Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 12

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

DAY-UMN!! This article was nominated for deletion at 00:43 GMT, and deleted at 04:17; I wish I could have at least looked at it to see if it was truly THAT bad. The only place this was on in primetime was here in America (middle of the night in Europe). In the USA, a forum that goes on for less than 2 and a half hours (on a Saturday night, no less) is not much of a debate. I'm sure nobody in any other time zone was looking at it either. This is a little too quick on the trigger, I think. Mandsford 01:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawaii Nation. Endorse snow deletion. -Nard 01:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not averse to re-opening this and re-listing; even a snowball can last more than 4 hours, when it's a geographically sensitive snowball. --Haemo 02:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• As closer, endorse snow deletion. I restored the history and the nominator of this deletion review is free to look at it. In addition, I think consensus was adequately reached, with unanimous support for deletion (other than the author). Singularity 03:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist Because 4 hours is not enough for everyone to respond. Corpx 03:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• endorse snow deletion --JereKrischel 04:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy relist, I understand WP:SNOW can be applied from time to time, but 4 hours isn't long enough. --Coredesat 08:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, reasonable call given the high level of redundancy here. Redirecting is obviously the way to solve this. >Radiant< 08:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy relist Four hours is WAY too short enough for everyone to respond -- in fact I am even unclear what the article was specifically about. Arjuna 10:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It was about Hawaii, which incidentally we already have an article on. >Radiant< 12:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It is not about that, but rather about giving the creator + contributors a chance to respond Corpx 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, and that's not how it works. We don't set arbitrary minimum lengths of time that issues must be discussed, especially not for issues as clear cut as an article fork. >Radiant< 08:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Well, actually it was about Kingdom of Hawaii (all dates in article from this period) perhaps the Republic of Hawaii and most significantly the History of Hawaii, to the extent it was about anything that actually ever existed. It is pretty obvious that the article didn't belong in Wikipedia on a stand alone basis; the sourcing offered might merit a sentence somewhere. Keep deleted as the right decision was reached, but award the closer a trout for closing so early. GRBerry 13:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the trout. Singularity 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse snow 4 hours or not, it clearly didn't have a snowball's chance in hell in surviving the AfD. More time wouldn't have changed the results. --Farix (Talk) 13:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak endorse the closure. It is fairly evident where this was headed, but I have to second GRBerry and say that the closer ought to be trout-slapped for the exceedingly quick closure. A little bit of patience helps to avert situations where these things are brought up on DRV, sent back to AfD and ultimately get deleted anyway. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Although the closure may have been too early, I can't see or imagine any arguments that could have kept this from deletion. --- RockMFR 17:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep deleted. Quoting from Hawaii Nation "The Hawaii Nation (or Nation of Hawaii) is and always has been a sovereign and independent nation defined by a physical land mass in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with agreements, contracts, and treaties with other nations. This particular Wikipedia entry is NOT related to the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement nor is it related to the State of Hawaii." and the massive POV continues from there. JoshuaZ 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Nothing would have save this one and it even WP:SNOWs on Hawaii. Carlossuarez46 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion in light of the POV problems. This wouldn't have survived the AFD. --Coredesat 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Meets_notability Darbyrob 08:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC) The Wikipedia page for Breaking Laces was deleted by Coredesat after a very short deletion review with only 5 other people. 1 person said keep. Two others gave no valid reason to delete, and not a single one of them mentioned anything about notability requirements. For band notability, this article states that a band must meet "any one" of 12 criteria. In the discussion page of the deletion review for Breaking Laces, I pointed out that the band meets five of those criteria:
1) Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.
- Because you have a hard time obtaining the CMJ charts from a year ago and three years ago doesn't mean Breaking Laces doesn't fit the criteria. They charted the CMJ Top 200 National charts with two different albums, Sohcahtoa and Lemonade. Its a fact.
2) Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.
- Breaking Laces toured the UK in October 2005 and are now booking a second UK tour for Newyears/january of 2008. The folks at CMEAS.com organized the tour and can forward you reliable sources that reported the tour.
3) Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
- Drummer Seth Masarsky toured as a member of Melissa_Ferrick's band. If she is not notable, then maybe you should remove her wiki as well.
4) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc...
- Breaking Laces just landed a spot on the soundtrack for a new documentary coming out titled "Waiting For Hockney". It may not be a major release, but will hit the indie film circuit. The song they are using is "This World" off of the album Lemonade.
5) Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
- Breaking Laces have been in regular rotation on XMU (XM Channel 43) since 2003. Their first live set (of 2), and also songs from all their albums, have been played heavily on XMU since 2003. You can contact Tobi, who runs the station, directly at XMU to get confirmation of this.

Breaking Laces may not be on the tip of the 5 deletion reviewer's tongues, but they do meet at least the required one of the notability criteria. I kindly request reinstatement of their wikipedia page, otherwise I'll accept an explanation as to when and under what criteria they may be able to have a page. Thank you.
Darbyrob 08:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse closure Seems like consensus was reached for deletion based on the available discussion there. However, no objections to Relisting AFD an an option. Navou ^banter 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure; from the looks of things, the article didn't give enough reasoning to be kept, and thus the closure of the properly run AFD looks legit. A rewrite wouldn't be amiss, however, as it does look like there's enough reliable sources to indicate the band has some semblance of notability. Ensure that the sources are available in the article this time, however - verification of the tours, media coverage (not gig lists), etc. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• 'Endorse the closure, but with no prejudice to restoring for some sourcing by the nominator of this deletion review. --Haemo 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - DRV is plain wikilawyering. Will ^(talk) 19:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was merged into Allegations of apartheid, and pointed as a redirect. ChrisO deleted without discussion under this argument "No need for this redirect - nothing in article space links here". However, I think this is an incorrect reasoning for speedy delete, as redirects also serve to populate search engines, and are also search terms. I do not think he acted in bad faith, but I think he acted hastily on a topic he is an involved editor with a deletionist POV for most of the articles, and most of the articles merged into Allegations of apartheid that have not been subjected to AfD redirect to Allegations of apartheid. I am proposing overturn and if anyone wants, lets have an RfD. Thanks! Cerejota 06:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, while the redirect is implausible and has no incoming links, since the article was merged, the redirect and history have to remain for GFDL attribution purposes. To the nominator: You may want to reconsider your wording about whether ChrisO acted in bad faith, as first you say you don't think he did, then you call him a deletionist with a POV against these articles. --Coredesat 07:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I clearly stated that ChrisO didn't act in bad faith, so I do not understand your admonition: you can act hastly in good faith! My point is clearly that because of his involvement, an RfD or a proc might have been better than a speedy delete, or he might have asked another admin to do it... If you are concerned about recent vitriol (which I described as "witchhunt") towards him by other editors and admins, he can attest that I defended him against uncalled for attacks in the past, and have a general good opinion of him. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm happy to undelete it if needed. For the record, it was deleted under CSD R3 ("Redirects from implausible typos or misnomers that were recently created"). I wasn't aware that the content had been merged, so I take Coredesat's point about the GFDL attribution requirements. -- ChrisO 07:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Then please do so! Thanks!--Cerejota 10:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. :-) I think we can close this DRV now... -- ChrisO 15:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Deprecated and orphaned templates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a completely new deletion process, basically a prod for templates, started based on "consensus" of only a few editors. When I brought it up for deletion, the discussion was speedy closed. As noted on WP:DOT's talk page, "Mistakes have been made." Mistakes based on deleting templates outside the normal avenues. This is a non transparent process, known to only a few editors, operating completely outside the deletion policy, run by a few admins. Why is it that I cannot submit an out of policy page to the deletion process, but the page is allowed to operate outside the deletion process? -Nard 04:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:TFD has very few editors, period. I don't think this is particularly "out of policy"; it basically just lists deprecated templates for a period, then deletes them. In fact, it would be counterproductive in many respects to list them on WP:TFD, since that would (in general) lead to a much quicker deletion. However, this isn't really a WP:DRV issue here -- it's clear that people on WP:TFD have come to a consensus about how to handle articles of this type; if you object, I would suggest talking to them on the talk page, rather than just trying to delete this. This is, in my opinion, basically the "content dispute" equivalent on a policy-action page. --Haemo 05:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• As per my comments when I speedy closed this, I neither support or oppose this process, but don't support using WP:MFD as the venue to determine the validity of that process, that is what project talk is for. The discussion area links in the deletion debate deal directly with the editors involved in these decisions, and should be sufficient to determine if this should be accepted or {{rejected}}. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Well, there is some precedent in using MFD to terminate (generally "esperanzify") undesirable processes. Nevertheless this seems like something better resolved in getting more community feedback. Drop a line on the village pump and admin board and see what people think of it. The new process is not a priori a bad idea. >Radiant< 08:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, reopen, and relist. The closing rationale that "MFD is not the venue to determine the validity of a new deletion (sorting?) process" is unfounded. MFD is precisely that and more. MFD is a venue for judging the appropriateness of pages in the project namespace. I can understand speedy closures when it comes to established policy and process pages like WP:NPOV or WP:AFD, but this is a new process that had seen almost no discussion prior to its establishment (certainly not enough to justify a new deletion process). We should allow that discussion to take place at a central location (like MfD).

I also want to note a contradiction in the fundamental principles of the WP:DOT page. On the one hand, it states that the page is "only for templates that would unquestionably qualify for WP:CSD#G6". On the other, it requires a 2-week waiting period. If a template is an unquestionable G6 candidate, why not just delete/tag it on sight? If a precautionary 2-week period is required, then it's probably not uncontroversial housekeeping and should be sent to TfD. As currently set up, the process seems like instruction creep that is mostly redundant to the speedy deletion policy. Its net effect, I think, is to complicate deletion processes and reduce the transparency of template deletions.

Even if a proposed deletion process for templates gains consensus (by the way, such a proposal failed to gain consensus at WP:PROD a few months ago), there are more efficient ways of doing it than this. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It did not fail to gain consensus; it merely failed to gain interest. One of the major complaints was that it is difficult to define the circumstances under which a template might be considered deprecated, or the circumstances under which an orphaned template might be considered unneeded. In WP:DOT, this is delegated to general speedy deletion criterion 6. You're right that it's mostly redundant to the speedy deletion policy—and it's meant to be. You should be able to tag any of those templates with {{db-g6}} and be done with it, but I don't advise doing so. If you want to go through the unused template list (link, long page advisory warning) to find such templates, feel free! No one's stopping you. Then your page will be noticed in CAT:CSD by one admin, who will either delete it or not. That's a good example of what's not a transparent way to delete templates via housekeeping.

We are trying to improve the transparency of housekeeping, G6 (or of deleting possible nonsense G1, or possible test pages G2) by allowing Wikipedians to review a template's deletion reason. To illustrate this a bit better: the article namespace has content, while the template namespace has function. For a tagger and an admin to be the only people to review that function (and possibly misunderstand it) can be harmful. For other Wikipedians to review deprecation in the context of the template's function can only help reduce mistakes. It's not that we can't trust the judgment of admins—it's supposed to be about increasing transparency, not decreasing it. Two weeks is an arbitrary amount of time. The more people are aware of the page, the better.

A fair amount of processes have been started by practice. (For example, temporary user pages.) While I agree that some recent taggings have been a bit, say, enthusiastic, this method of aggregating deletion candidates is not contrary to policy and can make the TfD crowd happier, the template namespace cleaner, and housekeeping more transparent. In short: let's see what happens. Gracenotes^T § 17:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My primary concern with this process is the degree to which actual taggings will conform to the requirement that tagged templates qualify for deletion under CSD G6. If all taggings stays true to that requirement, then the page is essentially a pseudo-WikiProject/task force for cleaning up the template namespace ... and that's fine. However, if the process begins to result in deletion of templates based on individual evaluations of usefulness, that reduces transparency. As long as it stays redundant to WP:CSD, I have no problem with it. It's when it starts to become a {{prod}} for templates that issues arise. In essence, I don't think "tagged with {{deprecated}} for 2 weeks" should itself be a reason for deletion. In the absence of broader discussion, actual deletions should only be carried out in accordance with the speedy deletion criteria.

