Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 11

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

Not a prroper application of speedy deletion criteria. As I pointed out at User_talk:CBM#Your_deletion_of_Joy_basu, the criteria cited (A7) explicitly states that it is not to be applied to articles where there is controversy about whether notability has been asserted or which have been put through AfD and kept. Both of these exmptions applied to this article. Concerns about referencing are to be handled at AfD, not by speedy deletion (this article did cite reputable sources to establish notability). I request a overturn as deletion was against established policy regarding speedy deletion. Loom91 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As the deleting admin, I considered merely removing the unsourced BLP information, but that left virtually nothing, so I chose to delete the article per common sense, the proposed deletion criteria for unsourced BLP articles, and this arbcom principle. I did so under the expectation that it would be recreated as an improved article. To explain myself, I left a detailed note on Talk:Joy Basu explaining my concerns, in which I explicitly pointed out that the article can be recreated.

Rather than complaining about the deletion, I would encourage interested editors to write a new, well sourced article. If the deletion is overturned, the result will be little different, as most of the short article was already unsourced BLP information that would need to be removed and then reinserted with sources.

It is also worth mentioning that Loom91 inserted a redlink into the article for a name that he has identified as his own. I suspect there is a conflict of interest in his editing of the article. This is not a deletion concern, but his opinions on the article should be evaluated with this in mind. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The deletion log entry cited first WP:CSD#A7 and then WP:BLP. To deal with these in order, The statement that a playwright has been both script writer and assistant director for a film that has been reviewed in a major newspaper is a claim of notability. it might not be enough at AfD, or it might, but it is enough to take this out of the realm of speedy deletion. As to BLP, the content here is neither negative nor contentious. If this sort of article can be speedy deleted under BLP for lack of sources, that is saying than any article deemed to have insufficient references (and note this did include multiple references to reliable sources, specifically two articles in the Calcutta, India Telegraph, here, and here: one of these describes him as "the writer-backbone of the film" and the other as "Calcutta playwright and critic") may be speedy deleted. There have been proposals before to speedy delete unreferenced articles, or unreferenced biological articles -- all of them failed. Note also recent discussion at WT:V#Blanking unsourced articles and tagging them for speedy deletion as empty suggested that removing content as unsourced, and then promptly tagging for speedy delete as empty was improper, or at least unwise. How much more unwise if the person removing content is also the deleting admin, and the whole process takes place withing a single edit. That is what User:CBM describes as "common sense". i find it not at all sensible, and i hope not very common on Wikipedia. Strong overturn as neither desirable nor supported by policy. DES ^(talk) 23:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I agree non-BLP articles should not be blanked and deleted, because they shouldn't be blanked. But in this case, after the hard pruning needed for BLP there was so little content left that there was little difference between deleting the article versus removing the content. That's the common sense part. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What "Hard pruning needed for BLP" was there. Are you adopting the position that positive, non controversial content about a living person myust be rigourously sourced or else removed without discussion? Specifics, please. DES ^(talk) 14:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, the content of the last deleted reviosn was as follows. What exactly in that content do you think needed to be "hard pruned"?

Joy Basu is a Bangla writer and prominent cultural personality. Joy was born in 14 January 1964 at Rourkella. His father worked at the Rourkella Steel Plant. His mother is Subarna Basu]. Subarna was a school teacher and was also one of the founding members of the legendary theater group Nandikar. Joy is the youngest of three brothers, the others being Avi and Shuva.

Later, Joy with his family moved to Kolkata. There his father died of asthma. He acquired his primary education at Shailendra Sircar School and then studied polytechnic at Joypuria Collage.

Joy currently works at the Education Directorate at Bikash Bhaban, Saltlake, Kolkata under the West Bengal Government. He lives with his wife Arpita Palit, a poet and their son Shish Basu Palit.

Joy has written several plays. His play Sunetra was staged by theater group Natyaanan. His other plays include Jachchhetai Kando and numerous short plays. He has written the script for [2 citations ommitted] and worked as an assistant director in the film Sunday Afternoon directed by Amit Dutta and produced by Bayleaf Productions. He is a co-founder of Bayleaf Productions. He is also actively associated with the leading Bengali little magazine of poetry and poetry related essays Kanha. He was the screen-writer for the leading Bangla mega-serial (soap opera) Nana Ronger Dinguli.

I don't see any content there that is even maginally subject to BLP deletion, pruning, or blanking. But even if there were, even if all that could be left after BLP pruning was "<name> is an <nationality> <occupation>" I would leave that sub-stub with a note on the talk page that content asserting significance had been removed under BLP and could be restored with sources. It is just too easy to not notice an articel that isn't there. DES ^(talk) 14:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The first three chunks above are all unsourced personal info, much of which is about the family of the person rather than about the person himself. That is what needs pruned. There is also no source for the authorship of the plays, which would be OK if they were bluelinks, but they aren't. All that is left is part of the final chunk. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The stuff about his family could be removed or reduced not as BLP (BLP does not say that each and every detail of "personal information" must be sourced, nor should it), but as of little relevance to the article. The plays are mentioned in the cited sources, although the citations were attached to the sentence about the film. The external link to the Bayleaf Productions site also mentions the plays. Since writing a play is neither negative nor controversial, that ought to be sufficient sourcing. The key point is that you are acting as if the BLP says that every detail about a person must be explicitly sourced, even such non-controversial details as birthplace and parents' names. That is not so, and it shouldn't be so. DES ^(talk) 15:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. It's unsourced in the cached version and almost everything is redlinked, but it does assert notability. Determining the notability of the material should be handled at AFD in a case like this. Being unreferenced is not the same as being unnotable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's unsourced? There were multiple references! Loom91 07:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have access to a sourced version? I can only see this google cache. --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• That is an outdated version. As the others have pointed out, it had three reliable sources at the time of deletion. Loom91 19:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• overturn has 3 sources in the last deleted version and asserts importance. BLP doesn't mean we nuke anything without an inline citation after every sentence. Nothing in the article seemed negative anyway. --W.marsh 00:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per the admin's reasoning. Eusebeus 12:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There was a previous AfD which was closed as keep. Normally a prior AfD precludes a spedy delete under WP:CSD#A7, and at least suggests that sorcing is adaquete. DES ^(talk) 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, As for the merits, the final version had 2 references to a reliable Indian newspaper, and in the absence of controversy, a web site is acceptable for career details.

