Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 18 Deletion review archives: 2008 November November 20 >

19 November 2008

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

List of bow tie wearers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)|AfD 2|AfD 3|AfD 4)

There were basically two sets of arguments here. There were a number of votes to keep that argued that the article is based on reliable and verifiable sources from such publications as The New York Times (see "A Red Flag That Comes in Many Colors") and The Wall Street Journal which are among a number of articles that talk about bow tie wearers and the significance of wearing a bow tie. Without exception, the delete votes were variations of "I Don't Like It", such as "trivial", "Indiscriminate", etc., without regard to the arguments presented or the more than 100 sources provided in the article. The closing administrator has tossed in what would be a rather poorly-thought out vote for deletion and presented it as a rationalization to close as delete, allowing this to be sorted out at "the inevitable DRV". It is not articles like this that bring Wikipedia into disrepute. It is administrators who substitute their own personal biases and preferences in lieu of any semblance of Wikipedia policy that is the real problem. Overturn and whale slap is the appropriate action here. Alansohn (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just comment here: The votes for keep and delete both relied on policy equally, just different interpretations thereof. I would also add that a DRV was inevitable given the strength of opinions being expressed, even if the article had closed 37-35 in favour of deleting. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. The topic is not exactly weighty, but is treated in printed, reliable media. Perhaps the effort expended on this article is disproportionate to its importance, and perhaps from the quality of the rest of Wikipedia, we might expect at most a stub here. However, that does not necessarily mean that the minimum notability criteria were not met, as judged by coverage in secondary sources, and once those criteria are met, however marginally, then the article may be extended to any length justified by the quantity of material to cover the subject.
    Further, I suggest that if the closing admin thought a DRV was "inevitable", then this reflects the lack of consensus to delete, and an inappropriate response, discarding the reasoned thoughts of both some who had not contributed to the article and some who had. You may disapprove of the NYT for running articles on this 'trivial' subject, but if they choose to do so, and in so doing reflect the significance of the topic in a particular specific field, then Wikipedia as a "specialised" encyclopaedia has every right to document the interest that some have in that topic, however obscure or how few they may be.
    To clarify, my point is thus that the closing summary implies a strong consensus or clarity in the outcome of the debate which was not present, and insufficiently acknowledges, let alone address, the concerns of roughly half the debaters. The only actual argument given ("Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate.") is so utterly incomplete as to make it unclear whether the debate was even read or not. —Kan8eDie (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At last count, there were 37 votes to keep, 30 to delete, 3 to merge, 2 to delete and/or merge. 37 is greater than 30 so how did the user get delete from that? Furthermore, they just had a deletion review and the result was keep. Even the original poster admitted that the article had been improved since the discussion.SPNic (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - agree entirely with Alansohn - the closing admin exhibited no evidence of having even read the discussion. Occuli (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Staying neutral on the restoration, I don't think any action should be taken without a statement from the closing administrator. Assuming the discussion was ignored is on the edge of WP:AGF, but it's true there wasn't much of a rationale provided. I'm sure everyone would benefit from an elaboration. :-) --Koji† 01:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore That luxury is not available. He/she is either offline or merly reading (no recent posts). I believe this closure falls under criteria 4, given the contentious and seemingly un-admin-like nature of the closing comments. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's available if you have any patience (usually taught around preschool-ish, I got that lesson when I went back to school for my GED though). I'm not sure where you're getting the sense of urgency here, DRV isn't a snap of the finger; it's meant to further elaborate on the points taken into account (or perhaps lack thereof).--Koji† 02:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Believe a possible WP:DGFA violation (just learned about this policy by following along with the argument, see most recent comments below) merits some degree of impatience. I would argue one of the tell-tale signs of a great Christian is a certain kind of impatience. Christ showed this at times. Reinhold Niebuhr, who was arguably the greatest American Christian mind of the 20th century, was famous for his impatience. And the Christian historian Reijer Hooykaas is another figure who comes to mind as a Christian thinker who garnered respect for his impatience. Be worried about wikipedia if some of its editors didn't exhibit some impatience sometimes. (Also not at all claiming to be a great Christian. I'm not. I sin like it's going out of style. :-) ) --Firefly322 (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • What do these opinions about what constitutes a great Christian have to do with the matter in hand? Wikipedia is not a theocracy, nor are the content, deletion or review guidelines influenced by Christian history or scripture. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - It was obvious from reading the discussion that no consensus for action had emerged; several alternatives had been proposed on the delete Talk page. Regardless of the merit of the article, it's clear that the results of the discussion were essentially ignored. --Clay Collier (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The relevant policies are quite clear here, the debate was heading towards a 'no consensus'. However, policy always overrides consensus in these matters. I will reserve further comment until the closing administrator makes a statement. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL is not wishful thinking. The number of votes does not matter a blind bit if the article is against policy. I'll quote the deletion guide for administrators... "that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus". "A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy". Consensus is not determined by counting heads. Instead, a deletion must take into account arguments that contradict policy, or arguments based on opinion rather than fact, and must discount them. A brave close by the admin, but a sound one. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're asserting that the article violated at least one of
  1. verifiability
  2. original research
  3. copyright
  4. neutral point of view
and you presumably have obvious examples. Let's see them. htom (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to debate the deletion of the article; that's been done. DRV isn't for discussing the article's merits. It's for discussing whether or not the closing administrator was out of line in closing. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is your own argument that the closing administrator is not "out of line in closing" if the "article is against policy". So by not supporting the premise that the article is against policy, your argument that the closing administrator was not out of line falls apart. DHowell (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or of course, the policies we've shown that it doesn't pass. Two sides to every debate, dude. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly which policies do you believe you've "shown that it doesn't pass" and exactly where have you done this without relying on "arguments that contradict policy, or arguments based on opinion rather than fact"? I apparently must have missed that part of the debate. DHowell (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I'm not stating my feelings or my position during the debate, just interpretting the consensus as per the DRV guidelines. I think that in the first place, the AfD was procedurally premature as it had just been nominated for deletion 2 or 3 weeks before and was kept. In addition to that, the debate was far from conclusive either way. Most of the Keeps cited the fact that various sources covered the subject of people wearing bow ties and this contributed to notability. Deletes felt that the list was too indiscriminate usually, despite the fact that everyone in the list was covered by sources stating that they wore a bowtie in a somewhat notable fashion. Looking at the debate, I'd say there was no consensus, and the article should be kept as a result. There wore more keeps as well numerically, and although it is not a vote, it still contributes to their being no consensus. Also I'm interested in what the closing administrator has to say and that may affect my decision. --Banime (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Belligerent and lazy close, almost entirely dismissive of either side of the argument. Admin should be ashamed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's see what they have to say before shaming, shunning or otherwise dismissing their work. -- Banjeboi 04:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, Benji, Ryulong already told us what he was going to "say at the inevitable DRV", quite unambiguously. I suggest you re-read his closing comments, such as they were. I stand by my characterization.