes. Two days of AFD, in a normal case, would not establish consensus. But an entire month of lack of support and two failed attempts to get rid of the page in the previous month sort of let the whole two day thing shine in a different light.

~ Renegade - 213.39.196.230 (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse No longer able to WP:AGF regarding back-to-back AfD noms. No new arguments provided. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds for a personal vendetta. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming bad faith, and saying no new argument was provided isn't a reason as the issues were never addressed.--Otterathome (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would be a really good idea if Otterathome replied to every single "endorse" !vote.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If your not going argue your point then don't bother giving one and refrain from adding useless comments.--Otterathome (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse both AFD's, since I can't fault the close of either one. I would also like to recommend that the nominator have a big cup of tea, relax, take a deep breath, and realize that this article remaining won't ruin wikipedia. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer -- I haven't seen any arguments here that change my mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Cronman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was deleted before full period for comment and was closed against consensus by an admin supervote Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist – enough with the bad-faith accusations already and discuss the article's merits and not the nom's. MuZemike 14:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Richard, can you say in what way the article passes WP:CSD#A7? Being a commandant is no indication of importance, and being the father of a notable person is only an extremely weak one. Amalthea 14:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as I can tell, the deleting admin seems to have done so against consensus on CSD ground A7.

  I don't agree that A7 applies given that the article cites its sources. Effectively, by citing sources, the article is asserting that the subject's notable on the grounds that people have noted it. If there were only one or two sources, the A7 call might still have been made, but not in this case. Further, using CSD to delete the article while an AfD was in progress with a unanimous keep !vote apart from the nominator is excessively bitey behaviour that falls seriously below the standards one expects from an admin.

  Overturn the A7 speedy deletion, with prejudice, and relist for a proper seven-day debate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. A borderline case, but A7 should be, and is, narrowly circumscribed. A weak indication of importance is still one and should be sent to AfD, especially in light of the number of sources (some appear irrelevant to the person at hand, but the number of relevant ones is sufficient). The AfD should be allowed to run its full course. It might be better to relist from scratch here. Tim Song (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I stand behind my close, being a colonel in the Swedish Army who died, is not a claim to significance/importance. That being said if this is overturned, I don't have a problem... but my question is, is there a legit claim to importance/significance? If he can provide ANY reason why this guy is significant, I'd willingly change stances. But this guy clearly is not notable. Also, note that none of the sources provided provide substantial material, most are geneologies and those that are not are not about this person, but rather other people. In other words, the references appear to be nothing more than "Col Cronmon was a colonel in the Swedish Army who had kids and their names were ABC." My foreign language skills are rough, but even at that level I can make that much of these refs.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - At best, this would merit a relist for not having enough of a discussion take place in the AfD. However, Balloonman was right: there is nothing here but a genealogy, and no assertion of notability. The only two responses in the AfD were WP:ILIKEIT and an accusation of bad faith. An A7 seems perfectly valid to me, given no assertion of notability. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist so that the debate can be properly completed and the article properly deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist Why won't admins allow actual editors to determine consensus at XfD, rather than ramming through their own preferred answer as a supervote. Consensus was to keep and the closing admin closed the AfD prematurely. I'd like to see more about the Colonel, but there is a claim of notability supported by reliable and verifiable sources here and no evidence of anything proper in the close as performed here. Alansohn (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Overturn and Relist Clear misunderstanding of admin responsibilities. Even if this is a borderline article between speedy and afd, if it reaches AfD, the discussion should be allowed to continue. He might in fact actually be notable--he was commandant of a major fort, a/c the article. This is not purely genealogical information. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Aside: it can often be appropriate for articles to be speedied whilst on AFD, especially if they have been nominated by a user who is not familiar with the existence of speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

normally this happens when another cause is found: almost always, it's because of copyvio, sometimes vandalism. . DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. It could even be appropriate to speedy something over a unanimous keep !vote; but you'd need something decisive, like evidence that it was a copyvio.