But as for the procedure, it was wrong in many ways. First, certainly enough notability to avoid A7--even without sources saying that one is the screen-writer for a notable series --one that has an article in WP-- is an assertion of notability. A7 is much overused, and this is an example. Justified as "common sense", which is not one of the guidelines, presumably 'cause people vary widely about what is common sense. Second, deleted single-handed, not tagged for another admin to check--had it been, it probably would not have been deleted in the first place. This is some evidence why we might want change this--if admins sometimes go single-handed in cases that they admit are borderline, but just use it for what is obviously garbage. Third, if an article needs debating about in good faith by an established editor--Loom91 has been doing good work here since 2006, it is almost certainly not an appropriate speedy The place to debate is AfD. Fourth , the BLP reason is based on "any admin., acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy." Which aspect of the policy it relates to has not been specified. The policy is justification for acting according to BLP, not according to "common sense". BLP should be applied strictly--I delete articles under CSD A10 single-handedly every day, there is so much that unquestionably falls into that category. But it should be applied within the specified limits. Asserting BLP as a defense against arbitrary action is simply wrong. This article shows requiring Deletion review of an article deleted under BLP is wrong-- except for that provision someone could simply have reversed it.

Fifth, the article had withstood a previous AfD. Seeing this in the edit history should have given anyone pause about using a speedy. And it violates clear policy: from WP:DP, "In practice this means that a page that had a deletion discussion resulting in 'keep' or 'no consensus' should not be speedily deleted." In view of all this, I urge the admin to simply correct his own mistake. DGG (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• overturn per nom, DGG, and W.Marsh. JoshuaZ 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. After DGG's extended resoning, is it possible to close this as WP:SNOW? Loom91 19:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

