Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 25

25 March 2009

Roblox – Withdrawn by nominator. – Stifle (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Roblox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I contacted User:Sandstein The admin who deleted the article, and gave him the link to the re-written article I have been working on. The previous article was deleted because the user writing it was using it as an advertising tool. User:Sandstein replied saying he was happy with the sources given and he thought the page was good enough to be re-instated. He then suggest that I bring my draft here for review. Our draft can be found here. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Keep deleted - the sources on the draft do not appear to be reliable. kidslike.com appears to accept contributions at large with no indication of fact-checking or vetting. killerstratups.com is a "user driven internet startups community" whose goal is to promote "'“the next big thing' on the internet". examiner.com looks to me like a souped-up blog, with local people whose expertise in their fields or communities contributing material on what they personally find to be interesting or cool. roblox.com is of course not independent. That leaves a single potential source, midweek.com. This source is an opinion piece, which are certainly considered reliable for confirming that a particular person holds a particular opinion, but it's being used in the article to verify a piece of factual information. I don't believe, based on reviewing the sources presented and a quick search through Google (not definitive but still persuasive to me in this instance), that Roblox is sufficiently notable to allow for recreating the article. Sorry. Otto4711 (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Analysing the sources reveals: User-submitted content, not a reliable source User-submitted content, not a reliable source Interview-style press release Almost all regurgitated from roblox's own website. Sourced to roblox's own website Sourced to roblox's own website As such, keep deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Keep deleted per Stifle's analysis. Nothing here that would overturn an AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Keep deleted for now. I suggest that the DRV-nom read the neutral point of view guideline as well as the verifiability policy and use both of them to rewrite the article again. MuZemike 16:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Weak allow restoration. At no time did I say that I was happy with these sources, but references 3 and 4 do seem sufficient for borderline notability. Yes, they seem to regurgitate corporate material, but as long that is done in a medium of some intellectual and economic independence, we call it journalism. But keeping it deleted until some more substantial sources turn would not be all that bad either.  Sandstein  19:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC) I think we have reached somewhat of a concensus. I say we leave it deleted for now and I will work on getting sources to better fit Wikipedia's expectations.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Human Achievement Hour – Deletion Endorsed. There is a long standing tradition at DRV of not allowing discussions to be used as platforms to attack other users. Sorry for the curtailment of the drama but this discussion has clearly fallen below an accetpable level and since its more then one editor involved the shutter comes down. there is already a clear consensus to delete. – Spartaz Humbug! 09:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Human Achievement Hour (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) User:Thehondaboy believes that this AfD was closed contrary to consensus, and brought it to the attention of WP:AN/I. This is the appropriate place for a review of the deletion, so I am beginning this review here. I endorse the deletion. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Note: Thehondaboy's concerns can be found here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse - closer acted correctly on information given, and there's no obvious additional information that wasn't brought up in the AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse The close was perfectly correct; especially given the double-voting and SPA IP Keeps. Even the "good" Keeps made little policy-based attempt to justify the article's existence except by pointing to Google hits. The odd thing is, publicity stunts do tend to attract odd Google hits, but even the article itself couldn't point to any solid third-party discussion - mostly "hey, did you hear about ...". I have to admit the "Notable Human Achievements" section was a pretty good joke, though ... it was a joke, wasn't it? ... Black Kite 19:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse per Black Kite. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse - properly-conducted deletion discussion which happened to be sullied by meat puppets. Jd027 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse - correct reason in closing, admin waited the requisite 5 days to close the AfD, I don't have a problem with this. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Reinstate - N complaint: Though never formally stated as N, several complaints were on whether the event is notable. While this may have been a problem at the initial creation of the article, which received a notice for deletion within hours of creation and it's first mention on a pro-environment blog (suspiciously indicating the possibility of the notice being from a biased editor), it was not a problem within a roughly 48 hour period after the notice was given. Well within the 5 day review time frame. N clearly states that: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. The event is notable, and has been referenced in:\ The National Post, a major newspaper with a global reach. The National Review Online a major political magazine and online news journal referenced the event. The Duluth New Tribune, a 138 year old Minnesota newspaper has mentioned the event. The event has been mentioned by Michelle Malkin who has a nationally syndicated column reaching more than 200 newspapers, and is additionally a contributor on Fox News, MSNBC, and C-Span. The event is also to be brought before the House Floor of the Oregon State Congress by Representative Matt Wingard with a youtube video to follow. The O'Reilley Factor has contacted CEI about the Wikipedia take