  But I think DGG's point is that there is no way it could be appropriate to speedy over a unanimous keep !vote under A7. I don't understand how Balloonman could have reconsidered that and decided it was still appropriate; that's definitely a case where DRV needs to deliver a reality injection.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  AfD is decided by rough consensus, not by headcount. The nomination made a policy-based argument for deletion. One response opted for a procedural keep (bad faith nomination, unsupported). The other was "non notable to you maybe", lacking anything to support the assertion of notability. If the full seven days would have passed with that, a close as delete would have been correct. Consequently, ignoring those two statements is appropriate if the article matches a SD criterion. Amalthea 17:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  With respect, Amalthea, have you looked into why it might be called a bad faith nomination? Suffice it to say that remark was not unsupported.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, it appears I should keep better track of the drama boards, I wasn't aware that there was an ongoing problem. That makes the whole situation certainly more complicated, has no impact on the SD criteria though. There is new information in the article now though that indicates significance, so endorse and reslist. Amalthea 18:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I think CSD needs to be tempered with judgment and good sense. I've publicly defended Drawn Some on this, and I remain of the opinion that he's a good faith editor, but the fact remains that as Protonk says, he has a history of nominating Richard Arthur Norton's contributions for deletion and he doesn't have a good track record of actually achieving deletion at AfD. This fact combined with the unanimous "keep" should have been sufficient to prevent a speedy.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Marshall, does it matter if it is a bad faith nom? If an article fails to meet our inclusion criteria, that doesn't matter. We don't ignore policy because it was a bad faith nom. THe unanimous Keep was irrelevent because they failed to make a policy based argument that would override the lack of significance/importance. If they had provided a rationale, rather than attacking the nominator, I might have given their !vote credence. But neither !vote to keep holds ANY water.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it was a bad faith nom. But I think the suggestion that it was, is a factor that should have been weighed against speedy deletion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No it should not have. Whether it was bad faith or good faith, the article fits a CSD criteria. Those criteria do not state, "but only if made in good faith." If the article deserves to go, it should go.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I realise that you believe the article deserves to go, Balloonman; you've been very clear that you think that. Others did not, and you chose to disregard their opinions completely. You decided on your own authority that the AfD !votes were simply spurious and without merit, and you summarily deleted the article without giving further time for debate.

  But actually the deletion decision was not an urgent one, and in cases where the consensus is wrong, an admin's role should be to guide it or coach it towards the correct conclusion by giving reasoned arguments and pointers to policy. It is not to overrule other editors in cases where there is no copyvio, BLP issue or other urgent and pressing need for deletion, because the admin tools are a mop and not a gavel, and because speedy deletion in direct contravention of consensus is a serious WP:BITE issue. It sends a message to the AfD participants that their opinion is meaningless.

  You were too quick, and now you're much too sure you're right and the consensus is wrong.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist A sufficient claim is having been the fortress commander circa 1705 that lost a significant fortress. That is enough to send to AFD. (The genealogy doesn't help the article any.) Our article on the Great Northern War is poor quality, and other articles on related topics are also poor quality. This article is also currently of poor quality. So it is hard to tell, but we hope that the editors at AFD will be take the time and effort to make a researched decision. Given the original AFD nominator's history, WP:CSK also applies to the nomination, and a new nomination by a neutral nominator will be more useful. GRBerry 20:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Endorse. I was a person that voted speedy keep on this. The nom was in bad faith, but the person was [[WP:NN)) nevertheless ("Joachim+Cronman"+"Great+Northern+War"+-wiki see for yourself). While I think that the full seven days should have been given, "if an article is speedily deleted for the wrong reason (not one of those listed in the criteria for speedy deletion), but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving deletion through the normal article deletion process, there's no sense in resurrecting it and forcing everyone to go through the motions of deleting it yet again." TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this amounts to saying that "it won't be kept at AfD is a reason for speedy," never mind the actual rules. The rules are narrow, and one of the purposes is decreasing the need for appeals from them. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist in a seperate nomination, sources and comments on the AFD were in my mind enough of an indication of importance to not speedy delete, we should allow a full AFD discussion with a neutral nomination to consider the article. Davewild (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (keep). Our "inclusion criteria" (WP:N?) were never intended to apply harshly to distant historical figures. Not only did the closer resort to a supervote against consensus, he did not accurately cite policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)WP:NOT#Genealogical entries exists as a counterpoint to people attempting to document their own families probably without the use of reliable sources, and does not apply to a documented person who died over 300 years ago, i.e. the citation of policy (WP:NOT) was erroneous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you cite a shred of evidence that some articles are exempt from WP:N on the basis of the age of their subjects? Otto4711 (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am speaking as someone who has made a deep study of WP:N and have a long history in its writing. You may fairly call me revisionist, in which case we should go to WT:N, and maybe WT:NOT over clarifying WP:NOT#Genealogical entries. Things are not so much exempt from WP:N as WP:N needs to be interpreted with care. Other things that WP:N was never intended to speak to include microorganisms, chemicals, and the natural sciences generally. If someone is writing about someone because the subject is their ancestor, hero, or past occupant of their house, then WP:N is an appropriate guideline in establishing that there is real interest. Here, we have a historical figure with few references, but with references (meets WP:V). If, in the seventeenth century, someone thought it should be written down, then that counts for something. Balloonman's argument, citing WP:N, is no more than that the subject should not have a stand-alone article. Surely, there' a merge target. Not only did the closer supervote, he overstated WP:N in saying that it means that this article should be deleted, i.e. he misstated policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And how do you derive at the conclusion that Surely, there' a merge target? In order for there to be a merge target, there would have to be something of significance that this person has done? Do we go to the war and add the names of every colonel who died in the war? Having existed is not a reason to have an article or to being merged. Being a colonel that died is NOT a claim to significance or importance.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 09:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Surely, there' a merge target?" Is an educated guess, not a conclusion. Possible targets are his son’s or grandson’s articles. Is it ideal for this article to be a stand-alone article? Perhaps not, but if not, this does not mean it should be deleted. WP:N doesn’t say that. Should wikipedia cover the names of soldiers, from historic wars, where we have reliable sources? Yes. Having reliable sources that date from 300 years ago is a claim of notability. No, the existing war article shouldn’t be filled with the names of many people, but we may develop ways to organise and present the information that are not obvious today, as long as we don’t throw away the information, potentially losing it, likely insulting the contributors who collected it. For these reasons, converting to a redirect to something (the son, grandson, or one of the wars), thus preserving the information in the history, would be preferable. But these are discussion points for the talk page, or AfD page, and not for the closer’s supervote or for DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - closing admin clearly explained the outcome which was in line with WP policy. Commenters in the AFD failed to address WP:NOT. Claims of a "supervote" are spurious, offered to advance a pro-inclusion agenda, and are rightfully ignored. It seems that recently, any time an admin arrives at a conclusion that certain editors don't care for they cry "supervote" in the hopes that it will fool enough people to ramrod their viewpoint through. Otto4711 (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

