Wikipedia:Deletion review

Canberra Kangaroos (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

There was no discussion to delete this article. There was a discussion to delete Kangaroo attack in Canberra 2009 but that is one incident and not the same thing. This is the broader topic of kangaroos in Canberra which includes car accidents and four controversial culls which were all widely covered by the media, and were not in the article that was deleted. All of this link with 40+ references is material which was not in the article deleted. Also, an indefinite block is a bit of an overreaction for creating an article about kangaroos in a city when the local government says: "Canberra is unique in comparision to other Australian capital cities with large populations of free-ranging kangaroos in the urban areas."[1] James4750drv (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Kangaroo attacks in Australia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

When the article was nominated for deletion it had a 6k file size.[2] It was increased in size during the discussion and was 19k when deleted on Nov 15.[3] It was then recreated with many more details including new paragraphs and images, including a paragraph on the attack on Nov 23 which had not happened when the article was deleted and was 30k. (now at my userpage.) It was approved as a did you know article by Gatoclass, and then nominated again by Ucucha as a did you know article, before being deleted under G4. G4 uses the word 'unimproved' but the article was greatly improved. The votes from the last discussions are out of date and are based on much smaller versions of the article. There are a large number of references which justify the article existing, note especially this Kangaroo Management Plan section 4.5.1: "Kangaroo attacks on people are reported in the media on a regular basis throughout Australia... Kangaroo attacks are the most commonly reported 'negative wildlife encounter' by tourists to Australia." James4750drv (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Malvern_Instruments (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Unfair deletion. No chance to review content. Steven.redgewell (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by deleting admin: As per this long, long discussion on my talk page, the article is a cut-and-paste of a press release by the company, and Mr Redgewell is a current or former employee (current employee when claiming the right to release the press release under CC-BY-SA, former employee when reminded of our policy on conflicts of interest). The article was therefore an unambiguous and admitted copyright violation, an advertisement ("...one of the world’s leading materials characterization companies, highly respected for its innovation and leadership in particle characterization..." and "They provide essential information that supports the understanding, improvement and optimization of many industrial processes...") and a flagrant conflict of interest. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 12:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, copyvio, advertising, COI... there are a cornucopia of reasons why this should have been deleted, and the correct call was made by the deleting admin. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC).
• Endorse and Speedy Close - Copyvios are non-negotiable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, speedy close. Copyvios should go ASAP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment by author: As a new user to Wikipedia I don't feel I was given the chance to amend the content. Malvern Instruments' competitors have Wikipedia pages and these have been allowed. From my 24 hours of Wikipedia experience, my first impressions are of an organisation that doesn't nuture new users. I would gladly amend the content to prevent copyright violation, even though it is publically available anyway. Steven.redgewell (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• For the fifth (I believe) time, I will point this out to you again: you have a serious conflict of interest with this subject and should not be writing about it anyway. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 15:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I acknowledge the conflict of interest, however this was not the original reason for you to delete the article. I am trying to point out that I wasn't given a fair chance to make necessary changes to the article, your original actions were extreme and you could have dealt with the article better. I know the COI makes all of this irrelevant now and applaud you in your knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Steven.redgewell (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • For legal reasons, we cannot keep copyright violations on the site for any length of time, once they've been discovered. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC).
• Endorse. Obvious copyvio is obvious. You are free to work on the article offline. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse if the company passes WP:CORP, then in time someone will create an article on it who isn't an employee of the company. Andrew Lenahan - 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Whoa, hold your horses everyone: what we're providing to this new editor isn't FairProcess. The message we've sent, collectively, is "you may not write this article". And I'm rather disappointed that we haven't then gone on to say, "... but you can request that someone else should write it, via the AfC process", or ask about sources, or in fact do anything at all that's actually helpful for the new user or indicates any desire to engage them in the encyclopaedia-building process.

  I think we need to be aware of this. "You can't do this" is often an appropriate response at DRV, but it need to be tempered with "... but what you can do is this."— / 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Except, in the long conversation on my talk page before this DRV, Mr Redgewell admitted that the company doesn't pass WP:CORP and isn't notable: "Due to the nature of the business, there is nobody unrelated to the company that would have anything to do with them." On that basis, inviting him to write the article again elsewhere would be a waste of everyone's time as it couldn't possibly survive. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 10:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• And that's not in dispute. The point I'm making is around appropriate ways to handle new users who come to DRV, and it's aimed at DRV participants in general rather than you personally.— / 15:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Cyclopia/List of dichotomies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

John Vandenberg (talk · contribs) speedily deleted this subpage of mine with the justification that it met CSD G5 criteria (see discussion at my talk page. Problem is, it doesn't meet G5 for the simple reason that it underwent substantial edits by other users (yours truly). Even if they amounted to trimming and refactoring, fact is that the deleted version of that page was no more only the work of the banned user. I am ok with the deletion of the revisions of the banned users, but I am much less ok with deletion of my own revisions, especially if they belong to a userfied page that was kept for further work. At the very minimum, I would appreciate if the wikicode can be sent to me by email, so that I can use it as a start for refactoring (being a list, the listed items would be the necessary material). Thanks. o 14:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC) - Withdrawn. Explanations on my talk page were enough to understand the issue at stake. I would be nevertheless happy if in the future some more explanation, even if private and partial, can be made when having to delete stuff in this way, for respect towards editors. --o 16:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Cyclopia rearranged the content a little, but did not author any content on this page. I have recommended that they talk to Arbcom before initiating this DRV. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • G5 talks of "substantial edits", not of "authoring content". In any case, I trimmed the thing down heavily and reorganized it. The structure of an article is part of its content, obviously: "Dog bites postman" is different from "Postman bites dog", even if the words are the same. About ArbCom, I am sure User:John Vandenberg will be more than glad to explain here, without omission of detail, why and how I should contact ArbCom: unfortunately in my discussion with him on my talk page and later by email, he asked me to contact it but explained basically nothing. --o 15:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • You need to take John's advice. There is good reason for not posting a lot of detail publicly, so when you're told to contact privately, do that. This DRV needs speedy closure, and you need to listen better. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
      • This is obviously unacceptable. "We know better" cannot be a reason for any admin action -it can never be a reason. Refusing to give any explanation, even privately, for action which (at least) border on being out of process cannot be accepted. It only shows contempt not only for me, but for the whole editors' community. --o 15:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
        • False. Editors elected by the community to bear special responsibility (such as John) or entrusted by ArbCom with special responsibility sometimes are aware of things that cannot or should not be made public. That's just the way it is. You can accept it, or not, but you can't change it, and if you cause too much disruption about it, defeating the purpose of keeping the matter quiet in the first place, you may be sanctioned. You don't have the facts in the matter, and you're not going to get all of them. If you choose not to accept that, you may wish to find another project to participate in. Sorry to be blunt but it's apparent that a softer approach was tried and you didn't respond appropriately. You need to listen better. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
          • I don't need all the facts. It's not a matter of trust in you, but of respect of us. Editors are not dumb sheeps. I only demand enough facts to understand why this is the way it is, and have this settled. At least in private, if public discussion concerns you so much. It also seems I am not the only one to feel that a different behaviour from admins -at least, a bit more respect to editors- would be very much appreciated. Expressions like "respond appropriately" or "you need to listen better" are utterly uncivil when dealing with adult and good-intentioned editors. --o 15:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
            • My read of this is that you were encouraged to contact ArbCom privately before starting this DrV, and you didn't. I'm glad that you're going to try a different tack here, now. No one wants anything unpleasant to happen. It's just that this is an important issue that is difficult to deal with effectively in full public glare. I'd reiterate, the people handling this do have a special level of trust and should be allowed some latitude if they say "trust us, please". I'm sorry for being blunt but it didn't seem like softer touches were working. Can this DRV be withdrawn now, please? ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
              • After your explanation, yes. It would have been that easy if it was explained to me from the start. Next time however please use different tones when dealing with editors. Not softer, simply try not to just assume that anyone will accept that "you know better." and try instead to treat them like sentient people. That's all I asked, after all, from start. --o 16:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Bill Church (Tang Soo Do) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Bit of a strange situation. I've left a message about it for Jayjg, the closing admin, but he hasn't gotten back to me, so DRV seemed the next best step. Basically, the AfD discussion was not fully closed. The AfD involved two articles: a type of martial art called Tang Soo Do Kyohoe, and the inventor of said martial art, Bill Church (Tang Soo Do). Both were nominated for AfD and discussed together in the one discussion. As the closing admin, Jayjg properly stated that the consensus was for delete, but only deleted Tang Soo Do Kyohoe, leaving Bill Church (Tang Soo Do) without any determination. Essentially, one of four things should happen with the latter article: 1) keep (although this shouldn't happen as there is definitely no consensus for that), 2) delete, 3) re-listed for further discussion (or, alternatively, re-nominated in its own AfD), or 4) closed with no consensus (again, I think the !votes were definitely towards delete, so I don't believe this is a real option either). Singularity42 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Tagged with {{db-afd}} x3 18:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Alfredo_Corvino (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