down as well indicating its circulation in news media circles. Additionally, countless blogs have mentioned the event including openmarket.org, greenbiz.com, rightwingnews.com, americandigest.org, twilightearth.com, planetsave.com, and climatebiz.com; and it results in 26,100 Google search results. N clearly states that notability is: Not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity. The evidence clearly shows that the event is notable, it does not matter if it is not popular to those who disagree with it or how famous the event is. SR complaint: The article was clearly high-quality in form and function and met the guidelines and clearly had a neutral point of view and was a verifiable event. NFT complaint: Obviously with the above cited verifiable references, the event is not "something me and my friends made up". The creator is a published policy analyst with a major Washington, DC think tank, and additionally the references prove it is not an idea within some group circle. The reasons for deletion were weak at best, but even then evidence is given here that completely blows any of those arguments for deletion out of the water based on WIKI guidelines, not anyone's personal opinion or bias. Failure to restore this article is ridiculous. Wiki's own guidelines dictate that is proper form to be an active article. It follows all guidelines, and any questions relating to reasons for deletion have now been answered in full.Thehondaboy (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion; the closer followed AfD process and correctly weighed the balance of policy-based argument. Having also looked at the deleted article I got an unavoidable impression of the tail wagging the dog, and blogs and self-published sources are generally considered unreliable and are not adequate to source article content. (Disclosure: my hidden agenda can be found at WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N). EyeSerenetalk 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Why would you even bring up N and V with the sources I've listed? While you call out blogs and self published sources I've given you the National Post, NRO, Duluth News Tribune, etc. Did you just bypass my written arguments before you posted?Thehondaboy (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC) The article in the National Post has at the end "Michelle Minton is a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute". So this was an editorial that was written about the event. Also, the other two articles referred to the SAME EDITORIAL as a reference for the story. As stated abouve, blogs & self-published sources are reliable. As for the idea this is a "left-wing conspiracy" designed to remove the article, let me just say for myself, I'm a card-carrying Libertarian, however whatever political bias I have is checked at the login screen when I work on Wikipedia. The article just does not meet the standards for inclusion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Indeed. There are 8 refs listed at the bottom of the most recent pre-deletion version of the article. 2,5,7, and 8 are to blogs or blog sections of other websites (such as with The National Post, eg network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/03/23/this-earth-hour-leave-the-lights-on.aspx). Refs 3 and 4 are to the CEI press release itself, which can be fine depending on what's being cited, but given the weakness of the other sources are not adequate in themselves. Ref 6 is to an article written by the founder of the event, and ref 1 basically reproduces the press release and is also rather bloggish (although it's probably the strongest of the lot). I appreciate your frustration, but these just don't support the article's claims. EyeSerenetalk 20:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Wildthing, I don't care if you're a libertarian. If everyone else here has an ulterior motive, then you "checking your bias at sign in" doesn't mean a hill of beans. And since everyone here has discounted the Duluth News Tribune, I'm now convinced WP is a place for only biased like minded individuals. Further more, discounting the NP article because it was written by Minton is a bogus claim. You are faulting Minton because she is a contributor at a major international paper and has the ability to write her own story, which was not categorized as an op-ed, that is your impression of it. Thehondaboy (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Don't abbreviate as Wiki! – WP is OK. Keep in mins there are many other wikis around, and you end up insulting veteran editors by abbreviating as such. MuZemike 23:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC) MuZemike, don't tell me not to use a word because I'll "insult a veteran editor". That just increases my suspicion of bias amongst a group of editor's indicating that WP is political, and not an encyclopedia. You're comments are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. If you have nothing constructive to add about deletion review, please move along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehondaboy (talk • contribs) 2009-03-26 18:46:10 Also, this is DRV, not AFD2. "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly ... this process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome". Black Kite 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)' Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. DGG (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion for the reasons already given. There is an argument to be made that a mention of this reaction to Earth Day could be made at the Earth Day article. In that case, a redirect there might be appropriate. Martinp (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse, clearly a correct close. – ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse, procedurally, this was closed correctly and should be deleted. I'm the editor who found the references mentioned above however I'm also the editor who commented that the Google news hits were misleading because only a small handful of them actually discussed the subject of this article. Even with the reliable sources that have been found, this event doesn't pass WP:NEWSEVENT.--RadioFan2 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse Closed correctly - I do like the 'tail wagging the dog' comment. It is already mentioned in the Earth Hour article by the way. dougweller (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC) if so, a redirect might be the appropriate solution.DGG (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse close, when you discount the obvious single-purpose accounts, consensus was for deletion. I have no objection to a redirect from this title to Earth Hour. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse Nothing I've seen makes the close look like anything other than the correct call. 24.99.242.63 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Reinstate Unless the section about this is greatly expanded in the Criticism part of Earth Hour, I see no reason for this to not have its own article. It seems like Wikipedia overall tends to endorse the Climate Change theory and stifle articles critical of it and policies contrary to the Environmentalist position. So allowing an article for Human Achievement Hour would help dispel this criticism. Rockingbeat (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Agreed, if using a redirect, a much larger and more detailed section in Earth Hour would have to occur and would need to be protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehondaboy (talk • contribs) CommentWe don't protect sections of articles. And WP:Undue would apply - this has so far received too little coverage to be notable and that affects its mention in any other article. Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion as the deletion process was properly followed. The WP:NPOV policy applies within an article, and does not oblige us to have articles for and against a certain subject when one side has far more coverage than the other. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse - The decision was procedurally correct, the counter-arguments didn't hold water, and the SPAs and double-voting simply illustrate the thinness of the alternative case. Rockingbeat, this is not the venue to argue against climate change, nor does this deletion discussion have anything to do with the rightness of the theory. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC) He wasn't arguing climate change. A critical read of his comments make it very clear that there is a climate change bias on WP with efforts to squash opposing events. Allowing the page to stay would dispel those criticisms. Thehondaboy (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC) I read what he wrote. I don't consider myself signficantly uncritical. Reading his comments discloses his belief that such a bias exists on Wikipedia; it does not demonstrate that the claim is true. Allowing a page to stay in order to give the project a good political image by the appearance of balance (rather than adherence to our normal notability criteria) is a classic example of giving undue weight to a view. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse absolutely no way this could have been closed any other way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC) The major problem that all of your criticism's face is that you are picking and choosing which reference to come up with some trivial reason why it doesn't count, but not one of you can discount the Duluth News Tribune and no one has tried. The Tribune article ALONE validates the existence of the WP article based on WP rules of notability, Thehondaboy (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) The event has now been mentioned in the Charleston Daily Mail a Pulitzer Surprise winning newspaper by Don Surber; Let's sit in the dark and freeze to death. There's too much out there at this point to ignore. Thehondaboy (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Uh oh, mentioned in the San Francisco Examiner. Heard of that one guys? Turn it on! Turn’em all on. I doubt I even need to depend on the bias of the deletion review anymore. Someone else will end up posting it. It's everywhere. Thehondaboy (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Well, 1) that's an editorial; and 2) the Examiner is a free tabloid newspaper. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion provided that title is redirected to Earth Hour#Criticism. There is some coverage of this event in reliable sources (see USA Today) but it is primarily in the context of talking about Earth Hour. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion and salt. No question about the correctness of the deletion, regardless of how much chaff the nominator tries to throw up. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Restored? I'd missed that DGG had restored it. I am not happy about this being done on a routine basis, and I am particularly not happy with it being done in this case as it is giving added publicity to a negligible event happening tomorrow. Is this a normal thing to to? Before I realised DGG had restored it, I put it back to its earlier state - text not visible, article history there which allows people to see it that way. If DGG or anyone else feels strongly about this, restore it - I didn't mean to edit war, and thought it had been done by someone else. Having done it and about to go to bed I don't feel like undoing it. I'd like to know though if this is normal and within guidelines (which is probably is, I respect DGG and this may simply be something I missed). I hope this isn't too rambling, maybe I shouldn't have had that Mojito. :-) Before restoring it though, please look at this edit on my talk page [1] - with all respect, DGG, this looks like a run around the deletion process. But I will go along with any decision made by another Administrator. Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Sorted, article semi'd (sp?) by DGG so it stays hidden but history is available. I think making the history available is fine, but it should then be protected - I note that one article creator restored his article during a current DRV,[2] which shouldn't be possible Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC) my intention was to restore it for discussion, not to reverse the closure. Most of the time it makes no particular difference whether its displayed or hidden, for just the 5 days. I carelessly put it visible, not remembering it was time-sensitive, and that the display might be taken as promotional. In such as case, I would not deliberately do so after a delete closure, unless it is reversed. I am not prepared to close this review early as restore, but if someone thinks it justified, it's up to them. As for the article, I have no particular opinion one way or another. I apologize for confusing matters. It remains visible in the history during the discussion, semi-protected to avoid edit warring back and forth. DGG (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion and redirect to Earth_Hour#Criticism. The only reporting of this in reliable sources is as part of the reaction to Earth Day. A handful of opinion columns about it does not mean it should have a separate article, and the AfD was closed properly.