Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 9

List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

This article was deleted with a borderline Delete consensus here after 8 editors unanimously agreed it should be kept in this previous AfD. I think this meets speedy keep condition 2-iv: "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected." Technically the 2nd nominator did add an additional other stuff exists point, but I think that was more of a contextualization than a deletion argument. I'm not saying we should ignore the new AfD (keeping in mind that consensus can change), but since the first AfD had a more clear outcome than the second and there were no substantial changes in between (other than the voters involved), I think we should at least give the article a chance at being relisted. An old version of the article can be viewed here. — xDanielx^Talk 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure as the closing admin. Consensus can change, and it seems that it did. --Eyrian 00:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - since nothing changed between the two AfDs, I think it makes a lot more sense to evaluate all the input from both AfDs and not only one. WP:CCC doesn't really say that we must go with the most recent consensus -- just that in some cases it is appropriate to do so. If we're going to be following policy strictly, I would argue that the second AfD was invalid because of the speedy keep guidelines. Again, I don't really think we should ignore the opinions in the second AfD because of a technicality (keeping in mind WP:IGNORE), but I don't think we should ignore those of the first AfD either. Whatever policy says, I really see no compelling reason to ignore any of the opinions that have been expressed, as they all related to the same issue. — xDanielx^Talk 00:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Eyrian, a very new admin, should not have closed the discussion, as he has a definite position on such articles, as shown by having nominated a few dozen such in the last month. I support many such articles, but you won;t find me going in and closing even the more obvious ones. Most such Afds were in fact closed by neutral admins. DGG (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? When did newness have anything to do with it? I've spent plenty of time here on Wikipedia, and I know the policies well. --Eyrian 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • (newness in not realising you shouldn't have closed on this, as you presumably held a strong opinion at the time)DGG (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Presumably? I see, so this really is just a witch hunt. For the record, it was looking at AfDs like this that formed my opinions. --Eyrian 15:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Eyrian should not close any "X in popular culture" AFDs. He is too biased on the topic. In this case, the proper close was no consensus. GRBerry 01:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • All I'm seeing is a bunch of personal comments, stirred up by more recent actions, going against a clear majority of 7-4. --Eyrian 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Eyrian should not have closed this, and I will respectfully ask that he not close any more popular culture articles as delete. That said, this is actually more clear-cut than many of the deletes. Many of the same invalid arguments to keep here, but more numerical support for deletion here than others that have closed. Cool Hand Luke 01:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong with Eyrian closing it, but I think it would be helpful not to in the future. Cool Hand Luke 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The Speedy Keep criterion mentioned by the nominator did not apply in this case, as it is used as a possible example of a nomination that is "unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it". The nomination was not "unquestionably vandalism or disruption" and there were others recommending that it be deleted. WarpstarRider 02:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Point taken. I think to some extent it's an issue with the organization and/or wording of the project page, as it seems like a borderline inconsistency. Semantics aside, I believe the reasoning of WP:SD#G4 applies for speedy keeps as well -- unless circumstances change substantially, the original decision should stand or be brought to DRV where appropriate. Perhaps we shouldn't ignore the second AfD since by chance it produced unusually different results, but I think we should at least consider the merits of both AfDs. — xDanielx^Talk 03:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - closing admin correctly interpreted th AFD discussion and deleted the article. Consensus can change and can change rapidly and there were no arguments presented in this AFD that offset the deletion concerns raised in the nomination. Otto4711 04:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "giant trivia/'in pop culture' fork" -- do you mean that concern? I don't think it's really a concern; it's more of a casual notice saying "if you are against pop culture articles, drop a delete vote here; if you support pop culture articles, please only vote once." I don't think evaluating the second AfD on argumentative merit is really plausible, considering the lack of depth and decisiveness in the discussion. — xDanielx^Talk 08:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I mean all of the concerns raised by all of the people voicing the opinion to delete, not just the ones made by the nominator. Last I heard, all of the arguments made in the course of an AFD are supposed to be weighed, and even if the nomination itself is seen as weak (which I'm not saying this one was) other comments bringing up other concerns might not be. Closing admin correctly weighed the arguments on both sides and came to an appropriate conclusion. Otto4711 21:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Remembering that "merge" is a form of "keep", not a form of "delete" I count this as 7:6 for deletion, which is clearly not a numerical consensus. I do not find the delete arguments overwhelmingly stronger than than the delete arguments -- whether a list is a "loosely associated collection of information" is a judgment call, and that was really the only point at issue here. On those grounds alone, this should have been closed as "no consensus". When you add in the relatively recent prior AfD (explicitly appealed to by at least one participant in the second AfD, it is at least arguably sensible to consider the two together. If that is done, there is far more clearly no consensus to delete. To tip this off, the closer had previously expressed strong views on this type of article, and he closed, in accord with those views, an AfD that was to put it