PlaneShift (video game) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not think that AfD consensus was "delete" because of combination of two reasons:

1. Two sources cited in the article where identified as independent and reliable (reviews in TUX Magazine and Linux Magazine Spain).
   This is enough to satisfy notability guidelines.
2. The breakdown of votes was:
   4 editors voted "delete" (1 of them made few or no other edits outside)
   2 editors voted "week keep"
   7 editors voted "keep" (3 of them made few or no other edits outside)

So there was both enough sources, and the majority who voted "keep".

I contacted PeterSymonds, who closed the AfD, and he confirmed that those two sources where indeed found valid, but "consensus seemed to agree that this wasn't enough (discounting the single-purpose accounts)". I do not believe there was such consensus, and I ask to review this closure.

-- MagV (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. While sources have been provided, they are not sufficient; many are written by the PlaneShift team, or superficial at best. Ironholds (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-review your rating with the additional sources provided below. --79.40.27.216 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- after reading the whole of the deletion discussion I see a lot of merit in PeterSymonds's closing rationale and agree that this falls within the bounds of administrator discretion. Reyk _YO! 22:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-review your rating with the additional sources provided below. --79.40.27.216 (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so, and see no reason to change my opinion. Reyk _YO! 23:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the deletion discussion, there seems to be no convincing consensus either way on this article discounting any meatpuppetry that may have happened. In addition to the already-mentioned TUX Magazine, Linux Format, and linux-magazine.es sources (check the AfD), there is an about.com review^[1], written by what seems to be an established writer (RSN/Archive27, AFAIK, does not make mention of About.com's reviews being unreliable, and WP is not a review site, WP:NOT, so I'll argue the "incestuous links" argument does not apply in this case). Also, does a satire/parody (^[2]) written by a third party (SomethingAwful) count as a reliable source for the purposes of this discussion (namely, notability)? (p.s. answer = no on the last question)

As for the page in question: someone more experienced in Wikipedia writing than I should reconstruct it (probably as a stub to allow for WP:SOFIXIT) correctly. Given the relatively marginal notability of the topic, an extensive article would be inappropriate; HOWEVER, 4 reliable sources is worth a brief piece. The original deletion was made as a difficult, discretionary decision; however, this should not be interpreted as a "this topic does not belong on WP, period", but as a "this article would have needed such extensive rework to meet the WP criteria for notability that starting afresh may be the best thing to do."

K1llaB1rd (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC) K1llaB1rd[reply]

I can easily provide additional notable sources (magazine scans where PlaneShift has been mentioned). Is that enough to restore the article and stop this deletion fight? --79.30.201.16 (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's see them please. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PCAction July 2003 - 4 full pages, here is the scan of the first one : http://www.planeshift.it/pix/magazines/pcaction_page1.jpg

GameSurge July 2006 - article and screenshot of PlaneShift while speaking of mmorpg games http://www.planeshift.it/pix/magazines/GameStar-LinuxExtra_July_2006.jpg

LinuxMagazine (not sure about date) - inside the Sourceforge project of the Month, speak of Crystal Space and PlaneShift, there is an actual PlaneShift screenshot: http://www.planeshift.it/pix/magazines/page2_scaled.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.27.216 (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion decision was based not only on lack of real progress since original AfD, but on the overal strength of arguments on both sides. Very weak "keep" arguments, some of which were from users possibly canvassed to join and vote. This "game" is not even a production version, and if/when it is official and notability is established, then an article can be made. Until then, WP:CSD any attempt at recreation, and WP:SALT as needed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand there is no discussion possible in this forum, decisions are taken in an unilateral way. With the majority of the votes for Keep and three more notable sources provided, you still say that the article has to be deleted. Also your knowledge about the game being in production or not is wrong. The game is in production, it's just not complete, but plenty of players are using the game. More admins will have to look at this before saying if the article should not be added back. Being an admin doesn't allow to ignore notable sources and majority of votes. --79.40.27.216 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, valid close. Nakon 15:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I think this should have been a "no consensus" close. The delete votes were strong enough, but there was not a strong enough consensus to delete - far from it. Aiken ♫ 15:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I will not fault the closer for closing that particular debate as he did. Sysops quite rightly have wide latitude in dealing with sock-tainted discussions, and while we're supposed to assume good faith with new users, there were reasonable grounds for thinking some attempt to stack the debate was being made.