--ragesoss (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Reinstate As multiple people have pointed out, this has been reported in major newspapers and other media outlets. Some of the largest right-leaning blogs have major features on it, including National Review and Michelle Malkin's site. National Review has now mentioned the article's suspicious deletion as well. There is no legitimate reason to shut this entry down. Deleting the article as of now has the appearance of being politically motivated. DesScorp (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC) DeeScorp, what you have to understand is that all of these people are editor's running off the Earth Hour site as they visit, checking the link to HAH in criticism section and bleeding off into here to make sure it stays deleted during the 28th. They don't care about the this project's reliability or truthfulness. Next week this thing will go back up and it won't get a single complaint. This whole fiasco just proves that Wikipedia is a busted project that doesn't work. Thelobbyist (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC) — Thelobbyist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Note especially this edit --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC) No, actually, we understand when fervent political activists mistake Wikipedia for a soapbox, as you and your suddenly newly active friend are attempting to do. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Looks like the fascists have won. For now. You've allowed an article that supports one side of the issue and have deleted an article that supports the other, and all the rules-lawyering in the world won't alter that fact. Fascists are always big on rules -- at least when the rules are convenient. NPOV? Hah! Some POVs are clearly more equal than others on Wikipedia, and the POV that wins is the one that has the largest pack of amateur fascists patrolling the site for Politically Incorrect articles. Must. Protect. Narrative. Must. Protect. Narrative.76.195.223.161 (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC) And yet CalendarWatcher, if you determine this is political activism --your opinion by the way-- you have allowed one side, and not the other. That's called censorship. You're an amateur in a sandbox world based on WP rules you ignore. What that means is that WP is broken. 16:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC) thehondaboy Wikipedia editors are showing their left-wing bias and their support of the enviro-zealot extremists by not allowing this article to be shown. If this article is deleted, then the "Earth Hour" article should also be deleted to keep things equal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpet Crawler 2009 (talk • contribs) 2009-03-28 15:29:05 Reinstate- Amazing myopia. The only possible explanation for the deletion of this page is "political activism." Censorship of political views is never pretty, and a dangerous step. WP editors have crossed the line- will WP remain relevant?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucio (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC) — Brucio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Guess who did a story this morning? TIME Magazine. This whole thing is so corrupt. "It's not notable." Then why is it in Time Magazine? Where not talking about a blog. We're talking about USA Today & TIME Magazine... Thehondaboy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC). Comment ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail," and that was a trivial and dismissive comment in a longer article. But you all don't seem to accept that when the AfD took place the existence of other articles was irrlevant, what counted was our notability criteria. It didn't take place suspiciously quickly as the National Review writer claims, it ran the standard 5 days (some get closed earlier, this one did not). And this will run 5 days. Perhaps at the end it will be reinstated, perhaps not, but insults won't help. Dougweller (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC) The Indianapolis Star, Indiana's most widely circulated newspaper, described Human Achievement Hour as a "competing national event" to Earth Hour and devoted 3 paragraphs to Human Achievement Hour that explained the purpose of the event. While Deletion Review is not the proper forum for resolving notability disputes, the recent publication of reliable media articles such as the Indy Star's necessitate that we renew discussion about Human Achievement Hour's alleged notability. Jaminus (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC) And this attempt to get around the AfD [3] is a very bad idea - you don't seem to read your talk page, but if you continue to do this you might find yourself blocked (not by me, but it is the sort of action that gets people blocked). Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion Correctly carried out closing. Chillum 21:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Reinstate While this article was clearly not notable at the time of its creation -- and thus was properly deleted -- the fact that several reliable and credible sources have referenced Human Achievement Hour since the closing of the deletion debate means that discussion must be re-opened to ensure that the article gets a fair shake. Following the article's deletion on March 25, 2009, articles discussing the subject have been published in sources including the USA TODAY, Time Magazine, Chicago Tribune Breaking News, Duluth News Tribune, and National Review's The Corner. Notability is not constant -- as WP:NN states, "subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence." The case for inclusion is much stronger now that the topic's notability has improved, and the only way to discuss the merits of the deletion is by debating its notability -- again. Assuming there is no dispute that the notability of Human Achievement Hour has grown significantly since March 25, the deletion debate must be re-opened -- whether or not you think the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Jaminus (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC) This deletion was a disgraceful event in Wikipedia's history. It's obviously