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Closing admin has now said "There was no real consensus either way" - I was hoping they would add something like "oops" or "my dog stepped on my keyboard" or a more diplomatic version that they erred and misapplied tools. I'd rather see admins face a mistake and work to correct it than to go on mucking things up that have to be cleaned up thus spending resources of the community. -- Banjeboi 22:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep; Bad judgment entirely in several respects.There was a first Afd, with a non-consensus close, in Jan 07; quite reasonably, it was nominated again, and had a close as keep, in June 07. OK, consensus can change, there was a third, in Oct 08, with the very sensible " For some reason that I cannot comprehend, this is a keep. Ah well.. " close by NuclearWarfare on Oct 23, 2008. But unfortunately he wasn't an admin, so it was nominated again, and closed by Ryūlóng on November 19 2008 with a close, which he knew would be objected to: " Really. A "list of bow tie wearers." Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate. And this is what I'll say at the inevitable DRV, too". The role of an admin at afd is not to judge whether articles should be deleted. The role of an admin is to judge whether wikipedians think that articles should be deleted. In doing this, it is right for them to consider opinions that have some basis in policy, ignoring idontlikeit and similar arguments. When when two policies conflict, or when policy based arguments are raised in different directions, they do not get to conclude which one is right. Most of the time, it will be clear which side is the general opinion, and then, like NuclearWarfare, they should say just that--whether or not they agree. If there is no such consensus, then that's what they should say. At requests for AfD we see if admin candidates understand the basics of what is policy or not. We do not examine to see whether they are such experts as to decide between competing policies--there is no individual wikipedian entitled to claim such knowledge; rather, in contested questions we go by the community. People will inevitably tend think in disputed matters that the opinion they happen to agree with is the one supported. for fairness, perhaps we need a rule that in contested afds nobody should close except against their own opinion. DGG (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to close - The closer injected their personal opinion in the close rather than interpreted the discussion. It is too late to unring the bell, so overturn to close. What a waste of time. -- Suntag ☼ 02:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion and keep per consensus, as the closing Admin ignored such consensus to keep and substituted his own opinion. Even had he simply expressed his view at the AfD and opted "delete", it would not have outweighed the consensus to keep. Overruling a decided consensus runs diametrically opposed to what the AfD process is all about... specially for an article that had just 2 weeks previously been "Kept" as the result of a consensus at AfD. Bad form... bad form. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Consensus hardly supported a delete. I was more than shocked at this - that the closer also stated this DrV was going to happen likely was a sign that a different approach should have been taken. -- Banjeboi 02:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The article is kind of coatracky but usually a closing rationale that says "i expect this to be at DRV" should not be used to declare a consensus to delete. Protonk (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The relevant policies override consensus. JBsupreme (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn / Restore I especially agree with Alansohn, Kan8eDie and DGG. Dozens of editors took the time to comment and to respond to others comments in a long discussion. Serious arguments were offered, questions were raised and answered, facts were put forward about sourcing, policy was argued over, researched and cited. Time and effort were spent not only in the discussion but even in improving the article further. The closing administrator, Ryulong, gave no evidence whatever of having read or understood the discussion. The two-line closing statement was inadequate -- and, frankly, deeply disrespectful -- to all those editors, and added an extra kick with the disparaging comment, Really. A "list of bow tie wearers.".
    When there's no consensus and when the "Keep" side has arguments that cite policy -- even if only to give a credible interpretation of it -- the closing admin should respect the fact that there is no consensus and default to keep. (Or, as in this case, when the keep arguments are so much stronger than the delete arguments, declare "Keep".) It wasn't Ryulong's job to substitute his or her judgment for that of the 70-plus editors, but to judge consensus and only overrule it if policy was irretrievably violated by the article's existence.
    Ryulong stated: Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate. If these 12 words are supposed to be a policy argument, the only policy that WP:DISCRIMINATE applies to is a section of WP:NOT, and the only phrase in that section that applies to this AfD would be merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. That vague policy statement isn't enough to impose an administrator's judgment, overruling the results of a deletion discussion. Ryulong hasn't deigned to favor us with a detailed explanation, and it's not worth trying to guess what other policy the closing decision might stand on.
    For the closing to be upheld, the reasoning should be not only more cogent than all the Keep arguments, but show that all of those alternative readings of policy are not nearly as reasonable as his own. I can't wait to see that superior wisdom. -- Noroton (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep: Absolutely no consensus to delete. And, as I pointed out in the AfD, the phrase, "list of bow tie devotees" is even sourced--which is more than what can be said about most WP:L's--so it is hardly indiscriminate per WP:RS. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep there was no consensus to delete the article. Also consider admonishing and possibly de-sysopping the closing administrator. X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep; I just elaborated on the membership requirement on the topic page itself. It was not indiscriminate, and the change made that even more apparent (through wordiness.) The closing administrator doesn't need to say any more; his current words and action are more than enough to show his motive. He doesn't like it, I get it. There's no accounting for taste. Restore. htom (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Endorse Wow the inclusionist cabal got here pretty quickly. As per the talk page discussion after the closure, the 'Keep' votes were a summary of all arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT), . The only arguments citing policy were arguments to delete (WP:N, WP:INDISCRIMINATE). This is why AfD isn't a popularity contest and why Wikipedia isn't a democracy and this is why we have administrators to judge consensus. Themfromspace (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can chant INDISCRIMINATE as much as you like; it wasn't an indiscriminate list, and the deletionist cabal's chanting (a half dozen of you, within ten minutes of the AfD listing) doesn't make it so. There were many people who were otherwise notable who were not on the list. htom (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:INDISCRIMINATE is Wikipedia policy, not an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The article can have all the sources in the world, but if the topic is not notable, the topic doesn't belong. That's the essence of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Themfromspace (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In order to use that policy, it's got to fit, and it doesn't fit this article. The concept of notable people wearing bow ties is itself something that was footnoted to multiple reliable sources that covered the subject in a substantial way. So the article not only passes WP:N, but any possible interpretation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Your quote from the policy could just as easily fit List of presidents of the United States, since that article's "[m]erely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make [the article List of presidents of the United States ] suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Can you explain why one list is indiscriminate and the other is not? -- Noroton (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • (ec) WP:NOTABILITY Policy:

          This page in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

          INDISCRIMINATE lists five things that are to be excluded: Frequently Asked Questions; Plot summaries; Lyrics databases; Statistics; and News reports. Which of those was this article? And while I'm quoting policy,

          Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so ... Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