commentators at the ASfD did not have a full chance to address anything. Had this run the full time, there would be less of a case for Deletion review. And it was deleted with the admin giving his own arguments, and then deciding they were correct--and that's a supervote if there ever was one. This can happen with keep as well as delete, though Otto is correct it happens more often with deletes, and my interpretation of that in general--not necessarily this case--is that those trying for deletion are in general somewhat more willing to act against policy--perhaps because they more often need to. A proper close is one where one could not tell the general inclination of the admin. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you know me well enough to know that the general inclination of the admin in this case is to keep and is a person who is critical of sloppy CSD. IMO this article clearly fits the criteria for CSD, regardless of whether or not it is at AfD or not. There is no claim to significance and it is merely a geneology. The two keep votes were not keeps, but rather attacks against the nominator. Yes, the nomination MAY have been in bad faith, but if I ran accross this article outside of AfD, would I have deleted? Probably. With 3 days to add to it and nothing done and no valid arguments? IMO, that actually makes the case for CSD stronger. If something could have been added, it would have. This has been open for how long and have we seen anything of substance added? No. A proper close is one wherein the closer explains his/her rationale, especially when he/she knows that it might be controversial---eg ignoring two keeps. But in this case, the article has no merit. Being a colonel or killed in a battle does not make one significant. This is a clear CSD candidate.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion of genealogical entry on a non-notable person. Drawn Some (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and relist Allow a full AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Per DGG etc. This should be made the prime example of the "supervote" problem in an essay somewhere. Not only does it go against consensus, it was closed way early to boot. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get real, a super vote is when somebody ignores consensus AND policy to take an untenuable position. This is note a supervote. Neither of the !votes here cited any reason to keep, but rather were attacks on the nominator. (Heck, even the person who !voted speedy keep now agrees that the article should be deleted.) Furthermore, this article fails to assert importance/significance, making it a candidate for CSD. If this is going to be cited as a "prime example of a 'supervote'" then you would have to say that you honestly believe this article is worth keeping per policy. I doubt that you can do so because it clearly does not. Furthermore, a "supervote" would be one where the rationale was not explained, I fully explained why this article fails to meet our minimal standards and discarded the two superfulous "keep" !votes.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy deleting something that is at AfD, has only keep !votes, and has reliable sources is fairly brave . Saying that the article didn't assert notability would seem to fly in the face of WP:N where sources are notability. My sense is you substituted your judgment in place of the discussion and prematurely cut off further discussion. And yes, I think the article should either be kept, or probably better, merged. Hobit (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The citation of sources <> notability, particularly when the extent of those citations is merely to state the existence of a person/provide a family tree. Being brave <> "a prime example of the supervote problem." At best this could be merged, but there has yet to be a claim to significance/importance. He existed, I have no doubt about that. Did he do anything other than die in a war?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The value of those sources with respect to the topic is something for the community to decide. Cutting off that discussion and overriding what little consensus there was is replacing your view of things for the community's view. If this were a copyright or BLP issue that required immediate attention and was black-and-white I'd understand moving to a speedy against consensus and in the face of sourcing. But this neither required immediate action nor was black-and-white. Hobit (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist so that it can be properly deleted after 7d. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not going to try to get involved in the bureaucratic politics of deletion reviews, but dragging this out of speedy deletion just to have a "proper" discussion on whether to delete it or not is a complete waste of time. Just compare this with Ander Örbom, which is rightfully going to be deleted. Balloonman made the proper decision in deleting this. I can't for the life of me understand all this obsession with saving articles with zero encyclopedic usefulness. If you're all so concerned with coverage of Swedish military history, get cracking on the major articles like Great Northern War, Battle of Poltava, Charles XII of Sweden and other related articles that are in serious need of attention. Peter ^Isotalo 16:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment does anybody else realize that we've been bickering for 5 days, when if the AfD were to have continued for the full 7 days, it would have been closed for 2 days now? Let's not