mildly far from clear-cut. That alone would be a reason to overturn the close. Putting all these together makes this a very clear overturn indeed. I would add, I urge people not to relist either at once or within the next month or two. DES ^(talk) 04:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • AfDs are not votes. The ratio is irrelevant. I evaluated the strength of the arguments, and made my choice. And before people jump in and scream that I'm biased and can't possibly evaluate that fairly, please note that this is before I started nominating many articles myself. Since then, I have recused myself from closing such discussions. --Eyrian 14:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • AfDs are not pure votes. But AfDs are not just a matter of people giving advice to an admin or other closer, who then decides, either. AfDs are, in general, about determining consensus. (the exception is when a non-negotiable policy is clearly involved.) While the strengths of the arguments must be taken into account, and people expressing trivial arguments or ones that contravene policy may be discounted, when the matter is essentially a judgment call , the numbers do matter -- indeed they often should dominate the decision, IMO. I am uncomfortable deleting unless there is a significant super-majority for deletion or the arguments for deletion are much stronger than those for retention, and i think all closers should have that attitude. Closers should not "make a choice", they should evaluate what the collective choice of those who commented in the discussion is, insofar as that can be determined. When it can't the close should be "no consensus" unless there is an overriding non-negotiable policy being broken by the article, that can only be cured by deletion. DES ^(talk) 16:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I respectfully disagree with "all closers should have that attitude". I think what you're doing constitutes sophistry, and I do not see it anywhere in the deletion policy. I looked at the arguments for keep, and determined they were not valid. The first had no explanation, the second admitted that importance was not justified, the third made reference to an AfD comprised entirely of "I like it", and the fourth said that it should be kept on the basis of original research. That simply doesn't fly. --Eyrian 16:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't see where I am being sophistical, although i do see that you disagree with me. Note that Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says "Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached" That page indicates that arguments made in apparent bad faith may be disregarded, and that some arguments override all others (citing as examples detection of a copyvio and rewrites or addition of previously missing sources). It also indicates that clear violations of WP:NOR, WP:V, or WP:NPOV require deletion "where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching these three policies. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says: "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action." It also says that: "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article." I note that in your discussion of those who favored keeping the article, you do not address the views of those who opted for a merge -- please remember that these are in fact a subset of the keep views. WP:DP says "The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing" Thus emphasizing there there must (normally) be a consensus to delete, and that in the absence of a consensus, the page should not be deleted. All that said, if all or most of those favoring delete gave invalid reasons, that is grounds to discount their views. One person referred to 'notable info" implicitly stating that at least some of it was notable. A second favored merging "sourced info" only, implying that such info as is sources should be retained. A third gave no particular reason. A forth opined that this was "Significantly more important in popular culture than the other Kubrick films" which is a judgment on its notability and thus encyclopicity. A fifth included by reference all the arguments in the prior AfD. A sixth said that it should be kept because "the list tells us how influential and significant the film/book are by showing its widespread impact" which is a reason why content is a proper part of an encyclopedia. That is not OR, as I see it. (Reasons in the first afd included ""A Clockwork Orange" (both the Kubrick film and Burgess novel) have been considered highly controversial and influential and cannot be fairly compared to "random films" as the nominator has." and "Clockwork Orange has had significant influences on various types of popular culture, and this article demonstrates that" and "I think it is worth documenting the extent of influence of the film," none of which are simple "ILIKEIT" nor are they endorsements of OR, as all said that entries must be sourced.) DES ^(talk) 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus There doesn't appear to be any consensus on what to do with the article (keep, delete, or merge). --Farix (Talk) 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion USERFY if anyone wants to work on the merge Corpx 19:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion for the reasons stated in the debate, without prejudice to userfication for someone who wants to work on it for merger or resubmission if it can overcome the shortcomings that led to its deletion in the first place. I must say that attacking the integrity or alleged bias of the closing admin is becoming too frequent here and frankly taints any otherwise useful parts of the arguments raised by editors making those accusations. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and the notion of "crying wolf" comes to mind. That said, there are literally dozens of "in popular culture" or "cultural references to" articles that are going through Afd and we cannot expect that each be closed by a different admin, because after each admin's first closure either as keep, delete, or even no consensus, someone may imagine bias imparted toward the second closure. I personally won't close them - even the obvious ones, which I just skipped over in trying to get the 100 or so old unclosed afds closed - but that's my thin skin at not wanting to have said of me what some have said of the closing admin here. In these pop culture debates, the various "sides" are generally identifiable with a few "swing !votes" that may go one way or another, but again it's not necessarily weight of numbers, but weight of arguments. That emotions have run high and civility has been lost by several editors, seems to have spilled over to here. That's unfortunate, but it does not mean that the process or result was wrong. Carlossuarez46 02:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. With all due respect to the closing admin and Carlossuarez46, closure by administrators who are emotionally invested for or against an article is a serious problem of conflict of interest and should absolutely not be ignored by deletion review, especially in cases like this one where consensus is not at all clear. Evouga 07:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think that this AFD was nothing more than a judgment call - it could have been classified as no consensus or delete - and Eyrian just made the decision to delete it. You're all acting like this is some huge deal because he's a new administrator, but there's two things everyone seems to be ignoring: 1.) Yes, he's new, but he seems to have a strong understanding of Wikipedia policies and a good idea of how AFDs work. Were this any other administrator no one would be concerned with the decision; people are just criticizing Eyrian because he's new and it gives them a supposed "reason". And that's not right. 