          htom (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per lack of consensus. I argued strongly for deletion in the AfD as it's an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list and thus inappropriate for the encyclopedia and I stand by it (there are three things required to have an article -- something that's notable, verifiable, and encyclopedic -- and I think it's clear the article failed the third), but it's clear from the AfD that the result should have been no consensus despite my beliefs. The arguments that the "score" of 37–30 should have resulted in a keep are completely missing the point that an AfD is not a vote, and the "score" doesn't matter. Despite my beliefs about the unencyclopedic content, however, I think it's clear that the AfD was no consensus and thus its deletion was inappropriate, regardless of what the "score" was.  Xihr  05:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep as "no consensus". While I somewhat agree with the sentiment of the closing administrator, his closure does not reflect consensus. There were numerous well-argued "keep" opinions, many pointing to coverage of the topic in reliable sources. These cannot easily be dismissed.  Sandstein  05:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I promised: Really. A "list of bow tie wearers." Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ryulong, do you have an argument to go along with that opinion? -- Noroton (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was no real consensus either way. Seven votes (that's right, I went there) does not mean anything in the long run. As an administrator, I used my discretion to close as I saw fit, and as I saw the subject of the list. I had never seen this list before. I was asked to review the situation, and I did what I saw fit. Is Wikipedia going to lose something from the deletion of this list of people who have been known (and oddly well referenced) to wear a bow tie? It certainly doesn't necessarily benefit the encyclopedia. I don't think Britannica, World Book, or Encarta say, "X wears a bow tie, as do Y, Z, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, ß, Æ, Ø, ə, ll, etc." Sure, they may have a photo of a noted person who has worn a bow tie, but not a whole list of them as extensive as the Wikipedia one. As such, I stand by my deletion. It may have been not what you all wanted, but that's what always happens to some extent.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "No real consensus either way" means we don't delete the page. That's policy. Administrative discretion means you have some discretion in determining whether or not there was a consensus to delete. It does not mean you get to impose your own opinion when there is no consensus. As for comparisons to print encyclopedias, well Wikipedia is not paper. DHowell (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think Britannica, World Book, or Encarta say [...] You fail to address the argument in the AfD that WP:FIVE specifically states that Wikipedia is meant to be more than a general encyclopedia. It is supposed to encompass specialized encyclopedias and this article could easily go into a specialized encyclopedia on men's fashion. Your statement also flies in the face of WP:NOTPAPER which is official policy. Just how many of our 2.6 million articles would pass the test you set up? Would any of the articles in Category:City of Heroes, for instance? (That's the category of articles you mention on your user page that you'd like to work on. Why is it that your interests are supposed to be more important than the interests of people curious about bow-tie wearing?)
          It certainly doesn't necessarily benefit the encyclopedia. We don't delete things because one administrator thinks they don't necessarily benefit the encyclopedia, and "doesn't necessarily benefit" isn't the standard and certainly isn't deletion policy. What Wikipedia loses is a topic that has been of proven value, as demonstrated by reliable sources: the topic of notable people whose bow-tie wearing has become notable a topic that, as proven by the sources referenced in the article is influential in both fashion commentary and news articles about the popularity of bow-tie wearing because sales can go up when men become intrigued by bow ties seen beneath famous faces. This was further reinforced by the sourced references to bow-tie-company websites, where famous people were listed -- showing that this exact subject is a well-sourced phenomenon of some importance in the real world. This was all brought out in the AfD that you say you read.
          I used my discretion to close as I saw fit Your "discretion" ("power of free decision or latitude of choice within certain legal bounds") is bounded by deletion policy and is supposed to follow Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators which states, A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy. Outside of consensus-endorsed deletes, you get to delete if -- and only if -- policy is irretrievably violated. You haven't shown that any policy at all was violated. If you aren't being discreet, then discretion isn't what you're exercising.
          You've also been combative in your closing statement and combative in your statements here, which is offending many editors. -- Noroton (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • And another thing: but not a whole list of them as extensive as the Wikipedia one So what. No policy or guideline demands that. It isn't our job to be mediocre but to excel. From the first line of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia Even your discretion within WP:IAR is bounded by the limits of improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Your close was policyless, Ryulong. -- Noroton (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Neither the closing administrator nor anyone who has commented in this DRV has so much as suggested that there was consensus to delete this article. Instead, there is an assertion that the article violated "policy", but I have seen no coherent explanation of which policy was violated, other than the nonpolicy of something that seems this trivial to me couldn't possibly belong in an encyclopedia, could it?. Unfortunately, this entire AfD (from the nominator's noncredible claim that he was totally unaware that there had been three previous AfDs -- including one 2 weeks earlier, to the rapid appearance of "delete" comments within minutes after the AfD was started, to the closing administrator's dismissive remark about the "inevitable DRV") has the unpleasant smell of having been a group effort to disrupt Wikipedia to prove the group's collective manhood. This kind of "mine is bigger than yours" behavior by administrators should be rewarded by a slap with a very large fish. --Orlady (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that's just full of bad faith there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you read the AfD discussion before you closed it? There was plenty of discussion there of the phenomena to which I refer. --Orlady (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I quite agree with Ryulong. If you have actual hard evidence to show that several of our most experienced administrators and editors are all working together to disrupt the project for some unspecified purpose, then show it. Otherwise, assume good faith and stop insinuating false claims. There is no cabal, unless you go looking for one. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Evidence?
            This article is entirely original research. Almost everyone has worn a bow tie at some point, and this article is an indiscriminate collection of information, contrary to WP:NOT. A case in point would be the 'list of big-busted models' article that was earlier deleted. How many times must one wear a bow tie in order to be included?. The "Attention to famous bow tie wearers in commerce and fashion commentary" should be merged back into bow tie and the list deleted. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
            (Disclosure: I've never worn a bow tie.) We don't need this. It's an embarrassment. If a given individual was known for his bow ties, then they can be mentioned in the article about that individual. Delete. DS (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
            Neutral- I just wanted to point out- the last AFD for this list closed not even a MONTH ago. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
            I wore a bow tie once. I don't see any of my wedding photos in this article (probably just as well). More seriously, anything encyclopedic here could easily be shifted across - with no GFDL issues - to Bow tie. Delete. Black Kite 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
            Merge all useful content to bow tie. There is good content here, however the list is entirely indiscriminate and what content we do have would be much better off in the bow tie article, which I note needs a wider perspective on things anyway. A short list could be included in the bow tie article. Listing people who wear article of clothing X isn't very encyclopedic. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
            Delete - seems mostly non-encyclopedic The muffin is not subtle (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
            Strongest of Deletes maybe now that Noroton "fired" Wikipedia we can get this off. Seriously, like the nom said, this is an embarassment. JuJube (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
            Delete Well referenced, but a dictionary article can be well-referenced too; the point is that this is too trivial of a list topic. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
          • For something not a conspiracy it collected a lot of deletes in the first ten minutes. (quote edited from the AfD 4 page.) htom (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for more "evidence" here are some of the statements about this discussion that turned up on user talk pages (names removed to keep this impersonal) that gave me the strong impression that this AfD was not a civilized effort to obtain consensus, but rather a demonstration of which members of the pack are the alpha males:
"If I was a bolder admin, this would be a straight WP:IAR delete, then a fight to the death at WP:DRV."
