Neon Sarcastic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was speedily deleted as A7: No indication of importance at 22:26, but made claims that the band has performed in large venues in the UK, clearly asserting importance. The article may or may not be able to meet WP:GNG or the other notability criteria, but it passes A7. Unfortunately the article was immediately recreated by the initial contributor (in an earlier state), which serves only to confuse the issue. I would like to request that the deleted revisions from the deletion at 22:26 today be restored, as I was in the middle of improving the article when it was speedily deleted.

I started discussing this with the deleting administrator here, and he continued the conversation here. The deleting admin has not replied further. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. This was actually deleted, twice, by two different admins - admin Favonian (talk · contribs), and then again by admin Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs). Recommend userfy, for later further discussion after the editor has worked on the proposed draft version of the article, within a subpage of their userspace. I would be more than willing to do the userfication for them. :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't speak for the creating user, but that works for me. I believe I nominated the article for deletion the first time, and can only assume my reasoning was sound, but the most recent version didn't meet A7, imo. Userfying the article is probably best as it's not in good shape (I tried using a regex to remove a load of emboldened names and inappropriate external links but it was deleted when I tried to revert my regex messing up ;)) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Done, now at User:Giftiger Wunsch/Neon Sarcastic. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David R Hawkins (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

David R. Hawkins (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Why wikipedia allows deletion of this page is unacceptable. This man is a very controversial figure who is probably a fraud and allowing the deletion of this information is censorship. 98.23.242.150 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, speedy close I have no idea whether he's a "fraud" or not, but Wikipedia isn't the place to make fraud allegations against a living person. See WP:BLP and WP:Libel. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Agree with assessment as given above by Andrew Lenahan, with respect to issues involved, and WP:BLP. -- Cirt (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This page was deleted in 2007 with no edit summary. I'd say create a version of the article in userspace as a draft. As long as you promise to avoid making statements like "fraud" without some darn good sources even in userspace I think you could talk someone into letting you have an old copy of the article assuming it doesn't have WP:BLP issues. A quick search of news and books makes it seem likely he is notable. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The actual page is David R. Hawkins. It has a rather colourful history, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 30 - apparently back then, subject complained to OTRS and it got deleted for BLP issues and the deletion was contested. It last got deleted quietly 3 months ago due to a expired PROD. Kimchi.sg (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filair plane crash (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This debate appears to have been closed simply because people have vaguely said 'it's notable' per the GNG, and the closing admin seems to think it is standard practice to allow current events articles to be created, and only deleted later when they prove to be non-notable. [1] This is simply wrong. For a start, it is pretty clear that the vague hand waves to the GNG are evenly matched by objections that this violates NOT#NEWS. Secondly, WP:EVENT makes it perfectly clear that if you can't prove a current event will be of lasting significance, you wait. On the GNG and EVENT, the keepers barely even made an argument, let alone rebutted the deleters. Past precedent has made it perfectly clear that these sorts of accidents are not automatically notable just based on one days news coverage without extra factors, and the closing admin has completely ignored this piece of inherent consensus of the site, and the fact that keepers completely failed to make an argument or a rebuttal of any substance whatsoever. As such, this is not a valid closure per the instructions. MickMacNee (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a tricky one I think, because the keep !votes were on the whole quite poorly reasoned. Some had no reasoning at all; others asserted "notability" (which is not the test here) or "significance" without any real explanation. Then others cited coverage alone, which of course isn't enough because NOTNEWS was the valid reason for deletion cited in the nomination. Because this was tricky and demanded more than a headcount, I would have expected a more detailed closing rationale from the administrator. How did he/she weigh the arguments? The editors who put the time and effort into making well-reasoned delete arguments can rightly expect an explanation. An explanation has now been given on the admin's talk page and I'll hold fire with my own view here for now.