Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3

3 April 2009

Dan Schlund – Deletion endorsed. Content userfied as requested. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dan Schlund (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) Decision by admin to delete the article "Dan Schlund" was contrary to the consensus of the discussion. This was the THIRD AfD, with the previous two resulting in KEEP and NO CONSENSUS (keep). In this discussion there were 12 editors who argued for KEEP, and only 8 who argued for Delete. The consensus was for KEEP, or at worst No Consensus. There was certainly no consensus for delete! The article should be restored. Esasus (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC) strong Overturn Really bad close. AfDs followed by AfDs are generally discouraged. To discount those arguments is exactly the wrong thing to do. Sources were provided and seemed to be generally acceptable and consesnous favored keeping this article. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus, because there wasn't one. I'm frankly amazed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Comment The question of closely repeated afds came up--this is something I do care about, and I closed opposite my usual view because of the particular circumstances involved. The first keep was in my opinion a bad close, it would better by non-consensus. the second one was a non-consensus, but one where there were very few participants. I would have relisted a second time instead of closing non consensus, and I though another afd a reasonable way of continuing the discussion. For the record, I couldn't care less about the article itself one way or another. DGG (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Strong endorse and I think that's the only time I've done that. Counting the votes and listing the prior AfDs doesn't begin to tell the story here. The first Afd probably should have been no consensus, and second one was correctly closed that way. A revert war then broke out over whether the article could be redirected. I protected the page for a week or so to settle things dowm, and allow sources to be added. After I lifted the protection the page was again redirected and reverted, and the argument spilled over to AN/I, where a previously uninvolved admin renominated the article for AfD. The closer knew all this, which is why he correctly discounted the rote WP:NOTAGAIN arguments - however applicable they might be normally, (and frankly, however much he might normally agree with them) they failed to address the particular circumstances of this AfD. This is what admins should do - distill the discussion through the filter of policy, and let the chips fall where they may. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC) The problem is there does appear to be plenty of notability and the comments in the AfD made that argument. [1] appears to be solely on the topic (behind a pay wall) and there are plenty of trivial sources and (in the AfD) two decent ones also. So it's not like WP:N isn't debatable. The drama associated with the article isn't a reason to delete it against consensus. By my count 8 of the !votes claimed notability for the topic. 1E is clearly a bogus argument (sure he's notable for one thing, so is Bob Barker or almost every pro football player). And there are plenty of news sources about the man. Let me say again: the drama associated with the article isn't a reason to delete it. Looking solely at the AfD, the consensus was keep, not delete. Hobit (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I only was reciting the history in an effort to provide context for the closer's actions. While the closer doesn't get to substitute their own judgment for everyone else's, they can look to see if notability asserted exists or not. Before the last AfD I offered up pdfs of the two decent sources you mentioned on the talk page for this reason - no one took me up on it. Still happy to provide them if anyone wants to see them. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC) I appreciate you are only providing context, but my point is that that context shouldn't matter in any way. But "should" and "does" are often not good friends :-) In any case, i'd love to get those pdfs. Hobit (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC) In the light of DGG's and Xynmax's remarks, I want to reiterate something Hobit just correctly said. The drama associated with the article isn't a reason to delete it against consensus. That bears emphasizing. If drama were grounds for deletion, Barack Obama wouldn't have any articles on Wikipedia. I feel that the closer's sole task is to evaluate the consensus and implement it. In this case, I feel the closer erred in the following respects: 1) Second-guessing previous admins' closures of the same debate, and allowing those judgments over previous admins' actions to sway this closure, which is not quite wheel warring but perhaps veering a little close to it; 2) Using article deletion as a sanction against troublesome editors; 3) Disregarding a majority consensus from established editors giving reasoned !votes based on WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED (which is why I said I was frankly amazed, considering this was DGG); and 4) Overruling consensus with policy, when in fact consensus can overrule policy. I want to add that I personally don't feel Dan Schlund merits a wikipedia article. I'm arguing for overturn on principle.