"Damnit, [name deleted]. You've got balls. I salute you."
"For your gutsy closure on this AfD, I hereby award you the (brand new) Admin's Barnstar!"
--Orlady (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-I would just like to point out my comment in the AFD was NOT a delete. When I said Neutral, I meant I'd had no opinion at the time whether or not it should be kept. My only purpose in commenting at the time was to bring up the recent AFD that had been closed as a keep. Even Assuming Good Faith, it still seemed silly to me to have another AFD so soon after the last. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And? The first five "restores" here were all within an hour. I don't see anyone accusing you of any conspiracies. I'd also note that two of the arguments here weren't in favor of deletion - I was for a merge, and Umbralcorax has already stated that s/he was neutral. Quick responses like this are not unusual. Again, stop digging for dirt when all you're going to find is bedrock, and let's all get on with the topic at hand. Tossing about accusations is not conduct becoming of a good editor. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had the page on "watch", was part of the discussion, and was extremely surprised that it was deleted. The fact that the first five restores got here so soon can only nean that they shared this concern. And looking above, even the editors arguing for delete are concerned that the closure and deletion was an error of judgement. With respects, consensus here indicates that the deltion should be overturned. Will this consesnsus be ignored as well? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You misunderstand me. I merely wanted to make sure that my Neutral vote from the original AFD wasn't considered as part of the deletes, as it looks like OtterSmith may have done (if that wasn't the case, then my bad). Other than that, if my comment about it being silly ruffled your feathers, that wasn't my intention. I never said it wasn't legit or that it wasn't in good faith, i just thought that it was, well, silly. If it hadn't been so close to the previous AFD, then its probable I never would have commented at all. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No bad intent on either side, as far as I'm concerned. I noticed that you were neutral, didn't want to be accused of deleting others who had posted in the initial flurry of deletes, and so left your voice there (as I would a keep voice.) Some of these things you can't win. Sorry for any confusion. htom (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Sorry if I came across as harsh or defensive. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Endorse Deletion - Firstly, the opening argument that those on the side of deletion were simply arguing WP:IDONTLIKEIT can be countered simply by noting that the same number of people on the keep side argued WP:ILIKEIT. Secondly, the issue of criteria still looms over the whole article as it was not as clearly defined in the opening paragraph as it might of been, this in and of itself isn't a criteria for deletion but when you look at it closely it is hard to see how you could possibly have a stringent set of criteria for a list such as this as the topic description itself is rather vague. How do you define known for exactly and how can you keep this from being abused? (This has been discussed numerous times on the AfD page but I am yet to be convinced by any of the responses I have received). Thirdly, just because something is well sourced does not mean it deserves an article nor does it mean it is notable. There are many frivolous topics covered by respectable news sources as they have to produce new material every day and you have slow news days. Though the vote tally lists the consensus as keep to do so based on the strength of the arguments presented and in the face of policy would have been irresponsible behavior from the administrator involved. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 06:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I can understand the argument that it is an indiscriminate list...if it were indiscriminate. By setting its inclusion standards, it is, by very definition, exclusive. Moreover, 3 prior admins felt that the list deserved to stay versus the 1 who decided deletion. Keep it. — BQZip01 — talk 06:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. Really. Just because you don't like the information doesn't mean that it is "indiscriminate". And if you are already anticipating "the inevitable DRV" in your closing, you've more than likely made the wrong decision. DHowell (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, and everyone stop counting votes. AfD is not a vote, and consensus can at times go against the majority. This is one of those times. Many (at least a dozen) of the "keep" arguments focused on WP:NOTAGAIN, which is an invalid argument unless the nomination was clearly made in bad faith (which this certainly wasn't), and had little or nothing to do with the article itself. That in itself leaves us with a "no consensus" close, which can certainly be left to the mercy of the closing administrator, or a clear "delete"; a fact further assisted by many of the remaining "keep" arguments focusing on WP:INTERESTING and other arguments listed in WP:ATA. The policies cited against this article across the discussion are firm: WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:CRUFT, WP:SALAT. Articles such as this are unencyclopedic - I will admit, as I did in the discussion, that this one did happen to have some encyclopedic content, however I will state as I did there that it's better off in the bow tie article rather than as a separate list. We also need to keep in mind the accessibility of this information to readers; someone looking for people wearing bow ties is going to search for "bow tie", not the typically super-case-and-spelling-sensitive "List of bow tie wearers". While I agree the closing statement could have been MUCH more diplomatic, the result of the debate was correct. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, if an article has some encyclopedic content that belongs somewhere else, that's an argument for a merge, not a delete. DHowell (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That in itself leaves us with a "no consensus" close, which can certainly be left to the mercy of the closing administrator No, we do not rely on the "mercy" of the closing admin. That would violate Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion, which states, If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept. In that quote, "rough consensus" links to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus which states that admins may delete even with a no-consensus result -- but only if the article irretrievably violates policy: A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions. Administrators do not have permission to close outside of policy violations. Even WP:IAR limits us in violating policy only to further the goals of the encyclopedia, and that violation would need to be justified and be subject to consensus. There is no case for delete and no consensus here for it.
