Category:Operalia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The outcome of the discussion was not clear. Also, music competitions are not prizes and do not fall into WP:OC#Award-winners. Karljoos (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_1&action=edit&section=T-2[reply]

• Having decided that Category:Operalia prize-winners was overcategorisation, that left two items in this category: the eponymous one and one about the founder, Plácido Domingo, a man who is already categorised in a great many ways. Short of recategorising the winners into this category, a bad idea that, there is seemingly no room for growth so that this too is overcategorisation (WP:OCAT#SMALL refers). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Will need to be expanded in view of the requester's clarification of the scope of the request below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All right, maybe Category:Operalia is not neccesary. But the discussion shows that Category:Operalia prize-winners and other music competition categories are useful (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 7). Also there's an ongoing debate here.--Karljoos (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Is this a review of the deletion of both categories, or just Category:Operalia? It is not clear from the nominator's statements above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Both categories were included in the same CfD. I am not so concern about Category:Operalia though.--Karljoos (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (no consensus). The close is not evident from the discussion. The closer's rationale is particularly poor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus and restore both categories. It does not appear that consensus was reached in the discussion. Most participants were apathetic, "leaning" one way or another without declaring a position. There certainly wasn't a consensus to delete, even if there was a quasi-consensus that the categories were less than useful. Relist at editorial discretion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as No Consensus closing admin cast a very clever vote, but the close had nothing to do with the actual particpation by real editors at the CfD in question. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Closer appears to have closed based on his own opinion, which would best have been expressed as a !vote. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. In my view, a close as delete was not open to be made here. There weren't many firm keeps, but nor were there sufficiently strong arguments to delete to outweigh the many well-considered "neutral" and "weak keep" positions. The text of the closing admin's rationale leaves it reasonably open to the suggestion that the close was influenced more by the admin's own views than a reading of the debate as a whole with a view to determining whether a consensus had been reached. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist for more discussion; the discussion was so weak as to opinions that I think this is one case where more discussion would be really helpful. Or change to no consensus and someone can renominate. The closer correctly determined pre-existing consensus with respect to other similar categories, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. This one didn't get many strong opinions either way, and the close was closer to a casting vote than a gauge of consensus, which I'm not seeing in that discussion. (In full disclosure, I participated in the original debate.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist Category:Operalia prize-winners for further discussion. Poor quality of discussion with little direct consideration of the main point - the significance of this competition. Tend towards endorsing Category:Operalia as it is manifestly overcategorisation and seemed to be readily identified as such by most engaged conbtributors. --Xdamr^talk 08:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sket Dance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since the AfD, the manga series has one won the 55th annual Shogakukan Manga Award,[1] which now allows it to pass WP:BK. Request the article and talk page be restored. —Farix (t | c) 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Additionally there is also an "import" review in the Anime News Network's Right Turn Only column. --KrebMarkt 21:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Digging further, here is a helium-inhalation incident that the publisher later apologize for.[2] —Farix (t | c) 22:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per comments made by nom and KrebMarkt. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like this falls under a new development that esstablishes notability. I can't see what the previous article looks like, but unless there's a reason not too I'd suggest restoring so the new info can be added.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore as situation has changed, but I'm a bit suprised that a manga from Weekly Shōnen Jump was deleted in the first place. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being serialized in Weekly Shōnen Jump doesn't make a manga series notable. Though series that run in Weekly Shōnen Jump do have a higher tendency to receive coverage by reliable third-party sources. —Farix (t | c) 14:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Jump has an average circulation of almost 3 million (compared with a top-tier US comic like X-Men which sells around 80,000) and manga has a much higher media profile in Japan than US comics do, including numerous publications which cover manga exclusively. It's nearly impossible to imagine that anything published in Jump wouldn't have existing sources, at least Japanese ones. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • They also have a throw it at the wall and keep what sticks approach to new series; most titles only run for a couple of months, and are resoundingly ignores. I think current consensus is probably a little too strict; once a title gets past a year or two, it's pretty much an established hit, but the project tends to wait for awards or anime or translation. Doceirias (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore One of the editors seeking deletion in the AfD now seeks restoration, noting that notability has been achieved in the time since the debate. WP:CRYSTAL was a concern at the time but for obvious reasons no longer is. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my comment in the AfD, that last piece or two to push this series firmly into notability has materialized. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vid Belec (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Vid Belec is a young player of Italian Serie A club Inter, he's in the first team as you can see from the official Inter website, the article is definitely notable. Ekerazha (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion If you could link to this site, and any other source you night have, it might help.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is true that he still hasn't actually played at that top level I'd have to agree that he still doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. We'd need a source that he'd actually competed at that level, not just that he was on a roster.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not relevant. It's not notable because he meets WP:ATHLETE, it's notable because he's listed as professional player of the first team (1st or 4th goalkeeper is also not relevant at all, he's a team player, stop) of one of the most prestigious football clubs in the world... that's very notable, WP:ATHLETE is not relevant here. Ekerazha (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks the link helps. I do think the issue we run into is appearances. According to the stats section of that website he hasn't made one. Consensus has been that an actual appearance is needed. Without this, even if it were recreated it's likely fail to pass an AFD again. Unless there's more in the way of newspaper/magazine articles or the like I'd suggest waiting for him to make an appearance.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, this is the first team page from the official F.C. Internazionale website [3] Ekerazha (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion doesn't matter if he is listed in the first team (as a fourth choice goalkeeper, btw), the only relevant thing is that the player has never appeared in a competitive game at all with any first team, including Inter, so failing WP:ATHLETE. This is the rule of thumb that has always been agreed in plenty of AfD cases, so contesting it for a lone case makes little sense. --Angelo (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was a clear consensus to delete, based on the properly formed view that the subject failed WP:ATHLETE. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was before he joined the first team, things are changed now. Ekerazha (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was actually already listed in the list of first team goalkeepers at the time of the nomination, so your remark is just wrong. --Angelo (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was not, you are plain wrong. Ekerazha (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - longstanding consensus over hundreds of AfDs is that a sportsman has to have actually played at a fully professional level to satisfy the requirements of WP:ATHLETE, not merely been added to the squad list on the club's website. Nom seems to be claiming that WP:ATHLETE can be ignored in this case as being named as Inter's fourth-choice goalie makes the subject inherently notable by that fact alone. Sorry, I don't agree at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and improve to meet WP:N or WP:ATHLETE before coming back here again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per the long standing consensus that a player must have made at least 1 appearance in a competitive match before they meet WP:ATHLETE. This person has not done so yet and no compelling reason for notability on other grounds has been made. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it, as I've already said it is notable because he's listed as a professional player of the first team. I never said it is notable because he meets WP:ATHLETE. As I've already said, WP:ATHLETE is not very relevant here, something very simple to understand but nobody seem to understand it because everybody still talk about WP:ATHLETE. Ekerazha (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion WP:ATHLETE is easily the most lax of our major notability standards, and anyone who can't clear even that very low bar is patently unsuitable for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletions per WP:CSD#G4, and endorse closure of the AfD as "delete" given the strength of the arguments for deletion. The consensus at AfD was that the subject failed WP:ATHLETE; there is no evidence that he now does. Ekerazha, WP:ATHLETE is very relevant here because it was the primary reason for deletion. You've admitted that he doesn't meet that guideline for notability; if he meets any other Wikipedia notability guideline (including the general notability guideline), an article may be appropriate. Otherwise, do not expect the speedy deletion to be overturned anytime soon. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was because everybody used WP:ATHLETE as a notability requirement, while I'm saying (as I've already said so many times) it isn't notable because of WP:ATHLETE, as I've already said, now WP:ATHLETE is not relevant at all. My call for notability: "Significant coverage", "Reliable", "Sources", "Independent of the subject": YES. We have a large coverage from many sources, there are 286,000 hits on Google for "vid+belec" with pages on reliable sources like the F.C. Internazionale official site (he's in the first team), the Gazzetta dello Sport site (site of the most popular sports newspaper in Italy) etc. Ekerazha (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide specific links which represent in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources (the club's official website is not independent) then please do so and it may help. Personally, all I've found via Google are some passing mentions in reports on non-competitive matches (not in-depth), blog postings (not reliable) and "player profile" type pages (not in-depth) Repeatedly claiming that he is inherently notable just for being added to the club's squad list clearly won't get the deletion overturned -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "player profile" pages you have found are definitely relevant as they are specific pages on the subject. Also, the club's official website is independent: it's not the Vid Belec blog or personal website, it's the official site of a 3rd subject, the F.C. Internazionale. Ekerazha (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not all of the Inter youth team goalkeeper turned as a professional footballer, in although Belec had a long career in Slovenia youth teams. Matthew_hk tc 10:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inter often awarded number to youth team players, let them trained with first team, but not equal to they will play first team "competitive" match, even as unused bench. Matthew_hk tc 10:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Belec has also been added to the first team list, that's different from most other situations. Also, if you know what football is, you know it's difficult for substitute goalkeepers to play, because you only have 1 goalkeeper on 11 players. This is why Belec still didn't play an official match (only friendly matches, still high profile, vs Chelsea etc.), but he's ready to play if needed, so he's definitely a team member. Ekerazha (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He may be a team member, but that is irrelevant. The consensus is that the only football players who merit a Wikipedia article just by virtue of being a football player are those who meet the criteria set out in WP:ATHLETE. The consensus, here and everywhere else that it has been discussed, is that players are required to compete in a fully competitive match before they meet point 1 of the criteria. Vid Belec has not competed in a fully competitive match, and therefore does not meet the criteria. If you feel this is unfair to goalkeepers, then start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) (the WP:ATHLETE talk page). Iff that discussion results in a consensus that a different standard should apply to goalkeepers then the wP:ATHLETE guidelines will be changed. At that point, you can ask for this article to be reevaluated against the revised criteria if Vid Belec hasn't played in a competitive match by that point. Continuing your arguments here will achieve nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny after 6 days there's still people like you who still talk about WP:ATHLETE when I've already clearly said, many times, WP:ATHLETE is not the point here. I'm applying the general notability guideline (as I've already exaplained), not WP:ATHLETE. However, adjusting WP:ATHLETE makes sense too. Ekerazha (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial Shamanism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Ok, so the same without remarks about the educational background:

I would like to request to undelete the article "Judicial Shamanism". The discussion presented here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judicial_Shamanism was not factual. The administrator who deleted the article was not an expert on the subject, and did not provide any serious reason for deletion. I'd like to provide some substantial arguments for undeletion. The concept of "judicial shamanism" is used by the following people:

1) Article "In the fortress of double standards" ("Dvygubu standartu citadeleje") of President Rolandas Paksas of Lithuania. He writes in the conclusion that the practices of certain courts shall be understood as "judicial shamanism" http://www.ivaizdis.lt/zinpr_det.php?id=9827 and http://www.paksas.eu/news.php?strid=1577&id=3139

2) There is an official statement of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court on "judicial shamanism" http://www.lrkt.lt/APublikacijos_20080320b.html

3) There is an article "Theory of Judicial Shamanism" of Stanislovas Tomas published by the WORLD CONGRESS OF PHILOSOHPY OF LAW (that took place in 2005) http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=211909788&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine He also has a number of other scientific publications on the subject, and is a postmodern law scholar at the university of Paris.

4) A chapter at the book of Rafael Prince from the University of Sao Paolo is dedicated precisely to the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.buscalegis.ufsc.br/revistas/index.php/buscalegis/article/viewFile/33054/32234

5) There is article "Shamans, Law and Logic" of professor Rolandas Pavilionis and it deals particularly with the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.vgtu.lt/upload/mc/lm_73kn_3.pdf and http://www.skrastas.lt/?rub=1065924817&data=2006-01-24

6) The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 42 of Sergey Shirokogoroff called "Phsychomental Complex of the Tungus". Shirokogoroff writes that Western philosophy, Western psychology and Western law are contemporary forms of shamanism - all the book is dedicated to this thesis. Mr Shirokogoroff was a professor of law at Cambridge.

7) The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 48 of "Le systeme des objets" by Jean Baudrillard. He uses the concept of "shamanic ritual" and this notion is essential for the theory of simulacra.

8) Professor Fred Rodell from Yale dedicated all his academic career to comparing law to Voodoo.

