Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 1

1 December 2009

Thomas K. Dye

Thomas K. Dye (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Two issues with this AFD. First, it was re-listed despite having more than two comments on it, and substantial policy related statements given. Second, the deleting admin has chosen Merge despite no clear consensus to do so. (Four Merge !votes to Four Keep !votes) I have attempted to ask the admin to review this, but his response is that he decided to discount the Keep arguments because in his opinion they were wrong. [1] Administrators are clearly not supposed to substitute their own judgement when a discussion results in no-consensus. Barberio (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I relisted the discussion because I did not see substantial enough discussion and saw no harm in letting the debate run an additional seven days. Consensus can be some time in forming. I take no formal opinion on the close itself (which I had nothing to do with). Mackensen (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment as closing admin. 1. Relisting in this case was totally normal. If the guideline WP:RELIST doesn't reflect standard practice we should change it. 2. AfD is not a vote, but if you want to just look at numbers there were four keeps vs five merges and two deletes. Admins can and do weigh the strength of arguments. The arguments for keep were weak, so I gave them substantially less weight. The only argument for keep was "he won an award", but it is a minor furry fandom award, not a major award. I think my reading of the debate as favouring merge was correct. Fences&Windows 00:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. As an extra bit of data, the original AFD took place at the same time as a major fandom convention, which may explain the lack of activity during the initial AFD period. This was then compounded as the following week was Thanksgiving in the US. Perhaps Administrators should be cautioned against closing debates over holiday weekends and allowing them explicit extra time beyond them if further debate is needed to draw consensus. --Barberio (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I would also like to draw Fences's attention to one of the 'Keep' votes he states he discounted on ground that the 'only' argument given was 'he won an award'. It is Hiding's comment [2], which is the identification of a source and establishment of notability via that source. Clearly, Fences stated reason for closing the AFD is demonstrated to be wrong, there was significant policy and source based backing behind the keep argument. --Barberio (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Wrong venue The content has not been deleted, and merge is a variety of keep from the perspective of DRV. Unless the nominator wants the content deleted, which it does not appear he does, there is nothing here for DRV. Merging is subject to discussion by editors on the talk page of the appropriate article(s). Practically, I'd start by cutting this back to the reliably sourced content - which is indeed very little of the article. Then discuss whether that should be merged or not. GRBerry 01:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Rob McDowall

Rob McDowall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article has been deleted twice. Once at the start of the year and once now. I have written the article, taking on feedback from before and added it tonight. I feel I have added so much information and referanced it all as much as i can. It is all fact. The person is known in LGBT circles and is a charity chairperson etc and does a lot of different work. I would appreciate if this could be looked at again. I have spoken to the admin who is not wishing to change his views.

Thanks Np097264 23:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleting admin's comments: This was the version of the article deleted at AFD in April 2008. This is the version that I deleted today as a G4. Certainly, the articles are not identical. But the issue that caused the AFD participants to support deletion, the lack of coverage in reliable third party sources, does not appear to have been addressed in the new version, making it, I believe, G4-eligible. Steve Smith (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Restore, send to AFD if desired. G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version." This page is not substantially identical to the deleted version, as the deleting admin acknowledges. The same issue was raised in the November 23 Alison Rosen DRV, and the speedy deletion was overturned. It seems to me, reading over that discussion and the speedy policy page, when there's been a good faith effort to improve the article, and there's a reasonable case that there's been some improvement, that the decision on redeletion should be made by the community absent some compelling factor like copyvio or BLP violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Scroogle

Scroogle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

An earlier DRV (23 November) was closed early because of perceptions of bad faith and abusiveness on the part of the nominator (I don't dispute those perceptions). The person who closed the DRV has suggested here that the way to approach this is to lodge a more reasonable nomination. So here we are. The AfD (available here in unblanked form) rather clearly shows no consensus; the error, then is to have closed a no-consensus AfD as delete. There is particular concern from the fact that in the original run of the AfD there was clear consensus for keep; it was relisted -- and then closed later the very same day -- as delete. This was hasty in the extreme, particularly insofar as the discussion was by that point evenly split. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that Nomoskedasticity is not exactly picking up my exact meaning. My point about fresh nominations was more to do with DRVs closed very early before any real discussion has taken place. I closed the scroogle DRV around 12 hours early after the nominator started attacking other users' motives. I see no point in redoing that DRV at this point and exactly what is the scope here? Are we considering my close or the deletion of the article? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Is this a DRV to review the DRV or the AFD? Tim Song (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The AfD, since the earlier discussion was closed early because of misbehavior on the part of the nominator. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think this is a good idea. Let sleeping dogs lie. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Is Scroogle worth a mention at Criticism of Google or not? I think that's the only question of importance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Completely agreed. Seems like a matter for Talk:Criticism of Google, not Deletion review, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Hmm. Before I opine one way or the other, I'm not altogether sure I'm following everything here I should. I'm aware of DB's prior interaction w/ Wikipedia; is there anything else going on here? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Not on my part. I've been here just shy of two years; I know very little about DB and have no agenda regarding him. "What's going on" for me is simply out-of-process deletions -- particularly when no consensus is closed as delete. anyone who wants to enlighten me with a precis on DB is welcome to do so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Bleah, endorse. I probably would have gone the other way at the AfD, and based on that I commented here initially. I have since read through the other Drv, and am satisified that the matter has received the attention it's due. I might not agree, but there's no abuse of process here, and nothing productive can come of a 2nd DRV on the heels of the other one. I guess this is what happens when you take a few days off from this place. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Procedural Close - The DrV was closed a mere 12 hours early, and I don't see anything to overturn the close decision with. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

that DRV was relisted by agreement with the closer. See the DRV nomination statement at the top. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Carlo Garavaglia

Carlo Garavaglia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

He managed Serie C2 teams for almost 10 years. Serie C2 is a fourth division professional championship,like Football League Two. On wikipedia there are thousands of articles about professional fourth division footballers and managers of many different countries,so I think they are accepted. In addiction he managed in one Serie A match replacing the lead coach,even if I think this is not a relevant fact. The article was referenced. Der Schalk (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn – I don't think it quite meets A7 in my view. MuZemike 17:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn, especially given the reference. This is not A7. Tim Song (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment It seemed to me that A7 applied, possibly by a narrow margin. But I am happy, as I have already said to Der Schalk, to abide by consensus. Certainly I would not dispute an overturn. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn. Nominator makes a reasonable case for notability, which in turn indicates that speedy deletion was not appropriate. Kudos to closing admin for not taking adversarial stance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)