      And you mention policies cited in the AfD. But of the ones you mention, only WP:INDISCRIMINATE is actually part of a policy, and it hasn't been shown that it actually applies to this article -- to the contrary, it's been argued well that this article passes the only (vague) statement in that section that could possibly apply here. -- Noroton (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment about the "inevitable DRV" - Everyone stop for a moment and think. How many times have you seen a really close result such as this, or a really long debate such as this, NOT end up at DRV, regardless of the result? Whichever way this closed, someone would have brought it here. No, stop, actually think about it. Yes, there you go, now the light has turned on. As I said just above, the closure could have been more diplomatic, however I do not believe Ryulong was intending to be at all dismissive by saying that. I myself have said a similar thing here, in another controversial debate. That one is an exception to the rule as it did not go to DRV, but the point is still valid. Simply because the closing administrator expected the debate to go to DRV does not mean they're closing something in bad faith or they're deliberately making a WP:POINT. It just means they're being quite practical about the whole situation and they know how drama on Wikipedia works. And that is a valuable skill for an administrator to have. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A better response for an administrator believing that any decision at all would be brought to DRV, would be to relist for more discussion, or to just make their argument in the AfD and let someone else close the discussion. DHowell (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, your closing was infinitely better than the one here. While you anticipated a potential DRV, you staved it off by giving a rational explanation for your close, and indicated that you were open to discussion of it. There is a huge difference between "Before you take this to DRV, please consider these points, and please discuss with me if you disagree..." and "I don't like it! And when you inevitably take this to DRV, I'll say I don't like it again!" DHowell (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't relist discussions that have gone on this long. Relisting is only for when there haven't been enough comments for even a "no consensus" close. The discussion needed to have been closed; as I said, it could have been done better, and you do have a point yourself in saying a comment rather than closure could have been made, but again, I feel this would have happened anyway, and mentioning that fact is only being practical about it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The implication of your original argument here was that even a "no consensus" close would have been controversial and resulted in an inevitable DRV. If this was the case, then regardless of the actual volume of discussion, there hadn't "been enough comments for even a 'no consensus' close." No controversial discussion absolutely needs to be closed at any particular time, after all, there is no deadline. (Personally, in this case, I don't think that a "no consensus" close would have necessarily resulted in a DRV, and so would have been appropriate; but a re-list would have been perfectly within administrative discretion, given the ongoing controversy.) DHowell (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closer in closing the AFD or commenting above at this DRV seems to made little or no attempt to way the arguments made at the AFD, but instead has just taken his own opinion and used that. There was certainly no consensus to delete this article nor was any overiding policy argument made by those arguing for deletion that was not addressed by at least some of those who argued for keeping. Admins should not just put their own opinion above those who comment in AFDs or it is completely pointless to have AFD at all. (It also really discourages editors from contributing to wikipedia when their views are just ignored despite there being a reasonable policy argument.) Davewild (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, this current DRV reminds me greatly of oh... this
    • List of bow tie wearers – Closure endorsed, for now. There is clearly no current consensus to delete this article. However, I think Lid and Otto4711 have legitimate points about whether this might represent indiscriminate information. The problem is that the sources cited in the article, while they point to the notability of particular neckwear choices, do not establish the notability of the means of categorization in itself. Has it really been established that whatever Karl Marx and Pee Wee Herman have in common is not trivial? There are still outstanding questions for a possible future AfD to consider, and for now this should be thought of as no consensus. – Chick Bowen 06:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Same situation, except it went the other way however the arguments remain the same - votes of interesting and I Like It vs votes of policy with firm backing. The future AfD had the questions, they were considered, and the result overruled the votes without a basis in policy. –– Lid(Talk) 08:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how you read the discussion and came away with this conclusion, but I'll note that this Sioux City Journal article does seem to establish "that whatever Karl Marx and Pee Wee Herman have in common is not trivial" (i.e. it is discussed significantly in reliable sources). DHowell (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • NBC News economics reporter Irving R. Levine, according to Wikipedia, began wearing a bow tie in 1994 when he delivered a commencement address. "I needed help in tying it," he said.

        The same Web site reported that Central College (of Pella, Iowa) graduate Harry Smith of CBS used to make his bow tie fashion statements on television in Denver before going to CBS nationally. Once there, the network executives asked him to retire his shorter ties as Charles Osgood had cornered CBS' bow tie market.

        This article is citing wikipedia, and judging by its content it is citing the very list that was just deleted. In another twist in events the list here is using notability from the fact it was an article on wikipedia, not the other way around. Apart from which that article does not support a complete listing of every person/individual/fictional character that wore a bow tie, it supports a section on the bow tie article but not this indiscriminate list. –– Lid(Talk) 09:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Fortunately, there are better sources than that that discuss how bow tie wearers in general are perceived as a coherent stereotype. I added analysis of bow tie wearers by one of them, Russell Smith style columnist for the Toronto Globe and Mail, to the article. In an amusing irony, this content was removed by Orlady (talk · contribs), one of the people arguing for keeping the article, on the grounds that discussion of the stereotypes that people have of bow tie wearers as a whole, which link together the individuals that wear bow ties as parts of their public personae and that make this more than a trivial connection amongst seemingly disparate people, didn't belong in the article. Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In any event, the article still contains the New York Times quotation, "A list of bow tie devotees reads like a Who's Who of rugged individualists," which seems in my estimation to "establish the notability of the means of categorization in itself." Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not see any irony in my having removed that citation. I was trying to maintain the article's quality by removing some of the semi-relevant content that gets added to it -- the presence of which was in fact the basis for some of the arguments that the entire article should be deleted. I believe that the citation I removed from the article was this URL. The Russell Smith item is about the fashion trends related to bow ties and the image connotations of bow-tie wearing. It says nothing about famous people wearing bow ties or the effect of famous people's bow-tie wearing on the popularity of bow ties or on people's judgments of the bow tie. Considering that the list article cited and discussed several other reliable sources that focus directly on the topic of notable people and bow-tie wearing, I judged the Russell Smith citation to be excess clutter for this article. I see that you added it to Bow tie, where I agree with your judgment that it is a good addition. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The presence of reliably sourced analysis of images of bow tie wearers was actually a usable as a good rebuttal to the point, repeated yet again above, that there is no actual category of "bow tie wearers" that sources discuss. The irony was your taking it out in the face of people making this point yet again. The major source was actually Smith's book, which treats the subject in more detail than the on-line article. Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lid: that article does not support a complete listing of every person/individual/fictional character that wore a bow tie, it supports a section on the bow tie article but not this indiscriminate list. No Wikipedia policy or guideline mandates that every item on a list needs to be found in a single source. Policy was the only justification for not following a no-consensus keep, and opponents have not been able to find a policy that was violated. -- Noroton (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I strongly believe that this article should be deleted, but sadly, there was no consensus to do so. DRV is not AFD round 2; the AFD had no consensus to delete. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus. The closer's rationale "Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate" is a personal vote, not a summarisation, was justified here later as "There was no real consensus either way...I used my discretion to close as I saw fit, and as I saw the subject of the list.". This debate had more than enough valid opinions registered to be able to draw a neutral conclusion of no consensus. Admin discretion should never have come into it. MickMacNee (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional reasons to overturn:
    • The closing admin implies that the article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, this is not a new argument; it was put forward in the original AfD, as were counterarguments. What I see is the closing admin stating his opinion and acting on it, not weighing the arguments against the counterguments with WP:CON in mind. I assert that the list is not indiscriminate, but as far as WP:CON goes (in the AfD), maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Okay, so via WP:CON, the applicability of WP:INDISCRIMINATE is unclear. But even the closing admin admits that the applicability of WP:V is clear: "Just because information is sourced..." With a core policy, namely WP:V, applying, and with a non-core policy, namely WP:INDISCRIMINATE, being of uncertain relevance, the implications of the core policy trump those of the non-core policy. The article passes WP:V and may or may not pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE; and because WP:V is core, the article must be kept.