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse, DGGs observation in the closing statement is accurate. In this AfD the most common arguement was "because it's been kept before", which in turn was questionable (the first one, 1.5 years ago, shouldn't have been a keep and the second wasn't). I don't like WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED, but I also don't like WP:NOTAGAIN when it doesn't apply and a total disregard for WP:Consensus can change. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 17:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Even if it was the most common aspect of the keep arguments, by my count 8 folks believed it was a notable topic. The same as argued for delete. There isn't isn't clear consensus to delete even if you ignore all arguments about WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED, which I really don't think you should. Are you claiming that there is nothing wrong with reopening a "no consensus" close right after it closes? So: Those arguments shouldn't be ignored IMO and even if you do ignore them there still isn't consensus to delete. Hobit (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not counting anyone, because wikipedia is not a democracy. As far as non-consensus reopenings go, this is a matter of fingertip feeling. In any case reopening a non consensus is more ok than reopening a keep. In this case the case was reopened by a previously uninvolved admin. A completely reasonable decision by an experienced user in a position of community trust. It was not a bad faith reopening or a WP:POINT reopening. In this case, given those circumstances, I don't think notagain is a very strong arguement at all. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 01:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC) In case the background behind the AfD is useful, I made a list of preceding discussions at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3#Dan Schlund. Flatscan (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse: per DGG closing as Delete, his closing statement is founded in policy. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Overturn I've always found myself agreeing with DGG's decisions before. However, I think he's made a mistake in this case. DGG shouldn't be second guessing the motives of the people who voted to keep. It's clearly no consensus. Just because there were 2 no consensus votes before, is no reason to delete now when there's no consensus again. In fact, if anything, there should be a progressive bias towards keep as the number of AfD's increase. LK (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Overturn The closer gave as his reason for discounting the numerous keeps: "Almost all the keep arguments are that it was kept twice before.". This is quite incorrect - most of the keep opinions addressed the notability issue which was the stated reason for deletion. The close was thus faulty in that it failed to accurately represent the consensus of the discussion (or lack of same). Colonel Warden (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus — There was no rough consensus to keep or to delete. Taking AFD discussion guidelines, more specifically that AFDs are not votes, into consideration. I only count about four !votes that were explicitly based on WP:NOTAGAIN, while the rest of the arguments were explicitly addressing notability. The arguments for deletion argue non-notability and BLP1E. Neither side seemed to have come out on top as a result (not taking into account the numerous bad-faith accusations and incivility going on inbetween). MuZemike 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus — While there was a clear consensus to keep, the reasoning to do so wasn't of the best sort. That said, the reasoning to delete or redirect was substantially less compelling, and rife with a great deal of unfounded innuendo. I utterly despise people who game the system to enforce their personal views on the wiki, and I think that DGG - who I believe to be pretty cogent in these matters - was fooled into thinking the article was something is almost certainly was not. Full disclosure: I did not vote in the precious AfD's, as I had no real opinion as to the content of the article one way or the other; I argued in favor of less gaming the system, and a wee bit of sanity. Half the people voting to delete had been involved in redirecting the article to Jet pack, a defacto deletion contrary to two prior AfDs. Its probably best to overturn, put a caveat against nom'ing it for say, a month or so, and see if it does improve. All the AfD dramahz actively sucks up the time of those editors who would likely improve the article substantially. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. Seems that a good deal of the keep votes looked beyond past AfDs, even if it was mentioned as part of the rationale. I don't think there was a clear enough consensus in favor of delete. Strikehold (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse- DGG got this one right when he said "The delete arguments that the sources are inadequate for notability, on the other hand, are well-founded in policy". In my opinion only the pr-deletion side of this debate provided any substantial arguments- in particular DreamGuy's analysis of the sources and demonstration that they were trivial. The pro-keep side, even if you disregard the inapplicable cries of "not again", didn't say much more than "Keep- notable without any evidence. Turning up en masse to say "Keep! Keep!" isn't good enough because AfD is not a vote, and consensus is based on strength of argument. Therefore the discussion was correctly closed as delete. Reyk YO! 