List of slang names for poker hands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was placed in a second nomination for AfD one day after the first AFD was closed as no consensus. First AFD is here, second is here. I have no opinion, so I am abstaining from any discussion. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Without offering whether the (my) close was proper, I feel I should at least explain why I closed the way I did. There's some perception that I editorialised in my close - in fact I explained the state of the discussion as I saw it, so it would be clear why I closed the way I did. Straight vote counting was 6-2 delete/keep, but discussion was something like 2 delete/4 transwiki/2 keep .... there may be a consensus for transwiki - which is essentially "keep and edit, follow with a delete as transwiki'd at the appropriate time" but I felt it wasn't clear. I've already discussed with User:kzollman that if he can show a consensus to do so at talk:List of slang names for poker hands, a transwiki and speedy per CSD:A5 is not out of the question. That might have a consensus (or one might develop) - a straight delete clearly does not. Cheers, WilyD 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - closing admin correctly interpreted the AFD and closed appropriately. Otto4711 21:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - I agree with the closing admin's summation of the AfD M2Ys4U 21:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse DRV isn't AfD2. Complaints about this article notwithstanding there was no problem with the closure. If the problems persist it might be suitable for nomination for deletion again down the line, but give it a little time, at least. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This should have never been opened here. While the original closing admin obviously acted inappropriately by editorializing his opinion, and subsequently making blatantly untrue statements to cover his tracks, the fact remains that the strong consensus of the original afd is to get rid of this article that plainly violates policy. Besides an unsigned comment and one other on the original afd, the only other "opposition" to following policy has been wikilawyer trolls. Creating this entry is more of the same. "Bold" wikilawyer rudeness on the part of Dennis just makes things worse. the afd process should be allowed to work, not hijacked or sent off into wikilawyer land. If someone, anyone, wants to change what the wikipedia is not then take up that point. The consensus for deleting the article is plain. WilyD's frankly bizarre statements about transwiking are just too weird at this point. Whether the article is moved to the Wiktionary or not is irrelevant to the point that the article violates policy and should be deleted. 2005 23:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't object to people attacking me for the most part, but please restrict your comments about Dennis to civil, productive ones. Dennis certainly does not deserve to be the target of ad hominem attacks for following policy. Cheers, WilyD 23:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Good lord, spare us more of this lawyering. This mess is your fault. Denis' unfortunate circumventing normal procedure is sadly more of the same. Please don't make things worse. The afd consensus and policy should be followed. Normal procedure for deleting a blatantly inappropriate article should be allowed to continue without this tedious lawyering. If you want to apologize for your actions, fine, but please don't make things worse by extending this lawyering nonsense. 2005 23:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is not a request, it is a reminder that there are civility standards everyone must adhere to, and consequences if one does not. Don't take it for more or less. Dennis did the right thing (apart from which, the second AFD showed a clear policy based consensus for it) and there's no reason to slam him just because you're upset that I closed the first AfD as a discussion, rather than a vote. WilyD 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please stop. It is not uncivil to state someone acted inappropriately. Being "bold" is not a blank check for acting inappropriately, and then following that up with creating this entry, and the abstaining. These actions are poor choices, in my opinion. If you disagree, fine, but please do not make threatening posts again. Instead maybe you'd do well to read the civility standards you cited. 2005 23:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Having said that I will not comment, I am now commenting. I already told you in your talk page. As you have seemingly ignored it, I will tell you here: DRV is the place to go if you feel that the closure of AFD was done with the wrong interpretation of consensus. If you don't believe me, go to WP:DRV and click on the link for "Purpose". Line 2, read it. This is not lawyering, as you are so inclined to call it, this is following the procedure that you seem to be wishing to adhere to. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• And just so you can ignore it again, the original closing is not an issue. There is NO REASON a discussion should be here. YOU started it, for reasons known only to you. I opened an afd an an article that plainly violates policy. You closed it prematurely. That was your decision, as was bringing up this other trivial issue here. You of course could open a discussion here if YOU want to and have issues about it. I could not care less myself, and certainly don't care about the lawyering. I opened an afd. I was not the person who opened the other afd. I acted appropriately, in an attempt to see policy followed regarding that article and not waste editors times on silliness. 2005 23:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, if you feel I closed the second AfD incorrectly, you can bring it to DRV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please Assume Good Faith people. WilyD did what they thought was best for the article/project by closing the AfD as no consensus. 2005 again did they thought was best by submitting another AfD and Dennis thought that following procedure was the best thing to do. Whether or not any and/or all of these were the best thing to do is of no importance now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M2Ys4U (talk • contribs)
• Endorse closure. WilyD acted appropriately and within policy. The community failed to speak with one voice. It's no emergency that an article managed to scrape through as a no-consensus keep, so give it a few months and come back with a better rationale or at least proof that it is not being substantively improved. --Dhartung | Talk 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It hasn't been improved over thousands of edits, so waiting a few months isn't going to accomplish a whole lot. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 03:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Eject from casino for post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Seriously, that's an argument used a lot around here valid or not, but the question at hand is whether it's proper to open an AFD right after an AFD closed the way you didn't like, just try again. --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bleh, I've been hassled out of casinos for less logical reasons than that. Some time away from the tables may be in order. In all seriousness, there was fairly decent consensus on a transwiki move, so the debate should not have been closed as "no consensus." Waiting a few months will not make a difference. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 04:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Question It looks to me like there was consensus support for moving all relevant content to wiktionary and then deleting. On the first AfD here were 8 voters and 2 commenters in total. 4 delete votes mentioned moving to wiktionary explicitly, 1 comment suggested that it either be kept or moved to wiktionary, and 2 votes were consistent with that solution (straight delete votes). One of the keep votes (by Iowa13) only suggested that the information be kept and suggested moving to wiktionary as a solution (suggesting this user was not opposed to move and delete; reading the users rational also supports this). All told, only one voter (out of 8 to 10 contributors) was explicitly opposed to that solution. Adding to that two new delete votes during the brief life of the second afd (and no non-process-based keep votes), I think we can agree that the "move to wiktionary and delete" solution has consensus support. If there are no objections, I will speedy the article (A5) once the move is complete. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'm torn. I personally like the article... but objectively I don't think it meets standards. There is no criteria for the inclusion of terms and it simply begs people to be creative and come up with their own slang. Thus, I think it should be deleted. Do I think willy acted inappropriately? No, but I disagree with his conclusion or at least his rationale on the AFD. Thus, I agree with 2005's questioning the closure. I also agree with the move here for DVR---this is the appropriate place. So I am really torn... I think the page should be deleted---but I have to support the closure. If/when the page goes up for deletion again (in a few months) , I would like to be know. Thus, Endorse Closure.Balloonman 02:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Reasonable, because policy-based arguments were presented from both sides. And some that were not, such as IUSEIT vs ITSTOOHARDTOMAINTAIN. There was no consensus. DGG (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why does this require so much discussion? Can we just move the darn article to Wiktionary already? That would satisfy everyone - we keep the article but it gets moved to a more appropriate place. All of the editors who routinely work on/*cough* I mean constantly revert the vanity edits to *cough* that article seem to agree that a transwiki is in order. Only one person vehemently objected to the move. I requested that the page be protected for an extended time but the request was denied. Come on, let's stop wasting time and cyberspace arguing over petty procedural differences and just move the thing. It seems fairly apparent that there is no major objection to a transwiki move. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 03:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, for what it's worth, I'm fine with such an action. My experience is that slang tables such as this should be transwiki'd, so such a thing I'm not opposed to. Now if somebody would get off of their thumbs and do it.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is already happening, and has been in the works since before the second AfD opened. But I'm not closing a DRV of my AfD close. WilyD 12:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fair 'nuff, I'll let the DRV ride out to the end. If someone else wishes to close.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure More for assuming good faith than any other reason Drieux 22:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• • • PLEASE NOTE that the nominator has engaged in one-sided canvassing in order to influence and "vote stack" this debate. >Radiant< 08:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
      • • I made exactly four notifications of this review. One was to Radiant! themselves, as was required, one was to an editor that had also queried Radiant!'s closure and with whom I had discussed calling a DRV, one was to an admin with whom that editor had discussed the closure and one was to the Category's parent article talkpage: Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (oddly enough the original CFD was not notified to that talkpage or to anywhere else by its nominator). To call this "canvassing" appears to me to be unwarranted and in violation of WP:AGF. YMMV Hrafn42 11:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I'd say Radiant's accusation of canvassing is a totally unwarranted attack on Hrafn42. Mentioning the DRV on the talk page of the parent article is the correct way to go - and something that should have been done when the article was nominated for deletion. Hrafn42 discussed doing this with other editors - if you have a conversation with someone about whether to file a DRV it would be extremely odd to fail to inform them that you actually did. And telling Radiant himself - I'd call that polite, but if Radiant sees it differently, then I suppose people should respect his opinion and not inform him when his deletions are contested. Guettarda 14:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No consensus for deletion. Opinion was evenly divided between Evolution/Creationism regulars (who were all for keeping) and CFD regulars (who were all for deletion). On a request for reconsideration, the closing Admin refused, claiming that the "delete" side had the stronger arguments, but the "keep" side dispute this claim, the basis for which is insufficiently clear-cut to count as anything more than the closing Admin's personal opinion. Hrafn42 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Controlling policies appear to be:

• WP:OCAT (the only 'overcategorisation' alleged was "not defining" and this allegation was disputed)
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (requirement for rough consensus)
• WP:DGFA#Rough consensus