This is a brief biography of an outstanding teacher in the field of ballet and his association with The Juilliard School, which is included in Wikipedia. The editor(s) accuse me of "copy and paste" when, in fact, the article has been re-written several times in my own words. There may certainly be similarities between my article and the various sources used to obtain and validate information. If, for example, I list ballet companies that Alfredo Corvino was associated with and I provide this information in chronological order, which would seem to be the most reasonable and rational way of presenting this information, then it may indeed appear similar to existing references that provide the same information. Sometimes there is only one way to express something - for example: "... died on August 5, 2005...". Can you suggest an alternate way to express this same fact that is both reasonable and rational? Indeed, in my attempt to "rewrite" common phrases numerous times, it is quite possible that an "already used wording" could spring to the mind. That is, after all, a part of how the human cognitive process works.

(Here is a challenge to you - how many really different ways could you write and rewrite you own resume? And how many of those versions would be reasonable, logical and rational?)

My article on Alfredo Corvino contains basically three parts - (1) his training/development (2) his career as both dancer and ballet instructor and (3) his philosophy and knowledge that made him one of the outstanding ballet teachers of the 20th century. The editor(s) seems fixated on the obituary from the New York Times and looking for similarities.

I read on the Wikipedia site that the Editors should "ASSIST" rather than merely "DELETE". You can certainly tell by my membership, that I am a new/novice contributor to Wikipedia. It seems that "DELETE" may be used just to clear someone's desk. I signed on to Wikipedia to find that my article is already deleted without the opportunity to address the issues with the editor.

I recognize that I was in error with my very first attempt at contributing to Wikipedia when I presented a copy of an obituary from the New York Times (newspaper) but in fairness, I had fully documented the article with complete credit to the author, the publication, the date published and even the internet address (http://). (I documented the material in the very same way that I would have done in my thesis or doctoral dissertation.) Instead, I am accused of "vandalizing" Wikipedia!

If there is something specific in my article on Alfredo Corvino that offends the editors, I will be more than happy to attempt another revision. I would appreciate the opportunity to revise rather than have the editor use "copyright violations" and "repeated submisson" to merely push my article out of his or her way.

Thank you. Seamanjg (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• How about making a draft in your own space (i.e. User:Seamanjg/Alfredo Corvino)? Otherwise, I have to endorse said pretty much all deletions as they look like clear copypasta from whichever sources given. Remember that you can use external sources as a source of content but not as a source for your sentences. It's just like in school where plagiarism is very much forbidden. –MuZemike 00:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G12. Seamanjg, I recommend reading through WP:CFAQ, which is very useful when it comes to understanding Wikipedia copyright policy. This passage, in particular, may help you:

Facts cannot be copyrighted. It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, although the structure, presentation, and phrasing of the information should be your own original creation. ... You can use the facts, but unless they are presented without creativity (such as an alphabetical phone directory), you may need to reorganize as well as restate them to avoid substantial similarity infringement. It can be helpful in this respect to utilize multiple sources, which can provide a greater selection of facts from which to draw.

Drafting in userspace may be the best path forward. Good luck. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. Copyvio speedy does not prevent recreation of article on subject, so long as the writing of the recreation is original; each of your variations appear to have been "derivative works" rather than original texts. So get to it, as the previous editor describes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Plain and pure copyvio. No prejudice to creating a non-violating version, of course. Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Copyright violations are not allowed- no matter how notable the subject. There's absolutely no barrier to you writing an article- in your own words; using suitable references- and placing it back. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review and feedback. I believe, based on reading through the responses, that the current problem with the article on Alfredo Corvino is that the revisions I made are still more like "derivations" of existing phrases... similarity infringement... in other words, while I changed words, the structure of the phrases in my article was still too similar to the original material.

How do I address a situation where I may wish to use a direct quote? Is this possible? For example, if I wanted to include a segment of an actual conversation by an individual... such as a direct quote by Alfredo Corvino... can this be done? Sometimes, things are said or written so precisely... so perfectly... that they can not be rewritten and have the same impact.

Although it may not seem like it to you, I really am trying to learn and to do things in a correct manner. What really frustrated me yesterday was that my article was blocked and I could no longer make any modification or revisions... and all the messages from editors accusing me of vandalizing wikipedia! (They did seem a bit harsh.)

I will also explore the second suggestion... drafting in userspace ... I am not sure what this exactly means but I will certainly investigate. I am quite sure that new/novice contributors like me, are a constant source of annoyance and irritation to editors, like you... and I do apologize for any inconvenience I have caused.