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC) The delete !votes were also largely "Doesn't meet WP:BIO" or "just a stuntman" or somesuch. The only really solid discussion showed that there were two debatable on-line sources and as noted above, perhaps 2 reasonable off-line sources (I'm waiting to see the pdfs). I personally assumed both the "doesn't meet WP:BIO" and the "meets WP:N" !votes took that discussion (in the AfD) into account. I don't see the basis for discounting the keep !votes but not the similarly lacking delete !votes. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Quite early on in the piece, DreamGuy provided a very thorough analysis of the sources and demonstrated that they were either merely passing mentions or regurgitated press releases, and not sufficient to demonstrate notability. In my opinion that is a very strong argument, one which I endorsed at the time and still do, and I also think the burden was on those arguing to keep to provide a similarly strong argument in defense of the article- which didn't happen. Instead, all the pro-keep side managed was "not again!", which is not really applicable here, and "Keep- notable" without backing. If additional sources had turned, or some of the sources shown to be more substantial than DreamGuy said, the debate would have been closed once again as "no consensus" and we wouldn't be here. In short, I feel that even the "lacking" !votes on the delete side carry a bit of weight because there is some solid evidence to back them up. The similar !votes from the other side carry less weight because they were based on either an irrelevant argument or a lack of evidence. I believe this is a case where strength of argument trumps strength of numbers. I know you see it differently, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Reyk YO! 23:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Strong endorse - This is a classic case of editors being unhappy they did not get their way. The situation was resolved fairly and the proper conlusion was reached. Had this been nominated by anyone other than Essasus, I would give it some merit. However, he is clearly unhappy because he did not get his way. Also, there is no rule or policy against back to back AFDs. The first AFD was a 'Keep' although it more accurately would have been a 'no consenus'. The second AFD was also a 'no consensus', which, does NOT mean keep, as Essasus seems to believe. Aside from those issues, the subject is simply not notable enough to warrant his own Wikipedia page. smooth0707 (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I think the logical fallacy component of that reply should be disregarded, as should the "simply not notable enough" component (because DRV is not AfD round 2). This leaves us with "no consensus does not mean keep" and "there is no rule or policy against back to back AFDs", which I'm afraid are both simply false.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, no policy forbids filing back to back AfDs. The deletion policy discourages people repeatedly renominating articles in the hope of getting a different outcome, but it does not prohibit renominations done for better reasons- like this one. Reyk YO! 00:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC) With respect, Reyk, if that were true there would be no point in a "no consensus" close; the closing admin might as well simply relist. I also disagree that this is a "renomination for better reasons". The first AfD was on grounds of notability and promotional material; the second was COI and a challenge to the previous close; and the third was notability and vanity with a note that it came from an AN/I notice to stop warring the article. The notability and vanity had already been addressed at the first AfD, and the AN/I reasoning was frankly horrible because it was based on article deletion as a sanction against edit-warring—which I think is self-evidently a very bad idea.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I don't see deletion as sanction in the most recent AN discussion. Could you point out a diff? Flatscan (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC) See the nomination at the third AfD for the basis of my remark.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I disagree that the nomination was intended as a sanction. "Listing from WP:ANI notice to stop the warring at the article" might be interpreted that way on its own, but "If the decision was wrong, nominate it again and get a clear consensus" is an indication of good-faith intent. One may argue a NIMBY motivation (get it off AN by shuffling it back to AfD), but I don't see sanctions. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I don't see how else "Listing from WP:ANI notice to stop the warring at the article" can be construed. I certainly agree there was good-faith intent on all sides here. I think nominator and closer both saw the AfD process, in this case, as simply a way of getting rid of an article of marginal notability that was causing more problems than it was worth. I don't think either had considered the larger question of whether edit-warring should lead to deletion, as it did in this case. But I feel the decision had the effect of using deletion as a way of preventing edit-warring, in other words, article deletion was used where sanctions should have been used. Hence, "article deletion as a sanction against edit-warring".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I'd also point out that back to back AfDs is disruptive. It's edit-warring writ large, in that the consensus is ignored because a small group disagree with the findings of that consensus; most of the folk endorsing the deletion are the same folk who fought tooth, nail and various other body parts to have it removed, so I am thinking that pointing out the motivations of anyone here is pretty much going to be a 'hello pot, meet kettle'-style argument - lets just dispense with those as of now. Now Reyk, the better reasons you noted above are...what, exactly? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Widespread support at administrators' noticeboard to renominate it seems a good reason to me. And I notice you supported relisting this article at the time; it's only because you didn't get the consensus you wanted that the renomination has retroactively become disruptive. Reyk YO! 02:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I believe you might wish to take a far closer look at the context of the diff you provided, Reyk; during the entire matter, I maintained no opinion of the article's value or lack thereof. I appreciated the relisting as it was a method by which to prevent others from creating a de facto delete via redirect, which I thought (and still do) to be gaming the system. As I said, had you read the section more carefully, instead of going on a0 hunt for Diffs, you might have caught the error. It's okay; even I make that sort of mistake occasionally. :) Now, would you like to try your hand yet again at enumerating the reasons for the deletion that you feel are "better"? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse. The strongest delete arguments were more detailed and thus stronger than their keep counterparts. LinguistAtLarge's was well-reasoned, but it was reduced to weak keep. WP:NOTAGAIN by itself is a risky rationale: if the AfD isn't speedy-closed, it is likely to be ignored. I think it's unfortunate that Ricky81682 (AfD3 nom) and DGG are taking flak for this. Flatscan (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse. Plenty of solidly reasoned delete votes offered the idea of merge/deleting relevant content to an appropriate existing article, or merge/redirect. A delete in this case was well warranted. I note the article is not salted, so a fuller article can be created if the subject eventually gets known for more than being a non-unique jet pack pilot, and perhaps more uniquely, one stupid enough to get burned by it, though no evidence of him being the only jet pack injury was given. Was a good delete, supported by numerous editors. No good reason to overturn was given. ThuranX (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Your comment does not compute. Merge and delete are two incompatible actions because with a merge the history of who wrote the material needs to be retained. - Mgm|(talk) 05:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Merge OR delete. Happy? Wasting my time with messages for me to come back here to clean up one phrase? It's that hard to accept that the guy is not notable? Do you really think that pithy little snark dismissing my entire comment will invalidate my entire thought? There were commetn to MERGE the few bits of relevant content. Copy it, paste it, rewrite to smoothly integrate it, and delete the old article. Learn to read the comments of others more thoroughly.ThuranX (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse A reasonable close which was explained well. Well within the discretion of a closing admin. Protonk (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Overturn One of the commenters in the third AFD said: "Previous AFD only three weeks ago. Trout Slap the editors who won't let it be, this is a disruptive waste of time." If the nominator believed that not listing the article was disruptive because it had a serious problem, they should've come to DRV instead. No matter how you cut it, renominating an article less than a month after the previous debate closed is a disruptive abuse of the system regardless of the outcome. - Mgm|(talk) 05:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Well, it's clear that the commenter didn't notice that the editors who argued about this past the AFD was not the nominator, who was completely uninvolved (as did a few others). Who exactly is or was being disruptive? Was it myself for nominating the article or the editors edit warring themselves onto ANI? If it's them, then the fact that the discussion at ANI went to the AFD is either irrelevant or somehow I should be blocked for my choice of action in an dispute that I had no involvement in? Again, it's not like it's the same people nominating and renominating this thing for deletion multiple times. Some of the same commenters, yeah, but not all the same. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I did notice that. That is why I said "the editors who won't let this be." Not "the nominator." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I was referring to the nominator of the latest AFD. - Mgm|(talk) 08:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Strong Overturn - The Dan Schlund page met the general notability guidelines. Notability was supported by multiple independent sources; specifically in The Oklahoman article, the Sheena Coffey article, and the Los Angeles Daily News article (all were at one time or another referenced on the page). Further, it was wrong of the closing admin to give little or no weight to the Wikipedia:NOTAGAIN arguments. The discussion consensus should decide the outcome of the AfD, not the closing admin. The following is the policy for arguments against Repeated Nominations: "If an article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, sometimes users will recommend "Keep" (or even "speedy keep"), arguing that because article failed to gain a consensus for deletion before, there is no reason to renominate it." "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion [as was Dan Schlund, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." Untick (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Comment