2.) Why is this such a big deal? Even if his decision wasn't what you yourself would have agreed with, we can simply undelete it if we really, really need to. That's what this discussion is for. So if you want the article to exist that badly, make comments on why it should exist, not why you disagree with Eyrian's decision. And so what if he was directly involved in the AFD? It was a pretty clear NC/delete, and he has the option to close it, regardless of his involvement. --ParakeetSong 21:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Because DRV is about reviewing process, not whether or not the article should exist, which is the purpose of AfD. Administrative bias is exactly the kind of thing that should be considered here. Evouga 22:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Then explain to me why it is that the DRVs that are currently on this page and every one that I've ever seen (not to mention participated in) are about the article and not the deletion process? --ParakeetSong 01:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple - process often (usually?) requires also evaluating the article content - in fact, for speedy deletions it always does. WP:CSD#A7 requires that the article be in certain topical areas and not have an assertion of notability - test via content. Similarly for any other speedy deletion criteria. When evaluating an XfD close, the question is whether the closing admin correctly judged consensus. Consensus is a function of weight of numbers (visible in XfDs) and weight of arguments - argument weights require testing article content, because false arguments get made sometimes and sometimes articles are improved (or made worse) after arguments are made. GRBerry 02:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And it seems to me that the closing admin was left with a judgment call because the AFD was in between NC and delete. It was his choice. Was it a bad idea to do so while being directly involved in the debate? Sure, but there's not rule that explicitly says not to, and even if there was, it wouldn't matter. Think about it like this: yes, he was involved, but I'm sure there are plenty of other administrators who would have also read the AFD as "delete" and done exactly what he did. The fact that he was part of the debate is irrelevant; he deleted the article objectively, if you ask me. There's no reason to berate him for doing so when one can clearly see that the AFD could have been swung as NC or delete. --ParakeetSong 03:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is why it is paramount that the closing admin who makes this judgment call have no emotional stake in the debate. Evouga 20:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, you have to remember that people interpret "merge" differently. Does it count as a "delete" vote or a "keep" vote? If it counts as keep, the AFD went (6/1/6)(K/R/D); however, if it counts as delete, the article was (4/1/8) (K/R/D). So what is it, NC or delete? Both. It's really up to the closing administrator to decide. --ParakeetSong 03:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Let's not forget that there were two AfDs, not only one. In terms of keep:delete votes, the most recent AfD was 6:6, 4:6, or 4:8 depending on how you count. The older one was 7:0 or 8:0 depending on how you count. Regardless, merging the two AfDs results in an overwhelming consensus for keep. As I said, both AfDs evaluated the very same issues under the same light. There was no new evidence, no new news, just a different group of editors which happened to stumble across the second AfD. I see no distinguishing factors between the two AfDs that might be reasons to disregard the old AfD. This isn't a case of consensus changing, unless you count a different random pool of editors with different agendas as a "consensus change." Approximately 20 editors have expressed opinions on the very same issues, none of them voiced notable concerns which hadn't already been considered (in all likelihood) by all the other editors. Unless someone can show that the eight editors involved in the first AfD were sockpuppets, or that they were editing under the influence, or that they had all incidentally posted in the wrong AfD, or something similar, I suggest that we consider both of the AfDs and not ignore the first. I realize that AfD is not a vote, but reviewing the two AfDs together shows that a very clear majority supported keeping the article. It takes a very blatant policy violation to support deletion in light of a ~70% overall consensus for keep. The policy-based deletion arguments were premised on applications of WP:NOT#DIR and the like, which are highly controversial (the applications, that is) and anything but blatant. — xDanielx^Talk 11:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging two separate AFDs? What? That's completely ridiculous - yes, you can look back on previous nominations for an idea of what the consensus was back then, but how is this not a case of WP:CCC? Whether or not there was a change in the article or standards between the time of the first and second AFD doesn't matter. There were clearly different thoughts on the article in the second AFD. And maybe it was just a different group of editors who had very different views. So? The AFD was still borderline delete; no one is required to base the decision off any other AFD than the present unless there is a clear pattern of consensus or a long string of controversy (i.e., the GNAA). A single AFD that was a strong keep hardly fits that description. --ParakeetSong 11:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You've still offered no reason at all for why we should give more weight to the more recent AfD in this case. The community's consensus does not "change" when a different handful of editors happens to stumble across an AfD. WP:CCC makes this very clear:

It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day. It is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the current consensus — so in the new discussion section, provide a summary and links to any previous discussions about the issue on the articles talk page, or talk page archives, to help editors new to the issue read the reasons behind the consensus so that they can make an informed decision about changing the consensus. A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one.

Our scenario is exactly what WP:CCC cautions is not a genuine consensus change. Among those who supported the deletion of the article in question, none of them mentioned the previous AfD. The second AfD didn't bring any "new information" to light (still quoting WP:CCC); there was and is no reason why the original AfD was "badly founded"; there were no "good reasons to believe a consensual decision was outdated"; and there were no "insights we did not have previously." The only difference was that a different group of editors with different individual views happened to stumble across the second AfD. If Democrats voted on a Monday, and Republicans on a Tuesday, ought we to conclude that "consensus changed" and ignore one of the two parties? I don't see any reasoning in the position, and I think WP:CCC clearly supports my view. — xDanielx^Talk 02:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you honestly say that the policy on these types of articles or the article itself didn't change? Did you carefully go through RC every waking moment of every day between the first and second AFD to make sure? And how do you know that these kinds of articles aren't simply being deleted now because the mindset on them has changed? Can you tell what other people are thinking? No? Didn't think so. The thing is that you cannot say for certain that nothing changed between the first and second AFD. I can see very clearly what you're trying to insinuate here, and I can understand why you'd think it, but you have no way to prove it. Unless you somehow come up with a way to read the mind of every Wikipedian while simultaneously proving that the group of editors who voted on the second AFD were simply of a different bias than the first, we can only judge the merit of the article based on the current AFD discussion. The first AFD carries no weight because consensus can change, and we must look at the current consensus to determine what to do. Two thousand years ago it was believed that the Earth is flat; today it is believed that it is round. Should we look back two thousand years and use the ideals of science back then to determine that the Earth is flat? No, because the ideas changed and they are now accepted as correct. Had the Earth changed dramatically between the time of the two opposing views? No, it was basically the same. But the views had changed, and that it what is important. Have you considered that perhaps, between the time of the first and second AFD, the views on articles that list cultural references had changed? Because that's the only way that properly explains the difference in the first and second AFD And unless you can supply proof that the entire group of editors who voted on it were biased or that some sort of trickery was involved, you have no way of showing that views regarding lists of cultural references have not changed and that the second AFD was wrong. So why focus on the one from two thousand years ago that is outdated and has views that have likely changed? --ParakeetSong 06:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't prove beyond any possible doubt that none of the events which occured in the universe between the two AfDs could have had some diminutive effect on the will of the community. That does not imply that the opposite is true. Thankfully I don't have to reach an impossible degree of certainty to challenge a suggested consensus change, just as editors don't have to search every document that was ever written in order to challenge a subject's notability. We're not dealing with a time gap of 2,000 years; in this case the time gap is four months and one day. Yes, views on IPC have changed, though very little in the past four months compared to the time span ranging back 2-3 years (massive escalation of user base). But judging by comments, it seems that the reason why 8 editors unanimously voted Keep the previous time wasn't because they were IPC enthusiasts (well, perhaps one), but because the specific content of this article caused it to stand out as worth of inclusion. The nomination started with "Another 'in popular culture' section . . ." and "There is nothing encyclopaedic about "references to <randomly chosen film> in popular culture", so a list of same is defintely not encyclopaedic." The first commentator voted "Delete with the rest of popular culture", then followed it up with "Comment, should have read the ting ... was slightly prejudisced by the rest of popular culture". Then there was "seems better written and more verified than most 'in culture' articles," and "'A Clockwork Orange' . . . have been considered highly controversial and influential and cannot be fairly compared to 'random films' as the nominator has." The majority of editors in the first AfD evaluated the article based on its contents and not the word "culture" in the title, so their arguments still hold despite any (probably negligible) communal changes in the past few months. If there have been changes to the articles itself, all the better -- overturning the second AfD would allow the community to pick which of the versions it liked best, or to incorporate bits from each. — xDanielx^Talk 12:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that the community is moving very strongly against popular culture articles. While they were largely untouched a few months ago, about 40% of Category: In popular culture has now been deleted. That says to me that there is strong community consensus against these articles. And I only closed one of the AfDs. --Eyrian 12:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And heck, if it's kept the first time we can always renominate in a few months time...please drop the generalizations Eyrian and synonymising you views with "Wikipedia" or "The Community". Many people are unaware of AfD debates until well after the fact.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

While I'm sure it's intellectually convenient to think of the recent deletions as the work of a dedicated cabal of editors working in concert, that's simply not the case. I've seen a wide variety of individuals participate in the discussions, for a variety of reasons. And I have not made any attempt to coordinate efforts with another editor, nor have I seen any such efforts happening, except on the side of those that want to keep such articles. I've provided some solid evidence that the community perception about these articles is changing, i.e. the fact that a lot of them are being deleted by a variety of admins looking at the discussions of a variety of users. And in return, you have complained about the general deletion process, and difficulty of notification. I simply don't think the two are comparable. --Eyrian 14:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Popular_culture exists serves as a lot easier way for folk who are interested in deleting the articles in question can be kept in the loop than those who may be interested in keeping them. OK, there are a variety of admins but it is a small number taking a very active role at nominating a large number. Even that's ok as you're entitled to your opinion but its when there are group nominations, which at times which generally serve to obfuscate the issue and close debates as delete with only marginal majority in cases where deleters cite incorrect reasons such as article quality and ignore (1) articles with reliable sources and (2) notability - that is what I object to.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Popular_culture be any more useful to those that want to remove such articles than those that want to keep them? Group nominations don't generally make the article "easier" to delete. I've seen AfDs speedy closed because people think it in bad form to link so many. --Eyrian 14:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