Moreover, the deletion was not unanimous - there were two for and one vote against.

Dear The Hand That Feeds You, my point is not an appeal to authority. The admin who deleted the article ignored the 8 reliable sources that I gave without explaining why, according to him, they are not acceptable. Each my point is supported with a link. 158.64.52.114 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Straightforward endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Tim Song (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete - the debate would end differently - there are many sources. Fred Rodell uses the concept of judge=medicine-man/shaman, and law as Voodoo. See, for instance his book "Woe onto you lawyers". The AFD discussion would end differently if within those 7 days an expert on postmodern jurisprudence took a look at this. The problem is that most experts have jobs in the real world and come to the virtual one only from time to time. Nonetheless, the mistakes may be corrected later.158.64.52.114 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- The consensus was pretty clear. Reyk _YO! 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• UndeleteComment Read this from "Deletion Review": "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." According to this rule it does not matter whether there was a consensus of two persons or not. I have material that was not discussed and it is a place here to discuss it. 158.64.52.114 (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed your bolded statement here to "Comment" because each person only gets to make one such recommendation in a debate, and you have already expressed your desire above. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse After discounting the non-policy vote made by the vandalism-only account, there was unanimous consensus among the established editors to delete this article. A core policy, Wikipedia:No original research, was not adequately refuted by the sole "keep" vote. Cunard (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Cunard - it is not a question of vote but a question of have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate It is not original research, since there is a number of publications - Why do you ignore the links that I post? http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_1#Judicial_Shamanism_II - these are published works and there is no manner you can deny this. 83.99.24.80 (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was a clear consensus to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Mkativerata - it is not a question of a closed vote but a question of have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate It is not original research, since there is a number of publications on this subject - Why do you ignore the links that I post? http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_1#Judicial_Shamanism_II - these are published works and there is no manner you can deny this.83.99.24.80 (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The IP editor has this idea that I am (somehow) the admin deleted the article (I'm not an admin, I didn't even tag the article for deletion!). I have pointed out that passing mentions of Judicial Shamanism (see ref 1) do not meet WP:RS standards and explained that he needs sources specifically about judicial shamanism, despite his claims that I've been dismissive of his attempted contributions. He has refused to look at any site guidelines offered to him. The IP editor has demonstrated through behavior such voting multiple times and editing the archived deletion discussion for this article (and other stuff) that he has no idea what he is doing on this site. He has demonstrated elsewhere that it isn't willing to learn. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Ian.thomson - the admin never participated in the debate - Ian.thomson is instead of him - possibly simply has two accounts. Why do you ignore the links that I post? http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_1#Judicial_Shamanism_II - these are published works and there is no manner you can deny this.83.99.24.80 (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not accuse a long-standing editor of sock puppetry without some good evidence to back it up. Consider this a gentle warning. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • More seriously, do not edit signatures to appear from a different IP. That undermines this argument badly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You didn't understand what I did - I tried to merge two IP adresses into one in order to facilitate my identity - not to split it. The second IP I used is in use by about 100 people 158.64.52.114 (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Woe Unto You Lawyers does not explicitly mention Judicial Shamanism, so using it as a source (especially without a source that specifically says "this piece is about Judicial Shamanism") qualifies as original research. Not that you're going to bother reading the guidelines for that either. This site is not an academic site, this site is just a bunch of monkeys on keyboards slapping together sources that speak for themselves, sources that are explicitly about the subject and explain the subject well enough that they do not need to be cross referenced or interpretted. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear Ian.thomson - First, professor Fred Rodell uses the words "mumbo-jumbo" and "VOODOO", which are two forms of "shamanism". Mumbo-jumbo is a form of shamanism in Congo, and "voodoo" is a form of shamanism in Haiti. Second I gave the following references that use the term "shamanism":
        • Article "In the fortress of double standards" ("Dvygubu standartu citadeleje") of President Rolandas Paksas of Lithuania. He writes in the conclusion that the practices of certain courts shall be understood as "judicial shamanism" http://www.ivaizdis.lt/zinpr_det.php?id=9827 and http://www.paksas.eu/news.php?strid=1577&id=3139 - "this piece is about Judicial Shamanism"
        • There is an official statement of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court on "judicial shamanism" http://www.lrkt.lt/APublikacijos_20080320b.html - "this piece is about Judicial Shamanism"
        • There is an article "Theory of Judicial Shamanism" of Stanislovas Tomas published by the WORLD CONGRESS OF PHILOSOHPY OF LAW (that took place in 2005) http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=211909788&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine He also has a number of other scientific publications on the subject, and is a postmodern law scholar at the university of Paris. "this piece is about Judicial Shamanism"
        • A chapter at the book of Rafael Prince from the University of Sao Paolo is dedicated precisely to the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.buscalegis.ufsc.br/revistas/index.php/buscalegis/article/viewFile/33054/32234 - "this piece is about Judicial Shamanism"
        • There is article "Shamans, Law and Logic" of professor Rolandas Pavilionis and it deals particularly with the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.vgtu.lt/upload/mc/lm_73kn_3.pdf and http://www.skrastas.lt/?rub=1065924817&data=2006-01-24 - "this piece is about Judicial Shamanism"
        • The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 42 of Sergey Shirokogoroff called "Phsychomental Complex of the Tungus". Shirokogoroff writes that Western philosophy, Western psychology and Western law are contemporary forms of shamanism - all the book is dedicated to this thesis. Mr Shirokogoroff was a professor of law at Cambridge. - "this piece is about Judicial Shamanism"
        • The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 48 of "Le systeme des objets" by Jean Baudrillard. He uses the concept of "shamanic ritual" and this notion is essential for the theory of simulacra - "this piece is about Judicial Shamanism"
      • What's wrong? There is also a number of people using the word "totemism" which is also the same as "shamanism" 158.64.52.114 (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, Wikipedia does not accept original research, which interpretation qualifies as. Mumbo-Jumbo is actually a white construct to make fun of African religious traditions that white people didn't bother to understand. That you are submitting Mumbo-Jumbo as an example of shamanism is a bit of a demonstration that you may not know all that much about Shamanism. I mean, saying Mumbo-Jumbo is an example of Shamanism is a bit like saying Aleister Crowley's Gnostic Mass is an example of Catholicism. And again, you need to quit bringing up sources like "In the fortress of double standards" that are not specifically about explaining Judicial Shamanism, but only mention the concept. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (delete). Tell closer to look up "unanimous" and chide him gently. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to SmokeyJoe- it is not a question of a closed vote but a question of have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate It is not original research, since there is a number of publications on this subject - Why do you ignore the links that I post? http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_1#Judicial_Shamanism_II - these are published works and there is no manner you can deny this.83.99.24.80 (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 83.99.24.80, register, request userfication, improve the article in your userspace to address the AfD concerns, then ask again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the consensus was very clear, and nothing the nominator has brought up is likely to change that. In addition, the poor conduct of the nominator both here and in the previous now-closed DRV hardly makes a compelling case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure An admin doesn't have to be an expert on an article's subject to interpret the consensus in a deletion debate on article. There was a near-unanimous consensus to delete the article at the AfD based on WP:NOR, a core policy and a strong reason for deletion in this case. The sole "keep" vote was by a vandalism-only account and constituted a argument to avoid – either WP:JUSTAVOTE or WP:NOHARM, take your pick. If you think you can create a new article establishing notability and avoiding original research, go ahead and register an account. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse due to excessive WP:BLUDGEONing of the discussion. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I would like to request to undelete the article "Judicial Shamanism". The discussion presented here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judicial_Shamanism is completely uncompetent. The administrator who deleted the article was not an expert on the subject, but a student of English at a second-class American college who does not speak any foreign language. I would consider as an exprert only a lawyer who is familiar with postmodernism of law and with critical legal studies. In a normal world a student of English would never be considered as an expert on the subject. I'd like to provide some substantial arguments for undeletion. The concept of "judicial shamanism" is used by the following people:

