Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 9

< June 8	Deletion review archives: 2007 June	June 10 >

9 June 2007

Supreme Court nominees categories

Supreme Court nominees categories (Categories' CfD)

These categories were deleted during a large CFD in February where several Presidential nominee categories were nominated (and kept). For these two cats in particular, the CFD resembled straight voting, with very little actual discussion of the merits of deletion of them in particular (as opposed to the Presidential cats, for which there was more discussion). As Osomec indicated in the final comment "Nominating a set of categories of such varying notability as a batch is not a good way to get a result." In fact, a comparison to Superbowl losers was the only comment during the discussion that was actually about these two judicial categories. (The closer also made a comment: that there was already a list of judicial nominees, a point that is addressed below.) With so little discussion of these two categories, it was inappropriate to delete them.

The categories are both valid and encyclopedic. They complement Category:United States Supreme Court justices and its subcategories. The analogies to Super Bowl losers and to candidates for political office do not fit. Unlike Superbowl losers, many nominees to the Supreme Court are famous primarily or only for being nominees (think of why people recognize the names Harriet Miers and Robert Bork; in both cases, their status as failed/withdrawn nominees is noted in the article lead). Furthermore, with games as well as elections, there are always losers, but unsuccessful Supreme Court nominees have been relatively rare. The statistics show that most nominees have been approved throughout the Court's history, so something unusual happens when a nominee is not confirmed.

The closer pointed out that there is already a list that duplicates the categories. Setting aside the issue of how appropriate it is for this rationale to be raised for the first time in the closing, categories and lists are not in competition; they work best when used in synergy. Categories are helpful for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia in a way that lists are not (plus lists clutter See also sections whereas categories are less obstrusive). Categories furthermore help to classify articles, and as noted above being a failed or withdrawn nominee does help to define the notability of those individuals in a substantial way.

Simply on the numbers, there was insufficient consensus to delete. For these two cats, there were two keeps (unnamed and Sefrigle) and three deletes (Otto4711, mikedk9109, and nominator Xdamr). 60% with virtually no discussion should have been "no consensus". Based on these substantive and procedural issues, I ask that the deletion be overturned. Chaser - T 22:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC) (with editing and some writing credit to Postdlf)[reply]

Overturn and relist - nominating all of these together doesn't make sense and these two were an "oh and by the way" type of thing in the CFD. --BigDT 00:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-create or relist per the well-written and convincing nom. By the way, has anyone asked the closer if he would be okay with a relisting? Newyorkbrad 01:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I've now asked the closer about relisting.--Chaser - T 14:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - Most people in the CFD discussion indicated that the Supreme Court categories should be deleted, and only one or two people explicitly indicated that the Supreme Court categories should be kept. The fact that people did not explain themselves fully is not necessarily a reason to restore the category. Moreover, this category was nominated after a series of similar nominations for "nominees" categories at WP:CFD, as the discussion clearly indicates. Therefore, the people reading the discussion now may not fully understand the context of the discussion. I conclude that the deletion was appropriate. However, it might be appropriate to relist the categories simply because the discussion covered multiple marginally-related categories. The relisting could also be conisdered a discussion to build consensus on recreating the category. Dr. Submillimeter 02:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-create or relist, per nom/myself. Postdlf 05:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist Clearly there is further discussion to be had on this after such a detailed nomination. The correct place to do that is CFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist there seems to be agreement thatt here was not an adequate discussion. DGG 16:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist The deletion was appropriate given the circumstances, but I think, judging from this nom, it should be probably be relisted to grasp a larger community consensus. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per Dr. Submillimeter, not per nom. --Kbdank71 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infoboxrequested

{{Infoboxneeded}}'s TFD discussion appeared to have a(n admittedly weak) consensus of delete and move to {{Infoboxrequested}}, which had been created during the debate AFAIK. As part of that closure, ^demon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted both Infoboxneeded and Infoboxrequested. Should Infoboxrequested have been deleted? If not, I'd like some discussion on the merits of restoring it, if only because it allows you to specify a particular template to be used on that article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debate was closed with the words "The result of the debate was deletion," and I don't see anything about a rename in that sentence. So endorse deletion, because no reason the closer made an incorrect decision has been provided. Picaroon (Talk) 22:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAIK, the debate had nothing to do with Infoboxrequested. I saw no mention that it was going to be deleted along with Infoboxneeded. If the TfD had been amended to cover both of the templates, I could understand... but it wasn't. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation of {{infoboxrequested}}. If we have infoboxes, we should be able to request them. This TFD never made sense to me... might as well delete templates to request pictures, expert attention, etc. --W.marsh 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow re-creation per W.marsh. Newyorkbrad 01:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse TFD - no evidence that the deletion fell outside the Admin's discretion and there was a good argument presented for the deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing Admin's Comments - The way I read and understood the TfD (and please correct me and accept my apologies if I'm wrong) was that the {{Infoboxneeded}} and newly created {{Infoboxrequested}} were to both be deleted. I don't really care one way or the other about it, and I'll respect whatever the outcome of this DRV. I'm sorry if I read the TfD wrong and the latter template was to remain in place. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seemed like people kept arguing to delete based on the name "infoboxneeded", even after it was renamed. Only a few really seemed to argue for the deletion of both names. --W.marsh 02:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  As one of those in favor of deletion, I was certainly against the use of {{infoboxneeded}} and {{infoboxrequested}}. I didn't explicitly say "and the fact that it was moved to a new name doesn't change my opinion" because I thought it would be obvious, and I think ^demon made the right decision by deleting both. If you check the wording of the template before the move to its second location, and afterwards, you'll notice that the difference is really one of minor wording switches; they're saying the same thing, but the second one is doing it in a slightly less demanding way. A name change does not a new template make. Picaroon (Talk) 21:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the solution here would be to restore it and send it straight to TfD. That would remove some of the ambiguity of the infoboxneeded decision. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Rachel Moran (closed)

Loyola2L (closed)

Onesidezero (designer)

~~Note: the redirect Onesidezero Design should be deleted if this deletion is upheld.~~ Nevermind.

