Administrator instructions

Skip to: Active discussions | Recent discussions | Archive

Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

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 a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here.

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

What is this page for?

Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.

Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).

The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in main part of the page — please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.

Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:

1. The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
2. The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
3. The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.

Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

History-only undeletion

Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.

Contesting 'proposed deletions'

Request this if the article was dealt with as a 'proposed deletion'. A 'PROD' can be restored by any admin upon reasonable request. Such an article may still be deleted at articles for deletion or under the criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators restoring deleted articles should also restore the associated talk page if it exists and place {{oldprod}} on it. {{ProdContested}} (shortcut {{subst:PC|articlename}}) is available for notifying the original nominator that the article has been restored.

How do I do all this?

All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision). There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.

Click to create a log page for tomorrow (27 July 2008)

Active discussions

26 July 2008

25 July 2008

Broad homeland hypothesis

Broad homeland hypothesis (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I closed this AfD but one of the people who contributed has asked me to list this here for further discussion. He said on my talkpage:

Before requesting a review, I ask you to reconsider the following:

• Six votes in favor of keeping
• Of the ones that voiced their concerns, FIVE (Merzow, Mathsci, DBachmann, PhilKnight aka Addoc and Doug Weller) have a history of escalated clashes with the main contributor of the article (me) involving severe current as well as reluctantly resolved (apparently) content disputes (4X), mediation disputes (2X) and personal attacks (4X).
• Of the ones that voiced their concerns, only TWO are active on archeological articles. Only ONE is aware of the PIE homeland-related literature at issue. My kind explicit and long standing request to this most violent and influential attacker to supply the requested diffs to back up claims of WP:SYNTH and take things from there [1] has been ignored and thus should be seen as rhetoric and personal attack.
• Two voters for keeping qualified the nomination as "content dispute"; additionally one voter for keeping criticized the obvious clash on what would be the "best" theory, and with me this makes four.
• Seven against six is no indisputable headcount consensus for deletion: rough consensus?
• The topic, describing the common linguistic ancestry theory that involves a "broader homeland", has been defined and described extensively in reliable sources. Nobody openly doubted the reliability of names like Lothar Kilian, Häusler and especially Mallory. Thus, there is no lack of sources that define this topic and comply to WP:V.
• Sources have been compiled, not synthesised, within the scope and definition of the topic: the theory of common linguistic ancestry of archeological cultures delimited by the broader homeland according to Lothar Kilian. To contest this, is a matter of content dispute that can best be resolved by expert review and third party "neutral" verification of sources.

I suggest the article is deleted because of a content dispute and personal agony, using wrong arguments that compromise objectivity and fact, and that it should be restored. Any true doubt on the content should be resolved by expert review and constructive discussion on TALK. Thank you. Rokus01 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Listed for review. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Article has evidently had a lot of fair scrutiny, consensus to delete was reached after very carefuly checking of sources by some of our most competent editors, in whose judgment I have full trust. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Future Perfect at Sunrise. I consider several of those who voted for deletion to be Wikipedia's best experts in the field. They have my full trust, also.--Berig (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  I object to the counsil of Berig: he has been involved in personal attacks, stalking and alliances ever since I criticized his use of out of date books and maps that favor antics on a Germanic homeland in Scandinavia by proposing an obsolete deluge theory. His mentioning of "best experts on the field" (archeology) is in contradiction to my statement above and does not specify. Rokus01 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a court of law, you don't get to object to people. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The debate was, in some ways, obscured by a content dispute but underneath that, the core issue raised by those arguing for deletion was never successfully addressed. No reliable, independent sources were ever produced demonstrating that the topic actually exists outside Wikipedia. This decision was well-within responsible admin discretion for closure. Rossami (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