They did in the dino articles - resulting in the time-consuming argument we're having below this one...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Or maybe the process worked just fine, and a lot of people thought those articles should be axed. Reading the dinosaur AfD, it seems that most people really only cared about the main article. Again, I'm listing community discussions that strongly indicate that consensus has changed, and you're simply upset that a few of those instances (out of a great many) might be flawed, even though I think there's evidence against even that. Sometimes consensus changes in ways we might not like, and that looks to me to be the main objection of the people trying to overturn this. --Eyrian 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian you read it how you want; as I said above, its the means that I object to.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as no consensus, because there seems to be a larger active debate on the popular culture/cultural reference articles at hand here and I think that issue is more of what is being debated rather than the individual merits of these articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn due to lack of consensus. It is arbitrary for admins to act in this way. Another admin could have acted differently. The outcome of discussions should be predictable - that is what "no consensus" is for, providing a predictable outcome in uncertain cases. Abberley2 16:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Due to the AFD being borderline NC/delete. No, I have not voted yet. My reasoning is seen in the paragraphs above. --ParakeetSong 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (Note: thanks to my low edit count and lack of participation in the community, this account may seem a tad suspicious. I am aware of that. If you would like to know the editor I was formerly - before I retired and created this account for emergency use only - please contact me via my talk page. I will be more than happy to confirm who I am. )

Sharday (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article passes WP:PORNBIO. She won the 2002 Score Magazine Model of the Year [1] and therefore passes WP:PORNBIO criteria 1; she passes criteria 3 as she has been prolific or innovative within the big-bust genre. Epbr123 21:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment According to the deleted content, she is a model, not a porn actress. I really hope I do not regret bringing this up, but why should WP:PORNBIO apply rather than the stricter guidelines at WP:BIO? --Ginkgo100^talk 03:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:PORNBIO applies to pornographic models as well. I don't believe WP:PORNBIO is any less strict than WP:BIO. Most pornstars recieve coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources such as biographies on porn dvd websites and on pornstar databases; the role of WP:PORNBIO is to determine which of this coverage is "trivial". WP:BIO states that someone is generally notable if "the person has received significant recognized awards or honors"; WP:PORNBIO clarifies which awards are significant in terms of pornography. Epbr123 10:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse clear consensus to delete exists. Eluchil404 04:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn or relist per Epbr123 and WP:PORNBIO. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to use the GIMP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Various users have disputed my deletion of this page as it has been speedy deleted incorrectly. I see it as a recreation of transwikied content as well as irrelevant to the project. However, due to the fact that it is a project page and not an article, the transwiki CSD does not count, as well as how there is no MFD. Please look over this. w^{L<speak·check>} 21:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Restore and relist at MfD (Note: The matter was discussed at Wikipedia talk:How to use the GIMP#Move to Wiki books? prior to the deletion.)

I feel at somewhat of a disadvantage in evaluating whether or not the page belongs in Wikipedia namespace because, of course, its having been deleted, I can't actually read it.

Given that the admin who deleted the page has acknowledged that it was incorrectly CSD'd, it seems to be that the right thing is to undelete it and immediately post it at MFD. Then for example, there can be discussion whether Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia applies to more than mainspace (I was under the impression that virtually all content-related polices, such as WP:NPOV, apply only to articles).

I'm not arguing, by the way, for keeping the page; I'm arguing for following process. For example, one could argue that information on using the GIMP should be in a paragraph or so at Wikipedia:How to improve image quality, with pointers to pages such as this.

Finally, it would be really, really nice if someone would provide the URL where this content now lives, maybe even on the talk page related to the deleted project page? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Quick close and Relist at MfD. DGG (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Restore and Relist This isn't an article, so A5's logic doesn't really apply, besides, it mentions only dictionary definitions and AFD discussions. While Wikipedia isn't a howto site, that doesn't mean howto's are not appropriate on Wikipedia, as long as they're in the appropriate space. Since this was a CSD and is being protested, restore it and take it to MFD, especially since the move discussion didn't get much participation. Note, btw, I'm not making this claim solely under process grounds, but rather consensus. I don't see that short of a discussion being demonstrative of consensus. FrozenPurpleCube 03:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tay Zonday (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted several times as an A7, and once as a G4, although it has never been on AfD (as far as I can tell). It was then salted. Given the recent review here of Chocolate Rain, I think this is no longer A7 country, and I have undeleted it. I have also added a major news source citation. Given that this was only an A7 speedy, I wouldn't have bothered to bring this here, except for the salting. I think that I own the community notice of unsalting in this way, and a chance for others to indicate if my actions seem unjustified, although i am confident that they are not. DES ^(talk) 17:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, it's been restored by you... what's really to review here? If someone thinks this should be deleted they should nominate it for AFD. --W.marsh 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps i was unclear. Since I not only restored it, but unsalted it, i was brigning the matter here so that if anyone though my actions improper, they could say so. Perhaps that was excssively meticulous of me -- i thought of it as rather like posting on AN to ask for a block review. DES ^(talk) 21:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Suggest speedy close. If anyone wants to bring it to AfD, that's what it's there for. IronGargoyle 22:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - An article for Zonday and Chocolate Rain? Seriously? This is screaming for a merge. - hahnchen 22:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's been redirected and unredirected at least twice since being listed here. Circeus 22:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Only once, I think. More sources have now been added. DES ^(talk) 16:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Christianity Explored (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I don't know or care what the article said, there's no apparent dispute that this was an an inappropriate application of CSD G4. Random832 11:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• speedy overturn - take it to AFD if you want it deleted, G4 is only for recreations of deleted MATERIAL, not just any article with the same title as one that was deleted. --Random832 11:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The G4 was not appropriate as the article is significantly different from that deleted previously. It might not survive AfD but we won't know until its taken there. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 12:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. My only involvement in this was deleting the restored version as it was reported as an out-of-process deletion. I have no real opinion either way on the article itself. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - this is disturbing. ^demon, did you even bother to check if it was a recreation? You do realise you're suppose to take care with the delete button, right? Neil ╦ 13:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Not a valid G4. --W.marsh 12:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