If this is intended to be a {{prod}} for templates, why not just change Wikipedia:Proposed deletion to include pages in the template namespace? Or ... why not make it a separate deletion process (Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates for deletion), mirroring WP:IFD except without the daily logs? — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Great: one of my concerns is also that taggings will not conform to the speedy deletion criterion. I included a mention of it on {{deprecated}}, so hopefully no one misconstrues anything—those tagging, or those reviewing tags. As for the two week limit: this system is not exactly based off of prodding, so having admins go through WP:DOT to delete templates that might not require more review is absolutely fine. Well, I do support template prodding (for non-controversial cases, understanding also that the usefulness of a template's function is harder to discern than that of an article's content), but it doesn't have community interest at the moment, and any experimental introduction of it will surely result in invective criticism from all sides :) Gracenotes^T § 19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I also support extending {{prod}} to templates (and to project pages as well). So, as long as WP:DOT remains essentially a task force to coordinate cleanup of the template namespace via the speedy deletion criteria (i.e. as long as it doesn't become an actual deletion process), I think it is useful and productive. I am striking my suggestion to overturn the closure. I still don't agree with the closing rationale (that MFD was not the appropriate venue for discussion), but see no point in re-starting an MFD for a still-active task force, especially considering that the MFD and my initial recommendation seem to have been based on misunderstandings of the purpose of the page. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

When templates are eventually deleted under the scope of WP:DOT, the edit summary should include something about that. Otherwise, my concern is that there could be a perception of a rouge admin going around simply deleting templates they view as unnecessary. Also, this "task force" (such that it is with only me marking templates right now) was designed and implemented to try to clean out the Template namespace due to its obscene amount of nonsense. I don't think every appreciates how much nonsense is inside the Template namespace, which I think is the reason there is a certain level of opposition to this task force. Some treats that have been deleted while searching through the namespace include Template:Brians got some problems =) Alex rocks which was around since May, and Template:I love ponies! (sandbox heading), also around since May. These are just a few of the templates I've discovered while searching through the list of thousands of unused templates. As for moving the page, I certainly wouldn't have an objection. Anyone else care to weigh in? Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

There was an ongoing debate in the AfD discussion [[1]], the concensus appeared to be leaning towards a keep. The closing admin obviously disagreed but rather than contributing to the debate chose close the AfD and to delete the page. I was under the impression that such things were decided by the concensus of the community rather than the opinion of one admin. Surely the reason AfD debates take place is to gauge this concensus not to help one admin make the right decidion. If this is the case the debate should not have be ended by an admin giving a reason why he thinks a particular result is correct but rather by an admin who has seen that a concensus has been reached in the debate and then acts to to uphold it. Guest9999 02:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn not based on vote counting, but based on strength of arguments. The closing admin claims a podcast by the BBC isn't a reliable source. The BBC is run by the British government, it's basically British state media. What does it matter what format the BBC is broadcasting in? -Nard 04:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The "BBC podcast" appears to be a BBC blog of sorts which links to an outside site with the podcast. Is podme.org a reliable source? --- RockMFR 17:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The conclusion was in total opposition to the actual consensus, whether judged by counting or by arguments raised. The opinions given at AfD are not merely advisory, after which the closing admin can decide independently based on his personal views. The role of the closing admin is to determine the consensus of the policy based arguments. It requires an admin so there can be confidence that the closer knows what are the applicable arguments, not because the admin is necessarily the best judge of the issue. An admin who disagrees with the developing consensus should present his arguments, and let someone else close. DGG (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Policy beats consensus. There were no reliable sources, and nothing any of the Keep voters could come up with was an effective rebuttal of that. --Hemlock Martinis 19:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per above, and especially per DGG. David Mestel^(Talk) 06:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion I checked the sources before deleting, The BBC source is a blog which leads to some independent podcast site which isn't run by the BBC, all the other sources I seen were blogs, youtube, the "official" finger jousting site, associatedcontent which is like a news wiki, etc, there aren't any Reliable sources at all and policy is key. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That arguement should have been made during an AfD not given as a reason for deletion. Admins have no more say than any other editor in forming the concensus they are just the only ones with the power to act on it and carry out the will of the community. Why even open up the debate to non admins if their opinions can just be ignored. [[Guest9999 23:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)]]