Thank you for your time! Seamanjg (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This article, I feel, was wrongly closed by User:Spartaz. The discussion on the AFD was clearly a no consensus, so the close should have been, by wiki standards, a no consensus closure with encouragement to discuss and improve the article (which has been vastly improved during the AFD, largely ridding it of the concerns that caused the nomination in the first place). Instead, the article was blanked, protected, and moved to a new "article" Comparison between Roman and Han Empires/Draft. This arrangement is a de facto delete/userification, and will only inconvenience the reader, so I propose an overturn to No consensus. I previously contacted the user to explain my concerns, but as they have not been addressed I feel DRV is the only proper course. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from closing admin Technically I can't see that DRV has any scope here as I haven't deleted the article and the content remains in the article history so this was a technical keep close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• comment I suppose I could agree with Spartaz that this isn't strictly speaking a matter for DRV. But I think it would be reasonable to say something about what the right forum is in which this use of admin discretion could be assessed. The nom here clearly has a concern, and if this isn't the right place for it, fine -- but Spartaz perhaps you could start your own thread on AN or AN/I to get feedback on whether this method of closing an AfD and dealing with a content dispute is appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Xfd. Do not relist for two months. But what the hell has been done with the mainspace page. A hat noted mainspace blank page? That is not OK. We don't do blank pages. Restore a reasonable version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe and User:Nomoskedasticity, you have stated exactly what I thought; the way this AFD is closed is absurd. I believe that is the consensus here. The dispute here is not whether the article should be kept or deleted (it is clearly keep), but whether a reasonable version should be restored or the current arrangement should continue. I thought DRV was the best place to put this as DRV says it is the place to discuss all disputed "Deletion-related" discussions. (Quote from DRV "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.") If not appropriate, I will put my concerns elsewhere.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: the problem with this article is that it's dreadfully borderline. It's something (I think) that we would all agree is a potentially interesting topic, and something that has a tiny smattering of academic sources, but there's a ton of room for OR given the undeveloped state of the topic in academia. That itself would not normally be a problem, except that Teeninvestor is really very adamant about his version of the article (despite all the fuss and bother it has generated) and will doubtless - as we can see from this DRV - reinstate it as soon as he is given the opportunity. I've read over his 'new' draft, and while it it has removed a lot of the more obvious synthesis there is still a lot of questionable material (as well as erroneous material and copy edit issues) that need to be addressed. On the other hand, as SmokeyJoe points out, we can't really leave it in a blanked, locked state. I'd suggest the following (sorry, best I can do given the peculiar status of the article):
  1. write a quick generic introduction, and add that into the blanked article along with a stub tag
  2. get Teeninvestor to formally agree not to edit the article directly until the article reaches a stable, non-stubbed state (though he can edit it indirectly through other editors, such as the Article Rescue Squadron people).
     • If he agrees, unlock the article and let normal editing create a new version - let him make change suggestions and leave other editors to evaluate their scholarly merits
     • if he refuses to agree, leave the article locked and only allow changes through {{editprotected}} requests
  3. revisit the article in six months and see if anything useful has come of it. --Ludwigs2 02:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The current version of the article is relatively well sourced and although not perfect, errors can be pointed out and edited out using the normal wikipedia process. Banning the main contributor from editing the article is not exactly the best process to improve the wikipedia. It is wikipedia policy only to blank article content that is harmful, such as copyright violation, hoaxes, etc.. The current article is clearly nothing of the sort. The version of the article that caused fuss and controversy is not the current version (which has in fact received the support of many ex-delete voters).Teeninvestor (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
    • it may not be the best process, but when the "main editor" (assuming that can be said in a non-article-ownership sort of way) has demonstrated a broad disregard for wp:OR and a tendentious attitude about including questionable material, then some sort of moderation is required. If you won't agree to self-moderate, then the moderation will have to be done by others. Either way, I don't think it would be appropriate to allow you to blindly reinstate material that is still viewed with skepticism by a good-sized number of editors. --Ludwigs2 03:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Ludwigs2, please give me one example of OR and Synthesis in the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment from nominator. I nominated because there were long-standing concerns from several editors on the talk page; but I feel that the present state, while meeting some concerns, has other fatal problems and said so at length, quite late in the process. Teeninvestor saw and responded to this; he knows my concerns were not met.

This solution is innovative and may well work; DRV has every right to review it, but it is functionally equivalent to Userify which would have been a perfectly routine closure to such a discussion.

Please note that this DRV is immediately preceded on the draft talk page by an inquiry by Teeninvestor whether anybody objected to simply restoring the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh, Pmanderson, it's fatal problems appear to be that it doesn't fit your views; you didn't write a single piece of actionable advice in that diff, instead resorting to personal attacks. This solution is definitely not a routine close to the discussion, which would be No consensus. Work was already being done on the article by several editors, some of which had formerly voted delete, until it was disrupted.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Would it be feasible to place this article in the WP:INCUBATOR and temporarily salt the title in the mainspace, so it can be worked on easily without having that unsightly notice out in the front of the house? (This would retain the current requirement of at least one admin reviewing it and judging the new version ready to "go live") Quite frankly, I think a few red links scattered around is better than having this "stub" out there. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I had no idea that possibility existed, and I think I'd support it. --Ludwigs2 03:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse closure as "stubify and rework" but overturn turning the article into this, which is really not acceptable in the mainspace, as SmokeyJoe wrote above. This is also unacceptable; as WP:SUB states, subpages in the article namespace are not permitted. In fact, one of the explicitly disallowed uses of subpages is "writing drafts of major article revisions, e.g., [[Example Article/Temp]] in the main namespace." I suggest userfying or moving to the article incubator as an alternative. I think "stubify and rework" was a fair read of the consensus, but I also think the closing admin's subsequent actions must be reversed, and soon. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• I have moved the draft to Wikipedia:Article Incubator:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires and properly stubbified the page. I trust that this meets the above objections. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. That stub is much better than the earlier version. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse removing the draft from article space, either WP:Userfication or WP:Article Incubator is fine. I prefer moving the page rather than making a copy, but that's a minor preference. A simple "no consensus, default to keep" would not be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Unless the article is rewritten entirely from sources, the prior history must be kept and should be histmerged, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. I do not see an issue with the close. Tim Song (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse the current status quo (genuine stub, article moved to the incubator). Some of the concerns above about handling of pages in transition are valid, but I think they've now been adequately addressed. Chick Bowen 17:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Sounds all quite technical and surely highly relevant, but I fail to see the point in it. Now the same old contents which were voted for delete, are just copied and pasted by the main author into the incubator only to appear again in the main space. What was the long discussion at the AfD for then? Does the term "article laundry" ring a bell?. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, it doesn't go back up until the problems are resolved and my original intention was to start with a blank canvas. Teeninvestor jumped the gun by starting the draft from his own preferred version but there is nothing lost if a majority of you working on it decide to scrap what is there and start again. The main point is that until both sides of the dispute are happy with the content it can't go back up. That's why I fully protected the page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
    • The editors didn't vote to delete, Gun Powder Ma. The majority of editors voted to keep, and the way this AFD has been closed makes wiki guidelines a scrap of paper. They was No consensus to delete (in fact, a small consensus to keep), so it should have defaulted to keep. As it stands, it is a backdoor delete.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Please read WP:CONSENSUS; it is not about simple majorities. Nev1 (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
        • It isn't, but the arguments from the keep side at least overwhelmed the arguments from the delete side on the AFD, as well. You can tell there's a consensus to keep when several strong deletes are switching to keep and starting a section on the AFD called Salvaging and restructuring. And there's no inherent way that both sides can be happy with the outcome; see Gun Powder Ma's comments on the talk page, where he wants to delete the article because it doesn't let him include his original research about how the Romans invented Yin and Yang and had superior roadssee this link when Gun Poweder Ma argued that not being able to insert his pro roman POV was a reason to delete the article. Teeninvestor (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually took a look at the link (and read Gun Powder Ma's post) and I was simply unable to found anything along these lines. Gun Powder Ma points out that many statements of Sinologist (historians who have studied ancient China) are faulty (perhaps because the scholars in question know alot about ancient China but precious little about ancient Rome). Gun Powder Ma didn't write that he was unable to insert a pro-Roman POV (or anything similar). He correctly points out that historians who have dedicated themselves to only one of the two empires will be ignored in this article because they don't make a comparision between the two. In other words: You (Teeninvestor) are seeing things where there are none. Flamarande (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - I am not seeing an issue with the closing admin's actions. --Coffee // // // 22:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I am not at all a specialist of this subject, and I am also not at all a specialist of conflict resolution in wikipedia. I also don't know the whole story of this so maybe I miss something. I am just looking due to the request for comments.
  • My feeling is that the solutions found are too complex. In my simple knowledge of wikipedia, I thought that:
    • deleting a page needs some good reason for that. This is obviously not the case here, since everybody recognizes that the subject is notable.
    • if there is consensus to believe that this page has a right to exist, then what is happening should be seen an edit conflict and treated like all edit conflicts: those who criticize the version of Teeninvestor should just bring some edit of their own until a final better version is found.
  • The solution that has been found seems to me:
    • a bit unusual
    • a bit one-sided: those who criticize a version should not simply request the guy who had made the work to redo it. They should bring their own modifications.
  • On the wikipedia page about wikipedia, it is written that the growth of the number of pages is slowing and also that "A 2009 study suggested there was "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content."^[1]". When there is such risk I would err on the side of accepting the content.Voui (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse close In effect, saying "stubbify and rewrite" has the same effect as saying "non-consensus"--in both cases, it means, it needs improvements, or it will be nominated again. In this case, it goes a little further to recommend that pretty drastic improvements are needed--but I think that was the consensus of those who wanted to keep it--the basic argument was that the topic was notable, not that the article was satisfactory. DGG ( talk )