Hrafn42 18:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 5#Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" Hrafn42 18:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: as far as I can ascertain, none of the 'keep' arguments employed arguments contained in WP:AADD (even were that essay to be considered a policy or guideline), and so cannot be discounted for that reason. Hrafn42 18:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Question Could you please link to the discussion? I don't see a link here. Shalom ^Hello 18:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Here's the previous discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_5#Category:Signatory_of_.22A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism.22 Odd nature 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Deleted on shaky grounds. As noted there was no consensus for deletion, only by discounting a large number of comments from credible editors and admins did the closing admin justify deletion, citing an essay, WP:AADD, as trumping Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus. As for the category itself, it is an appropriate category per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. Odd nature 18:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per the closing admin's explanation: Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it. If people think the list clutters the article, that is not automatic grounds for making a category out of the clutter. A list article would arguably be better, as it could e.g. include relevant degrees held by the signing people. The balance of arguments was clear to justify the deletion. --Kbdank71 18:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This argument for it not being defining amounts to little more than an argument from personal incredulity. Numerous arguments against a list were discussed including that it already exists on the DI website, and that most of the signatories of this full list aren't notable. Additionally, the DI full list only contains the degree of a small minorityhalf of signatories, making a list that comprehensively contains the "relevant degree" problematical. Hrafn42 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't understand. The reason against a list was that most of the signatories aren't notable? What was expected with a category, then? If a person isn't notable, they wouldn't be in the encyclopedia, and therefore wouldn't be in the category. Was the point of the category to have an incomplete list of signatories? At least with a list, you could add every signatory, notable or not. Ergo, a complete list. --Kbdank71 18:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A complete list exists on the DI website. Only those leaders of the movement or those who are otherwise noteworthy are included with separate articles on WP.--Filll 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And there is the defining characteristic argument again. If they are leaders of the movement or otherwise noteworthy, then they are defined by being leaders of the movement or being otherwise noteworthy. They aren't notable because they signed a document. Lots of people signed my high school yearbook, but there isn't a category about them. --Kbdank71 19:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kdbank, just a reminder that Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Instructions says "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information)." BTW, what the Discovery Institute does with the list (like running it in a full page ad in the New York Times) very much impacts the visibility and notability of those who sign it. That objection holds no water. Odd nature 19:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Was the point of the category to have an incomplete list of signatories?" As with any category on wikipedia, this category will only contain the members who both (1) fit the category criteria and (2) are sufficiently notable to warrant articles. A category of 'Chicago Politicians' would not contain some crank who ran for Chicago City Council in 1966, got one vote and died the next year in complete obscurity. If you want the full list, it already exists on the DI site (and may be subject to copyright), if you want to find out who on the list is notable (e.g. so you can read the articles on them, or so that you can interview them for a newspaper article on the SDFD), a category divides the chaff from the wheat nicely. Hrafn42 02:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Reinstate: When this list is complete, I would expect 100 or more of the present 700 or so signatories to have WP web pages. The fact that signing the list is the defining characteristic of their careers, summarizing their outlook and prospects. They have decided, at substantial personal risk, to help the Discovery Institute with its public relations campaign. For a casual reader of Wikipedia, this identifier will enable them to understand the career trajectory and beliefs of the signatory. It will also easily direct the reader back to other signatories, and the Discovery Institute and their public relations campaigns. A list is good, but it is only valuable when the reader already knows about the campaign and the DI. A category is better or a useful adjunct to a list because it succinctly and clearly lets the reader understand the beliefs, orientation and agenda of a subject whose WP article they come across. This signing is not a trivial act, like joining the American Physical society, but an indication of the interests and commitment of the signatory to a special cause. Signing the list can end a career, effectively. Signing the list can mean one has to change jobs. Signing the list can mean persecution and ostracism. Signing the list can indicate the reliability of the scientific judgement of the signatory. I would therefore ask that this category be reinstated.--Filll 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn many arguments were given as to why this should be a category rather than a list which were simply ignored by the closing admin. As Fill has more than adequately explained above, this is a major issue and the signing of the list is very a very notable thing. Admins should not close anything based simply on their own lack of knowledge about a controversy in question. JoshuaZ 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - closing admin correctly weighed the arguments on both sides. Keepers argued: if this is deleted then ID advocates and Discovery Institute fellows might be next; when everyone who signed has an article there will be lots of articles; it's useful; and signing the document is a defining characteristic of the signers. Contrary to what was said in the DRV nom, the majority of these arguments are indeed arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and while it's true that ATA is not policy it does correctly identify arguments that are not particularly persuasive, as these were not particularly persuasive. The only substantive argument, that it's a defining characteristic, was strongly disputed by a number of people and in the face of the valid arguments from the deletionators and the weak and disputed arguments from the keepers the closing admin correctly closed with a delete. Otto4711 22:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for admitting that ATA is not policy. The point remains that it correctly identifies arguments that are not persuasive is matter of opinion, not policy. In fact, the applicable guideline, Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, makes no such exceptions for the quality of the arguments as WP:ATA calls for. Again, policies and guidelines trump essays everytime. And whether the arguments made were not particularly persuasive is also a matter of personal opinion. Personal opinion is simply no justification for such sweeping discounts of so many comments from credible editors and admins. Odd nature 22:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  You really might want to give WP:3P a read. Especially since you seem to rely extremely heavily on policy, which is not the be all and end all of wikipedia. And you don't have to remind me, 3P is only an essay. But then again, WP:ONLYESSAY is only an essay also. Bit of a catch-22 if you ask me, but there you are. Bottom line, the closing admin's job is to determine the strength of the arguments, as not all arguments are of equal weight. If they were, this would be nothing more than a vote count, and that's not what we do. --Kbdank71 02:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Otto4711 stretches WP:AADD in an attempt to shoehorn 'keep' arguments into it:
    • "What about article x?" -- this was not employed as a basis for a 'keep' opinion, but rather as a counter-argument to 'delete' arguments.
    • "This number is big" -- this was not employed as an argument that the category is notable, but rather that a list would be unwieldy. The converse "this number is small" argument was employed by the 'delete' side.
    • "It's useful" -- I will concede that I missed this one in checking the 'keep' arguments. I will note however that only one editor employed this argument bare, as the basis for their 'keep' opinion (with one other editor basing their opinion on usability + notability), and that WP:AADD itself states "In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information "useful." Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader." Hrafn42 02:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Arguing that if one category is deleted others might be is classic WAX. Arguing for the category because it will eventually have lots of stuff in it is a big number argument and even if it's not it's completely unworkable. All sorts of categories that could have lots of things in them are deleted. Certainly arguing "it's useful" isn't an automatic death sentence but I dispute the notion that a category of some but not all of the people who signed a position paper, even one that's contentious, is so useful that a list of all of the people wouldn't suffice. Otto4711 15:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• "if this is deleted then ID advocates and Discovery Institute fellows might be next" & "Arguing that if one category is deleted others might be is classic WAX." I just checked and this argument had in fact (contrary to my earlier claim) been used as part of an editor's 'keep' position, however as that editor later changed their position to 'listify', this editor's original position had already been discounted anyway.
• "Arguing for the category because it will eventually have lots of stuff in it is a big number argument..." No it is not. WP:BIGNUMBER only explicitly discounts arguments that argue "big number therefore notable". An argument for splitting a page because it has a "big number" of words in it, is likewise not a "big number argument".