most popualr dinosaur - no consensus reached. Presumable deleted (and Stegosaurus in popular culture kept (?!) because of article quality, which is not a reason for deleting. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• For the record - keep/retrieve whatever. No-one at WP dinosaurs was notified until late in the day and this article deleted when ther was no consensus to do so. Its the most famous dino....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Also for the record, this article appears to have been moved to User:AndyJones/Tyrannosaurus in popular_culture as part of the result of this AfD. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, validly deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular dinosaurs. I have fixed the above AFD link that Casliber did not provide. There's no special rule that says people at special interest projects need to be notified of anything. Neil ╦ 13:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, with the caveat that I will personally restore speedy deletions of a well-written recreation. The fact that the article in the state it was did not establish notability, nor was it properly sourced, however, were reason to delete. Circeus 15:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was not a speedy deletion. Corvus cornix 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the point is that, if the article is rewritten, Circeus will support its recreation. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I emphasize properly written. This might have been the single one most notable sub-topic of Dinosaurs in popular culture. Circeus 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The only encyclopedic and appropriate part of the article was the intro, all of which could be fit into Tyrannosaurus#Appearances in popular culture. GRBerry 17:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no new arguments except the attempt at ownership by the Project. Corvus cornix 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please. The only complain is that they weren't given a fair chance at saving the article while it was there (thought they admittedly wouldn't have had, most likely, the time to write something that passed AFD). Circeus 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete Since when was a lack of sources a reason to delete an article? I thought the subject just had to be notable. Epbr123 21:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Since the AfD decided that the entire thing was OR. If someone wants to write up something that comes up to the level of Stegosaurus in popular culture, which is sourced and not a list of trivia, let them do it in their User spage. WP:NOR is binding. Corvus cornix 22:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I haven't seen the original article, but I assume it was mostly a list of films and TV programmes. How could it have all been OR when the films and TV programmes themselves would have been the references? Stegosaurus in popular culture seems to be a "list of trivia" made into prose. How does turning an article into prose make it more notable? Epbr123 22:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • See User:AndyJones/Tyrannosaurus in popular culture, which contains the content. There's hardly anything sourced there, and what is is sub-trivial. Read WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 22:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
        • If the introduction was worth saving, the principled thing would have been to reduce the list to that introduction and give the article another chance. You did consider that, right? Carcharoth 23:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Me? I didn't do the deleting. Corvus cornix 23:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
            • I never said you did. I'm responding to your claims that the entire article was OR, and specifically your point about "hardly anything". See below for what I consider "hardly anything" to mean here. My opinion is that there is enough material for an existing (re)start on the article, and that it should be restored, reduced to that level, and then allowed to grow organically once more in the hope that the repotted article will grow correctly this time, becoming like the Stegosaurus article, rather than the list it was. Carcharoth 00:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the introduction at least is worth saving. The lists need trimming, sourcing and turning into proper prose explaining (with independent sources) how they show the topic of the article. Carcharoth 22:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Objection - Corvus cornix said above "Since the AfD decided that the entire thing was OR" - it is patently obvious that the introduction was not OR, and was in fact a well-written piece of prose with three references:

  Tyrannosaurus rex is unique among dinosaurs in its place in modern culture. From the beginning, it was embraced by the public. Henry Fairfield Osborn, the President of the American Museum of Natural History, intentionally billed it as the greatest hunter to have ever walked the earth. He stated in 1905:[1]

  “I propose to make this animal the type of the new genus, Tyrannosaurus, in reference to its size, which far exceeds than of any carnivorous land animal hitherto described... This animals is in fact the ne plus ultra of the evolution of the large carnivorous dinosaurs: in brief it is entitled to the royal and high sounding group name which I have applied to it.”

  As for the public, it too was electrified and on December 30, 1905, the New York Times hailed T. rex as "the most formidable fighting animal of which there is any record whatever," the "king of all kings in the domain of animal life," "the absolute warlord of the earth," and a "royal man-eater of the jungle." [2] In 1906, when the skeleton was erected, Tyrannosaurus was dubbed the "prize fighter of antiquity" and the "Last of the Great Reptiles and the King of Them All." [3].