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Closing admin correctly dealt with this AFD, both regarding assessment of overall consensus from the AFD discussion, as well as regarding assessment of WP:NOTE through coverage from reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse numerically, this was 11 keeps to 6 deletes. There's really no other way it could have been closed, as there certainly wasn't consensus to delete, and even "no-consensus" would have been a stretch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you know what is probably the most depressing thing about DRV opinions like this? You haven't even bothered to discount the blatantly invalid keeps in that tally, let alone the simple assertion votes and vague handwaves. Shit, I bet you've never even read the debate at all, let alone the article, which is holding steady at just the one day's worth of source material. Someone could have said, 'keep', purple elephants are cool!, and you would still be here counting it as a valid vote, asserting that this is all that matters in assessing whether this was a properly closed Afd. I seriously don't know why anybody bothers even pretending that the concept of strength of argument even exists on Wikipedia, it pretty obviously does not. MickMacNee (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus I would have discarded one or two !votes entirely and given significantly less weight to a few others, leaving the weight/numbers roughly even. Keep vs no consensus is usually semantics. I don't usually argue to overturn one for the other. But here I think it is worthwhile to make it clear that (a) the keep side was not as strong as the numbers looked and (b) the article can be renominated soon.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete, as per the strength of arguments and their basis in policy. Stifle (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Again, I get the objections and would likely agree that WP:EVENT applies, but that others seem to disagree is important. All airline crashes are EVENTs, and when the bar gets crossed into enough long-term coverage is an opinion. Hobit (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say NC would be within admin discretion here, but keep is also fine. Hobit (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete I would probably have leaned toward closing as delete (but wouldn't bother objecting to no consensus) in this case; many (well, most) of the keep rationales weren't policy-based while the delete rationales were. —fetch·comms 12:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, delete - Or at the very least, non consensus. As in the Agni Air one, the !keeps were overall quite vapid and should have been weighed next-to-nothing. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The overturn !voters here are entirely uncompelling--the numerical consensus in the debate is endorsing one side of an entirely contested and routinely debated application of a guideline. Asking for DRV to overturn such a close is asking that a closing administrator be overridden for simply treating a disputed question as open and subject to the numerical consensus of editors. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Even if not brought to DR, the closing statement is still incorrect in that, Wikinews cannot accept content from Wikipedia due to licensing incompatibilities (cc-by-sa here vs. cc-by there). —fetch·comms 00:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. DrKiernan (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The judgement of how to interpret the rules belongs to the community, not the admin who happens to close it. A proper closure. This is basically a disagreement over what the level of WP:N should be for such articles, and the community sets the standards. The admins role is to see what the community says should be done, and to do it. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. The community has spoken, and wants this article kept. Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per DGG. No individual editors interpretation of the guidelines here can be considered "superior" to other's and everybody's opinion counts.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agni Air Flight 101 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As above, this appears to be another Afd closed based on a vague consensus in the Afd, where the admin seems to think it is acceptable that possibly not notable event articles can be kept around until it is shown they are not notable. [2] Again, WP:EVENT makes it crystal clear this is not appropriate. The keepers have not adequately addressed concerns, in terms of policy, their rebuttals to delete arguments were weak, if not non-existent, and they go againt all established precedents - fatal scheduled aricrashes are not automatically notable, hull losses are not automatically notable, crashes with investigations are not automatically notable. The closer seems to simply have taken their invalid opinions as read. It is down to keepers to prove this was not a violation of NOT#NEWS, which they totally failed to do with any strength at all, and infact, there were so many invalid keep rationales it was unreal. In such a scenario, simply acquiescing to the crowd is not acceptable, not when they cannot prove in the slightest that they know what they are talking about. MickMacNee (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this one is even more clear, at 17 keeps to just 3 deletes. Any admin who closed this as "delete" would have been overturned at DRV before their 'enter' key had time to rebound. This and the above monination should bear in mind that "[DRV] should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome" which appears in bold at the top of the DRV page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe you should just keep your patronisation to yourself. Afd is not a vote count and I am not bringing this here simply because I don't like the result. So if you have anything sensible to add here DRV wise, other than confirming the closer can apparently add up and subtract correctly, then please add it. You can start by explaining how this outcome is remotely acceptable when the arguments made by keepers don't have a cat in hell's chance of being accepted if they were bundled into an aircrash notability guideline in itself. Jesus Christ. MickMacNee (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, please try to tone down your comments. Your combative