1) Article "In the fortress of double standards" ("Dvygubu standartu citadeleje") of President Rolandas Paksas of Lithuania. He writes in the conclusion that the practices of certain courts shall be understood as "judicial shamanism" http://www.ivaizdis.lt/zinpr_det.php?id=9827 and http://www.paksas.eu/news.php?strid=1577&id=3139

2) There is an official statement of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court on "judicial shamanism" http://www.lrkt.lt/APublikacijos_20080320b.html

3) There is an article "Theory of Judicial Shamanism" of Stanislovas Tomas published by the WORLD CONGRESS OF PHILOSOHPY OF LAW (that took place in 2005) http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=211909788&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine He also has a number of other scientific publications on the subject, and is a postmodern law scholar at the university of Paris.

4) A chapter at the book of Rafael Prince from the University of Sao Paolo is dedicated precisely to the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.buscalegis.ufsc.br/revistas/index.php/buscalegis/article/viewFile/33054/32234

5) There is article "Shamans, Law and Logic" of professor Rolandas Pavilionis and it deals particularly with the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.vgtu.lt/upload/mc/lm_73kn_3.pdf and http://www.skrastas.lt/?rub=1065924817&data=2006-01-24

6) The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 42 of Sergey Shirokogoroff called "Phsychomental Complex of the Tungus". Shirokogoroff writes that Western philosophy, Western psychology and Western law are contemporary forms of shamanism - all the book is dedicated to this thesis. Mr Shirokogoroff was a professor of law at Cambridge.

7) The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 48 of "Le systeme des objets" by Jean Baudrillard. He uses the concept of "shamanic ritual" and this notion is essential for the theory of simulacra. (The admin who deleted the article never heard about postmodernism).

8) Professor Fred Rodell from Yale dedicated all his academic career to comparing law to Voodoo.

Moreover, the deletion was not unanimous - there were two for and one vote against. Even more so - the article was previously undeleted but the admin ignored the previous discussion.

Finally, I would like the admins to disclose their degree level. I hold a German PhD degree in postmodern jurisprudence. The admin who deleted the article is a college student of English who does not speak foreign languages. In a normal world our arguments would never be considered at the same level. The very right of such admins to delete articles shall be considered as vandalism.

This is why the article shall be undeleted. 158.64.52.114 (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but appeals to authority don't work here. Your personal credentials are not relevant. What is relevant are reliable, verifiable sources on the subject. Some of what you mention above may qualify; if so, I suggest you create an account so you can write a factual, sourced article on the subject. Finally, you should really be aware of our policy against personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T:cite news (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(1) Main argument given for deletion, WP:CROSS, gives specific exception for intended use. Redirect was created in accordance to WP:namespace article: WP:namespace#pseudo-namespaces indicates "T:" as the correct shortcut. (2) Closing admin Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) says it was based on consensus. Vote that was based on 3 total votes 2 to 1. Not enough for consensus, relisting for more input in order, or no consensus. I also contend RfD should not be reduced to a vote in this instance.