the obvious confusion between topic and title should be addressed. I addressed the validity of the topic, even to the extend that the theory was notably qualified as one widely accepted theory by a reliable source. The suggestion to discuss the title by one of the voters has not taken into consideration.Rokus01 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (I was the AfD nom). I looked long and hard, and so did several respected editors active in science WikiProjects, and none of us could find any reference to the "broad homeland hypothesis" in any academic source. It is a creation of Rokus01, a synthesis spun together out of speculations by academics regarding alternatives to the Kurgan hypothesis. However, most of these alternatives are not yet named, it seems, and certainly none are named the "broad homeland hypothesis". This is original research at its most sneaky, particularly because on its face the article looks encyclopedic. - Merzbow (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Sneaky", this is suggestive to the atmosphere created and fail to substantiate the main accusation: that the theory would lack any academic source. I really don't understand how people that uphold an outstanding reputation dare to put this at stake, unless they are confident that nobody would ever verify their insinuation. So why did I mention a respected and much cited book like "In Search of the Indo-Europeans - J.P.Mallory, Thames and Hudson 1989, ISBN 0-500-27616-1", where all can read about it? Or "The Oxford Companion to Archaeology - Edited by Brian M. Fagan, Oxford University Press, 1996, p348 - J.P. Mallory, ISBN 0-19-507618-4"? I can't accept that this contradiction is settled by the word of one against the other. The theory is mentioned there, extensively, and thus an existing topic. To make a false statement on this is a very serious offense. Rokus01 (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You've been asked many times to produce quotes from academics that define a theory called the "broad homeland hypothesis". Neither of those books above do so. - Merzbow (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You know very well it was Lothar Kilian's theory, and also that it was the theory that tied together Corded Ware with Kurgan culture into one "common linguistic ancestry theory" that brought both cultures together into one single "broader homeland". Knowing this, you should come up with the proper question: "How the academic world refers to this theory?" Because it does, else it would not be "widely accepted". It was the "widely accepted" thing that triggered your nomination and now your offense is that you deny the existence of notable sources referring to this theory, even when they are explicitly quoted. You should have been honest and nominate this article for not complying to WP:NAME and nothing else. I could have proposed "Kilian's theory", but just like the actual Steppe theory doesn't "belong" anymore to Gimbutas (except for those too ignorant to be cited) due to countless contributions of others including partial refutals; just like this example, in my opinion the name Kilian is immaterial to the course this theory took afterwards and nowadays. Still, the theory rather deserves an unfit name than deletion. You should have proposed a better one, since you are the criticaster to the one I proposed. Rokus01 (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Mallory says that some theory for which he provides a description but no name is widely accepted. He also describes several other theories with notable support. Again, the theory is not named - you gave it a name and decided on one definition. We do not know if other scholars who are talking about something that appears similar means they are talking about the same theory. I would suggest a new article called "Alternatives to the Kurgan Hypothesis" and have sections named after each notable scholar, listing their descriptions of the alternative theories. The Anatolian hypothesis seems to be the only such alternative that has a name and a definition, so that can be in its own section. But you cannot cite multiple scholars in support of an unnamed undefined theory, which is what you did in this article. - Merzbow (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. I nearly closed this debate with the same result, and obviously I agree with the close. I don't see any procedural issues with it. Shereth 22:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn since even its possible over-enthousiastic compiliation does not justify the complete obliteration of a topic that is sourced, valid and that treats an existing theory, even cited as widely accepted. Rokus01 (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn I should have gone back to work on it, but among the possible sources are Colin Renfrew,Archeology and Language: the Puzzle of Indo-European Origins Cambridge Univ. P, 1987, which discusses the earlier history of the field. The discussion at the afd was based on a total misunderstanding--this is an older and now rejected theory, now being espoused again without any sound basis. The article was POV as if the theory was correct, but that needs editing, not rrfejection of the article, because as an older theory, it was still notable. DGG (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, debate was correctly interpreted, concerns of WP:NPOV and WP:SYN were not successfully addressed by keep advocates. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AFD process was followed correctly; the article was pure OR. —Angr 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Ratskeller in Bremen

The Ratskeller in Bremen (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted 22:37, 22 July 2008 by User:Craigy144, though I started the translation of the German version. See the year 1405 in the List of oldest companies and the links Bremen, Town Hall of Bremen, Wilhelm Hauff etc.

House1630 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn, bad A7. Article contains many assertions of importance, such as being the oldest wine cellar in Germany and housing the oldest wine barrel in Germany. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Clearly not a speedy deletion candidate with several assertions of significance such as "With its history over 600 years the Ratskeller of Bremen is the oldest wine cellar of Germany". Davewild (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Buildings do not qualify for A7 speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Misapplication of A7; the speedy deletion criteria are intentionally narrow in scope, and widening the net even slightly is inappropriate. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn A7 does not apply to buildings and it asserted notability anyway. Hut 8.5 09:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg

Image:Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD | article)

Misjudged "keep" closure of a non-free screenshot image. The closing admin failed to assess the validity of the keep arguments on the basis of policy. All keep votes (to the degree that they contained a tangible argument at all) argued essentially only that the a certain fact (Indiana Jones appearing as a scout in a movie) was important. None of these arguments, however, addressed the crucial issue of NFCC#8: in what way is the image important in order to understand this important but simple fact? According to NFCC8, the image itself (not simply the fact it illustrates) must make a crucial contribution to the understanding of the article. This in conjunction with NFCC#1, which explicitly states that facts that can be made understood with text alone cannot be used to justify an image for illustration. Some keep votes simply asserted that it made such a contribution; none of them explained how it did so.