attitude and employment of profanity damages your case and makes your goal less likely not more. I endorse this closure as there is clearly consensus among editors to keep the article. DrKiernan (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I have to say I see where Mick MacNee is coming from with this one as well. The AfD starts with the keepers quoting wikiproject essays as if they were guidelines; continues with vague assertions that the number of deaths confers notability; and then come assertions that the coverage is sufficient (again, WP:EVENT and NOTNEWS refer to impact as well as coverage - we are not a news service, that is policy. And there is nothing in the closing statement to suggest that the closing admin has considered the arguments, and how they have been considered. But who would have the balls to close a 17-3 headcount as delete? Numbers are important - they shouldn't be the determinative factor but they are a factor. And here the reasons to delete just didn't get support. So it couldn't have been closed as delete. Having said that, I think renomination at some point is justified. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I too can see where Nick is coming from. That said numbers do matter. It may be that's just a lot of IAR !votes to keep, but with those numbers keeping is the right call. Guidelines, and even policies, need need human interpretation and in this case they went in a direction different than I would have... Hobit (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. They were strong arguments for keeping. The fact that some comments in favor of deleting were not refuted and arguments for keeping were not further defended can be explained by behavior by MickMacNee, who rejected almost every comment and ridiculously demanded definitions for every word and proofs for every basic statement, and seemed to expect some kind of definite "proof" that the article does not "violate" NOTNEWS. This caused doubt that a serious discussion was going on (especially since the notability of the subject seemed obvious), and created the impression that it was just the rant of a deletionist troll who wants every plane crash or any other kind of event out of Wikipedia, and who should not be fed. --memset (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If you don't think a serious discussion was occurring, it may be because you seem to think that notability is either just "obvious" or not, and so presumably, we can do away with all those policies, guidelines and essays which attempt to describe it, which at Afd, you are expected to be able to explain your rationale with reference to when challenged, because 'it's obvious', is frankly not a valid opinon in the slightest. If it was just 'obvious', this Afd would have been a SNOW closure, which it patently was never ever ever going to be. It is frankly a joke that you want to label me as a troll - anyone who thinks that being asked to explain their rationale at an Afd responds with "Don't be ridiculous", is an out and out troll by the very definition of the word. This is a perfect example of trolling ironically, recognise it? And worse than a troll, you are a liar, I do not want every plane crash deleted, I have infact cleaned up and expanded a great many of them. MickMacNee (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Regretful endorse, could not have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, or (very) boldly delete - "Notavote" notwithstanding, it's hard to close an AfD that tallies at 17-3-1 any other way. BUT, the only keep calls with a shred of honest rationale are those by Mansford and Alzarian. The rest are discardable junk, to put it mildly, ranging from pure essay citations to a low-edit IP to a literal "just to piss off the nominator" one. So if we're truly going to be evaluating strength of argument rather than counting beans, we're in more 2-3-1 territory here. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't ever really want to be an administrator, do you? IAR is for handling things not covered by the rules, not for ignoring consensus because you think you know better. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already have a big enough ego as it is; I'm not insecure enough that I require the validation of others, thanks. As to this, I don't think an admin should shy away from discarding opinions if the rationales employed are utter horse puckey. Tarc (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Hobit. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Starblind and Stifle. I cannot see how any rational admin could have closed this any other way. –MuZemike 15:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as consensus was overwhelmingly for retention. The article provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability and there appears to be no legitimate reason to ignore the clear consensus to keep the article. Alansohn (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. The community has spoken, and wants this article kept. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank B Kermit (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The bio page was speedy deleted, without cause, and there is nothing erroneous or slanderous in the article. A factual bio. The person who speedy deleted the article is now GONE from admin power, because of his abuse of it. This is one of those examples. Dmxfl1 (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean Frank B Kermit (ie without the period after "B")? We have no record of Frank B. Kermit ever being deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the incorrect periods. Kimchi.sg (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a direct quote from the link you provided (since it has no period after the B)

"A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

• 06:39, 8 June 2008 King of Hearts (talk | contribs) deleted "Frank B Kermit" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD A7), was an article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject. using TW)