  At the time of its discovery it was the largest known land predator in history and although it has now been displaced in this respect first by the marginally larger Giganotosaurus and then Spinosaurus, it is still popularly perceived as the most fearsome of all prehistoric creatures. Tyrannosaurus has come to represent the quintessential large, meat eating dinosaur in popular culture and is embraced by people the world over as "King of the Dinosaurs" as its name suggests.

  1. ^ John "Jack" Horner and Don "Dino" Lessem, The Complete T. Rex (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), pages 58-62

  2. ^ “Mining for Mammoths in the Badlands: How Tyrannosaurus Rex Was Dug Out of His 8,000,000 Year old Tomb,” The New York Times, December 3rd, 1905, page SM1

  3. ^ "The Prize Fighter of Antiquity Discovered and Restored," The New York Times December 30th, 1906, page 21.

  I repeat, the introduction is worth saving, so the question is how to separate the introduction from the list of trivia? The answer is to edit the article and reduce it to just the above. Then possibly merge back into a main article. Carcharoth 23:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• More sourced material - this time from the Tyrannosaurus rex article:

  Since it was first described in 1905, Tyrannosaurus rex, or "tyrant lizard king" has become the most widely-recognized dinosaur in popular culture. It is the only dinosaur which is routinely referred to by its scientific name (Tyrannosaurus rex) among the general public, and the scientific abbreviation T. rex has also come into wide usage (commonly misspelled "T-Rex").[2] Robert T. Bakker notes this in The Dinosaur Heresies and explains that a name like "Tyrannosaurus rex is just irresistable to the tongue."[86]

  Museum exhibits featuring T. rex are very popular; an estimated 10,000 visitors flocked to Chicago's Field Museum on the opening day of its "Sue" exhibit in 2003.[87] T. rex has appeared numerous times on television and in films, notably The Lost World, King Kong, The Land Before Time, Jurassic Park, and Night at the Museum. A number of books and comic strips, including Calvin and Hobbes, have also featured Tyrannosaurus, which is typically portrayed as the biggest and most terrifying carnivore of all. At least one musical group, the band T. Rex, is named after the species. Tyrannosaurus-related toys, including numerous video games and other merchandise, remain popular. Various businesses have capitalized on the popularity of Tyrannosaurus rex by using it in advertisements.

  This quote and the above quote adequately shows that there are enough sources and enough existing material for an article. No need to userfy, no need to delete. Solution is to reduce the article to the above, and keep in article space. People may later try to add their "sightings" of T. rex in various popular culture settings, but that is a job for the editors of the article to restrain, not for AfD to delete. Carcharoth 23:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, any attempt at undeleting the article is so far only distracting from the need to rewrite it entirely. I agree the delete was hasty, but it's simpler to just rewrite the article entirely, using the userspaced copy for reference to assist in that work, than to try to do anything with what was present at the time. It's quite obvious that if we did recreate the article with only the lead, it would survive a few days before being merged into Tyrannosaurus... Circeus 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, my response had two purposes: (1) to debunk some of the stuff being said that was plainly wrong; (2) to argue that writing in article space is usually preferable to forcing articles to be written in userspace until they reach a certain standard.