Hrafn42 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion - not only was there no consensus to delete, there is also no evidence that Radiant actually made any effort to understand the arguments made in favour of keeping the category. His closing comment echoes the deletion nom. The only explanation (only one I can find) that he gave when questioned WP:AADD; he does not bother to explain how the arguments in favour of a keep are "fallacious". A deletion made when there is no consensus to delete, and without a valid explanation, should be overturned. Guettarda 03:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Guettarda and odd nature. Clearly there was no consensus, and I for one am alarmed to hear that my comment was discounted on specious grounds in the original CFD. I'm certain that if the majority of the community knew how essays like WP:ATA are being misapplied to subvert policy and discount their opinions, they'd have a similar feeling. This is indicative of a bigger problem that needs to be aired. FeloniousMonk 05:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment and a challenge To the gainsayers of this category: Please explain to the community here how this category, Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", is any different from Category:Signers_of_the_U.S._Declaration_of_Independence. And before you try to make the argument, I'm going to quote Kdbank71 above: "Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it." So unless you're going to cede that point, don't bother making that argument or claiming that there's qualitative or quantitive differences between the two. Answer this convincingly, and I'll change my comment to 'endorse.' FeloniousMonk 05:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. >Radiant< 08:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No Radiant!, a legitimate counterexample is ALWAYS a legitimate refutation of an argument (in this case the argument that "Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it"). WP:AADD quite simply cannot trump the basic rules of logic. Hrafn42 16:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll give it a shot. Category:Signers_of_the_U.S._Declaration_of_Independence contains every signer. All of them have articles, and are notable for something other than signing the Declaration, the least of which is simply being elected to the Continental Congress, but others were Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, Governors, flew kites in lightning storms, etc. By contrast, Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" would never have contained every person who signed it. Regarding signing, User:Filll said For most of these people, that is the only reason they are notable. [1] and User:Hrafn42 said that the notable people that were in the category were notable generally for being notorious fringe scientists, pseudo-scientists and/or cranks [2]. Now I'm not saying that signing the Dissent wasn't important for every single one of these people. But it's obviously not that important or every one of them would have articles stating "This person signed 'A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism." And so that category only tells a portion of the story. It doesn't capture the magnitude of the sheer amount of people who signed. As noted, a list could capture every name, whether they are notable or not. The Declaration signers category does tell the whole story of who signed. --Kbdank71 15:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Your argument just ceded ""Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it." Hrafn42 16:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
      • How does stating "are notable for something other than signing the Declaration" cede that? --Kbdank71 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
        • You changed your ground from "signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it" to "signing a document is not a defining characteristic, unless all signatories are notable", thus ceding your original point. Having all the signers being notable is one way to "twist it", and having conceded the existence of one legitimate "twist" you have retreated into a position where you need to argue the legitimacy of each "twist" on a case-by-case basis. Hrafn42 17:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
          • You might want to re-read what I wrote. I don't believe you'll find that I typed "signing a document is not a defining characteristic unless all signatories are notable" or anything even close to it. Their defining characteristic is that they are Presidents, Congressmen, Justices, etc, not that they signed the Declaration. If I were to say those men were notable simply because they signed the Declaration, then I'd have ceded the point. --Kbdank71 18:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I read what you wrote. My paraphrase may have been imperfect, but the point remains. "Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it" became "signing a document is not a defining characteristic unless all signatories are notable". This is a form of "spurious argumentation" known as a Special pleading. This in turn demonstrates why your original assertion is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. Oh and if you insist on appending taunting edit summaries like "Got anything else..." to such flimsy logic you are likely to get your head handed to you by even the wimpiest lightweight of a regular from the Evolution/Creationism area of articles. Hrafn42 03:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn. The admins decision was based on his personal, strongly subjective opinion about the merits of the arguments rather than an objective reading of the community consensus. The last thing we need is admins deciding their opinions are more important than the opinion of the community (unfortunately, we seem to have a noticable number of this undesirable thing). Loom91 07:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse self, because CFD is not a headcount. The "keep" side many arguments that are fallacious, not compelling, or "arguments to avoid". For instance,
  • "the article would get cluttered" (so make two articles) ... "There are also categories about... (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) - Northfox
  • "When the list is complete, it will have many more than 30 entries." (so? category size is not an issue here)... "For most of these people, that is the only reason they are notable." (if that's the case they will likely be deleted on AFD) - Fill
  • "Being a signatory to this petition is a strong and verifiable indicator of affiliation to the Intelligent design movement." (so put those people in the cats for "intelligent design movement!) - Hrafn42
  • "This is critical reference material for several articles" (no, we reference articles with citations, not categories) - Orangemarlin
  • "It's useful" (WP:USEFUL) - Feloniousmonk, Oddnature
• And on the other hand, we have the WP:OCAT guideline, plus the more important fact that a LIST is a more comprehensive way of covering this information since it can include the degrees of the people on it, the places they work, and other relevant information, which of course the cat doesn't. Also, since not all of the signatory are notable enough to have articles, the list can be complete and the category by definition cannot. The full list is here, by the way. >Radiant< 08:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Radiant! represents "It's useful" as a direct (and ellipsis-free) quotation of Feloniousmonk & Oddnature. I would suggest neither of them said those exact words and that Radiant! is cherry-picking and caricaturing the 'keep' arguments in an attempt to make them look weaker than they really were. On the subject of "fallacious" arguments, Radiant!'s "the list can be complete and the category by definition cannot" takes the cake. The complete list already exists Radiant!, why bother to recreate it? This list contains only information on "the degrees of the people on it" OR "the places they work", almost never both, and I don't see editors bothering to track down that non-publicly-available information (even if the tracking down itself wasn't OR) on 600-odd non-notables. On the other hand the 'category automatically links to the articles of all the notable signatories, giving accessibility to a full range of "other relevant information" on them. The full list already exists to give spartan information on the non-notables, a category would give easy access to fuller information on the notables, along with placing a valid question-mark over their scientific credibility on their articles. Hrafn42 11:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• So you want this category so you can use it to push a POV about the signatories' scientific credibility. I kinda wish you'd said that in the original CFD. Can I change