Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 10

Real_World/Road_Rules_Challenge:_2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I just wrote a properly sourced new article regarding the latest Real World Road Rules Challenge (which took me a couple of hours.) It was deleted minutes later because of the stated reason: "Recreation of deleted material." While it may have looked at first glance to be a recreation, it was not. If you compare the two articles (which unfortunately I can not) you will see the evolution of the article from when it was nominated for deletion on June 3rd to what I put forth today. The article uses multiple reliable sources, is pertinent and offers concise encyclopedic knowledge.

There was no discussion, and I was in no way informed of the decision to delete. I returned to the page to add additional sources and continue to expand the article, and it was gone. Zredsox (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The prior version was Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel II. That page has been deleted 4 times so far, once under speedy-deletion case G7, twice under A7 and once via PROD (asserting a violation of WP:BALL). It was then moved, deleted with the explanation "recreated content" and the left-behind redirect deleted under case R1. Looking at the content at the time of deletion, it was substantially similar though not identical. The critical difference is the addition of sources. Overturn and list to AFD. Since the prior deletions were all speedy-deletions (and a PROD), criterion G4 can not be used to re-speedy the content. (Case G4 is limited to deletions as the result of an XfD discussion.) While it still appears to me to be a WP:BALL violation, the addition of sources is sufficient that this needs community discussion. AfD is the right forum to make this decision. Rossami (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason, the deleted page history doesn't show it, but Fram is correct that this content was discussed in a deletion discussion closed on 10 Jun 08. I withdraw the comment about G4 since it's no longer relevant. I'll comment below once I've had a chance to review the discussion itself. Rossami (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Zredsox makes a reasonable case for a second look, and Rossami's argument appears sound. If the sources are inadequate, obviously there's no prejudice against sending it to AfD with this DRV linked. Townlake (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Now Zredsox is saying he needs more time to make the article passable. Therefore, no need to overturn the deletion at this point. Townlake (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I am saying is that with more time (a few days) more mainstream and independent sources will confirm the information (even though I personally feel the article is now effectively sourced.) However, I don't want to have to re-write the entire article again in 3 days just to have it deleted again without discussion. I guess my main point is the article as it stands did not have a chance to be reviewed by community. I rewrote the article, and it was deleted less then a day later. I got new sources, put up a new article and it was deleted minutes later. There was not an ample afD period to vet the sources (as there were none until I added them.) MM Agency is in fact a very reliable source in this genre being they directly represent the cast. They have also been vetted by google news and their stories are aggregated under the rules set forth under that syndication program.64.89.250.90 (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So wait a few days, gather your better sources, and perhaps run the improved version by an admin before you try reposting it. Fram's a fair minded admin; I am sure the deletion decision was well considered, especially having read the discussion in this DRV. Townlake (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think I am going to take another hour or two and write the article from scratch for a third time. No one here is saying that the content of the article should change. The argument is about sources and I feel that the discussion has not been fully fleshed out, especially in light of those that were added to the new version of the article which has not recieved a fair community review (in my opinion).64.89.250.90 (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have you asked Fram to send you a copy of the deleted article? Admins can't always do this, but sometimes they can - never hurts to ask. Townlake (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think I will pursue this any further if the deletion holds without further review. It was the first article that I took the time to craft and the level of frustration that I have experienced is just not worth it - but I appreciate the suggestion.64.89.250.90 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The G4 deletion was incorrect, AfD would be the way to go on this. RMHED (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that Fram has shown that there was indeed a previous AfD I can't say whether or not the G4 was correct without seeing the content of the article deleted at that AfD. So am striking my overturn. RMHED (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from deleting admin. First, when you read Rossami's summary, you may get the impression that this article never had an AfD. However, it was deleted at AfD the same day as this recreation was created and again deleted. The page Duel II had been deleted through AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel II the fifth time, but had been moved to the new title "Real World/Road Rules Challenge:2008" (note the lack of a space before "2008") during that AfD. The new sources added after the AfD were closed were this messageboard[1] (i.e. not a reliable source) and this blog from a booking agency[2], which is hardly reliable and certainly not independent. If we allow this kind of recreation hours after an AfD discussion, then this can be prolonged into eternity by adding some new unreliable source to an already discussed article. If these sources were so crucial, they should have been added during the AfD, not hours later. I stand by my G4 deletion. Fram (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no significant differences between two versions, G4 applied. Rossami's mistaken presentation of facts is I assume largely due to User:Fram's misleading deletion summary, citing Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel II instead of Real World/Road Rules Challenge:2008. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I don't think Rossami deliberately ignored the AfD at all, just that he missed it due to the complicated history (three different names) and as you point out, my not too clear edit summary. Fram (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't imply that was your thought, either. No worries, deletions after page moves are often really confusing to keep track of. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, author appears to be using slightly different titles for substantially the same page in an end-run around consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from article creator First of all, the original article that was sent to deletion and the one that was deleted were two different things. While the original story was in afD there were zero sources and it looks like people were just making up the cast before they were even selected. BMP (the show's creator) actually did cast selection only a few weeks ago, so any version of the article before then would be blatantly false. I rewrote the article from the ground up (24 hours before deletion) and then hoped that there could be meaningful discussion about the new source. The article was deleted before ample people had an opportunity to comment on the updated version (with 3 for Keeping and 1 against.) I understand that there were all sorts of versions of this article in the past, but that has nothing to do with the current incarnation and part of the reason I restricted the article to registered users (these type of articles are targets for vandalism.) Being that this article is about an event in progress and new materials were published yesterday, I created a new version based on those resources. The booking agency's article came out yesterday so it could not be added to the previous article. Secondly, the reason the article is significantly like the one deleted is because: That is the cast. It is not going to change with time and there is no way to alter that large part of the equation. Also, the location is Panama. There is is no way to change that, no matter what sources come online in the future. In an unrelated, but important point -I was in contact with the cast in Panama - which is why I took up editing the article in the first place. I know the materials to be correct. In other words, I am working to prove a positive through proper sourcing, and just need more time.Zredsox (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's not true, the version being discussed at AfD had sources, they were just not reliable sources. As is clear from my comments in the discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 18:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There was only one source listed. I added two more, one which I feel holds enough water alone to keep the article. 64.89.250.90 (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There were several sources, one of which was a webforum. Corvus cornix_talk 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There was only one source (Vevmo.com) I even added the source area to the page template, so I should know. When I rewrote the page, I added more sources - although no one ever saw the new page I am assuming beyond the deleting admin. The article proposed for deletion (on June 3rd) was not the same article that was deleted (on June 10th) although there was minor discussion about the major rewrite that I did on June 7-8 - a Consensus was not reached. There was just not time. In fact, 3 out of the 4 commenters on the discussion page after the update wanted to see the article kept and improved (you being the 4th.)Zredsox (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not going to get into a "was too", "was not" argument with you. Admins can see the article's history. Corvus cornix_talk 17:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are correct. They will be able to see there was only one source on the old article and three distinct sources (external to Wikipedia) on the new revision. Where I think you are confused is that Vevmo.com was used as a source about 25 times in the same article (i.e. for each cast member etc.) That is true, but that does not make it 25 sources. Just one.Zredsox (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I am withdrawing my request to undelete. To be honest, now that I have looked at the articles for the other 15 Real World Road Rules Challenges - the one I wrote was one of the most comprehensively sourced yet. That being said, I have nominated most of them for deletion (being they don't use proper sourcing. Actually, being that most don't use ANY sourcing.) I think all reference to the Challenge Series should be removed from Wikipeida unless the articles representing that series conform to the high standards we expect - which includes valid sourcing first and foremost.Zredsox (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 19, 2008 anti-war protest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Consensus was clearly in favor of deletion by a margin of thirteen to six, the arguments to keep were largely baseless in policy which means most of them should have been ignored, the admin claimed that there was validity in the reliable sourcing of the article however that only established verifiability not notability, the article clearly covers a very small protest and the article has a lot of original research and filler based on undeleted protests such as the Berkeley Marine Corps Recruiting Center controversy, the article simply does not establish notability and makes uncited original research claims such as "interruptions at the IRS were evident" and POV issues with extended quotes favoring the subject such as "I'm letting the nation know that the troops are against the war, and that there's a whole culture of dissent and we're letting the nation know that exists." with no opposing quotes. Many editors cited that the article reads like a news article and it does, this was discredited by the administrator due to it being an essay, however it is a frequently cited essay and clearly a policy by precedent. This rationale to keep by User:SchuminWeb states "These events did receive significant news coverage, but this article needs a LOT of work to bring it up to standard. If it sounds like news, that means we just need to go through a few more rewrites." However the user fails to point out any of the claimed "significant" coverage. This argument by User:DKalkin makes no mention of policy whatsoever "I'm not impressed by the current state of the article, but it seems to me that it could be improved so that it would be worth keeping. The March 19, 2008 protests were a break from demonstrations on past anniversaries of the invasion of Iraq in that civil disobedience replaced the mass march completely as a strategy. If the article included some of the context, the debates in the antiwar movement leading up to the demonstrations, IVAW's call not to distract from Winter Soldier, Cindy Sheehan's unsuccessful attempt to put together a unified march, etc., I think it would go beyond a news piece and be worthy of an encyclopedia" And is entirely