  But in view of the new sources provided above, I don't think it's impossible to write a sourced stub with this title, and I recommend we invite the nominator to submit a userspace draft to DRV for review accordingly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was canvassed to comment here, but I have nothing much to add, except that one good published review in an accepted reliable source would deal with the problem, and the article should be resubmitted then. In view of this and the two afds, it surprises me to see the ip arguing that there is not sufficient discussion here. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's part of the problem there have been 2 for several months, tux mag and linux mag spain.Steuben.viscosa (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, reasonable closure, evidence of astroturfing reduces weight given to simply counting sources. In the end Wikipedia is not about the precise number of namechecks on websites off your own domain, at the margins it's about judgement of significance. In this case it came down against. C'est la vie. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. As the closing admin said, it was a tricky close. It was within his discretion. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• relist now that there are new sources. I'd have to say they make it a weak but pretty obvious keep at this point. Or just create a new stub per S Marshall. Hobit (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I would suggest that interested parties write a new article from scratch, using two or three of the most solid sources (the two magazines mentioned above, if they are from reputable publishers, and I mentioned about.com in the AfD). The original article was pretty indiscriminate in its referencing. Marasmusine (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Good close, well within admin discretion. Eusebeus (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure Kudos to PeterSymonds for this admittedly tricky close; I think he made the right call. While a majority of participants in the discussion supported keeping the article, many of those participants were single-purpose accounts whose arguments were not rooted in policy. In general, their arguments tended to be WP:BIG, WP:GHITS, and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, which are all considered arguments to avoid; size does not equal notability, and assertions that sources exist are not enough to prove notability. These are weak arguments, and in general, the "weak keep" arguments by Marasmusine and Rankiri were the only arguments on that side of the debate that added a lot to the discussion. Conversely, those arguing for deletion had solid reasoning based in Wikipedia policy. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I feel like I have not been eloquent enough to state my position. I will try one more time. Please, do not take this as an attempt to persuade anyone. This is an attempt to get comments on my specific reasoning.

The stated reason for deletion is lack of notability. Valid argument in favor of this claim where that the sources provided in the article are not reliable, not independent or lack significant coverage. For most of sources cited in the article this is true. However my (and several other) "keep" votes where based on the existence of multiple independent, reliable sources that show significant coverage: published reviews in TUX magazine and Linux Magazine Spain (about.com review was also cited as reliable by Marasmusine, but Rankiri expressed reservations, so let's ignore it for the moment; let's also ignore the possible RS provided a few comments above). This is exactly what WP:GNG requires, and this is what I claim was provided.

So far no-one argued that those two specific sources are not reliable, not independent or lack significant coverage (I specifically raised that question during the AfD). In fact PeterSymonds confirmed their validity (see his talk page). Therefore, the topic is notable per WP:GNG, and cannot be deleted per WP:DEL.

So my question is this: given that no policy provisions deletion of this article, also given that, discounting possible single-purpose accounts, the majority voted "keep" (6 vs 3), what is the valid reason for "delete" closure?

I ask everyone who voted here to point me to the specific reason and the corresponding policy, so I would not get confused in the future.