my vote here to double-super endorse? Otto4711 15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's a baseless accusation Otto4711. Whether a person has signed an anti-evolutionary petition is a matter of fact not POV. A person having rejected well-established science can lead scientifically-informed people to doubt the person's grasp of science, completely independently of my viewpoint. No POV-pushing is needed on my part, merely the facts and a scientifically-informed reader. Conversely, a Creationist reader would most probably trust the signatory more. Hrafn42 16:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wanting a category because it puts a "question-mark" on those categorized is POV pushing. There are other ways to make readers aware of these peoples' opinions or beliefs about Creationism or Intelligent Design that are NPOV, we don't need categories that try to score intellectual points. Otto4711 16:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Categories place legitimate question-marks (with sections of the community, large and small) all the time. Most people would not support a member of Category:Neo-Nazis for political office (but fellow Neo-Nazis most probably would). Informing readers of a biographed person's verifiable affiliations is not a NPOV violation. Your accusation of POV-pushing is baseless. Hrafn42 16:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Categories may indeed put question marks on people all the time. That doesn't mean that categories for the purpose of creating those question marks are anything other than rank POV-pushing. Otto4711 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion Per Joshua, FM, Guettarda, and Odd Nature. Also, what's with the canvassing accusation Radiant? Either prove it -- and make sure your evidence is rock-solid and air-tight -- or withdraw your comment. I know that I was not "canvassed" by anyone, and letting people know that a CfD in which they had participated is undergoing DRV is not canvassing. Trying to shrug off your mistake in deleting the cat by alleging that someone else is "not playing fair" (which is the gist of your accusation, is it not?) is ludicrous at best. •Jim62sch• 10:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I do not see consensus, or anything that could reasonably be taken as consensus. For example, one recurring argument was the category should not have been placed in the super-category it was in, which is easily dealt with., and not by deletion. DGG (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: To date on this review I have endured a wild accusation (WP:AGF) and taunting (WP:CIVIL) from regular CFD admins and a fairly flimsy accusation of POV-pushing (WP:AGF) from a CFD regular. I would request that this behaviour be taken in conjunction with the way CFD regulars conducted the original CFD (failure to notify, failure to cite specific policies even when pressed, the way the debate was closed) and ask yourselves if this creates a forum where substantive consultation can occur. You don't tend to stick around as a regular editor of the Evolution/Creationism area of articles without a strong tendency to stick up for your opinions, so such tactics haven't worked on this occasion. I do however feel that they may tend to intimidate into acquiescence editors from more mild-mannered areas of wikipedia. Hrafn42 03:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, well-reasoned close by closing admin and Wikipedia is not MySpace. CFD is not a vote or headcount. The arguments to keep were not very persuasive, and I wonder if there was canvassing there (there sure is here). --Coredesat 06:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Coredesat: if you are going to go around repeating wild and unfounded accusations I would suggest that you stick to ones that at least lack a publicly available refutation ("Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries" comes to mind). Anybody can view my contributions log and see exactly who I told about this review. This is precisely the type of crude CFD-regular initimidation I was talking about above. Hrafn42 09:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not a CFD regular, and you should remain civil about the matter. Simply attacking any users who come along and endorse is exactly what you should not be doing here. --Coredesat 10:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
      • My apologies, you are an AfD regular, not a CFD one. That does not however in any way mitigate your wild and unfounded accusation. It is absurd for you to complain about "attacking" users when you attacked me first. Hrafn42 11:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - The discussion was close to evenly split between "merge/delete" and "keep". The closing administrator therefore decided to consider the arguments given by both sides rather than use a straight head count, and he found the advocates for deletion more persuasive. (Note: If Hrafn42 has complaints about the behavior of specific users, he should post a notice at WP:ANI.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am not complaining about "specific users" but about a pervasive culture of intimidation and exclusion from CFD-regulars. You quite clearly don't want editors from other parts of wikipedia coming along to express an opinion and mess up your nice little closed shop by venturing an opinion on whether their categories are legitimate. This is, I am assuming, the basis for the completely spurious accusations of canvassing -- if any editors come along and mount an effective defence against your supremacy, then it must be because they're being canvassed. I may report this at WP:ANI, but that does not prevent me from commenting on this ongoing pattern of behaviour, here -- where it is of direct relevance to the review. Hrafn42 09:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Procedure was followed and the closing admin made a reasonable judgment based on the arguments available. Shell ^babelfish 22:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion closure Radiant's choice was reasonable: content is better as a list, or as a merge to the category of Creationists. The encyclopedic significance of the Creation manifesto, while not in dispute, is also not so overwhelming as to demand comparable treatment with the Declaration of Independence. I believe the worry that the category is being employed mainly as a POV device is not ill-founded. I don't think the Creationists' manifesto would be given this extra navigational aid, but the sizable community interested in debunking it. Personally, I find this a highly laudable goal, but the WP's system of categories must remain a tool for NPOV only. In any case, the ultimate argument that governs at deletion review is, "Was the close reasonable?" I believe it was. Xoloz 04:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion Per Guettarda, FeloniousMonk and OddNature. This appears to be a vendetta in deleting the article in the first place by Radiant, temporarily banning another editor Hrafn42, and comments herein. If this were a canvassing, somehow several of us were missed who were editors to the article. In fact, I didn't see it until today when I went to drop a note at Hrafn's talk page asking him for help on another topic, and I saw he was banned. This article is necessary especially since this list is referred to by both Creationists and scientists in regards to several articles. This is frustrating on a personal note. Orangemarlin 15:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. There quite clearly was a slight majority in favor of keeping when it was closed. A lack of consensus to delete can only be properly interpreted as a lack of consensus to delete, not as "The result was delete" as the closing admin put it. If there were administrative reasons for closing the CFD out as a "delete", such reasons need to be publicly stated to be administrative reasons and justified accordingly. This was not the case here. What was the case was that the closing admin's opinion became the rationale for deleting. This is unfortunate and ultimately unsustainable practice as the wiki goes into the future. We need clearer criteria for administrative overrides of lack of consensus for a proactive step such as deletion. By any other real-world standard other than that of, e.g., Kangaroo courts and other show trials, such a lack of consensus or lack of some other clearly justified warrant to interfere would ordinarily mean "leave the darned status quo alone". ... Kenosis 15:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This is in response to a article that was originally put up for deletion by Kariteh and the subsequent refusal to delete it. I would like to reopen the discussion to either put it up for deletion or at least reflect errors I beleive are prevalent in the article discussed here and related articles connected with it.