conjecture providing no policy arguments or any links to the claims he makes it furthermore exposed the protests as dysfunctional unsuccessful and not a single unified event which goes to show that its really minor in scope, User:Nwwaew makes simply asks this question "Does having an article about the event in The Guardian count as notable enough?" with a link to a guardian artile about the DC protest only which does not mention the any other actions mentioned in the article that appear to be coincidence and undeleted to the DC protest, the article she links to only speaks of the methodology used in the protests and shows that it was a small minor one as there wasn't even a march. User:Astuteoak's arguement is entirely as Stephen Colbert once put from the gut not the brain as it is entirely unsourced opinion "The protests in D.C. and other cities absolutely merit an encyclopedic article. The main protest took place on a weekday (3/19 was a Wednesday) and the traffic disruptions, demonstrations, and police arrests drew enourmous attention of people who work in D.C. including House and Senate members. The Iraq war and the protests are VERY significant. Since the protest many Congress members now appear reluctant to be seen supporting the war. On May 15, 132 House Republicans even voted "present" rather than "yes" for supporting war funding. This is unprecedented since the war started 5 years ago" and should be disregarded, User:ragesoss exclaims "Has enough significant coverage to firmly establish notability. The coverage goes well beyond "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism", the types of news singled out in WP:NOT as inappropriate. Even if much less significant than other protests, this and other medium-scale protests are of lasting interest and merit encyclopedia coverage" but again the user herself establishes this as not a major event and calls it medium, wikipedia has no article son medium protests, wikinews does, an argument by 4.88.22.120 that was unsigned by a unregistered user simple said "keep the article" which is not an argument and even if it where unregistered users don't get a say. So off the bat the administrator should have ignored two of these keep votes and that leaves the tally of consensus at 13 to 4 a very wide margin (and broad consensus IMHO), and those are "deletes" based on solid policy and their associated arguments, these include that it fails WP:N, violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOT, User:Ohconfucius argument probably puts it best with "The event seems not substantially different to any of the protests which have gone before; its scale is also not great; currently, there is a lot of superfluous detail which would only appear in news articles but is not otherwise encyclopaedia-worthy" Myheartinchile (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that two different users felt strongly enough to contact the admin independently due to this surprising "no consensus" result.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer. Without delving into the entire nomination, I will re-iterate my position that while there was a majority of !votes to delete, it did not constitute a consensus. The nominator asserts that the keep !votes were baseless in policy - the same might be said for the majority of delete !votes that cited WP:NOTNEWS, which is an essay and not policy. As there were valid arguments in favor of keeping the material (and a reasonable suggestion to merge elsewhere) I felt that the argument to delete was not strong enough to constitute a consensus. Shereth 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NotNews arguments by registered users are far more valid than WP:HOPELESS arguments and keeps by unregistered arguments.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that WP:HOPELESS refers to a type of argument to avoid when arguing to delete articles - it does not have the meaning that you are using it for. Shereth 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, but WP:NOT#NEWS is policy (a part of WP:NOT). Most opiners were citing the policy, not the essay, in fact, I can't see even one that linked to the essay. This makes me unsure how well you actually reviewed the discussion; please revisit this and comment. GRBerry 19:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny the difference a # can make, and in this case the difference makes for some egg on my face - thank you for pointing that out. In my defense, I did review the discussion with due diligence (at least in my opinion), as generally a single character doesn't make so large a change in the result. Allow me a little bit to reconsider. Shereth 19:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. There was a clear consensus to delete, more than two to one. Whilst AfD isn't just a numbers game there was no good reason to ignore the clear consensus as the arguments to delete were well within policy and guidelines. RMHED (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist at AfD. The article is now significantly different from the one at AfD. Benjiboi has expanded it greatly, so I think the only fair thing to do now would be to relist and see what the consensus is for this article in its new state. RMHED (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what a third listing on AFD will accomplish (the AFD was relisted once). It's too soon. As it is, this deletion review discussion pulled in most of the same people from the AFD, and another AFD will just pull those people back over. This whole ordeal has been going on for two weeks now, needs to just end already. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - after reviewing the comment made by GRBerry I have concluded that the no consensus closure is still valid. WP:NOT#NEWS being policy notwithstanding, in the AfD an argument made by ragesoss stated "The coverage goes well beyond 'Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism', the types of news singled out in WP:NOT as inappropriate" in refutation of the argument. On the other hand, the vast majority of those citing WP:NOT did nothing to indicate in what way the article was in violation of the policy, and rather, they simply stated (paraphrased) "Per policy". I still interpret the strength of the arguments to delete versus those to keep to be insufficient to be called consensus and stand by my closure. Shereth 19:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original decision. People need to remember that AFD is not a vote, so while the number of people of various different opinions might certainly be taken into consideration, it is not the end-all for deciding the outcome of an AFD. The flow of the discussion is far more important than the number of individuals involved. "No consensus" was a decision that was properly reached. Additionally, I question whether the nominator has acted in good faith in nominating this article for deletion review, considering that within a day after the AFD closed with a no-consensus, the nominator added a PROD tag to the article, and attempted to add {{Afd2}} to the article (but failed in its implementation) prior to taking it here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did i not act in good faith, i can't see why i shouldn't be able to relist it for deletion by prod, it was removed, the system works, i never attempted to add afd2 the article i simply accidentally clicked save instead of preview as i wanted to set up a second deletion attempt and wanted to write the argument first then list it, but i changed my mind in favor of deletion review when the prod was removed and decided that was not the way to go.