    • Because the closing admin anticipated "the inevitable DRV," he is arguably at least close to violating WP:DGFA, which states in bold, When in doubt, don't delete. There is precedence for this reasoning at the nucular AfD and DRV. The AfD's closing closing admin knew of "the risk (?) of being overturned on appeal," prompting the DRV's overturning admin to comment, "if you think there is a good chance that the XfD you are closing will be overturned on appeal to DRV, and not just appealed. That seems to be a pretty strong indication that you are violating the deletion guidelines for administrators' imperative to: when it doubt, don't delete." While the closing admin on this AfD didn't explicitly state that he predicted an overturn, he admits, "There was no real consensus either way." If there was no consensus to delete, then it would seem reasonable to predict that the AfD would be overturned as no consensus. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For those of you who insist on pointing to WP:NOT, you could just as well point to the WP:NOTPAPER subsection as to the WP:INDISCRIMINATE one. Sure, a list of bow tie wearers may be less profound than what you'd expect in a paper encyclopedia, but it's still more substantive than celebrity gossip on E!. No reason to be absolutistic. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yeah (thanks, Noroton). And per WP:DEL, which the closing admin implicitly admits to violating when he says, "There was no real consensus either way": "If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. There was no consensus in the recent AfD, but the article did not clearly violate any policies, so the default decision should have been to keep the article. Furthermore, at the time of deletion, the article was sourced, largely to reliable sources which supported the list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is just a rehash of the AfD. The correct interpretations of WP:NOTE, WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:RS etc were applied, and the AfD closed correctly. Verbal chat 10:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, restore article - The closing statement made no reference to the actual arguments used by either side, was casual and dismissive, and attempted to pre-empt this debate. A majority - all be it a slim one - of the commenters had supported keeping the article. There were reasonable arguments on the other side; I felt they were adequately answered, but the closing admin is not obliged to agree with me. However, I don't think it was true, and it was certainly not claimed or demonstrated, that the policy arguments on the 'delete' side were better or more reasonable. Much though I would like to imagine there was a clear consensus for keep, I don't think so; hence my recommendation of 'no consensus' as a fairer verdict. I also believe that the original nominator's action in bringing the article to AfD was premature, given how recently the article had been there; the fact that the nominator is an admin merely means he should know better than to ignore WP:BEFORE; I would not have objected if another admin had speedily closed the debate on this basis. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as no consensus. (Disclosure, I argued keep in the afd). DRV is of course, not a rehash of the Afd, but a review of the process. . While an admin reasonably may delete against consensus in the face of a clear violation of a core policy - COPYRIGHT and BLP come to mind - here there was simply an argument over which one of a number of competing policies and guidelines should apply. This discussion was screaming for a no consensus close, and given that such cases default to keep, here the closer erred in deleting the article. WP:CONSENSUS is policy too. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I am not sure what to think of this list, but not even the closing admin claimed there was a consensus to delete. In fact, they now said above: "There was no real consensus either way." The closure was based entirely on a faulty policy argument that had already been answered in the discussion. But of course the prejudice of a single admin who can't be bothered to read a long deletion discussion is much more important than the result of the discussion itself. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Closing admin exercised judgment in making the decision, but judgment is supposed to be in determining if consensus exists to take an action and nothing more. Admin agrees that no consensus exists, presumably after discarding the numerous "votes" and non-arguments presented in the debate and considering only the well-reasoned arguments; therefore relisting is appropriate. --otherlleft (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DHowell. Mike R (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks as though I'm finally going to have to write that page that I've been meaning to write for some months now. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn. This was a poor deletion on behalf of the deleting admin. There was absolutely no consensus for delete on the article's nomination page. Two weeks prior, the result was keep. It never ceases to amaze me the clear lack of responsibilty and common sense I run across in these deletion decisions. No consensus. DigitalNinjaWTF 15:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn- At absolutely the worst case scenario, this should have been closed as a no-consensus. There were plenty of valid arguments for keep in that AFD that I think the closing admin did not consider in making the decision to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was clearly no consensus in that debate, and barring spam/blp/sock/csd etc. issues, deletion discussions which fail to generate consensus should not result in the page in question being deleted. Respectfully, the skomorokh 16:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Xhir, Sandstein, Stifle, etc. While I missed the AfD and would have voted to merge any truly important to bow tie, this AfD clearly had no consensus at all, and was a fairly poor close. I would not protest an immediate relisting of the AfD for continued discussion. GlassCobra 17:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Silly numbers: I just poured AfD4 into MS Word, and it's about 40 pages. (!) This discussion is about 18 pages, and growing. (The article, itself, via the cache, is about 20, but the photos inline with rather than parallel the text, and make the page count a great deal larger than the text would be.) htom (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Might I recommend a "Speedy overturn" due to the closing admin's apparent violation of both WP:DEL (see [1]) and WP:DGFA (see [2])? Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep as no consensus. I think the closing nom might be injecting a bit too much personal opinion in this, and the closing comments make it clear it wasn't closed in an objective fashion. I would strongly oppose a relisting as it was listed just a couple of weeks after the last AFD, which ended in a KEEP/NAC, and this is the 4th AFD total. Give it a while. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 18:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Keep. The closing admin not only ignored the consensus and cited his own opinion for closure, but taunted the participants in the discussion with the snarky remark of seeing this taken to "the inevitable DRV." Ecoleetage (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn if closer wasn't concerned with consensus but just wanted to give his opinion, he should have left a comment in the AFD, not the closing statement. Personally, I think this is a silly use of a list and would probably vote to delete... but what do I know? I've got an opinion but I admit it might be wrong... the closing has some obligation to be objective. --Rividian (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on concensus: 37 votes to keep, 30 to delete, 3 to merge, 2 to delete and/or merge is actually a 37-35 split on keeping the article, rather than a 37-30 split. 37-35 is a "damned close-run thing", and even 37-30 is pretty close - especially when you consider arguments such as "Keep. All wearers are now referenced.", which doesn't argue against the key reason for deletion at all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. We go with the admin's interpretation of policy, assuming, of course, that the admin is acting in good faith. Which he was, wasn't he?. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) That opinion is incorrect, as even assumimg good faith in his actions, the Admin acted outside of policy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A closing admin whose rationalization for deletion was "Really. A 'list of bow tie wearers'" comes as close to bad faith as one can possibly conceive. This was not a policy interpretation; this was a vote by the closing administrator, imposing his personal opinion and disregarding consensus. Alansohn (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] WP:DEL is policy, the last time I checked. And DRV doesn't exist to indict bad-faith admins (though I agree with Alansohn that this is a questionable case); it is here to address potentially faulty AfD closes. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We go with the admin's interpretation of policy Cavalry, what policy did Ryulong cite? Can you give a diff for that citing of policy? I don't know where Ryulong ever cited policy. -- Noroton (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) and yes, good faith in his motivations still allows us to question his actions. Good faith does not make an Admin right. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this is the closing admin's reasoning, in his words: "The result was delete. Really. A "list of bow tie wearers." Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate. And this is what I'll say at the inevitable DRV, too." Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly, but it appears the statement begins by ignoring consensus, which is followed by sarcasm, which is followed by disregarding WP:RS, and ends with more sarcasm. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate." That isn't sarcasm, that's WP:N and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Themfromspace (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't an explanation, either. It's an assertion (of points already made and already shot down convincingly in the AfD discussion). Sorry, it won't do, as this DRV is proving. The closing admin's statement might just as well have said the discussion violated the Law of Gravity or the Laws of thermodynamics. Unless the reasons for the conclusion are glaringly obvious, and evidently they aren't, a closing admin needs to explain. The explanation we've got so far doesn't nearly justify the decision, hence the many "overturn" !votes. -- Noroton (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You complain that he didn't cite policy, but when it's proven that he did (in a way) you respond with "Sorry, that won't do.". You might as well slap a big sticker to your forehead that says ~STUBBORN ------~ and— NO!! *smack* BAD KOJI!! You stop foul-mouthing the other editors! Just watch from the sidelines like you were earlier!!--Koji† 20:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