File:Hiram Bithorn.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing Admin acknowledgedly counted raw votes instead of considering the strength of the arguments in the face of our police. The votes to keep didn't really addressed the problems raised in the nomination. --Damiens.rf 09:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• There were 3 votes to keep the image:
  1. The first (by the uploader) just stated the nomination was wrong.
  2. The second completely ignored the nomination's concerns and mentioned unrelated policy criteria.
  3. The third argued without evidence the image was PD.
• There was one vote to delete, that reaffirmed the nomination's concerns, and explained why we can't affirm the image is PD. --Damiens.rf 10:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• There was no consensus to delete in that discussion. I endorse the close, because if there's no consensus to delete, then the closer shouldn't have to take any shit from DRV for not deleting. But I do think the discussion itself was unsatisfactory. Damians.rf's concerns were not properly addressed at all. I suggest that DRV should refer this to the copyright noticeboard, in the hope of getting a view from people who understand the issues more clearly.— / 15:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - I also endorse the close per S Marshall's reasoning and believe that an opinion of the copyright noticeboard would be most helpful in this situation. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you suggest we ignore the fact we have no source information other than a home made website that copied the image from somewhere and posted it? --Damiens.rf 21:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete FfD is a debate, not a vote. Yes, there were more "keep" voters than "delete" voters, but the nominator and the other "delete" voter had the stronger reasoning by far. One "keep" voter did not address the policy issues in detail. The second "keep" voter failed to explain how the image could meet WP:NFCC#2 when the copyright holder is unknown. And a third "keep" voter asserted that the image was in the public domain because it was published without a copyright notice – but provided no evidence that that was the case. On the other hand, the arguments for deletion were strong. The nominator and the other "delete" voter both raised valid concerns about the unknown copyright status, copyright holder, and source of the image. The burden was on the keep voters here to show either that the image was in the public domain or that the image met all the nonfree content criteria; they did not, their arguments were weaker, and because the headcount was 3-2, it's not fair at all to say there was a consensus to keep the image. However, while I disagree with Od Mishehu's closure, I commend him for taking on the unsavory task of interpreting consensus at such a challenging debate. Someone's gotta do it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome as accurate reflection of the deletion debate, more or less in line with SMarshall. The debate wasn't very helpful, but I think this falls on the acceptable nonfree use side because the image quality is so low and because much better images are available through Getty Images, indicating market value is essentially nil. Also agree that discussion elsewhere would be more helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse close was within admin discretion. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• XfD, and especially FfD, is not a votecount. The reasons supporting keep were not based in what our policies require, while those supporting delete were. So the result should have been delete. ÷seresin 22:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Theoretical, qualified overturn and comment. This is a major hole in our policy. Theoretically we require the original source--i.e., the copyright holder--while practically we have generally accepted the most immediate source--the place where the uploader got the image--even when that source is pretty clearly violating copyright itself. We are actually violating two policies when we do this: we are linking to a copyright-violator, which is specifically banned at WP:External links, and we are also not attributing the image to its proper owner, which is both ethically and legally what we should do. We should do this also because it is in keeping with our general respect for attribution; one of the great ironies of this site is that we are much more careful about attribution for free content then we are for non-free content! However, I recognize that the problem goes way beyond this one image, and I'm not certain that a single debate over a single image is the way to get us to shape up, when there are surely thousands of images affected in exactly the same way (but the kicking and screaming if those images are deleted en masse will be huge, I'm sure). I don't know the way forward here, I confess, only that the status quo is untenable. Chick Bowen 01:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  "Theoretically we require the original source". Since when? WP:CITE#IMAGE explicitly says to supply the source where the uploader found it, not the original source. -- Zsero (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think that Chick Bowen has largely covered my point of view. I think the correct close was to delete the image , though I am aware that there is not unanimity in the interpretation of how to close such debates. Most, if not all, of the sources I have seen this image at are rather dodgy on copyright—sourcing from them is somewhat dubious. In the case of this image, I believe that it can be sourced (libraries are the key), and is probably (but not definitely) free due to lack of copyright renewal. If sourced then perhaps the new (free) version will be not such poor quality ?. The largest problem here, and with many images, is that the standards have changed. On this point I note that my first upload here File:1829.jpg was dodgy on many counts and yet was uploaded in the belief that it met the criteria of the time - Peripitus (Talk) 10:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, could have gone either way; the close seems reasonable given the arguments that have been raised though. Also, DRV is not FFD part two. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
  • Actually, if we interpret image policies strictly this is deletable as WP:CSD#F4, no source, and the FFD is moot. The debate here is necessary; it is not FFD round 2. Chick Bowen 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