The admin closed the debate with a blanket statement that it "[m]eets Wikipedia:NFC requirements" without explaining how such a finding resulted from the debate.

The closing admin also failed to address the issue of which articles the alleged keep consensus was valid for. The image has been claimed for as many as five articles: Scouting, Scouting in popular culture, Uniform and insignia of the Boy Scouts of America, River Phoenix, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. (Of these five, Scouting isn't covered even by a fair use rationale, but nevertheless the image was immediately restored to it after the close of the IfD; rationales for River Phoenix and "Uniform and insignia..." were removed during the IfD.) Even if one were to concede legitimacy of use in Scouting in popular culture, on which most keep arguments focussed, use in Scouting is blatantly unnecessary, as it merely replicates its use in the detail article (hence illegitimate under NFCC#3); while its use in the film article must be assessed totally separately. It's one thing to say that the image is necessary for a discussion of the role of scouting in popular culture; it's an entirely different thing to say it's necessary for understanding a certain plot element in the film (which, quite blatantly, it is not.)

Therefore: Overturn and delete from all three articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Relist. There were serious challenges to the fair use rationale. Could use further debate. A proper close requires far more explanation. If there is no consensus that the various fair use rationales are solid, should the image be deleted, or does no consensus mean keep, even in these cases? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse There was no consensus to delete and so the correct process was followed. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • False. Non-free-content related IfDs have to be closed based on policy, not just on consensus. The closer needs to explain exactly how the image fulfills the requirements and how the challenges posed by the delete voters have been met. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse the close, but remove the image from the two articles it clearly does not belong in (the Scouting ones). This isn't IFD part 2, so there's no need to argue the details, but a valid argument exists on both sides and I can justify a keep, at least for the article on the film. In the other articles, though, it's just there to pretty it up, and there are already several other, better images used as examples. On a side note, the copyright is falsely attributed to the Boy Scouts, not to the filmmakers, and used under the idea that the BSA gave permission to depict their uniforms on Wikipedia. This permission wouldn't apply to this picture. This should be fixed. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This just goes to show how poor the result of that IfD was. I would argue to the contrary: If anything, the "Scouting in popular culture" article has a relatively stronger claim to legitimacy. In the context of that article, one could at least argue that the fact of Indiana Jones appearing as a scout had some significance. In the context of the film article, that fact plays absolutely no role at all. That he goes through some adventures as a boy is important for the film; that he does so in a scout uniform seems to be of no significance. The IfD failed to clarify even these basic issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse and leave wherever a reasonable argument shows it relevant. If it is relevant to show him going through the adventures as a boy, it has to be shown with him wearing what he wore in the film- or it doesnt serve the purpose of providing context. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude in a close that all of the contexts listed made sense. DGG (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that the image shows nothing of the sort. It doesn't show the adventures. Whatever it is that it shows, it doesn't help me to understand the film. If the article had some analytical commentary about the acting or the casting, regarding the actor they chose to play the young Indiana, that might provide an angle for an NFCC case. Just him staring at that object is simply nothing of any significance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Actually, looking at the article again, I now notice that it does discuss the casting: "Ford personally recommended Phoenix for the part, citing that of all the young actors working at the time, River Phoenix was the one who looked the most like him when he was around that age". Now, if the image could be linked to that bit, I guess I could actually support it here. But remove from the other articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse The image does comply with the NFC policy but only on the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade article. IMO Its use on the other articles really is trying it on. RMHED (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep closure, but the image should really be used only in the one article, per RMHED. Stifle (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and figure out exact limits of non-free use, and delete if no legal use is found. Certainly (and per above) no reason for use in Scouting articles has been given. Kusma (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse This received due process and was discussed for one week. All sides articulated their views thoroughly and Dreadstar rightly concluded that the image's use satisfied NFCC for the two articles where it is presently used and where FUR are provided, namely Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Scouting in popular culture. Having said that, however, I have added additional content to the latter article and the associated image FUR to address Fut.Perf.'s concerns, to clarify that this is a notable example of Scouting in film, because the fictional Indiana Jones' career as an adventurer is depicted as having its beginnings as a Boy Scout, wearing an authentic early 20th century uniform. Mere prose alone cannot possibly convey this conceptualization and context adequately to the reader seeking to understand the imagery of Scouting in film. JGHowes ^talk - 23:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Saying so don't make it so. Just making that assertion over and over again won't help. Tell me exactly, what piece of visual information in the image is it that would render the article incomplete? (And no, your recent rewording doesn't help it either.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak endorse - there's a rough consensus for the image to be kept, but I have reservations about the image - mostly, where the supposed cross is. I can't see it full-size. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse my own closure of this IfD. I was asked to provide more detail. This was an IfD, which are focused on whether or not to keep an image on Wikipedia, not which other articles it should be included in. Once the decision has been made to keep the image on Wikipedia for any article, then basing the decision to include in other articles should be on case-by-case talk page discussions, consensus, and policy. But I’ll be happy to address the other main article, because I did weigh both very carefully.