This article was speedily deleted supposedly because of a lack of assertion of notability. However, I maintain that the specific claim "Onesidzero is also the co-founder of an annual graphic event called Inkthis which he runs alongside fine artist/designer Gurps Kaur," constitutes at least an assertion of notability. Whether the assertion actually constitutes notability or not is debatable, but I don't think this is obvious enough to deserve a speedy. (Note, I did create the article, but only because it was requested at Articles For Creation. I felt at the time that the sources listed were sufficient evidence of notability, though I was open to discussion otherwise; I certainly didn't expect a speedy.) Powers ^T 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Inkthis article has distinctly dubious sourcing - the purported BBC page is one of their user editable things, isn't it? Seems to me as if there might be enough credible sources for a single article between the two of them, but the deleted one was... not one of your better ones. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well as I said, I didn't compose the article. =) With AfCs, I tend to err on the side of creation, figuring deletion processes will weed out any bad articles I don't catch myself. I just didn't think a speedy was justified here. Powers ^T 17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Srikeit 17:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

Overturn and list on AFD. A7 speedy deletion isn't for 'this has dubious sources', it's for when the article doesn't even show any sign of notability. If there's a chance of an argument in favour of the article, it should go to AfD and not be speedy deleted. On a side note, I think speedy deletions under A7 that come up for a DRV should almost always result in it being restored and put on AfD for full deletion discussion, as at least one person feels it asserted notability. --Barberio 17:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD per nom ... "co-founder of an annual graphic event called Inkthis" constitutes an assertion of notability, albeit not the among the strongest I've seen. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list If it had said "famous annual graphic event" it would have been an obvious assertion of notability, but the exact wording shouldn't matter that much, as long as something possibly notable is given.DGG 19:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse for now not a great speedy, granted. I'd be tempted to overturn it, but not when even the nominator isn't sure if it belongs on wikiopedia. Go, do some thinking, and come back when you've made your mind up. And please don't create articles and leave it for others to 'weed out' the inappropriate ones. The deletion process isn't a tool to do your thinking for you.--Doc^g 21:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When working with AFC, I just create the articles. I weed out the obviously bad ones, but anything borderline I create so that the wider Wikipedia community can form a consensus on the acceptability of the article. I am not so arrogant as to presume that my judgment on a submitted article is always correct, thus I err on the side of creation. This is a collaborative project, after all. Powers ^T 13:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a project where we don't try to make work for others. Please do not create articles if you're not sure they belong on Wikipedia - we've enough work to do.--Doc^g 16:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to raise my threshold just so we can avoid a few AfDs. It's far better in my mind to keep useful articles submitted to AfC from being rejected than it is to keep borderline articles from being created. This article is a classic case in point. I know virtually nothing about the subject area discussed in this article; who am I to say, when reviewing it as an AfC submission, that this person is clearly not notable? I can express concern about notability, but declaring him obviously not-notable is a task for the community, not for me alone. Powers ^T 01:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert into wikipedia articles you think may not be suitable. And please do not create articles on something you admit to knowing nothing about.--Doc^g 13:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand the purpose of Articles for Creation. Powers ^T 20:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- (And as for my being unsure, it's true I don't know how consensus would rule in an AfD, but I am reasonably sure that this was not a proper speedy.) Powers ^T 14:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in undeleting an improper speedy if no-one wants the article. If anyone thinks it has merit, I'll undelete it.--Doc^g 16:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Endorse I can't see the article but if the nom is unsure then we would be better off being asked whether a proper article created in user space can be moved into main. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can view the original submission to AfC in my DRV nomination above (it's linked as the word "requested"). Powers ^T 02:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. If an article is worth this much time and study at DRV, it ought to be worth a normal AfD discussion, where the issues are better focussed. Neither the creator (Powers) nor the speedy deleter (Naconkantari) made an obvious error, in my opinion, so there is no process or person that needs to be set straight. Just send the article to AfD and see how it goes. I left a note for Naconkantari so he can join this discussion if he wishes to. In my legalistic heart I know that the speedy was correct, but I have read elsewhere that WP likes to get to the heart of the matter by shortcutting procedural steps when it can reasonably do so. A completely correct sequence of events would be: (a) This DRV upholds the deletion, (b) Powers adds a sentence to the article claiming notability, (c) the article is re-created. Do people prefer that sequence? EdJohnston 18:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have any sentences to add beyond what was in the article submitted to AfC. Powers ^T 01:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and thanks for contacting Naconkantari. That was an oversight on my part. Powers ^T 02:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per "There's no point in undeleting an improper speedy if no-one wants the article". I think overturning and listing at AFD would be a waste of the community's time in this particular instance. The article should meet Wikipedia standards *before* entering mainspace. Orderinchaos 13:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]