a clumsy and ham-fisted attempt by ignorant young enviro-goofs to crush any dissenting views of the juvenile Earth Hour stunt. Even this discussion is filled with veiled threats by activists to dissenters to ban anyone who complains. Wikipedia is really lurching mindlessly into the control of partisan goon-squads. For shame, Wikipedia, for allowing such ignorance to take control. Bushcutter (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse and redirect to Earth Hour#Criticism as noted above. The AFD was not wrong, the close was proper, and the coverage has been all in the context of Earth Hour, so it makes more sense to be included there to me. I find it deplorable that so many of the editors campaigning for this to be included find it necessary to fire insults at the people who are endorsing the close; calling people "ignorant young enviro-goofs," for example, is a disgusting personal attack, and as far as I'm concerned invalidates the argument and should be grounds for a strong warning if not a block. Attacking your opponents is not the way to influence a discussion such as this, and I highly suggest that the rhetoric be dialed way down as this discussion goes forward. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Reinstate As has been pointed out by numerous people here, this event has been covered by many major media outlets and blogs. It is certainly noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia, and the deletion smacks of nothing more than pure political bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.64.33 (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Devendra Prabhudesai – closure endorsed – Aervanath (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Devendra Prabhudesai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Deletion closer acknowledges there is coverage of the author's books, but says there is insufficient coverage of the author. But the coverage of the author's work is good evidence of notability for the author, and without the article on the author there is no coverage of the books at all (they don't have articles of their own). Also, the AfD nominator indicated that the article subject was notable, but needed work. This work was done after the first two delete votes, and a reopening of the deletion discussion to gain greater input for consensus was refused. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion as a valid reading of the consensus. Also, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC) My concern is that the closer offered an opinion rather than determining consensus and that this opinion didn't follow policy guidelines. Allowing the AfD to go on longer to determine consensus is hardly asking for another AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Comment I temporarily undeleted it in the page history to facilitate the review. DGG (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse the close based on the article as it existed (there was nothing about the author himself, only his books) but I think the article could be improved to prove notability. I'm looking at it now. Black Kite 19:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion proper read of the consensus. This is not afd round 2. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Comment I closed the AfD, so I'm not going to !vote in this, but I would point out that coverage of the author's work does not automatically provide good evidence of the author, and particularly I did not say that the books were notable; that wasn't in the scope of the AfD, nor of my closing rationale. --GedUK  21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion DRV is not AfD round 2. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Comment Updated version at User:Black Kite/DP. Black Kite 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. There really wasn't a consensus in that debate and I'm deeply perplexed by previous remarks that suggest there was; am I reading the same AfD as everyone else?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse closure as a valid reading of the consensus. Nomination reads like an AfD argumnet—I'm not seeing a reason for this DRV, other than to re-try the AFD. From WP:DRV: Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:BS-daten – relist – Aervanath (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:BS-daten (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) The original "BS-daten" template, used on dozens German railway line articles, was deleted and replaced by "Infobox rail line". The new template has some major disadvantages: first it doesn't dovetail into the route diagram but displays as a separate box; second, it is often a different width; third, it introduces a different colour scheme and fourth, it is a real hassle when translating articles and adds a lot of time to the process. There are a lot of railway line articles to go so this is a real factor for me. The overall visual effect is messy and definitely worse than before. Have a look at the Haßfurt–Hofheim railway article and its de.wiki equivalent or what was my budding "B" class candidate, the Hof–Bad Steben railway and its de.wiki opposite number. Before I understood the deletion review process I'm afraid I created a new Template:BS-daten, but have been told this could be removed at any time, so I'm asking if we can sort this out. I hope I've used this process correctly - it's new to me. I would be grateful if we could agreed to retain this template until such time as a multi-lingual version of "Infobox rail line" is produced which can handle "BS-daten" fieldnames and data and which also generates a single box combined with the route diagram template. Meantime we can legitimately undo the changes and continue to use "BS-daten". Many thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC) As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Relist This was deleted with only one comment. Apparently the problems weren't recognised. What should actually be done I do not know, but it clearly needs some discussion by those who work on the subject. The user is apparently new to WP process, and already he apologized if he wasnt following everything exactly, so I think the message above might not really be appropriate in this instance. DGG (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Relist – I agree with the nom that the replacement is not satisfactory. Occuli (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Relist - as the single user who !voted to Delete this