The ANI discussion was clearly two editors who don't get along in general and just happen to have been arguing on that article, wanting to redirect the article, not delete it unilaterally (technical difference really since the redirect would have wiped out all but a single line). The first AFD was over 18 months ago, so a reevaluation of that shouldn't concern anyone. The second AFD was only a few weeks prior but had only a few comments none of whom were the people involved in the warring afterwards. Even then, I warned DreamGuy that "if he was going to argue that the closing admin on the 3rd AFD was 'wrong' no matter the decision, I wasn't going to allow it." I wanted some finality. This is not a situation where the same characters are nominating and renominating until something gets deleted. It was an unclear AFD, questions afterwards and another AFD to settle it. To argue that the first AFD from over a year and a half ago takes any precedence is to just throw a complete aside into the conversation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Strong endorse Since when is an AfD a vote? We all pay lip sevice to this principle, but all too often a closing admin simply counts the for/against votes instead of looking at the rationale behind those votes. DGG is to be commended for taking the difficult road and not simple count the ayes and nays. On top of that, if an inclusionist like him comes to the decision that there is not enough notability to keep, I am done arguing. --Crusio (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Historically, AfD was a vote; its name used to be VfD for "votes for deletion". The AfD mechanism replaced it because it was found that sockpuppetry is so easy on Wikipedia that socking can be extremely disruptive to a pure vote-based process. However, I can find no evidence that the community ever intended to empower admins to disregard established editors who give reasoned arguments in cases where there's no evidence of sockpuppetry. In this case, the closer disregarded too high a proportion of reasoned arguments. Admins have never had the authority to do this, and still do not.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Although the process used to be called "Votes for deletion", it was never a vote to begin with. If you look at the historic pages, admins were always encouraged to weigh arguments rather than do mere headcounting. - Mgm|(talk) 08:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse per Crusio and per Protonk. Nothing wrong with back-to-back AFDs when the earlier one is no-consensus, and I appreciate an admin who recognizes that a "Keep because of the earlier no-consensus decision" !vote is meaningless. Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Davis (comedian)‎. THF (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Fortunately, the bad close against consensus for Laura Davis (comedian) where (as expected) DRV failed to overturn it doesn't establish a precedent. Cf WP:OCE. DRV will fail to overturn this bad close as well, because controversial closes can't be challenged at DRV. ("No consensus to overturn" is the inevitable outcome). This raises the question of what the purpose of DRV is; I'm starting to think it's merely to make people feel they had the opportunity to challenge a bad closer.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC) That strikes me as a falsifiable prediction. Are you sure I can't find any overturned closes in the past month? The past week? Protonk (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I sincerely hope it's falsified in this case!—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Overturn The closing summary that "almost all the keep arguments are that it was kept twice before" is significantly and demonstrably inaccurate. Of the 11 editors who recommended "keep," only a few made sole reference to the previous nominations. Of these, only User:Umbralcorax argued exclusively that the article should be kept because it had survived the other nominations. Perhaps because Umbralcorax's statement was the first "keep" recommendation, it somehow cast a shadow on the arguments that followed? User:MikeWazowski also cited "prior AfD survivals," but only after he had also endorsed User:LinguistAtLarge's argument on the base of verifiable sources. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz challenged the legitimacy of the renomination which is a completely different argument than citing the outcome of previous nominations as precedent. So did User:Colonel Warden, and he also challenged the nomination under BLP1E. User:Esasus also cited "abuse of process", and followed up with one of the more in-depth defenses of the notability of the subject. User:Untick, User:Collect, User:Artw, User:Shunpiker(hi!) and User:LK didn't mention the previous AfDs at all, and LinguistAtLarge only did so in order to indicate that there were additional sources that had been found in the previous AfD. I don't question for a moment the good faith of the closer -- who was patient and courteous when I broached the subject of possible deletion review. I just think he misread the discussion, as indicated by his summary. There was no consensus for delete, and probably no consensus at all. This shouldn't be too surprising considering how recently the prior discussion had closed with no consensus. --Shunpiker (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Overturn- I wasn't going to comment, but since Shunpiker brought me up, I figure I might as well explain my vote from the AFD. What I ws trying to get at, by referencing the previous AFD, was that the previous AFD had demosntrated, conclusively to me, that the subject