That second point is a slippery slope we might regret going down. Not only does it slow things down to do things that way, but people might start to see nominating for userfication via AfD as an alternative to editing an article and cutting out the bits that are not needed, and pruning to a stub in the hope that the article can grow 'correctly' this time round. My approach is to generally excise excessive triva and lists from such articles, place the trivia and lists on the talk page, add references to what remains, find at least one source giving the topic some respectability, and then to step back and let the wiki-process start again. It really is like gardening - pruning and grafting. AfD, to continue the analogy, is more like applying herbicides and pesticides. Carcharoth 01:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Relist As I read the Afd, there was no consensus to delete this particular one. Simple as that. Let's not get into more general matters when not necessary.DGG (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, a valid consensus was reached about article content. Even the relisting argument opens with WP:ILIKEIT. --Eyrian 01:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to you who obviously doesn't like it. 12/8 is a valid consensus??cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn The deletion discussion appears to reach no consensus, so it seems the appropriate action is to keep by default. I do not believe there is clear consensus to delete. --Ginkgo100^talk 03:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (as nominator) - it certainly was not my intention to make for a complicated AFD, as I felt that all of the nominated articles were of similar quality. No arguments were offered at AFD to support the notion that this particular article should be preserved. Closing admin correctly interpreted a complex discussion to determine that this article should be deleted. Otto4711 04:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality?? What about the subject matter?? As at least part of the contested article is (a)notable and (b) referenced it does not fit any deletion criteria. Article quality as such is not a basis for deletion.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - simple vote-counting here gives me an 8-12 split for deletion, with several keep votes expressing grave concerns and only two or three explaining their reasoning for this particular article. I think the closure was reasonable, given the latitude admins have to decide what the discussion has concluded. --Haemo 05:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally ,everyone aware of this?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Restore article. There was no consensus to delete (or even move) this article, and there certainly was not a consensus that the "AfD decided that the entire thing was OR". It was a sloppy AFD closure (but not surprising, given the mass nomination in the first place). These mass deletion nominations trouble me (because there is obviously no finesse or research in mass-nominating similarly-named articles at the same time), and it troubles me even more that a closing administrator would mass delete articles like this. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• RelistUpon further consideration, Endorse deletion Although the closure was defensible, this is a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario: list them all together and you may get ambiguity of results (or at least a credible posit of such), list them apart and you get inconsistent results. Here the former, so relist to see if it stands or falls on its own. Carlossuarez46 02:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC) why compound the process with a needless second go-around. Carlossuarez46 02:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm...and inconsistent is a problem? Shouldn't each be taken on its own merits? Also you mention "needless second go-around" is if deletion is a foregone conclusion when it wasn't the first time around?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent results are problematic, we adhere to WP:NPOV and recognize our own WP:BIAS, and even the over-cited essay WP#WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS discusses the problem; all the drama about "allegations of apartheid" articles and various ethnic, religious, sexual orientation categories stem in large measure from seemingly inconsistent results. Regardless, I don't think that the passions here will run quite so hot. ;-) It looks like the overturns will end up winning this debate and we'll see whether the repeat of process is or isn't needless. :-) Cheers, Carlossuarez46 00:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - to allow editing to take place in the main article space. Then editors can strip the list (moving it to the talk page for future reference), and expand from the introduction. There is no harm in having a stub there while the editing process takes place. We shouldn't be over-reliant on userfication when adequate material already exists for an article. Carcharoth 09:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - If we keep one dinosaur in pop culture it should definitely be this one! AFDs aren't a punishment for badly written articles, but a way to clean out the unnotable ones. This article is definitely notable, but the only reason it was deleted was becasue of concerns of it being to "bullet-pointy". So although it needs work, it shouldn't be punished for being badly written. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Wikipedia articles are not alive. They do not have feelings and they are incapable of suffering. Deleting them is not "punishment." The notion that the article should be restored because the "punishment" of deletion is unfair is bizarre. Otto4711 13:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reply to Otto's comment - You don't have to critisize my comment to make your own Otto. I trust then you've never read WP:RUBBISH? I was merely putting the ideals of RUBBISH into less wordy version which is basically, if the article is notable don't delete it just because its poorly written. I was not trying to sound as though articles had feelings though - you seem to believe this though Otto... Do the articles talk to you or something? ;) Spawn Man 02:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and Merge the sourced info in Tyrannosaurus, do not merge the rest of the info as it destroys the prose of an FA, Endorse my deletion on the rest, unless a decent article can be written about them pop culture. Remember there was a very high concensus for deletion of both Brontosaurus in popular culture and Dromaeosaurids in popular culture in the AFD, with the other two borderline. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with this - Bronto & the Dromaeosaurid pop culture articles were pointless and NN to begin with, but T rex is really THE dino of pop culture. Spawn Man 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Deleting the entire article, instead of improving it by removing the OR portions of it, was a disruptive misuse of AfD. Evouga 20:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus for the same overall reason that I wrote on another one of these a moment ago, i.e. because there seems to be a larger active debate on the popular culture/cultural reference articles at hand here and I think that issue is more of what is being debated rather than the individual merits of these articles. Also, am influenced by the following essay: User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ehsan Jami (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is an important article : the situation Ehsan Jami is becoming an important subject in Europe, judging by its media coverage (in France for instance, in the reference newspaper Le Monde [2]). If that is not enough, it is also an important matter concerning principles, as it deals with freedom of religion, and follows other cases (assassination of Theo Van Gogh and threatening of Ayaan Hirsi Ali). There are articles in both the German and Dutch Wikipedias : de:Ehsan Jami and nl:Ehsan Jami. Last, the deletion was preceded by no discussion, it seems. Baronnet 23:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Restore - 68 hits for "Ehsan Jami" in news.google.com. Corvus cornix 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Would have been a peripheral notability case if not for the aggression, that create notability without apparent BLP issues. The article, however, needs significant cleanup asap after restoration. Circeus 23:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Tentative overturn for evident notability - Google news has plenty of decent sources which establish notability, and it also is linked to in other Wikipedia articles. I just don't understand, why was this article deleted? The AfD link is red -- was it speedy deleted? — xDanielx^Talk 00:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Clearly notable if references support the claims. "Ehsan Jami is a 22-year-old member of the socialist Labor Party (PvdA) in the Dutch town of Leidschendam. ...In 2007, Mr. Jami announced his intention to establish a Committee for Ex-Muslims, which he will launch officially in September at an international press conference. " When the AfD link is red, it generally means it was speedily deleted. Certainly this wasn't a valid speedy, as notability is very emphatically claimed. Deleted by an experienced admin, single-handed, without a previous tagging by another editor. He was asked to restore, but seems not to have replied. In the circumstances, I think any other admin could restore. DGG (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The deleteion log reads "a7 nonnotable, no sources content was: 'Ehsan Jami is a 22-year-old member of the socialist Labor Party (PvdA) in the Dutch town of Leidschendam. Thirteen years ago, Mr. Jami's family mov..."
• Overturn The articel as it was when deleted had some serious PoV problems, adn needed sources. But it clearly asserted the significance of the subject, so an A7 was improper. DES ^(talk) 06:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)