    Huh? It has a source. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. -- Zsero (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - I am not seeing the issue with the admin's closure. --Coffee // // // 18:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per S Marshall, mostly. There is, at best, no consensus in the discussion. Tim Song (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you understand policy-ignorant statements should be ignored while pondering consensus? --Damiens.rf 20:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • "policy-ignorant" and "different from nominator (or closer)'s understanding of policy" are quite different things. Tim Song (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
      • No "different understanding" was ever stated on the discussion. They don't even tried to argue against what was raised on the ffd. That's why they were police-ignorant. --Damiens.rf 01:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• I have raised what I see as the principal issue here at WP:AN. As I say there, I don't think it is appropriate to determine it just in relation to this image, and I am not trying to canvas this debate--in fact I think this close should probably be endorsed for now, even though I am hoping we come to our senses and delete all such images in the future (after, of course, giving adequate time to determine authorship). Chick Bowen 23:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • . . . and just remembered it's some sort of holiday in the goyishe world. So perhaps this discussion will be better held a bit later. Chick Bowen 01:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. Based on the !votes from Tony and Jmundo in the original discussion, which in my view identify the key policy issue re the NFCC, and note that this use is absolutely on-track with our accepted community standards. I also think Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's analysis above here of the NFCC#2 issue is accurate and decisive. Regarding Peripitus's !vote in the original discussion, his comment seems more directed to whether the image was free or not, rather than whether it was legitimate fair use or not. Closer was therefore correct to go with the weighted balance of the arguments presented. Jheald (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "identify the key policy issue re the NFCC"? What do you think about articles using non-free content copied from copyrights lenient websites (that's what the whole issue is about)? --Damiens.rf 16:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it's irrelevant. The issue is whether we (and our downstream reusers) can reasonably use the image legally, not its use on some other completely different website. Giving this immediate source is useful, because it establishes that the image has already been somewhat widely available.

      Policy in this area is set at WT:NFC. The issue of sourcing was discussed at length there in March, here and here, as a result of which the words if possible were re-inserted into policy, to establish that, while deeper sourcing information is a nice thing to have, it is not a requirement.

      Standing advice to XfD closers is to down-weight contributions which are not based on a correct understanding of policy. That appears to be the case with your intervention here. Jheald (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. Closer apparently did not give due weight to policy and may have been misled by the bold bad advice in Wikipedia:deletion guidelines for administrators. (No "in doubt, don't delete" provision can or should apply at FFD or PUF when dealing with non-free content, as we shall see). Wikipedia:non-free content criteria, the policy which ultimately governs our use of non-free content, states that non-free material may only be used when "properly attributed or cited to its original source or author". Nitpickers may argue that this is in relation to non-free text, but if there's a reasonable argument for images being credited in a less strict fashion I don't see it. One need only compare the disparity in the way we treat freely licensed text contributions (difficult to see who wrote what with multiple clicks) and the freely licensed image contributions (attribution prominently displayed just one click away) to see that it can never have been the intention that we should not credit the copyright owner and/or author of non-free images, whatever the badly worded text here may currently seem to say. NFCC closes by reminding us that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale", so reversing the burden of proof which DGFA presumes to exist ("if in doubt, do delete"). While there must of course be an element of subjectivity when considering the ten non-free content criteria, and especially points 1 and 8, there can be none when it comes to providing a source since the policy is very clear indeed in the only statement it makes as to what constitutes a source. The only reasonable outcome here was and is to delete the file in question as it fails to meet the requirements of the non-free content criteria. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Images are not text. You can't quote the policy about text and then say it applies to images because you don't like the fact that the actual policy for images, specifically adopted (as noted above) after extensive discussion and consideration, says the opposite. You might like to reflect on the thought that what adds value to a quote, making it non-replaceable (rather than replacing it with our own paraphrase), is the authority of the person to whom the quote can be attributed. There are other things which make images non-replaceable. Jheald (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse This DRV is not the best place to have a meta-discussion about our Non-free policy. I do not see an issue with the close. BTW, the description page does include two sources as require by policy: "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder" )

Im also asking Damiens to stop nominating the image as speedy delete, and wait for the outcome of this discussion. I'm reverting one more time, but Im not starting an edit war over this, so maybe someone should watchlist the file. --Jmundo (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse It's fair use, so what difference does it make if we don't know who the copyright holder is, or even whether one exists? We don't need permission to use it. If we knew that there was a copyright holder, and who it was, it would be wrong not to acknowledge them; but not being able to do so is no reason to delete the image! -- Zsero (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "It's fair use, so what difference does it make if we don't know who the copyright holder is" - If you don't know who the copyright holder is, how can you tell your use is not replacing the original market role for the material? I agree that "fair use" sounds a lot like "blanket permission for ignoring copyrights", but in reality, they are not the same. --Damiens.rf 22:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Surely you jest. How can this low-quality image scanned from an old newspaper possibly damage the owner, assuming there is one? The "original market role" was to appear in the daily paper; it did so, and fulfilled its role. Assuming there was an owner who was still making money from it, he would be doing so with the original negative, not with this. And assuming he existed and was doing so, we would surely be able to easily find him; how can you do business if nobody can find you? Your question cannot be taken seriously. -- Zsero (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
      • They original market role was to illustrate Mr. Bithorn in some text about Mr. Bithorn. Old images like this usually belong to commercial image banks like Wired, that make money from licensing this image for illustrating texts about Mr. Bithorn. --Damiens.rf 15:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

TestLink (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

I expect that the article was deleted by people who know nearly nothing about software testing or on request of some SW company. I added explanation there: [10] Havlatm (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy close - No reason was given to suspect the closer's rationale was improper. Havlatam is simply assuming bad faith. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn, despite inappropriate comments by the editor who opened this review. The !votes split evenly, making this presumptively a "no consensus" case, and few of the !voters on each side made nongeneric comments, again indicating no consensus. I see the IBM developer link cited by Downsize43 as sufficient justification for keeping the article, absent a consensus otherwise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse and speedy close There is no rationale to overturn the AfD, which was obviously closed correctly. SPA accounts were ignored, ILIKEIT votes were ignored, and sources provided were evaluated by other editors who still said delete. Leaving this open is a waste of time. It is a waste of time leave process open for accounts that want to remain willfully ignorant about basic Wikipedia guidelines. Miami33139 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure The closing admin correctly discarded "keep" votes based on WP:GHITS and WP:ILIKEIT. Another "keep" voter's argument was promptly discredited. The "delete" voters had the stronger arguments, and it looks like reliable sources were not added to the article before it was deleted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Nominator is not assuming good faith and has not presented a valid reason to overturn. There are also conflict of interest concerns based on their comment in the request they link to. -- (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse own close According to the notification on my talk page I took money to delete this article. IN fact the opposing side made highly detailed contributions that demonstrated thorough attempts to find sources and the keep arguments were neither policy based not anywhere near good enough to rebut the well founded policy arguments made by the delete side. Consensus is not nose counting, its assessing arguments against policy and by that basis I had absolutely no basis on which to close this in any other way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hajime Sorayama v. Robert Bane and Tamara Bane Gallery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

On his talk page, Mr. Malik Shabazz, has made it quite clear that he won't brook any differences about a page he has deleted. So although one is encouraged to dialogue with the administrator, I am appealing his decision directly because he has convinced me that I would be wasting my time with him.