I'll start with a quote from the deletion discussion on June 27, 2007.

reliable sources for this being considered a series by fans include the following three professional reviews: [3]

And here is my response. This site is by no means staffed by professionals (with the excpetion of Kurt) almost all the "reviews/overviews" are written by dedicated fans, I should know as I wrote for him and the site. As I've pointed out in the discussion pages on both Gaia series and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games there is no official proof regarding these loose connections as a "trilogy or series" of games that are loosely related only by thematic element alone.

If deletion isn't warranted, by the very least commenting that the HG101 article was "Fan Written" and expresses the limited research and opinions of the article writer has to be considered and subsequently shown in the related articles, otherwise it would be akin to saying this is cold, hard, indisputable proof that this associated link is undeniable proof, and as I was slated to originally write that article I would never make that assumption based on the relative lack of facts pointing to any connections with those games, there is no such thing as the "Soul Blazer Trilogy", or even the "Soul Blazer Saga" / "Gaia Series" at the very least changes need to be made to reflect this point in the related articles, instead as Kariteh pointed out, all the information presented as Fact, is indeed assumption based on erroneous information gathered off the internet at other incorrect fansites.

I can say these "facts" are not checked throughouly on the articles on HG101, but only to the best of their ability by the volunteer staff who offer their time to write these articles out of the love for the games alone and nothing more.

A quick check of the message boards of the site will proove my point to its fullest. Anyway due what you will, but I truly ask that if nothing more the articles are edited and cleaned up to show what is fact and not mere speculation and fan assumption.

Last note, even though some games have "code names" given to them within development, doesn't mean they are specifically part of a certain series (this is in reference to the above statement about Illusion of Gaia and Terranigma being known internally as Soul Blazer 2/3 respectively) and as such some older video game magazines such as Electronic Gaming Monthly were not known for their veracious fact checking in the early days and were known to call a game by a incorrect name, which someone has mistakenly called it for many years since and created such errors like these two mentioned here.

And in that spirit I would hope that something is done to correct these errors, so the Wikipedia pages are correct or at least point out that these are not undisputed facts only what is (erronoeously) believed to be the long held "truth" regarding these games, but which is in fact the same recycled misinformation over and over again, which people are led to beleive is the 100% truth, due to years of fallacy and error.

Thanks. BLang30 14:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close, AfD was crystal clear, and DRV is not a place to come looking for someone to improve an article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The original article, Fran Merida, was created and deleted several times, using the rationale CSD G4. That section states: "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via a deletion discussion or deletion review, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted". Now when you compare the article that I created with the previous ones, there is a big difference - for example, the revision that was ultimately deleted in AFD consisted of an infobox and the following sentence: "Francisco Merida Perez (born March 4, 1990) is a footballer, currently playing for Arsenal." The version I created, on the other hand, had reliable sources (including Sky Sports, an independent, reliable source) and also I feel that I asserted notability - but in any case it was significantly different from the version that was shot down in AFD, in my opinion. I think that if the article is relisted on AFD, I can provide sufficient arguments that the player is notable, but in any case it should not have been speedied. ugen64 08:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• overturn deletion very sloppy G4 deletion... Ugen64's version was vastly different than the version deleted at AFD. --W.marsh 14:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and relist Clearly fails the substantially identical test of G4. May or may not be notable, but deserves reconsideration. GRBerry 14:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the key phrase is: any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted. As things currently stands, Merida still fails the criterion laid out for sportspersons in WP:BIO - i.e. Competitors who have played in a fully professional league which was the reason laid out in the original AfD. He has not yet played a first-team match in a fully professional league and is not a member of his club's first team squad. [4] If and when he does become so I will endorse creation of the article, but not until then. Qwghlm 22:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The main one to consider though is "The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." which seems to be the case. The other criteria are pretty much antiques at this point, with respect to WP:N and WP:V. At any rate it doesn't have to solve the problems, that wording is just added to prevent versions with irrelevant changes, like more nonsense added, and so on. Consenus can change, this extreme misinterpretation of G4 is harmful in that it can be used to make some topics permanently off limits because of some arcane AFD of an obsolete version of an article. --W.marsh 23:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore He is one of the leading youth prospects in world football, and has had very wide media coverage. He hasn't played a first team game because he's at one of the top clubs in the world, but he's more prominent than half the footballers who do meet the criteria of having played a first team game in a fully professional league. The guideline should be used with common sense, so that youngsters at giant clubs like Arsenal get articles, just like less notable players at clubs like Leyton Orient. Nathanian 23:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