Related deleted pages are T:cite web, T:cite paper, and T:cite book. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Without opining, those interested may find this discussion relevant. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks fine to me; RfDs often get fairly weak participation and the consensus there seems comfortable enough. I wouldn't object to relisting the discussion for more opinions if it really is this contentious, but I don't personally buy the argument that just because one single person finds a cross-namespace redirect useful we should keep it. I'd probably have closed this the same way, and hence I endorse the closure as sensible. ~ mazca ^talk 13:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (nominator comment) In my opinion, recently created cross-namespace redirects should default to delete unless shown to be beneficial for the project. For example, I find Speedy Delete beneficial since new users presumably type that into the search box. I believe this to be the community consensus as well, so to keep an XNR from main space there would need to be an explicit case for inclusion.
  The only reason you gave is convenience. I've given you an alternative in the form of browser bookmarks. If you prefer using the keyboard, you can add keywords to most browsers that you can type into the address bar that would bring you straight to your desired targets; you also have my blessing to create shortcuts in project space, eg. at WP:T:cite news. But for mainspace, we'd need to have a better argument for inclusion, and I don't see that it could be made for those targets. Amalthea 16:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you against the CAT pseudo namespace as well? What rationale? How can one be for one but not the other? How does deletion help? This is a case of demolishing the house before it is built. There is a problem and a solution given as prescribed by WP:Namespace. You would delete the remedy and leave the problem without a solution. You feel the redirect should not be there; I feel it should. The difference is the deficiency I'm addressing is pretty clear. Typing out template in full is an inconvenience. I don't know what deficiency your deletion action is supposed to address. This is a case of WP:Overzealous deletion. You say this is consensus? Default to delete for a redirect? Point to the Wikipedia policy that says so. BLPs are extremely contentious but even they are default to keep. Lambanog (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec) I personally am opposed to any new cross-namespace redirects from mainspace, yes, since they are blurring the lines between the encyclopedic content and the maintainance frame, and since it's absurd that a reader searching for e.g. dyk is left with T:DYK, Saints/DYK/8, T:DYK/Q, T:DYK/C, P:AU/DYK, T:DYK/Q2, T:DYK/Q4, T:DYK/NN, T:DYK/P1, T:DYK/N, T:DYK/Q1, T:DYK/Q3, T:DYK/Q5, T:DYK/Q6, T:DYK/P2, T:DYK/P, T:DYK/Q7, T:DYK/N/C, and more. Deletion helps with that. I've given you three ways to have shortcuts to citation templates that don't pollute main space. There are even more ways. If you're still not happy, find consensus to establish a proper namespace alias, I'd welcome and support that. Amalthea 17:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't get what your point is with that list. I did not come up with "T:" out of a hat. That is what is indicated in WP:Namespace which I was merely following when creating the redirects. You are claiming consensus to support your view and point to WP:CROSS—but WP:CROSS is ambiguous at best for your position. I can even claim it supports my stand over yours and if that is the case that leaves you with no guideline supporting your position. Lambanog (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Reasonable close that reflected the consensus in the discussion. The arguments for deletion were more compelling than the arguments for retention in that the redirects interfere with the mainspace. Lambanog (talk · contribs)'s argument for retaining this as a useful shortcut is significantly weakened by Amalthea's proposal of creating shortcuts in the WP namespace instead. Cunard (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure The closing admin interpreted the consensus in the debate reasonably. Only Lambanog argued for keeping the redirects, and his arguments were largely refuted. A relist may have been better, but there's no error with this close. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, there was reasonable consensus to delete in that debate, as the delete points were well argued and countered those to keep. --Taelus (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a reasonable close, certainly within the closer's discretion. However, I am reluctant to support the idea of using project-namespace redirects, for three reasons: first, the formulation WP:T:cite news is somewhat inelegant; second, having multiple colons in the page title will probably result in more typing errors; third, there is an option that does not involve cross-namespace redirects and does not require more characters than a cross-namespace redirect from the project namespace. I would like to suggest creating redirects within the template namespace; for example, instead of trying to use T:cite book (11 characters) or WP:T:cite book (14 characters), how about Template:cbook or Template:citeb (14 characters)? –Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DRV nominator: Everyone is saying it is a reasonable close but has not cited any WP article to support the claim. In addition to WP:Namespace and WP:CNR itself which literally interpreted prescribe and allow said shortcuts, close reading of WP:RfD#The guiding principles of RfD and WP:RfD#Keep would seem to indicate this closure as against the spirit of RfDs. RfDs are supposed to be a space of greater leniency than AfD or other deletion areas. WP:CSD#Redirects specifically R2 further supports my stand. If closure of this was proper I'm having difficulty understanding why Template: is explicitly mentioned there and AFD necessary and simply CSD not adopted. What would the exception be? From what I can tell general but undocumented practice at XfDs is the sole reason for endorsing this close even if it conflicts with a whole line of WP articles. This is a conflicting and schizophrenic state of affairs. 2 people in an obscure XfD misinterpreting or misrepresenting the contents of WP:CNR in this instance overturned consensus as stated in more than one WP article. As someone who has so far not generally hung out at XfDs except when articles I've directly worked on have been challenged I would like to call attention to the discrepancy between what is said in articles for the benefit of the general Wikipedian community and the actual practice at XfDs of specialists. Lambanog (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword of Truth universe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed as "no consensus" by Kurykh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). However, I believe there was a consensus to delete, largely because the arguments to keep were exceptionally weak and should have been ascribed less weight. The arguments for deletion were grounded in policy. The main argument to delete was the lack of evidence of significant coverage in third-party sources; those arguing to keep failed to refute this argument. One "keep" voter contended that third-party coverage was not necessary, an argument that conflicts with the guidelines at WP:N and WP:WAF. Another argument to keep was that sources might exist – an assertion that was not backed up with any evidence. The remainder of the arguments to keep were arguments to avoid, including WP:WAX, WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:BHTT, and WP:USEFUL. In contrast, votes for deletion were rooted in policies like WP:NOT and WP:V (in addition to the notability guideline). All things considered, the article should've been deleted; however, Kurykh stands by his close. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete- I firmly believe consensus should be determined by strength of argument and not solely by strength of numbers, and that the stronger arguments were on the "delete" side. Reyk _YO! 02:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - I really don't see an overwhelming consensus to delete this page, and simply listing off abbreviated policies/guidelines/essays gives the impression of an AFD take 2, which is not what DRV is to be used for. Deletion should occur if the page is completely non-salvageable, and I don't see that upon even a cursory look at the article.--WaltCip (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please re-read the nomination. I'm not re-arguing the AfD; I'm arguing that the closing admin weighed the arguments in the debate incorrectly. That falls squarely within DRV's purview. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made a point earlier about how deletions should not be left purely to the discretion of admins, but allow me to qualify my own point: an admin may make a discretion based on the consensus, or attempts to reach consensus, found within the deletion. Discretion is the key word here, and thus the concept of "weighing" the strength of arguments seems entirely subjective to me. Also bear in mind that the arguments to avoid cited above are based on the viewpoint put forth in an essay, not a policy (and I am aware of WP:ONLYESSAY, which is a tautology in and of itself). Because of this, admins are therefore not forced to give some arguments more credence than others based on a policy mandate. Viewing the correspondence between you and the closing admin, I note that he viewed the arguments with close enough strength that justifies the no consensus close. As it turns out, a sizable portion of those participating in deletion review are in agreement or at least accepting of his use of his discretion. There was no error here. I maintain my position.--WaltCip (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Very few of the keep arguments addressed the nomination of to a lack of secondary sources discussing the article's topic. Without such sources it was argued that the article fails any number of policies (verifiability, reliable sourcing, notability) and I do not think that these arguments were given sufficient weight, especially against keep arguments that inadequately address these concerns. While it was asserted by Nefariousski that these sources exist, no reliable secondary ones were provided during the debate. By a nose count this is a non-consensus debate, by strength of the arguments it should have been closed as delete - Peripitus (Talk) 04:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as "No Consensus". DGG's argument, that as a sub-article this does need to have the independent sources called or by WP:N and can be reasonably sourced to the primary material is not so unreasonable that it should be discounted. Guidelines are just that, not inflexible rules that must be obeyed in all situations. As such there are reasonable keep and delete arguments balanced in number so that No Consensus is a reasonable close. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete DGGs arguments were so weak (and these were backed up by Edward321) I can only assume that he had not analysed the debate or studied the article in sufficient detail. To create a separate article because the primary article did not have enough space to incorporate the "in-universe" stuff is a terrible precedent because in doing so wikipedia can no longer be an encyclopedic account of the external world and it turns it into a collection of indiscriminate information or fancruft which is lamentable per WP:NOT. Not a single one of the keep voters managed to refute the deletion rationales which were based on policy such as WP:NOT. Therefore this is a poor close. The argument seems to be partly based on the fact that spin off articles do not need to meet notability guidelines and that sources could be found in the future. This is so weak all keep votes could be ignored. Moreover the debate was still very active at the close with a significant amount of information coming very late with no chance for editors to respond. With keep votes lacking any arguments based on policy this should have been a clear delete or a relist pending any keep votes that could be based on policy. Polargeo (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not surprisingly, I think my view , so far from being absurd, is now mainstream here, as the reasonable compromise. It is not common sense nor is it policy nor is it a guideline to think that everything mentioned in an article must be notable. We need some way of dividing a long article. Or do you oppose any mention of things in a fictional universe? that;s a very extreme position indeed. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even setting aside WP:N, the guideline at WP:WAF explicitly requires articles on fictional worlds to establish real-world notability. No one is saying that "everything mentioned in an article must be notable" independently, but I think most editors would agree that the subjects of articles must be notable. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closure was not deleteThere was no consensus. Consensus means most people are appeased, not that most arguements are most legitimate within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Besides, it remains just as prominent as any other fictional world, it just needs more work. Simply deleting a page because it is not "there yet" seems a little ridiculous. What about articles like List of Forgotten Realms characters? should we automatically delete a page, or should we put a in universe style template at the top and allow for change to come. Or look at Middle Earth even, they establish the real world briefly before going into a much broader in world perspective. Leave the page. The tag has only been on it since October, give people a little time. 4 months is not enough. Sadads (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am also the head of the Sword of Truth Task force. I will spend some time estabilishing real world content in the coming future.Sadads (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to Sadads but this is a taste of the AfD keep arguments all over again. Mainly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "it can get better" and "give us some more time and we will prove the notability by finding the sources." Clearly not based on policy unlike the deletion rationales. Polargeo (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To this, I bluntly cite WP:IAR.--WaltCip (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again in Wikipedia "policy" = guidelines subject to consensus, not "policy" = consensus subject to guidelines. This is a judgement call, and the judgement call by the consensus was that it is too rash of a move. Sadads (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but in AfD admins are urged to give less (or no) weight to arguments that are not based on policy. In this debate I count 6 for deletion (including nom) and 4 keep. However, I see no keep argument based on sound policy guidelines and no clear refute of the deletion arguments. When there are more for delete than keep and the keep rationales are this weak no consensus is an incorrect close. In this case WP:IAR is overruled by the fact that there are more editors voting delete. We should certainly not ignore the rules in a case when it is clear that there are more people who don't want to ignore the rules than those who do. Polargeo (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse NC Closing this as no consensus seems well within admin discression. Some admins may have closed this differently, however it doesn't look so out of process that it should be overturned. Allow some time for article improvement. At a later date if you still feel it merits deletion see if a second AFD can gather a stronger consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than a third of the debate came within the last 24 hours of the AfD. To close as no consensus, defaulting to keep, when the keep arguments were so weak and in the minority seems wrong anyway but this was a highly active AfD. If the admin had wanted to give the keepers more time to find some policy, or a source to hang their arguments on a simple relist would have done this. Polargeo (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also using "within admin discression" as an argument to maintain a judgement is not fair as it makes individual admins more powerful than they should be. This is a place where there should be unbiased judging of what is the correct close for this debate. Not whether the admin was within some poorly defined bounds of their discression Polargeo (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe admin discression is the heart of what DRV is and DRV is not. Some afd's are clear cut, others fall into gray areas where admins must make a judgement. DRV is used when the close was against policy, not just because you disagree with it. I look at this AFD discussion and see a discussion that could reasonably called no consensus. Others may see it different, but that doesn't mean that no consensus was clearly wrong. It doesn't mean biased vs unbiased, just that there's not always clear black/white yes/no decisions. It falls into that area where we have to respect the close, and move on. As I said, after a respectable period of time you can try again.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it was a correct close or not? I believe it was not. Shutting down the argument by saying it is "within admin discression" "we have to respect this and move on" without reviewing why you think it is within this discression means little. Polargeo (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you think the keep arguments have some limited merit based on policy? This would be a possible reason for a no consensus to be within admin discression. Polargeo (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is not AFD2. That means that endorsing a close is not the same as adding a keep arguement. AFD analyses the article, DRV analyses the AFD. That said commenting on the afd I don't feel that the keep arguements fall into a category of completly ignorable. These aren't SPA's saying "PLX KEEP MY BAND. I NEEDS WIKI". I don't think it's unreasonable to give them enough weight to call this no consensus, even if not enough to call it a straight keep.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close as "no consensus". If we went by strength of arguments, I suppose, we wold go with a "keep" close, because there does not appear to be any actual reason to delete in this case, but a fair conclusion would be "no consensus" and as such, there is no reason to challenge that. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse While I can see another admin closing this as delete, there was no clear consensus either way and there are probably too few no consensus closes. A child article on an in-universe piece is a reasonable fork that will be less likely to have real-world sources and is something accepted as a rule. There was no policy violation here that justifies overturning the decision. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Not clear error. Tim Song (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Could it have been closed another way? Yes. Was the "no consensus" closure within the administrator's discretion? Yes. A "no consensus" more than allows for this to be nominated again in the not too distant future. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I was astonished at the no consensus close, which seemed to be vote counting. The Keep arguments were not based in policy nor consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 01:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think you mean, that you did not agree with them personally. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG that is a poor shot. Polargeo (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many "spinoff" articles, such as Fictional universe in Avatar, which I would wholeheartedly notvote to keep in an AfD, because there is plenty of sourcing. This Sword of Truth universe article is utterly lacking in secondary sources. I always notvote in AfDs based on the sourcing; in fact, as far as I can see I am the only editor on Wikipedia who does so. Abductive (reasoning) 19:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Within administrative discretion. Respectable arguments were offered for keeping. It is much better and less dangerous to err on the side of "vote-counting", which gets criticized too much, than to err on the side of substituting one's own judgement instead of reading consensus.John Z (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. As has been remarked above several times, the keep arguments were not found in policy whereas those favouring deletion were. A majority vote by "a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale" according to Wikipedia:Consensus, which is why counting heads is never the right thing to do at AfD. There clearly was an error in closing this debate as policy, rather than mere opinion, clearly was not given its due weight. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no policy based reason for deletion. Community consensus is overwhelmingly in support of these articles. Far more editors create, edit, and come here to read these articles than the extreme minority that hover around AfDs and even then, they still could not overwhelm the policy based reasons for keeping. All we are left with is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is invalid. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? That hardly represents those arguments accurately. The arguments for deletion were based on (a) the lack of sources (WP:N, a guideline), (b) the lack of verifiability (WP:V, a policy), (c) failure to establish real-world coverage (WP:WAF, a guideline), and (d) failure to establish suitability for an encyclopedia (WP:NOT, a policy). Moreover, your claim that the reasons for keeping were based in policy hold little weight unless you can somehow identify in which policies they were rooted. And your claim that "community consensus is overwhelmingly in support of these articles" is, so far as I can tell, speculation. To which consensus, exactly, are you referring? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Far more editors create, work on, come here to read, and defend these sorts of articles than the handful that keep trying to delete them. The series gets over 200 hits on Google Books. After the initial page of results of the books themselves, you start getting into analysis of the characters as seen all over this page of a secondary source. Information that is verifiable through multiple reliable published sources is notable per the Wikipedic definition of the term. When secondary source authors devote several paragraphs discussing the plot elements of a franchise we have a basis to work with to improve an article. The reality of the available sources on Google Books alone is that it has undeniable potential for further improvement and per the policies of WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, that is the path we take instead of redlinking. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the series gets over 200 google books hits. We have an article on the series, an article on all eleven books within the series and an article on the author. The importance of the series has nothing to do with the close of this AfD in this case there were no keep votes based on policy and the article was not a viable encyclopedic article. Polargeo (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And further, redlinking is not an issue because anyone wanting to find The Sword of Truth will not find a redlink. anyone searching for The Sword of Truth .... may unfortunately find a redlink. In this case a redlink is in no way detrimetal to wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the article is not detrimental to Wikipedia. By contrast, it provides greater detail of verifiable information of interest to our readership and serves as sort of overview or table of contents to various aspects of the series and is thus more localized and convenient for our readers instead of sifting through the individual novel articles. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • That doesn't mean there can't be any discussion on the issue, otherwise going by pure policy, every deletion would be at the discretion of literally any admin. There'd be DRV backlogs for miles. Even if there was policy error in keeping this article, Wikipedia's integrity isn't compromised; this is as good as any other fictional universe article. Furthermore, if WP:BEGIN is to be followed and the burden of proof is on the deleter, I haven't seen any attempt to even assist in the creation of a Wikipedia article, and instead beyond anything else hostile intentions, which - as pointed out above - enters into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory.--WaltCip (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Reasonable call within discretion of closer and DRV is not a defacto eightball we keep shaking til we get the answer we want. -- Banjeboi 20:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nor am I treating it as such, thank you very much. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another dismissive endorse with no proper analysis. This is quite wrong this deletion review was called on grounds of incorrect closure and not "didn't get what was wanted" please actually examine the keep arguments against policy. Polargeo (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The standards for what and how items should be included remains a moving target and subjective. I feel the keep discussion spelled out reasonably well why the article should be kept and the closer was within their discretion to weigh those as being enough to discount the delete points. This remains not Afd 2.0 that we battleground away driving away people who are less interested in the dramatics. No consensus means it stays for now. -- Banjeboi 00:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure No sign of clear error, serious and respected editors in disagreement in the discussion, no clear trend in arguments. Ray^Talk 04:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but serious and respected editors (such as DGG in this case) seem to be reading and examining AfDs less and less and voting with their gut feeling rather than any proper analysis of the situation. Polargeo (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sorry DGG I respect you but I do not respect your arguments in this particular case and I believe that an endorse based on "respected editors in disagreement" is extremely poor and goes against all of our principles. Polargeo (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo, DRV is not AfD round 2. DRV is for blatant errors in closing admin's judgment, or significant new facts that would change the light of the discussion entirely (usually a good while after the original discussion). No new facts have come to light, so we are reviewing only whether the closing admin made a blatant error. His job is to evaluate the sentiments of the community in the matter, and not impose his own judgment. In a discussion of this kind, the closing admin has a good bit of discretion, and this does not fall outside it. Ray^Talk 17:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good bit of discretion is exactly where I have an issue. I think this was an incorrect close. Experienced editors seem to be constantly putting down less experienced editors rather than judging the actual close. Polargeo (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely more delete votes than keep with no keep arguments based on policy is an error to close as no consensus no matter how experienced those editors are. For the deletion review to be so lame as to say we endorse it because an admin has lots of discretion is not a good way to go. Polargeo (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also experienced editors rattle through lots of AfDs throwing keeps and deletes in everywhere. If their keeps are not based on policy or show they have not looked at the issue then those keeps should be disregarded in the same way as any IP's comments would be. Polargeo (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse; closure was not in error. The article is a reasonable spinoff of the parent, per summary style. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "spinoff" notion never achieved consensus. Nevertheless, I have seen many spinoff articles, such as Fictional universe in Avatar, which I would wholeheartedly notvote to keep in an AfD, because there is plenty of sourcing. This Sword of Truth universe article is utterly lacking in secondary sources, and should have been deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 19:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Summary_style_approach; I'm not sure what you mean by this notion not achieving consensus as it is critical to the very longstanding guideline WP:SUMMARY. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • When the spinoff idea was proposed, it was not agreed to by everyone, and quite a few editors wanted to restrict it. For example, "List of characters in..." articles were supposed to avoid excessive plot descriptions, and have at least some secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 03:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you saying WP:SUMMARY doesn't reflect consensus? I'm not quite following you. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • When people claim in AfDs that an article is a spinoff and should therefore be kept, other people say that it should not be kept because it lacks sources, or that spinoff status is not a magic way to avoid deletion. I have never seen anybody claim it is not a spinoff. Sometimes these spinoff articles are deleted. Therefore I conclude that being a spinoff is not a magic way to avoid deletion, and does not have consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 20:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. As I noted in the AfD, the article cites no sources, thereby failing WP:V, a core policy. Clear core policy violations must be given more weight by closers than any consensus (or lack thereof).  Sandstein  21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete: I wasn't involved in the original AFD. This seems like a clear !vote count to me, the delete arguments were far more compelling and went unchallenged. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The point to delete was that references were lacking, and none of the keep arguments even offered a rebuttal against this, nor did the few references that were added show notability of the topic as a whole (they mostly referenced small points of the article). There were 7 days to find sources and even a "rescue" tag asking for help. ThemFromSpace 03:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close as "no consensus" that was how the consensus should have been tabulated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete: There is no sourcing or out of universe information. It is an unverifiable page entirely composed of plot summary.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was no consensus in the prior discussion, and the closer correctly assessed it as such. Despite protests to the contrary, this indeed has become AFD2. The "strength of argument" claim really is a short hand way of indicating that our macro consensus (as reflected in policy) should override the micro consensus as reflected a in a (presumably faulty) AfD discussion. But as has been proved in RfCs, Arbcom cases and countless AfDs, there this is an area with little macro consensus to start with. If one accepts the spinout notability argument, there is no problem with this existing as a separate article. If one doesn't, it should be deleted. Don't get me wrong, the article is fancruft through and through. However, neither position gained traction in the AfD, and I am unwilling to overturn a closer who did nothing more than recognize that clearly evident fact. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete - The concept of notability does not apply to information within an article, but it definitely applies to the topic of an article and it must be supported by verifiable evidence. The article did not (and still does not) prove the notability of its topic by citing independent, reliable sources which provide non-trivial coverage of its subject. This concern was never adequately addressed in the AfD.
  • 122.57.0.252 pointed to the actual works in which the Sword of Truth universe exists, but those works are not independent of the subject.
  • Sadads indicated that there might be significant coverage of the topic due to "how the TV show Legend of the Seeker has seriously changed the construction of the universe", but did not provide a concrete example of such coverage and did not object to merging the content.
  • Nefariousski pointed to the existence of other articles about fictional universes; Nefariousski's second comment, in response to OrangeDog's comment that "those articles have sources establishing the notability of the fictional universe in the real world", called for improvement of the article and additional sourcing and highlighted the notability of the book (and TV) series. Regarding the first point: while improving an article by adding additional sourcing is appropriate when such sources are available, none of the participants in the discussion offered any such sources. Regarding the second point: no one disputes that the book series is notable, but a separate article about the fictional universe should exist only if the fictional universe is notable as well.
  • DGG argued that it is not necessary to (more specifically, that "there is no agreement on the need to...") prove the notability of the fictional aspect of works of fiction. While this is true in general (e.g., it is perfectly acceptable to write a plot summary using only primary sources), it does not apply when the issue at hand is a separate article. "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works," and articles should not be "plot-only description of fictional works".
  • Edward321 essentially repeated the arguments of Nefariousski and DGG (i.e., that the article is a "legitimate spinout article" and that "needing improvement is not a reason for deletion").