when it's proven that he did Where is it proven that Ryulong cited any policy? (And don't call people names. It can get you blocked. I'm removing the slur, even though you seem to have meant it in a lighthearted way -- it's still an insult.) My comment just above was meant to say, "even if the closing admin had cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE ..." And no one's been able to make a case for that "violation" that can withstand scrutiny. -- Noroton (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Themfromspace, the closing sarcasm was "And this is what I'll say at the inevitable DRV, too." Inevitable DRV? And, quite frankly, it was also a misinterpretation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. For those who didn't see the original article, you can locate a cached copy on Google -- take a good look at it and you will find something that was very well organised and carefully written. I hate hodgepodge lists and routinely !vote against them in AfD, but this was not a hodgepodge. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I misread the comment. In regards to that I'd have to say that any administrator decision against the pure tally of an AfD as big as this would be bound to go to DRV, so the admin was stating fact rather than sarcasm (for proof just look at where we are now). Themfromspace (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For a lack of any better place to put this (after all, the article and talk page are currently MIA), here is another source that would seem to justify the existence of this article. Not as explicit as the New York Times ("A list of bow tie devotees reads like a Who's Who of rugged individualists"), but have a look at the bottom of the page. Lo and behold: A list of bow tie wearers! Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we are all on the same page (no pun intended), here is the article, via a cached page on Google: [3] As you can see, this article is extensively researched and properly organised. This falls miles beyond WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ with that description. The discussion (clearly defined and titled) of people who wore bow ties "when it was fashionable" was provided only as context to the list. In its entirety, it read as follows (source callouts and wikilinks omitted for readability): "Bow tie wearers of the nineteenth century Bow ties were common in the nineteenth century. For example, portraits of U.S. presidents from Van Buren through McKinley commonly show them in bow ties. Wearing of a bow tie was seldom commented upon and did not form part of the public perception of figures such as the American inventor Thomas Edison or Communist theorist Karl Marx." --Orlady (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of the list (but not of the editing history) the "non-notable and indiscriminate" membership; Bali ultimate, are you in favor of my running through Wikipedia putting AfD on those pages, citing your declaration of their non-notability? Did you even see the list before the proposers' deletions started? htom (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting ridiculous. Will an admin please be bold and restore this article? It's glaringly obvious that at least for this discussion, the result is overturn. DigitalNinjaWTF 23:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion How can we even pretend to be a real encyclopedia when we have these lists that have no real usefulness? And I see no consensus to overturn the decision despite some comments from editors who must have a different definition of it than is commonly used. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore it is not acceptable that a single administrator can delete an article for which there is clearly no consensus for deletion. I thought the aguments for keep had the day in terms of policy arguments as well as numbers. Even if I am wrong, it is still only a no consensus which should have resulted in no deletion taken place. The closing comments clearly show that this admin is opinionated on this article and therefore does not qualify as uninvolved. SpinningSpark 23:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AfD is not an exercise in snout-counting. --Carnildo (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policies and guidelines exist in part to prevent all this predictable drama within which we now find ourselves embroiled. The editor/admin who created the recent afd should have followed WP:BEFORE and the admin who closed it should have followed WP:DGFA (when in doubt don't delete). The delete side seems to be using a form of coercive persuasion by not restoring the article and perhaps making it extraordinarily uncomfortable for decent admins to just do their duty and restore the article. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm amazed by all the use of personal opinion about WP:INDISCRIMINATE by the deletion-endorsers here. Do I seriously need to remind you that in a DRV, we're discussing the AfD itself and not the article in question? Per my reading of WP:DEL, except in the case of WP:BLP's, it is inappropriate to be discussing the article itself at this point (though I myself am guilty of the occasional tangent). The relevant policies and guidelines now are not WP:N or WP:NOT but rather WP:DEL, WP:DGFA, and WP:CON--i.e., the policies and guidelines that pertain to AfD's and not to articles (although WP:CON applies to talk pages as well, of course). We're operating with a different frame of reference now. That is why you see people like Stifle, who !voted to delete in the AfD, now !voting to overturn the deletion. I have argued that the deletion is either a certain or probable violation of WP:DEL, WP:DGFA, and WP:CON. For example, the admin knowingly deleted a non-WP:BLP without consensus to delete, and is therefore in direct and unquestionable violation of WP:DEL. I have yet to see these arguments refuted (although the AfD nominator did make the bizarre claim that the deleting admin's violation of WP:DEL, a policy, doesn't even matter as long as the admin was acting in good faith). Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bleh. In case I was too vague about how I inferred from WP:DEL that the DRV should not be about article content unless it concerns a WP:BLP, I refer you to A) Wikipedia:Del#Deletion_review in general, but especially the line, "If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review" (read: Content-based closes may be better addressed by rewriting than through DRV); and B) from Wikipedia:Del#Deletion_discussion: "If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate" (read: Only with regard to WP:BLP's should content be more salient than conesnsus in deletion discussions.) In any event, my point was that this is not AfD #2 (well, #5 in this case), and yet the deletion-endorsers here tend to be giving reasoning that is more appropriate for an AfD than for a DRV. 14:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • And what is this stuff?: [5], [6], [7]. Clearly they are pleasant and diplomatic. But given the facts of the matter, technically and policy-wise they too are bizarre (surely a good policy interpretation of "close results" signals when in doubt don't delete), DR isn't normally the place for ARBCOM campaigning, if that's what this stuff is (make the under the gun admins feel better about themselves, i guess). Would-be crats should not be putting pressure on this situation. It's fine to stand up for someone, just remember what happened when the ultimate policy enforcer/the ultimate admin said "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job," George Bush (the executive branch of the U.S. government) showed extreme good faith towards Michael D. Brown#Hurricane Katrina. All should and can respect Bush in standing up for Mr. Brown. Nevertheless, this didn't make the situation any less of a snafu or fubar. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Case You Missed This: Perhaps we didn't already notice (and it is easy to overlook it in this long, long discussion), the closing admin has freely admitted that there was no consensus, that he ignored the lack of consensus by his inserting his own opinion into the mix, and used an WP:IDONTLIKEIT defense to justify his actions: [8]. What more needs to be said? Let's put the article back where it belongs and get on with other things. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The "rationale" given by the closer is not a rationale at all. He just ignored the debate and did what he wanted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus. I think there were a lot of opinions on the keep side that could be discounted by the cloising admin on the basis of non-policy related contributions but its obvious that the careful balancing of competing views that this discussion required was absent and instead the closing admin decided to close it how they personally felt. I do believe that admins have wide discretion to discount non-policy based arguments and also to choose between closely competing outcomes but this discretion should not be used in the absence of careful deliberation. Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The Well (Church) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