template, I'm prepared to admit I was wrong here. I hadn't realised the problems with the replacement, and now I do I agree that this version is preferable. On the other hand, there are reasons to prefer a uniform standard, but this is clearly an issue which needs further discussion. Robofish (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Relist - please note that Infobox rail line does have the ability to include the map template; this is a common practice on Amtrak articles. I'm going to demonstrate on Haßfurt–Hofheim railway and drop you a line. Mackensen (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the helpful responses. Stifle asked me to respond to his question. I didn't contact the deleting administrator because I didn't know the process. I acted in haste to reinstate the template (actually I translated the German one from scratch, so it may not be exactly the same as before, but it seems to work), but then decided it would be wrong to reapply it without asking the editor who made the changes (Erik9) why he was doing this. He then pointed me at this forum. HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC) OK. Relist to get a proper consensus, without blame to the deleting admin. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Can someone explain what happens now? Does this get reviewed again? If so, where? Thanks in advance. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC) After the normal listing period of five days expires, an administrator will judge the consensus and take the appropriate action. At the moment, it looks like that action will be to restore the template and relist it at AFD. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Relist without admonishing the closing admin - clearly there is further discussion to be had about the issues surrounding these templates. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC).
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Craig Barber – Speedy endorse, nomination by a disruptive sock. – Stifle (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Craig Barber (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) The article was notable to a degree, and the image is public-domain. This should go through AfD again for fresh discussion. Samllaws300 (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC) (logged in at a public terminal) This can be speedily closed, I don't think it does need discussion again. --Samllaws300 (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Someone can close or delete this, the user was blocked as a sock per this thread. --64.85.214.236 (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Flanders and Swann – keep deleted – Aervanath (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Flanders and Swann (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This category was deleted as part of a purge in 2007. I'm not convinced that this consensus against categories still exist. There are several articles and one sub-category that can populate this.  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse, unless nominator can provide evidence that consensus has changed. --Kbdank71 15:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Plenty of similar examples in Category:Categories named after musicians e.g. Category:Rolf Harris. I know "other stuff exists" is not always a good argument, but in this case I believe that as these similar examples have existed for some time without causing problems, I see no problem in restoring this category. (I suspect that if I'd simply re-created it, no-one would have complained, as seems to have been the case with some of the other categories purged at the same time). As a counter request, I'd like evidence that categories like this are not acceptable. I'll raise the matter with the original nominator to get their view. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Relist How can we find out if consensus has changed otherwise? DGG (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not demonstrate that consensus has changed. There is still a strong preference for navigation templates for all but the groups with lots of articles related to them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Endorse - no indication, despite the occasional aberrant result, that the general consensus against small and eponymous categories has changed. Indeed, presumption is against eponymous categories in general. Unfortunately with these band categories everybody wants their own favorite band to have a category so we end up with hundreds of cats with practically nothing in them. Otto4711 (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Comment - Fair enough, if general consensus is still against categories like this I'm happy to go along with it, but it struck me as odd that we have Category:Flanders and Swann songs, without an obvious parent category. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC) The parent is Category:Songs by artist. Otto4711 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Comment - Otto is probably correct on this one (difficult to be sure as it depends to some extent on what the articles would be). Quite a few non-Ottos now think it is very odd to have Category:Four Tops songs, Category:The Four Tops albums and Category:The Four Tops members floating around apparently unrelated in category space. Occuli (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC) I've created a navbox, which has all the relevant articles I've found (so far). One thing I'm considering is renaming Category:Flanders and Swann songs to Category:Flanders and Swann songs and revues, so that it's a bit bigger. However that's a discussion for WP:Categories for discussion, not here. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Relist DGG has hit the head on the nail. The editor has followed the letter of the law in coming to DRV to consider recreation of the category. Other than the circular reasoning of stating that it was deleted before and that there is no proof that consensus has changed, how on earth could we know if consensus has changed? On the other hand, the significant number of such categories that have been retained, as documented at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 28#Category:Travis .28band.29, goes a long way to show that there is no absolute policy banning the existence of such categories. Alansohn (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Keep deleted; WP:OC applies. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.