make this process any longer, it isn't going to have any chance for keep in AfD. EDIT: Reminds me of theWar of the Oaken bucket TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Boazman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't want the whole DRV treatment. The previous article was deleted after a 30 minute AfD, and for what reason I do not know, the redirect was edit protected. This should not require so much effort to simply have a re-written article moved from my userspace but I'm not getting any help. New article, impeccably sourced to a few dozen RS, written without ever seeing the deleted article at User:Miami33139/Sally Traffic. Please also fix the redirect at Sally Traffic. Miami33139 (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope that Black Kite comes here to explain why he protected this redirect (and I note that Miami33139 did, correctly, leave a message for Black Kite, on 11 September). If he does not, then my !vote is unprotect, per the third pillar. This is a wiki.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User:Black Kite did reply on User talk:Miami33139, saying that the subject has contacted WMUK and desires the page to be deleted. See this for further background. Tim Song (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to note I've seen that, given it due consideration and my !vote remains "Unprotect because this is a wiki".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Keep If the article that was speedy deleted matches in any way the version in user space, there is a clear claim of notability and ample reliable and verifiable sources to support this claim. That the subject, who appears on national radio and is quoted in various articles, does not want to appear in Wikipedia is worth considering but is not enough to grant her (or any admin) veto power over an article. There was nothing proper about taking this abusive and disruptive shortcut to bypass determing the matter based on community consensus. Alansohn (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, the article I wrote in my userspace has nothing to do with what was deleted. I do not know the style, tone, or worthiness of what was deleted. In fact, I assume what was deleted was complete trash. I am asking for the edit protection on the redirect to be removed so my article can be placed there because what I wrote is not trash. Miami33139 (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation This is a reasonable userspace draft and certainly an improvement on what was there before deletion. If anyone still feels it needs deleting after restoration they are free to nominate it and a full AFD can be held to let the community decide. Davewild (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit and allow recreation Given the subsection entitled "Stalking incident", it would appear there is reason for the subject of the article to have privacy concerns. None of the artice's sources is primarily biographical. So I think she is marginally notable, and the section entitled "Personal life and pasttimes" should thus come out of the article. I can't see the prior article to compare, but I trust Davewild's assessment. GRBerry 00:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Overturn We do not delete at the subject's request unless the community decides to endorse it at AfD or a noticeboard, or if it is so obviously necessary that OTRS will honor it. I do not think it the least obvious that it will be deleted--she was apparently the presenter of her own program on the BBC main network. It certainly does not qualify for speedy. If there's material that is not appropriate ,we can delete that material. DGG ( talk )
• Overturn - Someone with their own program on a major network, not to mention their own own book by a noted publisher, is not candidate for speedy deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit recreation per DGG. Without prejudice to AfD, etc., of course. Tim Song (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn With no prejudice against a full AfD later. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn for now. Not clear on the speedy argument and it _sounds_ like A) a good article can be written and B) that might have been the one that was deleted. Hobit (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, the article I wrote in my userspace has nothing to do with what was deleted. I do not know the style, tone, or worthiness of what was deleted. In fact, I assume what was deleted was complete trash. I am asking for the edit protection on the redirect to be removed so my article can be placed there because what I wrote is not trash. Miami33139 (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn all of Black Kite's actions related to this article and permit recreation with no prejudice to AfD. The previous article was very different to the userspace draft, and although user:Black Kite speedy closed an AfD on it as "speedy delete. Patent A7 - no importance or significance claimed." it was actually not an A7 candidate at all - I can see at least four separate assertions of notability. It didn't cite any sources about her, and would most likely not have survived AfD in that state, but that does not make it a speedy deletion candidate, and the userspace draft shows it could have been improved. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist per DGG. That was not an A7, pure and simple. The article is full of claims of importance/significance, certainly enough to warrant a full 7-day AFD to decide its fate. Regards SoWhy 11:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]