1. The two strongest articles to consider for appropriate fair use of the image are Scouting in popular culture and the article on the film itself, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
   1. There is no doubt in my mind that the image fully meets all criteria for inclusion in the film it is taken from. The image illustrates a key plot point, a significant event in the life of the title subject of the film. Clearly this is a significant image from the film, depicting major elements of the character’s history and makeup, showing us the beginnings of an iconic fictional film character.
   2. Indiana Jones is clearly an iconic pop culture figure, and the image of him as a Boy Scout during the formation of what later becomes the adventurer-archeologist is a notable and a true poster-child for Scouting in popular culture. In recent years, it’s very difficult to find a pop cult figure of such magnitude, and as pointed out by others, there seem to be very few images of Scouting in film; with virtually all of those copyrighted as well, so the choice is between one fair-use image and another, or having no image. I think the image adds a lot to the article, and is a clearly notable illustration of the Boy Scouts in pop culture.
2. The image meets all ten Wikipedia:NFC#Policy criteria for use of the non-free image. For the film article, as well as the Indiana Jones reference in the Scouting in popular culture article, there is no free equivalent. Indiana Jones is an iconic pop culture figure, and scouting was a major plot point of the film, this image cannot be replaced by a free one that carries the same effect. The film itself was the top grossing film of 1989, The image provides a visual context that text alone cannot convey, so textual representation cannot replace it. The image use is in no way likely to replace the market role of the original.
3. It also meets minimal usage, minimal extent of use, previous publication, and media-specific policy. It meets the one-article minimum, significance (addressed above), restrictions on location, and has an adequate image description page - containing proper attribution to the source and copyright holder.
4. Image use also meets Wikipedia:NFC#Images requirements, 8: Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. The mage is clearly used for “discussion of the cinema and television” in both the Indiana Jones film and Scouting in popular culture articles.
5. The image also does not fail under any of the WP:NFC Inappropriate use of images criteria.

Dreadstar † 01:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Showing a significant plot point is simply not enough. You claim that "textual representation cannot replace it". Saying so don't make it so. Of course it can. As long as the claimed justification is just the thing about scouting. As I said above, I can see a different angle of justification elsewhere, to support the commentary about casting. Now, that really is an analytical statement that needs visual support to be understood. That's the only reason why I'm prepared to let this DRV rest. But I can't let this misrepresentation of policy pass uncommented. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the criteria used is often of interpretations, different interpretations does never mean misrepresentation of policy. The interpretations by Rlevse, JGHowes and closure rationale by Dreadstar above, convinced me that this image should be used on both Wikipedia articles. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 12:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Turners Falls Road Bridge

Turners Falls Road Bridge (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closing admin apparently did not check the state of the articles before deleting. While the original articles prior to the AFD were indeed lacking, significant improvements have been made during the AFD that satisfy the requirements of WP:N. --Polaron | Talk 03:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Overturn for all six articles. It seemed to me that the concensus of the discussion was to keep the articles. Agree with above statement that closing admin did not review articles for improvements made since nomination. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn for all - The consensus was overwhelmingly to keep the articles and as pointed above, the closer didn't seem to notice improvements made to them. --Oakshade (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn all Sources were added to the articles during AFD but unfortunatly nobody seems to have mentioned this on the AFD. Sources added addressed the policy grounds for deletion - WP:V - and provides an arguable case for notability which many of the contributors to the AFD accepted. Could see a reasonable no consensus close but considering the changes to the articles during the AFD, delete does not seem to be appropriate. Davewild (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn all. Certainly improved by the time of closure. Ian¹³/t 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn There was no consensus and the closer seemed to impose his own personal view rather than defaulting to keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn I can't see a consensus to delete in that discussion (no consensus might have been better), and nobody discussed the improvements made to the articles. --Hut 8.5 13:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn all - per previous comments - Denimadept (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I only notified the admin about the deletion review but have not discussed the matter prior to this review. Is that really an absolute necessity though? The deletion review is by nature a discussion in which the closing admin is specifically invited to participate and also reaches a few more people than a one-on-one discussion. --Polaron | Talk 19:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It's customary, at least, to discuss the matter first with the admin as oftentimes they will realise that the deletion was in error and restore the page there and then, without having to go through a five-day listing here. It's also common courtesy, I think. Thanks for your quick reply. Overturn deletion per all above. No consensus to delete (or, for that matter, to do anything else) is discernible from that AFD, and the standard result in that case is a keep. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Open Web Foundation (closed)