Thank you for your time. MagV (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Considering more reliable and notable sources have been provided, I think the article should be restored, so the new sources can be properly used to establish its notability. --Xyz231 (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No new reliable sources have been provided, admin acted well within his judgement on the outcome of the AfD. SpigotMap 19:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you address the issues with the sources provided by 79.40.27.216? They appear to be reliable. I'm honestly lost on this one. There appears to be a fair number of reliable sources at this point. Not great ones, but certainly plenty in most AfDs. But lots of reasonable people think this should be deleted. What am I missing? Hobit (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There were more keeps than deletes, and therefore, it should either be a keep or no consensus. It should absolutely not be a delete. Dew Kane (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Arg!!!! We've got an AfD that _was_ bad, but now we've got plenty of sources (a 4 page spread in a magazine being just the start). The endorses are ignoring the sourcing and focusing on the weakness of the keep !votes (which were weak, no doubt). yes, this isn't AfD2, but we're now we'll over the bar and we're still getting comments like SpigotMap's that there are no new reliable sources. The sources are just fine and I've not seen anyone argue otherwise. I'm fine with a relist (it's AfDs job to evaluate sources) but in the face of what looks like very solid sourcing, I'm confused. Are we just trying to punish someone for what looks like !vote stacking? Hobit (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to WP:INCUBATOR – (Full disclosure: I was considering closing this DRV, but I remembered having engaged in some off-wiki communication with those who may be involved in PlaneShift in one way or another, so I may not be impartial if I closed it.) Anyone would be able to work on the draft in the WP-space (i.e. no ownership issues) and place any additions/edits/etc under scrutiny before sending back to the mainspace, assuming those sources are reliable enough. This would save the need for any additional drama via going back to AFD or here. –MuZemike 20:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give me few days and I will do what you suggest by adding all the new notable sources found. --Xyz231 (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Danda nata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Unilaterally deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven with the logged reason "homework". That is not one of the speedy deletion criteria, nor does the page (which read "How do we know authencity of an event if it is belonged to ancient period?") fit any of the speedy criteria. Since Danda nata does not make it clear whether it is discussing a current or a historical even, and is currently unreferenced, the question seems at least possibly related to the subject of the article, and no more wrong headed than many talk page comments. Deleting it seems WP:BITEy to me, and in violation of WP:DEL and WP:CSD. Moreover DF67 did not choose to inform the editor that the page had been deleted or why, which would be useful even if this were a homework attempt. Restore as out of process speedy, which would not be likely to be deleted at an MfD if anyone had nominated it. DES ^(talk) 17:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Not eligible for speedy deletion. decltype (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The talk page question seems to be quite legitimate; in any case an unsound question does require the speedy deletion of a talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you mean "does NOT require the speedy deletion"? DES ^(talk) 15:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for the simple reason that it does not meet any of our speedy delete criteria. I do think that, very occasionally, an WP:IAR speedy is appropriate but this should be clearly explained in the log. In this instance, especially given the log, it seems very unlikely to be the case (although as a non-admin I can't see the page) isn't the case and so the deletion should be overturned as out of process. Dpmuk (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The complete text is quoted in my nom above. I would add that I don't believe there is ever such a thing as an appropriate IAR speedy, DES ^(talk) 23:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have refactored my comment above based on this. Would add that even if we had a "homework" speedy delete criteria this wouldn't meet it as it's possible it's actually a question about sources and so not a clear cut case of "homework". Speedy delete criteria are tightly defined to ensure a) that admins don't step outside what the community have allowed and b) to ensure we don't delete useful pages. It is better to have to go through the full deletion process for pages that clearly should be deleted than have pages deleted that shouldn't be. To ensure this happens we need to enforce our own policies. Will reply on your talk page about the more general IAR point. Dpmuk (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely pointless to notify someone of something like that after the page is a month old. It's a homework question; the page is clearly in the present tense. For god's sake, DESiegel, do you have nothing better to do? DS (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Actually i can think of few better things to do than to make sure that pages are not deleted unilaterally out of process. Admins are trusted to use the delete button only in accordance with community consensus, which means either after a deletion discussion, or an expired prod, or in strict accord with the WP:CSD. Admins who aren't willing to limit themselves to that ought to resign the tools. And I might add that I don't see any clear-cut indication that this was "a homework question". Inded it might well have been an attempt, albeit poorly phrased, to ask about the basis for the article, which I remind you is and was unreferenced. I also would add that if a person logs back after a month, as many newcomers do, finding a note explaining why his page was deleted, or even a basic welcome, might be friendlier than to find the page missing with no explanation. Even better might have been to simply respond on the talk page, indicating why you thought the msg was inappropriate. This could have served to educate others as well as the poster, and would have taken little if any extra time beyond that needed to delete the page. DES ^(talk) 23:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I fail to see the point of restoring a page that simply contained a question unrelated to the main article from a user whose only contribution was the edit in question. It is most unlikely that said user will drop back to check the answer of said unrelated question or otherwise, and if he did, I'm sure DESiegel would be most happy to answer it on Nirudeep's own talk page, a much more appropriate place. Criteria are never an objective in their own right, but instruments in the pursuit of a goal, in our case the writing of a free encyclopedia, as the tagline on each page reminds us. Hence, the page should stay deleted, and we should all devote our time to more pressing backlogs. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A minor point "Criteria" is plural, the singular is "criterion". And the Speedy deletion criteria are some of the most brightline and, in intent at least, objective, things on Wikipedia, IMO. I think the project is harmed by any unilateral deletion of a page not in accord with the CSD. (See my views at WP:PI.) I also do not see how you know that the editor is so unlikely to check back a month later -- I often see talk page comments followed up after a month or more, particularly from newcomers who don't log in all that often. I am also not as convinced as you are that this question is "unrelated to the main article". It may have been, but it also may have been an attempt to ask about the basis of the (unreferenced) statements in the article. There is no way to be sure, that I can see. Therefore "When in doubt, don't delete" seems a sound rule of thumb. DES ^(talk) 23:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  A minor point, you seem to be so focused on correct my single grammar mistake (that was already corrected before you wrote your reply) that you misspelled it and wrote "criateria", as well as other 3 words misspelled in the original drv nomination. But that is hardly the point. As for WP:PI, I already glanced at it earlier, and I do not agree with it. There is no relation between the question and the article. There is no mention of any historical period, no statement about when the festival was first started, no claim that it's ancient, anywhere in the article, hence I fail to see how the question has anything to do with the article at all. For all that the articles states, it could have been created in 2001. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How can you be so sure there's no relation between the question and the article. To me it seems perfectly plausible that the question is related by the article but it was asked by a non-native speaker of English and so not phrased the same way a native English speaker would. Given the rather poor language in the article itself it's even possible that the questioner thought the article referred to an historical event in which case the question makes sense given the lack of sources, it's effectively a poorly worded "How can we be sure this event actually happened given it happened in the past" (by implication for when sources are rare). As such I'd have assumed good faith and assumed it was intended as a proper question if badly worded and to do otherwise is bitey. [As it happens this is moot as the intention of the questioner is irrelevant - the page still did not meet any of the speedy criteria.] Dpmuk (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I shouldn't have mentioned the grammar issue, it was petty and irrelevant. My apologizes. Comment struck and my typing errors fixed. The article indeed does not mention a time period, ancient or modern, but it is written so that it might be assumed by a reader to be ancient. How do you know that was not the case? As to WP:PI, it is only an essay. Many people disagree with it, many others seem to agree at least in part. But it fairly clearly explains why it is my view that such matters are worth raising. DES ^(talk) 01:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn- I'm not usually one for procedural wikilawyering but I think this speedy was unjustified. Not being an admin I can't see the deleted question but the opinion of other editors seems to be that it was at least vaguely related to the article in question and unlikely to be deleted at an MfD if it had been nominated there, so I simply cannot see any reason why this should have been deleted. Reyk _YO! 23:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn No reason for deletion at all. It might have been intended as a comment on the article., If so, it seems to the point: the article was unsourced, and to ask how we know about the subject is a sensible thing to do. AGF, I assume Nirudeep came for information about the festival, and was quite rightly disappointed in our article, and made a comment, although not as clear as it might have been, at the right place to do so. It seems related --the origin of the festival, like most religious festivals, probably does belong to an ancient period. How DS can tell it is a homework question I do not understand, unless by personal knowledge. I myself have left talk page comments and check months later to see if anyone paid attention. Apparently not, for the article is still unsourced. Of all the possible ways to treat new contributors, this is the most remarkable example I've seen. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for principle as not meeting any speedy deletion criteria. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn- The CSDs are narrowly defined for a reason. Having passed an RfA does not give someone unilateral authority to delete pages they feel are inappropriate.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn These are getting old quickly. No speedy criteria applies. Hobit (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Close - restored by deleting admin. PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn out-of-process speedy deletion with flimsy reasoning behind it. In deleting this talk page, DS violated WP:DP. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was the 4th attempt to delete the article--the first 3 attempts were unsuccessful. BWilkins decided to merge the article with another. Was there sufficient consensus in the discussion to warrant this decision: there were 6 votes to keep, 10 votes to delete, and only 1 vote to merge? In addition, WP:DELETE states that: "articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists"--neither of which were true, so that doesn't seem to make it a candidate for merger.--Drrll (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse; close seems to reflect consensus and policy. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own closure. Based on the strength of the arguments to keep and to delete, this would have been a clear-cut case (IMHO) of delete. I've never listened to the show, but I understand that his neologisms are colourful to say the least. In this regard, it appeared that it would make perfect sense to maintain a few of those neologisms, but a list of their own did not meet overall notability requirements. In light of preservation of the notable aspects of the article, merge of notable segments was the only valid close. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I nominated the article for deletion and obviously would have been happy with a deletion result, but working on the continuum of Deletion to Inclusion, a result of Merge is wholly appropriate given the comments of the debate. Bwilkins made a proper close. MBisanz ^talk 16:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. We need to see more of these closes. A merge was suggested during the AfD and the proposal was not discounted by any of the commenters. A merge outcome therefore correctly reflects the consensus that a stand-alone article was not warranted, but that there was content that could viably be preserved by a merger. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The fact that the proposal to merge "was not discounted by any of the commenters" does not indicate a consensus to merge. In fact, quite the opposite. The fact that the majority of commenters expressed a definite Keep or Delete position, without endorsing the merge proposal, is indication that most thought a straight Keep or Delete result was the correct outcome, not a merger. My problem with this AfD decision is just that -- it seems to interpret the comments of the group to mean exactly the opposite of what they actually said. Ithizar (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and comment: Actually a lot of the "keep" votes were perfectly in line with the outcome... most of the arguments for "keep" centered on the notability of either Rush Limbaugh or his show, and did not discuss the notability of the jargon (the topic of the article in question) at all. We have to remember that AfD's are not simple a vote count. The closer is supposed to base closure on the comments made. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, close showed good weighing of policy-based arguments. We should be more active in rolling back split-outs of trivia like this, too often they are the result of people refusing to accept that not every little factoid belongs in Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There are two abuses in the process to discuss before I get to the substance of the deletion review: (1) The closing administrator arbitrarily decided Merge as a supervote. This is not a result that follows the AFD process. There process calls here for the outcome to be No consensus for the AFD and then editors, including administrator Bwilkins can make the case for merge in an actual merge proposal at parity with other editors on the article's talk page. (2) The administrator's closing edit inexplicably omitted my edits. This is the diff.. The AFD result should have been no consensus: If you review the debate, you will see that there were no new reasons given which we not identical to the first, second, and third AFD's. This was nothing more than a fourth bite at the apple. There was no response to my reasons why the conditions which were true for the first, second, and third AFD's failing were not likewise present in 2010. The suggestion that merge is an alternative to delete, probably will lead to a proposal in the not too distant future to split the jargon out of the article for pragmatic article size reasons. Will there be a fifth AFD then? patsw (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: There should be no need for a fifth AfD... simply don't split the Jargon section off again. If the editors at the main article can resist the temptation to list every amusing bit of jargon that Rush has ever uttered... and can limit themselves to a short list of the best, most note worthy examples... there should be no need to split. Blueboar (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I count 11 deletes, 6 keeps, and 1 merge. I had also suggested merging, though I didn't put that in bold. It seems like a reasonable outcome considering there was significant opposition to the article's inclusion.   Will Beback  talk  04:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closing rationale makes perfect sense. ThemFromSpace 06:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It was either this or delete and this was the best option. Guy's right, we should be more active on splits like this. One of Patsw's complaints is that similar articles that are less read escape our attention (this was being used as a justification for keeping this but of course it really means we need to be more vigilant). Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete, in reflection of the consensus. Second choice endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I can't believe so many are arguing this decision reflected consensus. There was absolutely no consensus to merge. There was hardly even discussion to merge. An administrator cannot simply announce a consensus based on what he or she believes the result of the discussion should have been, which seems to be what is happening here. If we're going purely on the number of votes, the result should have been Delete. If we want to look beyond the votes and say that enough editors felt there was material worthy of keeping, then the AfD should have been closed with no consensus and a merge discussion opened. The way this was handled is arbitrary and unilateral. Ithizar (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep Stifle !voted twice, and the vast majority of the delete !voters are citing "indiscriminate"--which, when applied to a particular political topic, is essentially a WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. No substantial effort was made to address the documentation of the jargon which exists in the article... in other words, despite the "delete" numbers, the arguments were too weak to even legitimately consider this a no consensus close. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... Jclemens, are you discussing the same AdF? Several of the comments (on both sides) addressed sourcing issues. Blueboar (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per policy-based arguments and closing statement. Merging seems like the best solution, as much of the article content is clearly not notable. Kaldari (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think we should have this article, but the discussion didn't agree. A merge result, when delete is the other option, can be the right choice even if there wasn't a single !vote to merge as long as the discussion identified a target. We should merge/redirect more often rather than deleting... Hobit (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - clearly a standalone article does not reflect the consensus here (in fact, the topic has no notability outside of the radio program itself, and independent sourcing is problematical). Those who advocate the radio program itself be the cited source overlook that without access to an official transcription, the so-called sourcing would in fact be original research. It also can be argued