This article was deleted under WP:CSD#G11, although it contained very little, if any, promotional content. The deleting admin declined to restore it when I pointed this out. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted I was the deleting admin. When Phil nicely pointed out that it was no longer blatant advertising—which I agree with—I pointed out that it still fails WP:CSD#A7 (does not indicate why its subject is important or significant). I offered to restore to user space, but he indicated he doesn't know anything about the subject. Other contributors have few edits or are indefinitely blocked. —EncMstr (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Doesn't really read like blatant advertising to me, and I can't at all support placing churches--or other places of worship--as A7-able (for the same reasons schools are exempt, it's likely to be contentious). Likely, however, an AfD is in order after restoration. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List I'd have to agree that if the closing admin agrees that the G11 was not proper, then this should be listed at AfD. As above, I wouldn't place a school or any sort of church as A7. If its truly not notable then an AfD can determine that, but a speedy in this case should not have. --Banime (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The one spammy sentence, which can be excised, reads: "The Well emphasizes its casual environment, patronage of the arts, and vibrant Sunday morning worship services." But the rest of the article does not read like advertising copy. If restored, the article can always be submitted to AfD.  Sandstein  05:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AFD. Doesn't meet the CSD at this time. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm the editor who placed the speedy deletion tag on it. The reason I went with G11 was the article was written by User:Garyalloway; Gary Alloway was listed in the article as an employee of the church. I'm personally fine with an overturn (other pairs of eyes are the main reason I didn't just delete it out of hand), but I definitely think an AfD would be in order if it is restored.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I'm not saying that this article wasn't properly deleted, but it seems to me that the person editing it is irrelevant. Now it needs to be POV-proof and the person needs to be up front about it, but there isn't anything against doing so in Wikipedia (this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, right?). If he's a member, fine. He/she may have some good info to show how the church in question is important. I can't look at it now, but it seems to me that restoration and/or an AFD is certainly in order. — BQZip01 — talk 16:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, as discussed above, not really a G11 anymore, and A7 does not apply to churches. COI is not a good enough reason for speedy deletion, either. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Offer to Help Hey, why restore an article if you're only going to send it to AfD? I never saw the original article, but I did a quick Google search and found enough information to make a decent stub. If you want the article restored, put it in my user space and I'll rewrite it so it doesn't look spammy. I've rewritten a number of previously deleted articles, so this is no bother for me. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Okay, the subject is back online at The Well (church). Granted, it is a stub. But I think it makes the grade -- it has been the subject of several articles, including a nationally syndicated feature on the Knight-Ridder syndicate. I hope this solves the problem. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List - thanks to good work by Ecoleetage, the new page is sparkling, squeaky clean. Consequently, taking a view on the deletion of the original page is now moot. However, notability for the revised version still looks rather thin so listing it seems the way to go so that a community view can be established. Smile a While (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I hope not -- the new stub clearly passes WP:RS and the new article has strong coverage from the Knight-Ridder news syndicate, which cites it as a leading example in the emergent church movement, which confirms notability. I will continue to scout out additional references and make sure no spam gets tucked in, but otherwise I would like to think The Well can stay on Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. What makes this church notable? The article we now have just shows that it exists. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed the new article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Well (church) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not the best course of action, I think, but let's see what the community has to say. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Allele (band) – overturned due to the presence of a third party source not taken fully into account during the discussion and close of the AFD. Participation in the DRV is not very great, but the reason given to overturn is reasonable enough. I'll amend the AFD result to "no consensus", and a new AFD is at editorial discretion. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Allele (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

While digging through the prod archive, I came across Point Of Origin (album) which said this band was deleted. The nominator in this deletion debate didn't explain why the band didn't meet the criteria in his opinion. All the commenters who supported deletion did not give a reason either while proponents of keeping the article cited Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles criterion number 6 (someone followed that up with claiming that criterion number 5 was required when the guideline clearly states that just one criterion needs to be met.) The final comment that mentioned Google news sources was never commented upon by the other people in the debate. I therefore believe that the comments made to support keeping the article where stronger than those for deletion and that the deletion should be overturned. Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. The AFD process attempts to gather a consensus, or in other words determine the feelings of the community concerning an article. It is not a competitive debate that is "won" or "lost" on the strength of arguments. When there is clearly more support for deleting an article than there is for keeping it, then deletion is the correct outcome. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It might not be a competition for raw votes, but it is about the strength of the arguments (it's not called a debate for nothing). The arguments for deletion were non-existent and in the one case there was one, it wasn't rooted in policy. - Mgm|(talk) 14:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware that it's called a debate. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn regarding the band article - Paul Erik's little independent third-party coverage comment was part of the AfD and does show third-party source material. However, the closer said " As of now no third-party source has been found," so it appears that the closer missed Paul Erik's comment. For what its worth, the band does maintain a press list at allelemusic.com/press, which might lead to some non press release, independent material. -- Suntag ☼ 17:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Original nom here. I haven't participated in a DRV before, and it's been 9 months since i tagged this article. Could an admin possibly restore it to my userspace so I can refresh my memory? Thanks! Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 19:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As it's been nine months since the deletion then it's entirely possible that the band is now more notable. That is, you cannot rely on ghits now as evidence that the AfD missed evidence of notability. As far as I know recreation hasn't been prevented. Therefore, why don't you just create the article again or request userfication? Although technically time is no bar to a DRV I think in cases like this it is almost pointless debating the merits of a deletion so far in the past. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three hits in the linked Google news search are all from '05, so I think it's reasonable to assume they appeared there 9 months ago. I've put the AfD'd version into my userspace here, so that non-admins have access to it (lacks history, though). If anyone is willing to work on the article in their userspace, I'll be happy to userfy for them; Quite's correct that an article should be able to be written with the sources found so far. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure. The closing admin's comment gives a clear indication this closure was not based on discussion, but rather his personal opinion. On a side note: I don't think it would be a good idea to run the debate yet again. It's better to let someone else close it with an extensive reasoning (or perhaps get a group of administrators to each make a call and take the concensus from that). - Mgm|(talk) 20:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Not sure what happened here, but this was supposed to be a comment to the list of bow tie wearers review. - Mgm|(talk) 18:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_November_19&oldid=1089086862"