was notable, and that having another AFD, espescialy so soon, on those same grounds, was bad form and a bit disruptive. Personally, I think that the nomination, coming so soon after the last one was closed keep should have been closed right away. So, to boil it down, my KEEP vote was based on both notability and WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse close. AFD's don't conclusively demonstrate anything but some kind of editorial consensus about notability and other policies at a particular point in time. As it happens, the two past AFD's (which are irrelvant for reasons explained by others above) were properly no consensus. No a policy based consensus to delete has been found and the argument to overturn the AFD is that on two prior occasions, no conensus at all was found? You'll need a more persuasive argument than that to overturn the close.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Strong Overturn. I usually respect the closer's judgment, but in this case he simply missed the substantial arguments related to the Keep comments. There is a substantial amount of reliable evidence showing notability, not always well cited in the article but mentioned quite a bit in the AFD. Many of the Keep comments, I think, expected a rapid close and didn't repeat what had been said over and over before. And really shouldn't have had to. Particulary agree with the comments that coming here rather than relisting was a more appropriate choice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Strong endorse. We should use this as a teaching example for potential admins. This is a by the book perfect close, which captures both the strength of argument within the debate and the wider consensus across the community contained within policy and guidance. The detailed rationale is certainly something other admins could aspire to. Hiding T 09:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Comment -- new(?) sources. Please see the discussion page. There are now two articles that solely cover this topic and do so in significant depth. I don't think WP:N can now be a serious argument for deletion. Maybe I should have held off for a new DrV based on the sources. I couldn't find any reference to them in the AfD before (sorry if I'm wrong), that's a long AfD! Hobit (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Comment. They were in the article at the time of the last AfD, and were mentioned at least in passing. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC) That's the problem with not being able to see the deleted article. I don't believe they were in the AfD I still don't see them in the AfDever and I also don't see how they don't meet WP:N by themselves. Throw in the other sources that seemed to have conensous at the AfD and it looks like a clean case. Thanks for the articles by the way! Very helpful. I hope I took short enough parts of them to the discussion to keep in reasonable fair use bounds. Hobit (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I think Untick's AfD rationale mentions them. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Good point. I only looked to see if anyone argued why they didn't meet WP:N or were a 1E issue. No one did as far as I can see. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse, valid reading of the consensus by DGG. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Comment I notice that Reyk yesterday properly spotted the meaning of one of my phrasings. I said "The delete arguments that the sources are inadequate for notability, on the other hand, are well-founded in policy". I did not say "The delete arguments that the sources are inadequate for notability, on the other hand, are correct." Whether the sources are in fact sufficient for notability is for the people at the AfD to say, not the closer. I found one set of arguments based on misunderstanding of policy, and one set based on policy. I was not making a judgement on whether the subject was in fact notable. If I had had an opinion on that, i would have joined the discussion. I picked this article to close because I had no interest in the underlying subject one way or another. If people think they can make an article that will clearly show notability, i didn't salt, but i would advise talk space first. DGG (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Regarding the delete arguments that were "well-founded in policy", which policy or policies were you referring to? --Pixelface (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse correct close by the closer. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Comment, I remind everyone that wikipedia is not a Democracy, it is possible that DGG should have relisted the discussion but at some point discussions like this need to be closed. A maintaining close (whether keep or no consensus, many of the editors above make no difference between them so neither will I) in this case would have been based SOLELY on strength of numbers. It would have been a democratic outcome, yes, but wikipedia, not, blah blah, you know where that goes. Such a close would have been no better than closing an AfD with 8 "because it's funny" !votes and 2 three page descriptions of how the content is a pillage of BLP as a keep because more people felt all rules should be ignored. DGG made a call based on the strength of arguements, based on their poignancy and completeness, not number of !votes that mentioned them. In this case, the arguements squared up as "meets WP:N" and "Not again", against discussion on how the subject failed BIO, ENTERTAINER, ATH and WP:RS concerns about available sourcing for V-N. I've reevaluated my position and chose to maintain it. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC) It's possible that if the arguments for keeping the article were given their due consideration, that the closer would have come to the same conclusion. However, the fact that the closer summarized those positions with, "almost all the keep arguments are that it was kept twice before," indicates that the arguments for keeping the article were not given adequate attention. That summary is a mischaracterization both quantitatively and qualitatively. The deletion guideline states that "consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy" -- we're in agreement there. But determining the strength of the arguments requires an adequate study of the arguments, and according to the summary only the arguments for deletion received that kind of attention. Rough consensus may not be democracy, but it still means the "sense of the group." In this case, about half of the group was dismissed without an adequate hearing. --Shunpiker (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Given that there _are_ sources for this topic that meet every letter of WP:N and WP:BIO, doesn't that mean that those !votes stating that WP:N is met should be regarded in a strong light? Or do people believe that two newspaper articles (on the discussion page) plus the sources discussed in the AfD somehow don't meet WP:N? No one, in either the AfD or this DrV have indicated any issue with the newspaper sources. So given that, on their face, they meet WP:N, doesn't this DrV need to be closed as an overturn? I mean if sources exist and no one impeaches them, I'm not sure what we have left. There has been no reason other than not meeting WP:N/WP:BIO provided for the deletion and no one has argued those sources don't meet those guidelines. Hobit (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC) As I said a few lines back, in ambiguous situations I usually advise finding a few additional good references and creating in user space. Sometimes people actually do that. DGG (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse - well reasoned close; the users in favour of keeping the article did little to refute the policy based arguments that the sources presented were insufficient for the subject matter to meet the criteria for inclusion. Guest9999 (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC) If this closes maintaining the delete, I'd appreciate userfication per DGG's suggestion. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC) I'd support that as well, to whoever wants it. There may be an article here in some time with some re-writing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User_talk:Posturewriter – no consensus to restore. On my own initiative, I will userfy it to SmokeyJoe's userspace for his use. – Aervanath (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User_talk:Posturewriter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The deleting admin has failed to respond after eight days. There is content of interest to me on this talk page. It is the talk page of an editor who was intent on contributing material to a few articles. Although mature and intelligent, but probably unqualified, this user could not comprehend or respect our rules, especially WP:COI and WP:MEDRES, failed utterly to work cooperatively, and became disagreeable and personal when others interfered with his intentions. The talk page, once subject to an MfD contains his offensive writing, but it is so extremely one-sided that it can’t reasonably be taken seriously, and so it is reasonable leave the history available behind a blank page. The user was subjected to an RFC and a very serious RFAR [2] that was concluded by a somewhat reactionary, out of exasperation, “infintie block” [3]. Clearly, this was a mess of an experience. I think that we needed do it the same way again. I believe that there is a lot that can be learnt from this mess, and that deletion of portions of it doesn’t help. I request the talk page be restored as a blanked page, with the full history available. I similarly request that the same be done with the user page and the few subpages that have been deleted post-block. The other, remaining subpages should probably be blanked. I do not want the material in my userspace nor emailed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC) To be clear your reason for wanting this restored so it can be referred to in other similar cases or otherwise linked to in discussions about similar situations? Hobit (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC) No. For our education and for policy development. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC) weak restore not being able to see these, I'm not sure what education and policy development SmokeyJoe is shooting for. But I trust the editor, so if he feels strongly it would help, I'll AGF. Hobit (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC) keep deleted - I agree that the episode was instructive about the failure of policy etc. to deal with a tendentious editor in a niche topic. However, having been one of the main editors on the other side of this saga, I can't see any educational/policy development value in Posturewriter's Talk page that isn't well evident from the existing RFC and its discussion page. I don't think "so extremely one-sided that it can’t reasonably be taken seriously" is sufficient excuse for restoring a soapbox page - even obscured behind an edit history - containing extended personal attacks against particular editors. I think it's also pertinent that he would very likely incorporate such links into the still ongoing off-wiki attacks [4]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Eh