that there wasn't consensus for either keeping or deleting, and that the appropriate "middle road" would be a merge. It is obvious that the article could not be kept as-is. B.Wind (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Access to official transcripts is available on the web site for the radio show, and many of the references in the article link directly to those transcripts. Ithizar (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure This was a fine close; consensus in the discussion was that this topic did not merit its own article. The closing admin correctly recognized that the information should have been preserved per Wikipedia editing policy and chose to merge the content and redirect. In response to Ithizar, who contends that a merger discussion should have been opened on the article talk page – that might have been appropriate if no consensus was reached in the discussion. However, there was a consensus, and it was that there should not be an article at this title. Therefore, a separate merger discussion was not necessary. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again, I don't see where the alleged consensus to merge is coming from. If anything, there was a clear consensus to delete the article. A merger proposal was made during the AfD discussion, and no one supported it. Instead, virtually every editor participating in the discussion explicitly advocated either keeping or deleting. It is not the job of an administrator to read the arguments on both sides and decide what is 'best' to do; it is the job of an administrator to follow the consensus. That was not done here. Again, if a consensus was reached, it was to delete, not merge. Ithizar (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're failing to read WP:PRESERVE, and also failing to realize that AfD is better thought of as "articles for discussion". The discussion consensus was "this article by itself does not need to remain", but almost everyone believed that some of the content was worth keeping - hence the closure of "merge some of this information (not all of it) into the source article". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but I'm actually not failing to consider WP:PRESERVE. However, that does not take the place of consensus amongst editors on a particular article, nor does it give anyone -- even an admin -- carte blanche to ignore consensus. The clear consensus on this article was to delete. Not to merge. To delete. Yes, there was an occasional mention of merging in the discussion, but only one person in the entire discussion actually endorsed that as the best course of action. This still seems a clear case to me of an admin attempting to determine, despite consensus, what's 'best' for the article, which is not how the process is supposed to work. Ithizar (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The strength of PRESERVE would be a good discussion for WT:Articles for deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak overturn to delete, second choice "redirect, history available for merging", third choice merge. I see a strong consensus against a separate article, but none for merging. Merging was mentioned a few times and hinted at a few more. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse though I think delete was supported more than merge. In fact, if you read them, the true consensus of prior AfDs was to delete, and the closing admin failed to address the merit of the arguments. But anyhow, it's inaccurate to say that those supporting delete "don't like it." There's plenty of things I don't like that merit articles, and things I do like that don't and I'm sure that's true of the other editors and it's bordering on not assuming good faith to accuse otherwise. Delete, or merge, has strong support from policy and guidelines, whereas "keep" were in favor of ignoring policy and guidelines. I don't see any reason for challenging the closure, and the nom and some of those preferring keep here (including an admin!) are confused on the point of WP:NOTAVOTE. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. If the result had been delete, it would still be reasonable to add selected entries back into the show's article. Thus, there's no real difference between outcomes, and so no reason to overturn, even though merging was not explicitly preferred in discussion. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point in that the outcome of delete vs. merge would not likely be much different in this case. However, it still troubles me than an administrator took it upon himself to ignore the consensus expressed and instead determine what he thought was a 'better' option. That seems to violate the spirit of these AfD discussions. Ithizar (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ithizar, look beyond the raw votes... and read the comments. A majority of the comments acknowledged that the Jargon is note worthy in the context of discussing Rush or his show (I am deliberately not using the term "notable" here). This can be seen as support for the merger. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hi878/Secret Hidden Page (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page, and the other five pages listed in the MfD nomination, were deleted prematurely, and this is hindering the discussion. The deleting admins have contributed to the debate, and undeletion by an uninvolved admin would be preferable. Please undelete all six pages listed in the nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore- nothing would prevent their re-deletion if that's the way consensus goes at the MfD. But right now the fact that nobody can see the pages makes it hard to judge that MfD fairly. Reyk _YO! 04:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy restore so that non-admins can properly participate in the MfD by seeing the contents of the pages. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Per WP:NOTMYSPACE whether or not the deletion was premature is not relevant since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a bureaucracy or multiplayer game. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore until the end of the MFD. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and let MFD sort it out, although this may well be a brief reprieve. Orderinchaos 11:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy restore as out of process - "made page more secret" is not a valid speedy delete reason and there does not appear to be any valid speedy reason. I'm not against WP:IAR speedy deletions (as long as they're logged as such) in very clear cut cases but this clearly wasn't as an MfD was taking place at the time. I have no opinion on whether they should be kept in the long run or not but this deletion was clearly out of process and so should be overturned. Dpmuk (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and desysop--Cube lurker (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]