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is the diff showing where you attempted to add the {{Afd2}} tag. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...and here is the diff showing where he immediately reverted his own edit. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. WP:NOT#NEWS leaves a very wide swath for editor discretion (it only mentions "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" as the kinds of things that are explicitly inappropriate), and the idea that most of the keep comments were "largely baseless in policy" a poor characterization of the actual comments. If wants to pick nits, many of the delete comments were even less policy based. The discussion was about the spirit of WP:NOT#NEWS and where the line should be drawn, and there very clearly was not a consensus that this article runs afoul of the spirit of it. (It certainly doesn't run afoul of the literal policy.)--ragesoss (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete - notability is only an indicator, not a free pass. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn closure (delete). I think this was a good faith attempt to close the discussion but it does not appear that the closer gave consideration to the pattern of comments. All opinions offered after the relisting recommended deletion except 1 anonymous comment (which was properly discounted) and one early commenter who declined to change his/her early opinion. Those opinions were expressed in light of all the previous evidence and comments. The article itself did not change substantively during the relisting period, leading me to believe that that the later opinions are a more reliable indicator of the community's collective judgment in this case. This was clearly a close decision and I can not fault the closer but I do read the consensus differently. Rossami (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Zomg the IRS workers looked out of their windows!. Clearly a rack for hanging coat chaped anti-war slogans on. Completely non-notable as a separate article, which is what notability is all about. It warrants a few lines somewhere else, and that's all in my opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overtun and delete As I said in the AFD, "Wikipedia is not the news. Momentary headlines do not make for Encyclopedic notability. Just another anti war protest. It is not notable, and putative usefulness of the information is not sufficient to have an article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We are an encyclopedia, not the Anti War Movement Archive/Annals/News." In evoking "notnews," I for one was saying that there is no notability and that all there was to the article was a recap of the news. While the others in the discussion should have more carefully phrased and justified there arguments, the lack of notability is clear. Stating that we are "not the news" was a statement indicating a clear evidence lack of notabilityor significance. Furthermore, the "keep" arguments failed in their attempt to assert either notability or significant media coverage. While one make argue the weakness in basing deletion on WP:NOT, the keep arguments were weaker still. Finally, the original delete nomination argument-- lack of notability or significance, was not refuted in any of the keep arguments. Some made arguments of usefulness, or claimed a single mention by the Telegraph met the requirement for significant media coverage. It did not. There was an argument of some sort of inheritable notbility because other protests were notable that was not convincing. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

comment, have i mentioned the Washington Times calls the protest "limited" "Protests marking the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war today included no Hollywood stars and drew only a fraction of the tens of thousands that typically come to the nation's capital to protest wars."[3]Myheartinchile (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do Hollywood stars make or break a protest? Many notable protests have lacked "star power". Not incredibly relevant here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh and lets not forget various users insist on considering the Berkeley Marine Corps Recruiting Station Controversy with this article, and at that it is laughable, since the sources say that the police outnumbered the protestors![4]Myheartinchile (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I for one agreed with that removal on its face, because unless there was something special about the Berkeley demonstration on March 19 compared to other days, it should get a bye here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. As Iraq war protests go, this is fairly non-notable. As most it warrants a mention within Protests against the Iraq War. As a matter of perspetive, consider whether a similar individual protest against the Vietnam War would be covered in an individual article. The arguments in favor of deletion are well-founded in policy (including WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTE). Further, as 'a series of autonomous actions', rolling them into a single article is highly questionable. The arguments made to delete are sufficient in both merit and relative number (as compared to arguments to keep) to establish consensus. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and expand. This is more than news and the article would do well to compare how these coordinated protests paled in comparisons to the original massive worldwide ones. This is a good example of how wikipedia can cover a topic that paper encyclopedias would have to justify space for - a thoughtful look at the subject and meaningful content is available as the protests took place at least throughout the United States and likely elsewhere. It may make sense to instead move the article to Fifth anniversary anti-war protest as it seems the first, fifth, tenth, fifteen, etc anniversaries of events get extra media coverage as this did. This article is a split off Protests against the Iraq War and remerging the material into that already huge article seems also unhelpful but cleaning it up and ensuring content is relevant would be. Banjeboi 21:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