24 July 2008

Category: Jewish anti-Zionists

Category:Category: Jewish anti-Zionists (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionists is a category that exists. It's not a POV magnet yet this one was deleted because it is? Also, more votes requested a keep than delete.Comradesandalio (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC) -->

• CfD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_2#Category:Jewish_anti-Zionists

• Comment. Part of the closer's rationale "There is nothing to stop editors from creating cited lists with this material, and that is, by far, a much more appropriate way to include this information in Wikipedia" is contrary to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, specifically "These methods should notbe considered to be in conflict with each other". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Closing admin was correct in his explanation. Consensus is not and never will be a vote count. --Kbdank71 15:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Consensus is not a vote count, but the closing admin, if he does not agree with the general balance of rational arguments, must join in the discussion and let someone else close. Consensus foes not mean whatever the closer happens to think is the right arguments. The closer is not to evaluate according to his statement: "the arguments made during the discussion must be weighed against any relevant policies and guidelines", but just to discard the arguments not based on policy. We are qualified individually to decide what is or is not policy, but balancing them is not an individual matter. The community, not the admin, decides which policy is controlling and when to make exceptions. Incidentally, the reason I did not participate in the CfD was that i thought the matter was too obviously a keep to need my arguements also. DGG (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• So you're saying 50 people saying something like "Keep, because it's been verified that Joe Politician humps dogs in his off-hours" trumps WP:BLP? After all, both are policy. The closing admin can and should weigh the arguments made, and should not be pigeonholed into "is it policy or not?". Because then we're just back to counting. --Kbdank71 16:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn there was no consensus to delete. Admins closing rationale is fundamentally flawed. RMHED (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per Kbdank71. Because there is no way (that I am aware of) of providing a citation to justify someone's membership in a category, it is not possible for this category to comply with WP:BLP. Not opposed to recreating as a list, which can provide citations. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, closer's reasoning is compelling. This is too contentious and too nuanced to be handled by a category. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelli Martin

Kelli Martin (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article subject has been the subject of multiple independent reliable articles, interviews, and other sources. User:Orangemike speedy deleted while initial article version was being drafted. Other editor had nommed for speedy deletion earlier, but seemed amenable to waiting for initial draft to be completed with reliable sources, etc. I recreated the article after Orangemike's deletion, left him a talk page message, and left a note on the article talk page asking for community discussion on subject's notability. He summarily deleted article again and protected it. I have asked him to undelete and submit to AfD for proper sense of community consensus. The sources were in notable newspapers and one was published by a major cable television network. DickClarkMises (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The following sources appear (from a cursory google search) to be independent of the article subject, suitable under WP:RS, and readily verifiable:

(1) Pre-PR sources: newspaper article, newspaper article

(2) Post-PR sources: newspaper article, newspaper article, and TV network bio

(3) Self-published (suitable for establishing non-controversial biographical details like birthday, etc.): auto-bio