List of songs whose title constitutes the entire lyrics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I don't like putting up deletion reviews, but sometimes "no consensus" closes need more of a justification. There is a majority consensus for delete even if you were just to count !votes. But, alone, the discussions for delete rely on more tangible reasons (or interpretation of said) and, hence, show a stronger consensus for removal of the list even if they weren't a numeric majority. There were two legitimate "weak keeps", but the other "keep" !votes consisted of WP:INTERESTING, WP:ILIKEIT and "why delete it?" This list should have been deleted, and put with all its predecessors in the list of songs graveyard. Bulldog123 00:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn; I hate second-guessing the closing admin, but in this particular case I feel I must agree. While arguments for delete were admittedly somewhat weak (which the closing admin rightly pointed out), the keeps were even weaker, amounting to little more than WP:ILIKEIT. There might not have been consensus in numbers, but I feel there were no arguments for keep put forward that were supported by policy or guidelines. — Coren ^(talk) 02:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure: I have participated in the AfD and !voted delete there. — Coren ^(talk) 02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse seems within admin discretion. --W.marsh 02:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as closing admin (Am I allowed to? I'm new at this, remember? If not, just strike this through). As I told Coren on his talk page, it was late and I really should have provided an explanation. So let expand on what I told Bulldog on his talk page.

  Yes, a lot of the keep votes couldn't really put their finger on what it was that made it borderline notable. But if the delete voters are going to deride the keep votes as ILIKEIT, they should make sure their own arugments and counterarguments aren't correspondingly IDONTLIKEIT (or, in this case UNENCYC). And I see some of this emotionalism at work here: "There's an end to all this. There just has to be".

  This waters down the assessment of consensus. But I also took note of the context of the current open season on song lists (some of which do have to go). I had closed List of Halloween songs as a delete since it developed a clear consensus for it; similarly List of songs about masturbation was recently kept after a similarly robust discussion. In six days this AfD attracted rather few votes by comparison with the latter, nor a clear majority for one result as with the former, suggesting the community cares less about it.

  It also says something to me when one of the delete votes is changed to keep mid-AfD, one editor makes a very pro-keep comment after his "neutral" vote, and after a couple of "delete" votes pile up, we get a "strong keep" from a very prolific editor ... who then sees the legitimacy of his vote questioned by the nominator.

  I also see, in this DR and in the last delete vote, the implication that we should delete this because we're deleting lots of song lists. I would remind the delete voters that WP:WAX cuts both ways, further diluting a consensus for action. I do not feel that appealing to an article's status as a member of a marked category or class of articles is really a good argument for deletion; we decide these things on a case-by-case (ahem) basis.

  Basically, this discussion was all over the place: strong keeps, weak keeps, neutrals, weak deletes and strong deletes and one changed vote, and a community that generally didn't show much interest. That adds up to no consensus by my math. Daniel Case 03:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, this is all very true. Plenty of WP:WAX, WP:ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT, but honestly, what else could be said about this list? It seems like there's MUCH MUCH more effort needed to delete it than keep it. It doesn't seem very neutral. Two reasonable weak keeps, and three ILIKEIT keeps already default keeps this. I think there's just an unreasonable threshold put forth. There's simply not that much to say about the content of the list, which is why all the arguments were weak to begin with. Bulldog123 04:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, such lists are trivial and borderline original research, and keep-arguments like "it's interesting" and "don't be so deletionists" are not very compelling. >Radiant< 08:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Reread the guidelines above that point out that DRV is not the place to fight it out again over the content of the article in question. Arguments are supposed to be limited to whether the closing admin made a proper decision as to consensus. I'd support relisting it to gain further consensus, though. Daniel Case 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per above. Half the arguments for keeping this were not based on any policy or guideline and were, as Radiant! points out, not compelling. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Also, we may want to consider just relisting this one to get some more consensus on the matter. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• endorse it will be easier to nominate this again in a few months--close within discretion. DGG (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse This is one of those cases where "no consensus" and "delete" were both correct decisions. A tie goes to the discretion of the closing admin. Shalom ^Hello 18:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - "Stop being so deletionist" and "interesting" are uncompelling reasons for deletion. With those taken out, it's 8 to 2.5, easy concensus to delete. Will ^(talk) 23:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse I would have closed this as delete but the close of no consensus was well within admin discretion. Admins are not robots. If someone has an objection they should wait a while and list it on AfD again, not try to change the forum here. JoshuaZ 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Meh. Personally I regard a "no consensus" close as permission to relist at any time anyway, so it doesn't make much difference. It could be relisted right now, for example. Chick Bowen 05:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC) addendum: I would have deleted it, though. Chick Bowen 05:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per the above: stronger arguments to delete versus ilikeit, etc.... Suggest it be brought back to afd if not enough consensus forms here to overturn the decision. Eusebeus 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There is a lot of focus above on the validity of the "keep"s, but I really don't think the arguments for "delete" were fully thought through either (many of them were short "listcruft", "trivia", and mere assertions of "unencyclopedic".) In this situation a "no consensus" result seems in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - Mostly per Sceptre above, but all the keep entries were pretty sad. "Don't be so deletionist"? I mean honestly, isn't that what we have AfDs for? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 13:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A lot of "Well, we can always nominate it again later" comments. But honestly, are the "keep" and "delete" rationales going to change since then? There is very little to say about a list like this, so both the keep and deletes are always going to be weak. Meaning, even if it is renominated, it will probably end in a "no consensus" too. Bulldog123 20:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per March and Case.--Epeefleche 03:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do you mean "marsh"? Bulldog123 03:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Tx.--Epeefleche 19:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion Can this possibly be relisted then for more consensus on the matter, as suggested above? Bulldog123 03:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Why? Bull -- you suggested when you started that you hesitate to even put up a deletion review. Why in the world would you now suggest the extraordinary step of putting your deletion review request up for relisting? You yourself imply in your above comment that there is not consensus for deletion. Cleary there is now consensus to overturn the decision. Let's all get on to productive activities.--Epeefleche 19:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)