The page that I wrote (Hajime Sorayama v. Robert Bane and Tamara Bane Gallery) faithfully reports, with ample footnotes, a federal court case that is of public interest. It is not an attack page any more than the wikipedia page about Bernard Madoff is an attack page. You cannot define something as an "attack" page simply because the page describes criminal or tortious acts that are ruled on by a court of law.

I make no disparaging comments about Mr. Bane personally or his businesses. The ONLY statements about Mr. Bane's behavior are direct quotes (footnoted) from two federal courts.

Nor does the page I created here resemble the Tamara Bane Gallery page which was deleted over a week ago. That page (as I have noted elsewhere) contained contentious material and disparaging remarks. It also did not follow precisely what the federal courts ruled. Mine does.

One reason to delete this page is NOT that it's an 'attack' page, because that's simply not true. Nor can this page be deleted because the information is not verifiable. All statements are verfied. So what is the reason, in that case? Ton-Metallicon (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Before commenting on this debate, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Bane Gallery and the correspondence at User talk:Ton-Metallicon. Personally, I think this user needs told forcibly that, whatever the notability of this case, he is simply not welcome to contrite to articles relating to this subject.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I was the one who originally tagged the article as an attack page. When I skimmed over it, it read read like a page making disparaging comments about one of the parties. I will also point out that this article came to my attention do to an edit on Manga which referenced one of the litigants in this case. It should also be noted that the OC and the person starting this DRV, admitted to being paid to write this "report" on Wikipedia by an undisclosed party, quite possibly one of the litigants, and therefore has a conflict of interest. —Farix (t | c) 02:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Romania – Sri Lanka relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

First, this discussion was previously wrongly closed early (it was closed before 7 days had passed by User:Sandstein) so this discussion didn't get a full seven days to be discussed before it was closed. Second, there was clearly a disagreement about whether it should have been kept. (There was 1 Strong Keep vote, 2 Keep votes, 5 Delete votes in addition to the nomination, and 1 Week Delete vote). Of course, deletion of an article is not just a vote, and in the event that there is a doubt about consensus, the article should be kept. (See number 4 at Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deciding_whether_to_delete.) Third, it was clear that 3 of the delete votes based their opinion on the idea that no 3rd party independent sources existed, something that was clearly not true at the time. (See also further improvements I have made to the article since deletion at User:Cdogsimmons/Romania – Sri Lanka relations.) Fourth, the nominator, User:LibStar, as much as admitted that he had not done a thorough search for sources, despite the fact that the absence of sources was the reason he nominated the article for deletion. He disputed that he needed to do so, despite the fact that WP:GNG clearly says a good faith search for sources is necessary before nomination. Finally, as a matter of policy, the deletion of the information in this article does not serve Wikipedia's general goal of being a summary of all human knowledge. Notability in this situation should really be secondary to the fact that this information is clearly encyclopedic. The deleting administrator, User:X!, did not address the failure to find consensus regarding the "significance" of third party coverage when given a chance to reevaluate the delete .[11] All in all, the result should have been no consensus at the very least. Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn to no-consensus which seems the best I can make from the discussion. It would have helped if the closing admin had given a reason for the verdict. On his talk page he says that he personally doesn't think the subject was notable, which is irrelevant, as he is supposed to be judging consensus. If he judged the topic so, he would have done better towards deleting the article to give a reasoned argument to that effect in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Most of the "delete" votes came in at a time when the sources were not provided, so it is best to allow them an opportunity to re-evaluate those sources. -- King of ♠ 22:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse By simple vote counting, with 7 deletes (including the nom) and 3 keeps, there's consensus for deletion. Taking into account the weakness of the !keeps, that consensus is only clearer: two of the three keep votes don't address notability at all, they simply state that the relations exist; these should be ignored. The idea that early votes should be discounted is, IMHO, ridiculous, as it assumes that those voters weren't following subsequent developments. Maybe they weren't, or maybe we were, but WP:AGF requires that we assume the later. Finally, despite Cdog's good intentions and thorough efforts, none of the sources he dug up at the 11th hour actually qualify as "direct detailed" coverage of the topic of these county's bilateral relations. Notability remains unproven, as argued by a supermajority of the debate's participants.Yilloslime ^T_C 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Supposed early final close was, at worst, a trifling 12 minutes early. Closer's determination appears to be withn administrative discretion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse (as closing admin) - I stand by my decision. I would also like to dispute the comments that I brought my personal opinion into this debate &emdash; I have not. If I made it sound that way, I did not mean it. I deleted it because the sources that were brought up did not satisfy a claim of notability. The notability outlines for foreign relations wikiproject give these 6 guidelines as to notability:

1. They have been engaged in a war.
2. They engage in significant trade.
3. They have been/are in an alliance.
4. They share a border.
5. They have been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict.
6. They have been engaged in a significant trade dispute.