• AFD is never a vote count, and the sources issue was mentioned in the deletes, and the BBC source is from a blog which links to a independent site. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• AfD is not a vote, it is an attempt to find consensus - I see no evidence that any consensus had been found during the debate. The basic arguements being made for keep may have gone against a guideline but guidelines are not written in stone and it would have been more appropriate for someone with an oposing position to point out the guideline in question in the debate and to see whether people wanted to change their opinion based on this information or whether they felt this was a situation where the guideline did not apply or could be ignored. [[Guest9999 05:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• • • AFD is attempt to find a consensus by checking if it meets wikipedia guidelines, the keep voters didn't do that while the delete votes had a valid concern, one of the keep votes were an obvious WP:SPA and almost all admins discount that and guidelines = set in stone. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• It says at the top of every guideline page "it is not set in stone". [[Guest9999 12:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Then it's a good thing that WP:RS is not only policy but also one of the fundamental principles of the encyclopedia. That's about as rock-solid as it gets around here. --Hemlock Martinis 19:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Really? because I'd say (and it says at the top of the page) that all of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies were summed up in the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, one of them being "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" - to me this indicates that so called "fundamental principles" do not actually exist in the form of which you speak of them. [[Guest9999 23:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Comment I think you'll find a fundamental principle is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules except for the five general principles elucidated here" found on Wikipedia:Five pillars. WP:RS does not seem to be one of them. [[Guest9999 00:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Overturn per nom and DGG. Well said, DGG. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 00:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, doesn't appear to actually be verifiable. The whole concept is rather silly, too. --Cyde Weys 01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment This is really for AfD, but I didn't want to pass this by: BBC broadcasts and transcripts are RSs. A blog of reader responses is not. However, this particular thread seems to have been posted editorially by BBCX, & I think the podcast would count--though not the subsequent comments. DGG (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• further comment That may be your opinion but other editors interpretted the information differently, the fact that an admin does not agree with the concensus does not make it wrong. The only reason everyone does not have the power to close an AfD debate is that that power would be abused. By closing a debate based anything but the consensus the admin is abusing his power. Even if they think the concensus is wrong, that it is based on people misinterpretting the guidelines or that they just know better than the editors taking part in the debate. The closing decision made by the admin should never be based on the admin's own opinion but the contents of the debate - which every admin - like any other editor - is free to contribute to should they choose. [[Guest9999 02:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Endorse Deletion - Keep votes were based on sources that do not qualify as WP:RS Corpx 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment this issue - the quality of the mentioned source - was never brought up in the debate and so counts as new information. If new information is presented in the deletion review then I believe relisting under AfD is the prefered course of action. Additonally WP:RS is a guideline, not set in stone and so should be mentioned in the debate not the delete decision. [[Guest9999 04:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Relist. The closing admin's rationale is an argument for deletion, not an evaluation of consensus. The closing admin should have contributed to the AfD instead of closing it, and forcing his own POV. —gorgan_almighty 13:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• How I am forcing my PoV, this doesn't make sense, I closed the AFD in the reasonable time period with about 20 other AFDs. All I did was give a reason for the deletion about how it doesn't meet policy, like all admins suppose to do in a AFD like that. Assume Good Faith. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reply All your statement shows is that admins abusing their powers is so commonplace it is accepted. The reason for an admin closing an AdF debate should be based purely on the consensus (with a few exceptions) not on whether they think they page conforms to policy. Unless you think a consensus had been reached to delete the page, it should not have been deleted. If there is a lac k of consensus as was apparent then the article should have been kept. Incidentally WP:RS whihc I believe is the policy you talk of is actually a guideline "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" if the community or at least part of the community felt that this article should be an expceotion you have no more right than any other editor to overrule this. Incidentally WP:CON is an "official policy". Your reasoning for deletion was not a commentary on the debate and the consensus which had been established, it was your opinion which holds no more weight than any other editors and belonged in the debate not the closing arguement. [[Guest9999 12:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Endorse closure. Jaranda was correct in his assessment of the debate. The lack of reliable sources is what got the article deleted. --Hemlock Martinis 19:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - AfD is not a vote count. No reliable sources, no article. Moreschi ^Talk 19:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There were no reliable sources, only a link back to youtube and another to fingerjoust.com. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Question? Does this mean it is ok for an admin to ignore the consensus if they feel that the consensus is incorrect? [[Guest9999 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• An admin's first duty is to obey the superconsensus of nearly all Wikipedians that's in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Moreschi ^Talk 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• It's a loaded question, but I'll bite. Consensus is never wrong, but it isn't always right. Policy always outweighs consensus. Always. --Hemlock Martinis 21:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• And policies are established by consensus (and big consensus): hence policy is superconsensus, which overrides local consensus at AfD. Moreschi ^Talk 21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reply I completely agree - policy needs to be kept to - however the "policy" in question was not a policy at all. WP:RS is a guideline - it is not set in stone and there can be exceptions (it says so right at the top of the page). In these cases it could be said that the 'big consensus' was to allow for a differing 'local consensus' in certain circumstances. [[Guest9999 22:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Comment Another things to note would be that Wikipedia does not have firm rules,go against a guideline or policy and life will go on, destroy a pillar and the house will come crumbling down. [[Guest9999 00:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]]
• WP:RS is the deductive result of two pillars of the project, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. That's something stated on the page, rather than being part of a template. If there was ever a policy that we should not make exceptions for on this encyclopedia, Wikipedia:Reliable sources is most definitely it. --Hemlock Martinis 07:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reply It says right at the top of the page that there can be the "occaisonal exception" and again it's not a policy - it's a guideline. The very fact that it says that there can be exceptions means that it should be brought up as part of the AfD debate not as the rationale for closing the debate. If anything is not explicitly stated in policy - or is a deductive result - as you call it - then it is open to interpretation by the community. If any editor - admin or otherwise - disagrees with this interpretation then it is up to them to put forward their case not just shut down the debate. [[Guest9999 15:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Also... There was ongoing discussion about a possible reliable source during the debate, this shows that there was no consensus within the community as to whether the article violated WP:RS, it was the opinion of the closing administrator that the source was not valid but the feeling of other editors that the source was. In some ways then the issue is not whether there can be exceptions to WP:RS but whether an admins view in interpreting it is more valid than that of any other good-faith editor (which it's not). There was definately a debate to be had about the source and it should not have been cut off because of the opinion of one editor. [[Guest9999 17:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• An unofficial blog post is by no means a reliable source. --Hemlock Martinis 19:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reply There is scope within WP:V for blogs to be used as reliable sources. An official BBC blog mentioned the topic, it was also mentioned on THE 9 on Yahoo! which whilst a video blog is a notable one - hence the article - and part of the worlds most visited website (Yahoo). There is also evidence of mentions by some sort of health insurance thing, [2], as well as on radio stations in the USA and the UK (BBC Coventry & Warwickshire and WLAC). Surely there is enough evidence of possible notability and enough leeway within Wikipedia policy and guidelines - as shown above - that the debate should have been kept open until a true consensus had been formed and not stopped by one editor in order to push through their own particular opinion. [[Guest9999 00:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)]]