• Overturn There was enough coverage in reliable sources provided in the article to make at least an arguable case for notability and thus not a good candidate for A7 speedy deletion. Could see an AFD going either way but is not the clear cut case required for speedy deletion. Davewild (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn This is the point where it should go to AfD. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Userfy or List at AfD. Either needs more time, or deserves nore consideration and explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Regardless of whether it will survive AfD, it passes speedy, and that's all we need discuss here. DGG (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• List at AfD, which is, I guess, the same as saying Overturn. I am the editor who "seemed amenable to waiting for initial draft to be completed with reliable sources, etc."; I was planning on re-examining the article today and submitting it to AfD if it seemed appropriate. I don't believe this article can meet the guidelines of WP:REALITY and I believe that the AfD will determine the outcome of this in a fairly permanent way, which is what I would like to see happen -- regardless of the outcome. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment WP:REALITY does not have consensus support in the community, and the subject of this article clearly meets the WP:BIO standard for notability, which is as follows: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." DickClarkMises (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Everyone could've saved themselves a lot of trouble (still could) by just redirecting to Project Runway (season 5), and expanding her listing there. All of her notability thus far has been in connection with her participation on that show. Postdlf (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment This assertion, that the article subject's notability is entirely related to the television show, is clearly incorrect, as the sources linked above demonstrate. DickClarkMises (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Pre-PR, all you have is local coverage of the local boutique she opened. Whatev, if that is enough for you. Postdlf (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Postdlf: True or false?: Multiple sources independent of the article subject and otherwise meeting WP:RS requirements existed prior to the article subject's role in Project Runway. The answer is "true." Surely you aren't suggesting that participation in a reality series makes one less notable?!? I was under the impression that our community-created guideline on the topic said Notability is not temporary. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and send to AFD. Enough assertions of notability there to avoid an A7 speedy. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Even if it fails speedy, I can't see any justification for over-ruling a {{hangon}}, as I understand happened here. That's for the bad stuff, not mere judgement calls over notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Think About Life

Think About Life (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am bringing this here at the suggestion of the admin who closed the AfD, as I have found multiple sources that were not mentioned in the discussion; see below. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Requesting overturn as per the following, copied from User talk:Waggers. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Waggers. Would be be open to restoring this article you deleted? In the deletion discussion no one actually said they had made attempts to search for sources to establish notability. Yet sources exist as follows:

• "Think About Life's Van Pelt Builds Miracle Fortress", Pitchfork Media
• "Miracle Fortress and Think About Life Tour Eastern Canada", Exclaim! magazine
• "Dream team: The pop-culture pick-up games of Think About Life", Montreal Mirror
• "Accidental plan: Things go wrong the right way for Miracle Fortress", Montreal Mirror (it's about Miracle Fortress but has verifiable relevant content to add to Think About Life)
• "Fortress of solitude, Montreal Gazette (ditto)
• "Triple threat, Hour
• "Think About Life: L'Urgence de la Pop", Voir
• "Think About Life: L'harmonie du chaos", Voir

(All of those were found with Google.) There's also (found in my library):

• Dunlevy, T'Cha. "Raw, corny and somehow compelling. Let's Think About Life", Montreal Gazette, p. D3, 2006-06-08. (A 700-word article entirely about the band, with the most relevant content to add)
• Wenzel, John, "15 buzz bands at small to midsized venues", Denver Post, p. F4, 2006-04-30.

Thanks! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore based on new evidence (original closure was correct one based on the AFD). New sources providing significant coverage, which were not found during the AFD, which now appear to establish notability. Concern of the AFD was the lack of sources which has now been addressed. Davewild (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore looks like good sources to me. I'm actually a little sad that I could find a number of reasonable sources by going to Google and typing '"Think About Life" band' in both news and web. While AfD close was fine based on comments, folks probably should have spent a few more moments before !voting. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion These sources are more than enough to establish notability and make a half-decent article. Paragon12321 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - these sources appear to meet WP:RS, and establish WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore based on new sources, notability established.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - I wouldn't have deleted the article if the above sources were included in the AfD discussion. Waggers (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse the admin's closure based on the information available at the time, but now overturn and relist to get a view of the community consensus based on the new sources. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment – Looking over others' comments here, I may be in the minority with this viewpoint, but I think it is improper for an administrator to close a discussion as "delete" (per lack of sources to establish WP:N) when none of the AfD comments explicitly said, "I attempted to search for sources and could not find any." As Hobit pointed out above, sources were easy to find in this case. I don't like encouraging !votes that are akin to WP:JNN ("just not notable"). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Commando Krav Maga

Commando Krav Maga (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reliable references were added and advert content was deleted per original reason for deletion. All logos have been removed and only factual information remain in the latest article that was submitted Combatsurvival (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse (nb: I conducted one of 3 speedy deletions post-AfD, not at the original article location, but at Commando krav maga) - I don't think much has changed since the AfD (i.e. addressing notability). The new article was certainly bigger, but contained a huge amount of content but with little referencing (bar the introduction) or indicators as to why it was important, and still seemed rather biased to me. I think any encyclopedic notability can quite easily be covered by a small section in the main Krav Maga article. Ian¹³/t 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. I, also, was one of the admins who speedy deleted the article at the original location. Non-notable, mostly unreferenced/OR. Tan ǀ 39 14:3