• Romania and Sri Lanka are clearly not in a war, and they clearly do not share a border. There is no significant conflict or trade dispute between them. There has been no formal declaration of an alliance, or at least, none that is covered by sources. This brings us to the last point, which is that they are engaged in significant trade. From what has been presented, there does not appear to be enough significant trade between the two countries to make this article notable. Yes, it's a wikiproject, it's non-binding, and exceptions do exist. However, there did not, and still does not appear to be enough to make this article noteworthy. I am asserting that this close was well within my discretion. (X! · talk)  · @140  ·  02:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - I'm not seeing a problem with the admin's closure. This decision was well within his discretion. --Coffee // // // 02:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse for two reasons. First, because by the number of votes and strength of the arguments, the "delete" side clearly won the argument. Second, because Cdogsimmons' additions to the article in no way demonstrate notability. For those who aren't familiar with this user, he is one of those people who crams articles of this sort with every conceivable form of trivia in order to "rescue" them at AfD. It's odd that, 1506 days into his Wikipedia career, he still understands so little about our notability policy. These comments are a perfect illustration of what I mean. If he truly believes that a direct link to the "PAYMENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF CEYLON AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE RUMANIAN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC", which (obviously) isn't discussed in any secondary source (given that no one outside Wikipedia has even noticed this "topic" exists) constitutes the "significant coverage" demanded by WP:GNG (to say nothing of the inherent WP:PSTS problem there) — well, then I don't know what to say. What I do know is that our articles should revolve around topics the notability of which is immediately apparent through multiple substantial mentions in independent sources, not pieces of yellowing paper sitting in UN archives that haven't seen the light of day in a half century. He may wish to ponder that before he goes on his next expansion spree. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse clear and accurate reading of the discussion, in which the policy arguments for delete were stronger.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Well within the closing admins discretion. It is difficult to see how this could have been closed any other way. Kevin (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. I'm not seeing clear error here; I think a relist along the lines proposed by King of Hearts is perfectly reasonable, but I do not see how the closer exceeded their discretion by not relisting. Tim Song (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Permit recreation at least. The weighting of arguments by closing admin is questionable, given that the keep !votes correctly pointed at the existence of sources, but is indeed within discretion. The article as it is now in userspace however presents plenty of sources and worthwile information, and deserves to come back. --o 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Trout slap the closing admin for not giving a closing rationale, which could have averted the need for DRV. Endorse closure, as the keep !voters didn't adequately demonstrate the existence of significant coverage, and none of the guidelines for notability of relations were met. Scraping together an article from one press article, single sentences in books and some government websites isn't the way to go. Fences&Windows 14:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I see nothing that necessitates a closing statement. I guess he could have rehashed the standard "Consensus is that the topic is not notable enough for inclusion" etc., but the AfD is clear enough that it should be obvious. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• There's no such thing as obvious when there's a contested AfD, especially for these bilateral deletion discussions. Not giving a rationale is practically inviting a deletion review in this kind of case, and to not give one when there are non-SPAs hotly contesting your close just seems bloody minded and high handed. What's wrong or so difficult with explaining your actions as an admin? My trout remains. Fences&Windows 00:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• It might be easy to leave one, but it's never been required, and consensus is that it isn't required. --Coffee // // // 08:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• As I read it, it was consensus that an admin should leave a closing statement in a disputed AfD, but that they need not. Violations of should can result in people calling for the fish. As well they should (or something like that...). In this case it would have been helpful. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• No it was never found to be consensus that we "should", only that it's nice. Frankly, I'm not to much into "nice" getting in the way of simply closing a discussion. As I see it, a lot of the time a huge drama war can be avoided, by not leaving a closing statement. Because people love to read into admin's closures, and find a way to take it to DRV. So there should, IMO, never even be a should clause to adding a statement, as it's decided on a case by case basis. And I'm pretty sure we can handle that ourselves quite fine, thank you. Regards, --Coffee // // // 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, the old "I don't have to explain myself" option. And if I do, people just get mad. I've worked for bosses like that. Oddly people near them seem to get highly annoyed. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• They're only annoyed till they have to fill the position. --Coffee // // // 19:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Endorse the so called "faulty" source finding of my nomination is no reason to overturn. the WP community has 7 days in any AfD to find evidence of notability (ie significant third party coverage). At best, Cdogsimmons found verification of a few agreements not treaties. there is no evidence in the AfD discussion of typical things we have seen in bilateral AfDs that makes things notable such as many state visits, military or economic assistance, significant migration, diplomatic incidents and so on. The article's information better sits in a Foreign relations article in anyway. "the deletion of the information in this article does not serve Wikipedia's general goal of being a summary of all human knowledge" is not a reason for an overturn in deletion review. secondly WP clearly does not cover all human knowledge, see WP:NOT and only entities that are notable. It should also be noted that besides Cdogsimmons the other keep votes had pretty weak arguments with no evidence. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• I do think that before we can endorse an AfD's decision, we need to be satisfied that the AfD properly considered all the sources. If not all the sources were considered, then there's reasonable doubt about the outcome. I agree with King of Hearts that we cannot be sure in this case, so I see "relist" as the appropriate outcome.— / 11:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• weak endorse I think it's not unreasonable to say that the sources were addressed and found wanting in the AfD. That said, I really can't tell what the closer was thinking and wish there had been a meaningful closing statement as it might have saved us from this DrV. Hobit (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse There was no showing that the relations are significant enough to meet the GNG's threshold of multiple reliable sources. Reading this AfD, I'd have been fine with either a 'Delete' or a 'No Consensus' closure within admin discretion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, "Keep" arguments were weak. I'd echo the calls to the closing administrator to pre-emptively explain the reasoning applied when closing any XFD that is likely to be even remotely controversial. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
• Endorse - Closing statement would have indeed been nice, but not crucial. However I think it's an accurate decision. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Odette Krempin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Krempin is honorary consul of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in Germany, an official diplomat and listed as such on the website of the German Foreign Service, 2) the article cited significant coverage in reliable published indepedent sources (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Frankfurter Rundschau, in both of which she was profiled, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Hessischer Rundfunk), 3) the article followed the BLP policy after being entirely rewritten. Hekerui (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. Although I favoured (weakly) deletion, I must note that the first four deletion !votes asserted a lack of sources, but by the time the article was deleted coverage in mainly German-language sources had been demonstrated and included in the article, and the contents of the article had been verified by German-speaking editors. So these initial !votes don't hold much water. Delete #5 by No5oo was incomprehensible. The only other delete argument was from me arguing for deletion on grounds of BLP1E, and that rationale was hotly contested and possibly refuted by several !voters. I think Coffee didn't fully see the evolution of the discussion from an initial run of delete voters changing to a significant run of keeps. What Coffee saw as canvassing wasn't canvassing: the article was raised as a test case at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Non English sources by Off2riorob (who !voted delete) for whether articles can be written using mostly or all non-English sources. That's not canvassing. Fences&Windows 16:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Apparently you weren't looking at the right places for the canvassing. There was an IP going around posting the debate at various people's talk pages. That is canvassing, and some of the keeps actually came from those canvassing links. It's within my discretion to discount those !votes, especially when they say something like this: "BLP doesn't come into this, since there is not a single unsourced negative statement about her in the article." Yeah that's a really rock hard argument for it's inclusion. Aside from the canvassing you had keeps like this one: "Weak keep, add {{current}} and wait for more coverage." Oh yeah I just can't wait to see us do that for every article now. --Coffee // // // 02:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, it'd help if you'd use diffs for proving canvassing as editors don't read minds... Here's the supposed canvassing:[12] An IP editor contacted various German-speaking editors with a notice about the AfD: "Issue w/German sources. Hi. You may be able to help out w/the deletion discussion at this page. Many thanks.--68.173.96.196 (talk) 17 December 2009". If you read WP:CANVASS, you'll see that "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered "friendly notices" if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion". This was a "friendly notice" to some editors who might be able to help with the German-language sources about Krempin. Fences&Windows 03:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Diffs wouldn't have helped. There was no canvassing, as I had already indicated below. German-speaking does not here mean a propensity to vote keep. (and not all did). Does closer have any proper fact or policy-based reason for the close? None have been offered.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
      • The "canvassing" itself looked innocent (and perhaps was), but the !votes that came from it were not very high in knowledge of our deletion policies. Therefore I didn't think they were viable for the inclusion of the article, as they didn't cite anything strong enough for the nomination and original problems to be overrided. --Coffee // // // 05:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
        • It wasn't canvassing. Even "canvassing". It was, as you say, innocent. It did not reflect reaching out to people on one side of the issue. It was classic non-canvassing. As to the knowledge of deletion policies of the German translators; theirs was far higher than the German-phobe (conflating "Nazi" w/"German") and the I-misread-core-policies keep voters. Not even close.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
          • True, but at any rate, the delete's opinions were much more rooted in policy. Therefore they have the consensus. --Coffee // // // 05:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
            • That wasn't the rationale that you gave in your close. And it isn't what all 10 people commenting here believe (including me). You certainly are not impressing me with your ability to respect consensus in this discussion. Instead, you are saying that all 10 of us are wrong, and you are right. Especially as an admin, I would expect you to set an example for others as to respect for consensus here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
              • Please, I beg you to not read into my comments here. What I am simply saying is that even though it does seem that this close will be overturned, I still believe that my decision was within my discretion. I am not saying that you all are wrong, quite the opposite. Regards, --Coffee // // // 05:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. I'm not impressed with the closure, which should be keep, as there is surely no consensus for deletion. At lot of less significant stuff is tolerated on en-WP, so one wonders why this colorful bio draws so much flak? The first five !votes up to Dec 12 are all delete, as the article was badly sourced then. Since, new sources were added to the article, which is reflected by the final five !votes, all keep. Also, I'm puzzled by the emotions of some editors, especially the one who broke Godwins Law. That person should have been banned from the discussion for being way off topic (if not blocked for incivility). Also, it remains a secret why exactly the article was deleted. Lack of notability? Hardly. No English sources? Apparently - and that is quite a slippery slope. Well, to sum it up: Wikipedia is just not important enough (or anymore) to waste time with it. -- Matthead   18:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC) -- Matthead   18:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensuskeep. The worst closure I've seen in many weeks. Well said by the others. The only "canvassing" wasn't that at all -- it was various editors being contacted who listed themselves as having a high level of facility with the German language (after some editors indicated that they had trouble because sources were in German). None of the editors contacted, to my knowledge, indicated a prior propensity to vote keep on this issue or delete. The delete voters here were rife with inaccurate understanding of wikipedia's core content policy, and POV. And even with that, there was no consensus to delete--I was wondering if a thoughtful closer would close as keep (given that delete voters based their views on such peculiar thoughts as suggestions that articles written in German should be discounted because of the World War 2 concentration camps, or based on complete misunderstandings of wikipedia core policies), and thini that is how it should have been closed . No basis for this closure.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus When the closing statement acknowledges that there was no clear consensus, as is the case here, there is no reason to delve into "better" arguments, when the close of no consensus is the obvious option. Simply put, when there is no clear consensus, close as no consensus without interjecting personal biases to judge policy. Alansohn (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn as the close obviously goes against consensus. The only deletion argument offerred after sources were presented was that those sources are not in English, which is a silly, dumbing-down, reason for deletion. Let's get the real issue out into the open here. This is one of a series of disruptive deletions by one of a small group of editors/admins who think that if someone screams "BLP" it means that all rational arguments should be discarded and that anyone who argues for keeping an article is the spawn of the devil. This behaviour needs to be nipped in the bud as it is preventing the building of an encyclopedia, which is what we are supposed to be doing here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep- notability arguments should have been discarded out of hand. Notability was proven and then some. As for BLP1E, it was argued but refuted. Since there were no viable delete arguments, there was no possible reason to close as delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn -- this is "no consensus, default to delete" in all but name. Congratulations to the deleting admin for not actually trying to use that rationale this time, but the result can't be allowed to stand all the same, given that there was no consensus at the AfD for deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn. Clearly no consensus, defaulting to keep, and in the absence of any substantive explanation from the closer the default, reflecting the numerical !voting results, the default result should stand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn An astonishing close. Have Godwin's law and wikipedia's content policies been repealed and replaced by their opposites?John Z (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Closing admin's statement - Woah I thought that AFD wasn't a vote? This decision is well within my discretion. The majority of the keep votes were total crap, some of them saying that just because of only one event that she was notable, 1 even said that they didn't know a lot about what is notable. The delete votes actually cited good policy as a reason for the deletion. I'm frankly starting to get sick of the "AFD is a vote" attitude going around here at DRV. --Coffee // // // 01:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