"

The link clearly shows it was speedy deleted. I researched this "King of Hearts" and he was under review himself. Also, the page is relevant to the subject matter at hand, and it states the importance of what he's created in the field. His ORIGINAL material, the emotional need theories which have played a part in changing people's lives in the seduction community and in relationship management. The importance of his "subject" has ALREADY been proven, and does not need to be re-proven simply because he is a new name to some. Other's like Mystery or Tyler Durden clearly have their own wikis for the work they have contributed to the seduction community. I somehow believe "King of Hearts" just had a personal vendetta against successful people and wanted to eliminate any valuable research to this point. --Dmxfl1 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, even though speedy deletion criteria was incorrectly used. Everything about the subject that was in the deleted article was drawn from his books and website, which goes against our guidelines for biographies. Info about the person should be referenced to third-party reliable sources and that has not been the case here. I suppose from the many media appearances he's had an article that satisfies guidelines can be written, but this isn't it. On process grounds though, CSD A7 shouldn't have been invoked for this deletion - a whole section devoted to "Media Appearances" screams notability to me. Kimchi.sg (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the deleting administrator, User:King of Hearts, is not "GONE from admin power, because of his abuse of it", he is an administrator in good standing. The requester misunderstands Administrator review - it is not a trial, it is a voluntary request by an admin for feedback on his performance; and if there are some complaints at KoH's review, it is unlikely that any admin can do his job without ruffling a few feathers. Dmxfl1, please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. JohnCD (talk) 11:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse True, there were clear claims of importance in the article from the media appearances, and it was not an A7. But it clearly falls within the guidelines for speedy deletion as G11, promotional -- and I do not think improvable to an acceptable article. Very often I delete articles using both reasons, in order to head off arguments like this DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
• Endorse. Agree with rationale, as given by DGG (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but agree that deleting as promotional would have been more straightforward. Also, the nomination, in addition to being factually incorrect, comes very close to being a personal attack. Suggesting the admin has a "personal vendetta against successful people" is one of the most absurd things I've heard in awhile. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy, send to AfD as first choice, overturn and redelete as G11 as second choice. It is promotional, but not overly so IMO. I seem to be in a minority on that, so if we are going to delete it, let the record show we did so for valid reasons... Hobit (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Re-delete as a G11 if we must for the sake of bureaucracy, as the promo nature of this article is abundantly clear. Also, pls award King of Hearts a "personal vendetta against successful people" barnstar, cause those people need to be taken down a notch. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, second choice overturn and AfD, third choice re-delete as G11. Frankly, there seems to be enough in Kermit's media page that an article about him might pass WP:BASIC (and there are enough of those already cited in the Media Appearances section of the article to almost get there), but the current article is so promotional that it shouldn't be retained without being heavily reworked to despamify it and add sources to support WP:BASIC. The page creator's, Machphil's one and only edit at WP was to create the article in 2008 and the main IP editor, 99.225.199.182. of the article has also not edited WP since 2008. Unless newcomer Dmxfl1, whose only WP edits have been in this deletion review, is willing and able to do it, overturning is merely likely to leave this spamwich on the table for months or years due to no one else caring enough about it to fix it. We'd be much better off just leaving it deleted and letting someone rebuild it from scratch if they think it's worth their time to do so. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to put together an article that is sourced from reliable third-parties now that I know this is the case. I appreciate all of your feedback. I will submit as soon as it is ready. Thank you. Dmxfl1 (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I posted my "endorse" without having seen this (and didn't get an edit conflict warning for some reason), but I believe that this post by Dmxfl1 constitutes a withdrawal of this request. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject is notable, the article is better sourced, and the GNAA has been mentioned (in regards to the ipad hack) by nearly every major publication on earth. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704312104575299111189853840.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection 216.66.59.157 (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests. JohnCD (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted I see an article about a iPad hack in the link given, I don't see an article about GNAA. I don't see the name GNAA in the article. 86.154.138.51 (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted the source linked to above doesn't even mention the GNAA, so it can't possibly be used to support the notability of the GNAA. Hut 8.5 12:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]