On the one hand, this kind of request should fall into the "easy come, easy go" category. On the other hand...I can't really imagine a good use of a specific talk page for a blocked user that goes mcuh beyond just pillorying the user. Not suggesting that signals intent, just the limitations of talk pages for didactic purposes. We don't have a shortage of difficult former editors whose talk pages may be combed for insights heretofore unknown. So I'm kinda on the fence about this one. What...exactly...would we use this page for? Protonk (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I want this talk page for checking on what I think I remember was there, and what wasn’t there, including especially what the user may have removed. Should this user have been blocked much earlier, and how were we to know that? Wikipedia dispute resolution doesn’t work well at all, and the unavailability of information hinders development. I know that this is a sensitive area, that WP:DENY is important. I count 17 relevent points at User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior. For reference for the future, I am considering whether points #18 and #46 be afforded more weight. In particular reference to #46, “dodgy accounts that seem to be stirring up trouble … block immediately and move on”. When User:Moreschi banned/blocked, apologising for not doing so sooner, and was, through multiple “Decline per Moreschi”s approved by multiple arbiters, it adds weight to Antandrus’ point #46 and Moreschi’s not very deeply buried “I also have an alternative civility policy - I hope this will become the real one some day, as the current version is sheer junk.”. The questions that I think should be considered (in a continuing post-mortem of the smelly remains), or at least the questions I would like to know now, are: Did Moreschi, or others, post escalating formal warning templates, as expected by the current sheer junk policy (I think no, from memory); or was the user not initially so bad; or not initially showing enough of the tell-tale signs. There is plenty of the users material (screeds) existing in article talk page histories and the RFC talk page, but it is too plausible to the casual observer (as I was) to be justifiable for a reactionary infinite block. The real evidence, as I think I recall, was on the user’s talk page. It was clear that the Administrators Noticeboard did not know what to do. Some people tried to use MfD for dispute resolution, and I derailed that (more often, MfD is attempted to be used in unjustified newcomer persecution). There was a beautiful RFC, a clear consensus, but it was totally ineffective. As per Antandrus, “Efficiently managing troublesome editors is one of the best ways to improve the project, but also one of the most difficult.” Without making promises I’d like to try, but I feel hamstrung by the unavailability of a significant portion of the history. Having said the above, Gordonofcartoon’s feelings are valid and justified. The user has already copied talk material for his off-wiki rant. The ability to link to specific out-of-context statements would be a continuing insult to the wikipedians who initially tried to explain reality to a kook. Would it be reasonable to temporarily undelete the talk page, the rest of the user’s deleted contributions (his userpage and one or two deleted subpages), and then delete the lot (including the now available subpages), as per WP:DENY? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse, refactoring has long been allowed on talk pages, and deleting is just a form of refactoring. Maybe involved parties could write up a balanced summary, similar to what we did for Esperanza. Hiding T 09:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC) What? The question is: Is there anything of sufficient value in the page (for learning and policy development) to outweigh the offensiveness of the content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Uh huh. What is it about my answer that confuses you? Hiding T 11:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Your answer does confuse me. By "endorse" you would mean "keep deleted", but it is not as if East's decision itself is under review. Why are you talking about refactoring? What does refactoring have to do with this? "Deleting is just a form of refactoring" is not something I'd agree with, with deletion being an administrative function that renders material inaccessible, while refactoring leaves a transparent edit history, but then I'm not sure that I knwo what you are talking about. My whole problem is that I feel I cannot write up a summary because important information is on the deleted talk page. I paid very little attention to the Esperanza story, so the comparison doesn't help me. Note that following Gordonofcartoon’s objection, I am now explicitly asking for temporary undeletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I endorse the deletion of the page as opposed to restoration and blanking, and I endorse a summary being available, via interested parties working out a way to refactor material within the deleted history so that such a summary can be provided. Hope that clarifies for you. I don't want to get into a semantic argument about refactoring and deletion, but if you view deletion as refactoring a database, you'll appreciate my view even if you do not agree with it. Hiding T 13:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you. I meant no disrespect, but was genuinely confused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC) I got that. I meant no disrespect either. I just couldn't work out how I had confused you. Hiding T 09:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.