• Kill that article! The article was obviously kept under inexperience, bad judgement, personal bias, and/or, at worst (probably not), intoxication; consenus clearly pointed to Delete. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as no consensus; this AfD is a complete zoo; many people seem to be in favor of deletion, but others want to keep the article. In the original AfD, I voted to delete the article, but it doesn't appear there was clear consesus here. Some of the other voters here have said that the keep votes in the AfD were baseless. Some of them were, but others did have base and were contributed by registered users. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So, was that comment phrased to be as incendiary as possible? If it was some attempt at humor it came across very poorly. Shereth 02:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left him a note suggesting a rephrase. Dlohcierekim 02:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn closure (delete). I entirely agree with the comments of User:Rossami, who incidentally did not participate in the AfD. I believe a consensus existed to delete of 13:4. Of course, the views of an single purpose account and an anonymous IP editor's views are rightly automatically discounted. One also pointed to a Guardian news article as being evidence of notability, but that article clearly frames it in terms of the war's 5th anniversary. Whilst I agree that a lot hinges on the subject's plentiful news coverage, it was obvious to me the news reports were not sufficient to confer a real-life notability out of context of the Iraq War and the ensuing protests, whether sporadic or regular, whether concentrated or dispersed. The two arguments that the article "could be improved" should not be allowed to over-ride the landslide majority view - aside from neutralising its newsy tone, and severely pruning back into a stub by removing the original research and bias, I do not see any improvement of the article is possible by its existence independent of the abovementioned context(s).Ohconfucius (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've just started doing some research and there seems to be little shortage of reliable sources for this - if anyone finds anything please leave a note on the article talk page and I will add it ASAP if no one beats me to it. Banjeboi 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Consensus was clearly to delete per WP:NOT NEWS, there was no consensus anywhere else. In this case the debate was misinterpreted by the closing admin. MrPrada (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn & Relist I was going to vote overturn & delete according to AFD consensus, but my opinion now is heavily influenced by the status quo, as March 19, 2008 anti-war protest is currently a nicely sourced article and has been dramatically improved compared with the version that got nominated for deletion. I think the new version doesn't fail WP:NOT#NEWS, but that matter is for another AfD to decide. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete The consensus in the original AfD was to delete the article, especially as several of the keep votes were WP:CRYSTAL violations (eg, that the article should be kept as these protests may one day be judged notable). Nick Dowling (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close for now or barring that relist The article is well-sourced and I'm not sure there's enough of a NOTNEWS issue to justify deletion. PeaceNT makes a good argument for relisting. JoshuaZ (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. There's plenty of consensus to delete and both sides had several "votes" which could be discounted (e.g. by IPs). Stifle (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If this is deleted could you please userfy it to me so I can rename for 5th anniversary and repost? Thanks. Banjeboi 10:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
• Comment. Has anyone given the article a look-over again recently? Benjiboi has done a great job reworking the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual added detail about the actual protests that took place are just as insignificant as the ones there originally, and only serving to underline the lack of notability of this 'day'. A pink bed being rolled down a street? Come on. The rest of the additions are pure article bloat, with more free advertising for protest groups, more coatracked slogans and quotes, more backstory content which is duplicated in many other aticles, e.g. the bits on Sen. Feinstein, the bits about war spending etc etc. The stone cold fact is, the addtitions are not adding to the notability of the subject title, and merely starting to make it look more like an indiscriminate list, so the ultimate result might be merge elsewhere for some parts which don't deserve their own article. MickMacNee (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That bed being rolled down the street was one chapter of the national group Code Pink, and that action was one of dozens that day in Washington DC so it seems appropriate, it's sourced and simply lets the facts speak for themselves. ___ happened. I'm puzzled that it seems like an indiscriminate list, at all. These were coordinated protest events done to highlight the 5th anniversary and, so far, the only events I added all occured on the same date although significant events also were held prior to and after the same date. Banjeboi 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki WP:NOT#NEWS states that Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. There is nothing in this article that says anything about the impact of the demonstrations. And nothing stated in the keep votes indicates that there is anything to say. Even so, wikinews could likely use the article as, as the article has far more content than [5]. So deletion should not take place before a transwiki process has been carried out. Taemyr (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article is a split off Protests against the Iraq War and it also does delve into how the protests were widespread and more thoughtful perspective on what impact they had is likely given they were covered by nearly every major news outlet. Were they as significant as the 2003 protests, no, but the sources and thus, article delves into possible reasons for it. Banjeboi 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus closure and therefore default keep per fairly strong arguments to keep (it's not a vote). Organized and referenced article with real world notability and interest. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Delete It is always a pleasure to agree with editors of the caliber of Ohconfucius and Rossami, who (inter alia) have clearly expressed the reason for reversing this close. Eusebeus (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wow, that really has been expanded since the original AfD. It'd be kind of pointless to delete it now I suppose. I need to put that rescue tag on all of the school articles that get nominated for deletion if it works that well! GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, I have reviewed the article since the AfD. No, I do not think that the changes have addressed the fundamental concerns raised in the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete I rarely see the point of overturning a no-consensus close, since the article can be renominated; but this article had already been relisted, and all newcomers to the discussion had spoken for delete. So would I, except that I thought the deletion would be so obvious it would be unnecessary. DGG (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus since the article has changed a bit since the AFD, and is tagged for more work. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus because... it's clear that there wasn't a consensus. More substantively, I object to the characterization of my quoted comment as without basis in policy. The logic here seems to be that if an editor cites WP:NOT#NEWS to argue for deletion, that's based in policy, but if a second editor gives reasons why WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply, that's not based in policy. This makes no sense. Kalkin (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This would set a troubling precedent for what is a "Clear no consensus". Keeping an article like this, when you have 12 or so delete !votes (8 of which say the same thing, e.g. consensus, which in and of itself is rare), and only 4 keeps (1 of of which cannot be counted) and calling that no consensus? Meanwhile, you have notable biographies, articles with much more value then in this case, that have say, 7 keeps, and 4 deletes, and we seem to default to delete just because the four editors said "Not notable". This makes no sense to me. Certainly the widest standard of inclusionism I've yet encountered at two or so years at AFD/DRV. I still this the consensus was not correctly identified in this case, but if we are going to uphold the decision, then this will certainly set a precedent for future deletion debate that I for one will refer to both at AFD, and here if the articles are deleted. MrPrada (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn/delete. The AfD looks like a consensus to delete, and the 'article' deserves no better. Relisting would only create yet more heat. dorftrottel (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus - If they want to relist for another AfD I would have no objections, but the first one had enough people who thought that historical relevance was sufficiently established. I've got my concerns about recentism, but at least it's worth saving the edit history and keeping a redirect page. --Explodicle (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus/keep the article due to the great improvements in the article during this deletion review which have made this a worthy article and not the same one that was considered in the AFD. Davewild (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Considering the current breadth and depth of media coverage demonstrated in the current, expanded version of the article, there is not longer any real question of either non-notability or WP:NOT#NEWS violation. The original close could have gone either way, although I think the closer made the better choice. At this point, keeping or relisting are the only options (and relisting will almost certainly result in a near-consensus to keep). I'd like to think this article would make people think twice about knee-jerk deletion nominations based on WP:NOT#NEWS for anything except things that are similar to what the actual policy says is not appropriate, but I'm sure that's too much to hope for.--ragesoss (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would tend to agree that there is often a fine line between what is newsworthy and what is notable, as the existence of news articles is most frequently used to argue in favour of the notabilty of a subject. However, I am not convinced there is anything "knee-jerk" about this particular AfD. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as no consensus per above. Closing admin followed policy. no consensus to delete in AfD Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 02:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as no consensus. The arguments that this is a WP:NOT#NEWS violation are clearly no longer true, if they ever were. The article has been so vastly improved by Benjiboi since the nomination that it's not the same article. Very well sourced and of continued national importance as indicated by the 2008 election issues on Iraq and press coverage. There was no strength of argument in the delete votes, and clearly aren't now. The closer followed consensus. — Becksguy (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Under Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This book passes WP:NB #1 with multiple third party media mentions: [6] (e.g., [7] [8]) and its author, James Dobson, is truly quite notable. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The deleted stub contained no references, and appears to consist solely of original research by a reader of the book. I'd bet you can write a better article without making much effort. Any new article with references or content about the sales or critical reception of the book would not be a recreation eligible for G4. The closure of the debate was correct. GRBerry 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza delivery in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hello! I have serious concerns with this closure. Closer originally said a "majority" in his closing rationale; it is NOT a vote. And as a discussion, the ending of the discussion is that the article had been cleaned up in such a fashion that editors now believed it should be merged or kept. There was absolutely no consensus to delete here and I strongly urge you to either relist or close as no consensus. Please note that near the end of the discussion a request was made to "Re-list the new article if you must; I doubt it'd get the same negative response that the earlier article did" after which two editors argued to keep and only one was still in the delete camp. Most if not all of the deletes were made PRIOR to the improvement. Once the improvement occurred the discussion changed course dramatically. Thus the actual discussion ended with a consensus to keep or to discuss further, but aboslutely in no way could that have ended in delete. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The word majority is not a bad word. At times, a majority is an important part of a consensus (while not in all cases). In this case, the number of !votes did not play a large role in my final decision. Mainly. The concerns addressed by the delete !votes that it was an article full of trivia and orignial research did not appear to be addressed (albeit through the inherit subject of the article makes it hard to address them). Even though references were added and cleanup was done, the consensus at the AFD, as it was, was to delete or merge/delete or merge in some way. In other words, the AFD appeared to be about the idea or concept of the article, and none of the keep !votes appears to succesfuly address these concerns. I stand by my orignial closure. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus after the clean up was unequivocally to keep: "Keep per WP:HEY. The article as re-written by GRC in the last couple of days is in every way superior to to article that was nominated. The article everyone disparaged above is gone by virtue of the rewrite, and the rewritten article should not be confused with it or deleted in its place. Re-list the new article if you must; I doubt it'd get the same negative response that the earlier article did" and "Keep per excellent improvement. The newly-added refs show coverage from credible sources and verify notability needed for a detailed article, as opposed to a section in another (already long) article." Sure you had your initial pile on deletes, but once the article was improved, the consensus was unquestionably to keep at that point, with some minor suggestions for a possible merge, but aboslutely was there no consensus to delete and if as you say you think the consensus "was to delete or merge/delete or merge", then that meets there was not a clear consensus, as that's three different possibilities. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I view Delete and merge/delete as effectivley the same thing. If somebody wants to merge it, I am ok with that, I will provide a copy of the article, I do not have a problem with that. Lets see what the rest of the community thinks though instead of just you and I going back and forth. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If someone wants to merge than the article also would have to be restored per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • IF somebody wants to merge it, I will kindly do a histmerge as well. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which would still also need a redirect as it is a valid search term. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some of it already was merged before it was deleted. I favor just restoring and redirecting, but if you want to histmerge that's fine too. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure Quite a reasonable close. That anybody can source the various "pizza delivery occurred in X" claims for all sorts of media X is neither surprising nor relevant. To avoid being original research, an IPC article needs sources that are about the phenomenon in popular culture, rather than about media X, Y and Z. No sources with significant discussion about pizza delivery in popular culture were found and added to the article or mentioned in the AFD. The article remained original research without relevant sources, and was quite properly deleted. GRBerry 18:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relevant sources were found and so in was improperly deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at the sources. They weren't the type of sources needed, which I describe more fully above. The ones that were added range from a low of sales sites for a specific movie to reviews of a specific movie. None contained significant discussion of the article's topic. GRBerry 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which are at least sufficient for a merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per GRBerry, the closure seemed perfectly reasonable to me. Shereth 19:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A discussion that concludes with near unanimity after a major improvement to either keep or relist is not a reasonable closure as delete when even the closer indicated that it was a possible merge, i.e. if that's possible, than there was no consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as a error, because the closer did not show any indication at all that he took any account of the drastic improvement in the article. When something changes this way neart he end of the 5 days, a relist should be the usual way of dealing with it. Had the views not changed, we'd be spared the DRV. DGG (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A relist sounds adequate. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist There was a clear change in opinion after the changes were made to the article. This makes a relist of the debate to see what the consensus is on the new version the sensible course of action. Davewild (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist article had been improved and sourced. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist There were 5 !votes after improvement, 4 keeps and 1 merge, that's reasonably enough to tell which outcome the debate is heading towards. It doesn't seem to me that this AfD was forming a consensus for delete; closer could have been more careful and looked at the timestamp. Also, considering that all delete voters (except the nom) gave no real argument and expressed clear discrimination against this type of article, not "I tried to find sources but nothing turned up" votes, there's no evidence (or even assertion) from the debate that the content is unsourcable, which makes User:GRBerry's point about sources, though fair in general, invalid in this case. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. There was no consensus established to justify the closing decision. MrPrada (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• While all articles with "in popular culture" should be deleted in my opinion, the improvements to the article during the AFD suggest that relist would be appropriate. Were it not for those improvements and judging all "votes" as they came in, I would endorse. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure Close was reasonable and the issue of sourcing remains a concern, as does the general unencyclopedic, trivia-attracting quality of the IPC genre. Eusebeus (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close was unreasonable and the sourcing issue was adequately resolved regarding this encyclopedic article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Eusebeus (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn closure and list to AFD. Comparing the versions as they were on 5 June and 9 June, I would hardly have called the changes "dramatic improvements" - they seemed like pretty incremental changes to me. Nevertheless, the pattern of comments at the end justifies at least some additional discussion. Rossami (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No opinion on the closure of the AfD itself, but it appears that NickPenguin merged some of the content to pizza delivery, and merge and delete is bad. So, in order to keep in line with the GFDL, we should, at least for now, restore and redirect to pizza delivery. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, I'm that is not necessary. The article under review was removed from pizza delivery in the immediately prior edit of that article. If you go back one more in the history to get the two edit diff containing the removal and Nick's restoration of content you get this diff. Checking, the new paragraphs in Nicks version of pizza delivery were not in the deleted article; they are Nick's work in that merge. So no contribution history is lost. GRBerry 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Arbitrary popculture topics are not what we're here for. dorftrottel (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, as I said at the end of the AfD we have an article on pizza, and an article on pizza delivery. The pizza delivery article is the place for the pop culture infomation. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn PeaceNT summarizes the matter well. At most this would have been a no-consensus defaults to keep. I don't object to relisting either. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist IPC is a tricky area on Wikipedia. Sometimes they're horrible articles, then sometimes they'll surprise the crap out of ya with something really good. With that in mind, I think continuing the discussion would be a good idea. Alternatively, if relist/overturn doesn't gain support, I think userfication should be tried. -- Ned Scott 03:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Although I would also support Relist. LGRdC is correct, the closure was unreasonable as it appeared to be more about vote counting and there were significant keep arguments even before before the article was rescued. Further, several of the deletes appeared to have insufficient or no arguments, Reductio ad absurdum argument (...capture every time a pizza is delivered in a book, movie or TV show.) or cutsie-pie comments (Delete in 30 minutes or less) that should have been discounted. The trend had clearly moved overwhelmingly toward consensus to keep, per WP:HEY, after the article improvement by LGRdC, with sufficient sources, including the unimpeachable NYT article. Sourcing and notability is no longer a concern. Referring to IPC content as "trivia attracting" is indefensible per WP:CRYSTAL. And even if there was some so-called trivia, that's for a consensus editing process to deal with, not article deletion, per WP:DEL. And yes, it is very much encyclopedic, as noted before. — Becksguy (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Note that all the delete votes were cast within the first two days, before the article was rescued. Overall, of the 15 votes cast, 8 were Delete, 5 were Keep, and 2 were Merge. Obviously not a supermajority (requiring 10 delete votes), in fact, barely a majority (53% for delete, 8 of 15). And not even a majority after discounting the two delete votes without any rationale provided (46% for delete, 6 of 13). And the arguments for deletion that rested on WP:TRIVIA fail, as the information was neither disorganized nor indiscriminate, rather it was "organized by logical grouping and ordering of facts" to provide cultural context to pizza delivery. I see no compelling arguments to delete in the AfD and I disagree with the nominators argument that the keep votes didn't address the delete arguments. I think they did more than adequately, certainly after the article cleanup, as shown by the shift in voting and rationale provided, including an argument to Keep per WP:HEY, which is exactly what improvement during a deletion discussion covers. A closure of No consensus in the AfD would have been acceptable, although there was stronger support for Keep. — Becksguy (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like a copy of this article emailed to me. I think it might be redeemable. Cretog8 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• E-mail content to user. No reason not to. I am curious what sorts of things you think you can do to it, though. Anyways, cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Please update your preferences with a valid email address, and I'll be happy to email the contents of the article to you. Shereth 15:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Boey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|DRV1|DRV2)

I am submitting this article for review and reinstatement based on the edits that were discussed in the previous deletion review. Thank you. Succisa75 (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Succisa75[reply]

• Note: fixed malformed DRV nom and added links to previous DRVs. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Second note: Succisa is asking if the userfied version here can be put back into mainspace, in case that isn't obvious. Cheers, everyone. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• not yet The only real references for notability seem to be the pages in http://www.danielboey.com/img/press and I can't tell the actual sourcesDGG (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I repaired some of the links. Was that the problem with notability or is it something else? If so could you explain in more detail what you are looking for? Thanks Succisa75 (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Succisa75[reply]

• Keep deleted, very little non-trivial media coverage. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (Keep salted) Persistent disruptive attempts to recreate this rather vain article of a person whose notability remains to be demonstrated. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Thornton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|

I am submitting this article for review and reinstatement based on the edits that were discussed in the previous deletion review as well as new news found by google on Mr. Thornton. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.46.67 (talk) 16:20, June 10, 2008

• Comment - Could you provide a link to the prevoius DRV? I seem to have lost it. Thanks. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. No reason provided to overturn. Previous DRV can be found here, but I removed it since it lacked a reason to overturn. Nom doesn't tell what the "new news found by google on Mr. Thorton" is or why it overrides the AfD. You may feel free to open a new DRV if you can provide sources to establish his notability or have found fault with the closing of the AfD, but please at least provide a valid reason. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]