Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 27

Ted Andrews – Reopened by the closing admin. NAC. – Tim Song (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Unnotable page of a self-published author whose personal website (also doubling as his "publisher" site) makes the case fairly clearly for his lack of notability. Much puffery, but not much notability.

Published multiple times by Llewellyn, Hampton Roads Publishing Company. Dragonhawk Publishing, his publishing company, has produced several titles, as well ^[1].
Titles include "Animal Speak" and "Animal-Wise," some of the only western texts for working with animal spirits and creating sacred space in Nature.
"Animal Speak" is #6 on Tower.com Top 100 bestsellers for spiritualism.
"Animal Speak" is #1 in books on Earth-Based Religions/Shamanism on Amazon.com.
"Animal Speak" is #1 in books on Native American Studies on Amazon.com.
Internationally known animist and shamanist, animal communicator, teacher and animal rehabilitator
Personal website highlights publications, events schedule, publishers, and news--clearly distinct from that of his publishers
Noted and puffery deserved

javascript:insertTags('Copperbeech (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)',,)[reply]

Endorse. Deletion discussion was unanimous. No prejudice against the creation of a new article that improves the claims to meeting notability guidelines. ^Bongo_matic 16:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yup, a closure perfectly in accordance with the unanimous AfD. Endorse.~~—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The close was 9 hours (plus some change) early, but nom hasn't provided any reason to think that the early close was prejudicial. Endorse. Tim Song (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Drat. I missed that, and thank you for catching it, Tim. My position is that a closure this early is clear error and DRV should take action to discourage it. Changing to procedural overturn and relist.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist per s marrshall. let's follow our own rules... Turqoise127 (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/relist per S Marshall. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist There is no reason to think that someone might not have come along at the end ant provided material. However, though the closer was asked to reopen on grounds that made no sense whatsoever by an interested ed.. I do not see that the closer was asked to reopen on this grounds--when I see an early close, I normally simply give a reminder, saying: "please please wait the full 7 X 24 hours. Even a few hours early tend to drift, as other people go to 12, 24, etc. This is one place where it matters. This definitely does not mean I disagree in the slightest with the actual closings today., but just a reminder. " (nor do I see the closer was even notified of this discussion--I have just done so,) DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here I was thinking that policies were just a reflection of common practice. Obviously not. Kevin (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jutta Oesterle-Schwerin – Restored per uncontroversial and GF request. – –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

she was a member of German Bundestag.
Grüne: 11. Bundestag GLGermann (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be yet another of those German MP substubs. Restore the material since we have an editor willing to work on it. No point forcing them to start from scratch. Tim Song (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation as a genuinely notable European politician. Also, I can't make any sense at all of Jenna's deletion rationale.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD link added. Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation as part of that huge AFD back in July. I think we had a similar series of DRVs on this where there a few false positives noted. MuZemike 03:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
broad response for the 3000 deletions a good faith editor created these stubs under the belief they each meet our inclusion guildlines. I'd say if any editor in good standing wants a handful of the 3000ish back they should automatically be userfied and given permission to move to mainspace when they feel they've met the requirements of WP:BIO and WP:BLP. I can't see this article, so no idea if it meets BLP and BIO requirements. If it does, restore otherwise userfy Hobit (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The whole content is "Jutta Oesterle-Schwerin is a German politician, representative of the Social Democratic Party.". Plus a few maintenance tags. Kevin (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No-fault restore as there is an editor willing to improve the matter. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
she was a member of German Bundestag !!! The Bundestag (Federal Diet) is the parliament of Germany. So she is important enough for an own article. 92.252.124.121 (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from deleting admin. Ex-admin, as it were, so I can't restore, but I would had I the ability still. It's only a sentence or two (I think, but can't verify), so recreation without the deleted material probably wouldn't be more than 30-seconds of work. Either way, Lara 17:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the obvious implication is that she is a rep. of the party in the Bundestag , and that by itself is sufficient reason for keeping the article. I opposed the deletion in the first place, so someone else should carry out Lara's suggestion. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Snyderman and Rothman (study) – No consensus close endorsed, without prejudice to any future AfD relisting. – RMHED (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I found no evidence of notability for this topic, however the two dissenting editors claimed there was such evidence. Requests for links to this evidence were ignored. The closing admin states that evaluating such claims is not proper for the closing admin (see User_talk:Juliancolton#No_consensus). I feel that the true consensus (based on evidence actually provided, ignoring claims with no evidence) is to delete. This study is no more notable than millions of other studies which also lack the notability to have an encyclopedia article written about them. For an academic study from 20 years ago, it is relatively rarely cited. T34CH (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Given the comments below that there was actually no consensus, please consider that my claim is not a complaint about the outcome, but a disagreement with the interpretation. The objections to deletion were never substantiated with evidence, therefore I feel that there actually was a consensus to delete (once you throw out what are essentially ILIKEIT votes). The closing admin feels he is not allowed to make such interpretations,[1] so I brought the matter here. T34CH (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen & relist. While it is true that there was no consensus, there were no credible arguments for keeping the article. As such, it would have been appropriate to relist the article to try to generate a more thorough discussion. ^Bongo_matic 01:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- This is not AFD round 2, and there was no consensus to delete in the actual AFD.Umbralcorax (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of my request. Given this line from wp:Consensus: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace," I believe the consensus was inaccurately judged. Now, as Juliancolton points out that, "my job as the closing admin isn't to determine what's "true" or "false"," there is no choice but to address my concerns here. I hope that you will evaluate the issues I have raised in this light. T34CH (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. It was reasonable not to relist. And it was reasonable to close as no consensus. No consensus does, however, permit relatively speedy renominations, so the nom might wish to consider renominating in a month or so. Tim Song (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, precisely per Tim Song, with whom I concur in all respects.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen and relist The small participation along with the absence of arguments on the keep side should have forced a relisting.--Ramdrake (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak endorse in this case I'd have suggested a relist made more sense (only folks significantly commenting were involved), but not unreasonable. Hobit (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Tim Song and S Marshall. WP:RELIST precludes relisting in these circumstances. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A reason for relisting is that "and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy". I'd say that arguments like "I found more sources" (none provided or even hinted at), "not notable", "there are sources", "there are sources in books" count as policy-based arguments. I'd suggest relisting here isn't precluded. Hobit (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure you meant "do not count". And I agree - the keep arguments are quite weak; the delete arguments did not fare much better, either. Tim Song (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, thanks, that is what I meant. And I agree both are bad, thus the relist suggestion. Hobit (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus closure. It was the appropriate closure along the lines of how admins ought to decide. Neither opinion was prevalent. If only all admins and all decisions were like this. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The discussion was inadequate and unsuitable ; I would have relisted for further discussion, but I assume Julian closed on the reasonable basis that it would better to start over, in a fresh discussion without personal attacks. Like Tim, I suggest waiting a month to improve the article further, and then optionally relisting. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I have to admit that personal differences got in the way of my making anything resembling a mature response to the original AfD, and for that I apologize. I have since begun working on the article, and I think it is improving. I think the suggestion to wait a month and then relisting if necessary is a fair course of action. Aryaman (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen and relist. If the closer wasn't willing to assess whether the assertions of notability were credible, the obvious option was to relist the discussion to allow time for more editors to comment. The debate was insufficient to conclude that the community lacks consensus on this article. Fences&Windows 02:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

^ http://www.dragonhawkpublishing.com/index.htm

[1] ttp://www.dragonhawkpublishing.com/index.htm

[1]