**I'm starting to think you can't be trusted with closing AfDs. Fences&Windows 03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Struck Fences&Windows 14:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • Second that. Closing an AfD poorly is one thing. When every commenter (ten 12 here so far; including delete voters) has indicated that the closer has closed the AfD against consensus, for him/her to argue the propriety of his close confirms to me that the wrong end of the mop is being used.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • @F&W That's more than a little ridiculous. Considering that only about 1% of my AFD closes have been taken to DRV, I think I'm doing quite well. --Coffee // // // 04:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Admittedly, I've not had prior experience w/you that I can recall off-hand, and am basing my broad conclusion only on two things -- this close, and your reaction to the 10 people who have indicated (without any opposition) that this close was not appropriate. Didn't mean to suggest that my conclusion was based on anything more, but I do think these are fairly emphatic mis-steps; especially the second--the digging in of the heels in the face of unanimous reaction, even from delete voters, suggests to me a problem in listening to others. It's just the sort of thing that would lead people to vote against a sysop-to-be at an RfA. One side point--I think it would be great if we did have stats that showed us how many closes of a closer were brought here, and how many (what percentage) were overturned. As a first step to a review of closing rights.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Well you bring up an even better point. I think I've had only 1 or 2 actually get overturned here. In all honesty, that has got to be the lowest rate for any admin at AFD. I'm not being controversial, I made I close that I saw fit according to policy. I'm actually saddened that Fences & Windows is trying to turn this into more than he knows it to be. I've been more than civil with him, but his constant calls on my conduct are starting to wain on my patience. --Coffee // // // 05:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Actually I just checked, this is the only deletion I've had overturned, and it wasn't even because of how I closed it, it was because the person who the article was about, became more notable. This shows that I'm not near as controversial as Fences & Windows is trying to make me sound. Just because he has disagreed with some of my recent AFD closes, he has usually been in the minority, this is the only time that it appears that a DRV, on one of my closes, that he has !voted overturn in, might actually close that way. Please stop drama mongering F&W, I don't appreciate it. --Coffee // // // 06:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn. I was the nominator. If the discussion would have maintained the course it started on, I would have easily closed it as a delete. However, sources were added that the group seemed to accept as being reliable. Notability is still a grey area to me, but I'd rather err on the side of keeping. She seems to be somewhat of an international figure and errant diplomat who makes the news where she surfaces. I see that the closing statement mentions canvassing, which I have not had a chance to investigate. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• There is a fine line between appropriately discounting comments that are contrary to policies and guidelines, and inappropriately substituting one's judgment for that of the community by picking one side over the other in a legitimate difference of opinion on how policies and guidelines should be applied. The fact that XfDs are not votes does not mean that closers can discount comments simply because they do not agree with them. In this particular AfD here, the initial flurry of deletes argued that there are no sources, but then sources were presented, so the basis for these deletes have vanished. Of the editors who participated after the sources were presented, a clear majority supported keeping on the ground that notability has been established. While AfD is not a vote, and several editors (F&W, for example) supported deletion despite the sources, both sides presented reasonable, cogent arguments that basically involves a legitimate disagreement over the proper interpretation of the notability guidelines. All things considered, this is, in my view, in the middle between a "no consensus" and a "keep". Since it is at the very best a "no consensus", there is no admin discretion to delete. Therefore, overturn to no consensus, at a minimum. Tim Song (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep. Clear evidence of notability was brought during the AfD, and it is baffling how the closing admin has discarded them. The closing rationale makes no sense in light of the AfD discussion. --o 10:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)