  Overall, the argument that the article is a plot-only description that fails to prove the notability of its topic was not successfully rebutted, since article size issues do not justify bypassing WP:NOT and the notability guidelines. In my opinion, the strongest argument for keeping the article came from Nefariousski, who pointed out that "just because the sources aren't on the page doesn't mean the sources don't exist". Deleting an article about a notable topic merely because it is currently unsourced is generally counterproductive (unless the unsourced content is potentially harmful or there is no useful content at all); see Wikipedia:Editing policy. However, it has been a long-standing principle of our verifiability policy that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". None of the participants in the discussion, including those who argued to keep the article, offered concrete evidence that the topic of The Sword of Truth universe has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure Major series like this often have articles for their Universe. Those who don't like these articles always argue to delete them. It provides useful information for those who wish a complete encyclopedic view of a series. And every key component of the universe does NOT a thousand references from someone who commented on it, knowing very well reviewers don't go into detail about every single thing, so many things won't be mentioned at all. Dream Focus 12:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Irrelevant thesis. No one disputes that reviewers don't cover every single detail of a fictional universe, and no one is asking for a reference for "every single" detail of the fictional universe. The standard for notability has generally been accepted as "significant coverage of the topic in two or more independent, reliable sources", and it is this standard which still has not been met. Many references would be a good thing, but at this time no one is asking for a thousand, hundred, or even ten references. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure as no consensus. The series is popular enough that this could serve as a spinoff article. I've seen this series criticized by fantasy enthusiasts on a number of levels including criticism based on its world building. If the main article gets too big such criticism could fit in this subarticle. Lambanog (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "could fit"? At the moment there are still NO sources for an "in-universe" spin off sub article. Even now, this far into the DRV, no significant (or any) sources are forthcomming. Also you are endorsing the close based on an AfD keep argument rather than evaluating the strength of actual AfD keeps. As a keep argument your endorse would also fall short, where are these sources you claim to have seen? This has been a common pattern amongst endorsers, to add very weak keep arguments rather than evaluate the close. Polargeo (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]