Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 23

Image:UNRibbonSpread.jpg (edit|[[Talk::Image:UNRibbonSpread.jpg|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was part of a large mass deletion of military award pictures under the guise of "copyright violations". I was able to reach the actual National Archives employee who created this picture and confirmed that it was a public picture created for use with military awards and medals research. The National Archives employee contacted Wikipedia to confirm this and the ticket number is: Ticket#2008010310012125. I ask that this image be undeleted; I did not steal it or anything of that nature and have the e-mail from NARA to now support this. Thank you. -OberRanks (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note, an image by that name does not exist in the deletion log. Nakon 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Link fixed. Nakon 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Just re-upload it and put the information that you put above in the upload comments. Non-controversial issues like this do not require delrev. Speedy close as review not required. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It was years ago and I dont know if I could find it again that easily. The deleting admin also told me that if I got the original employee who created the image to e-mail Wikipedia, then it could be undeleted without issue. -OberRanks (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to the Future timeline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2)

Delete - no one commenting in the AFD successfully rebutted the policy violation that formed the basis of the nomination. Indeed, almost no one commenting on the nomination even addressed the policy violation. Closing admin ignored the policy violation and as near as I can tell simply counted the votes. I agree that everyone who commented wanted the article kept but majority rule does not override policy violations. Otto4711 (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse, this one was pretty overwhelming as keeps go. Two solid pages worth says a lot. I think the nom's concerns were addressed just fine, too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Continue to endorse after seeing second AFD. Those were some pretty crappy arguments without question. But it was still an overwhelming keep in this case (moreso than before). And I'm not 100% sure this violates WP:NOT anyways. In any event, the close was certainly proper. (and remember, this is "Was the close correct?", not "AFD part 2") --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep closure consensus was blindingly obvious, and many editors explicitly did comment on the supposed policy objection, contrary to the nom's statement above. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Look at some of the lower comments for refutations of the WP:NOR complaint. That combined with a clear keep majority is a pretty hard consensus. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Jeeze, need to link to the right AfD. New comment below. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Just to make clear that we're discussing here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to the Future timeline (2nd nomination), and not the old 2006 AfD to which above template links, do we?--Tikiwont (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've now added a second link above.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Based on the comments above I've notified each of the editors who've commented thus far so they are aware of the second AFD. A review of the second AFD should make it pretty clear that the WP:NOT policy objections were not addressed by the keepers and the policy violation was ignored by the closing admin. Otto4711 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank-you for pointing-out the second AfD, I had indeed been reading the first one prior to my last comment, and not the one actually under consideration here. However, the second one is even more unanimous. One could lament that such a large number of editors clearly went against policy and wish a ballsy admin would have closed it as delete, but honestly do you think that has a snowball's chance? The application of policy is optional under WP:IAR, and even though they could be an army of numbskulls, they are quite an impressive army none-the-less. I don't see the issues you raised for deletion of this article as being worth the effort to swim so hard upstream. I therefore confirm my previous !vote. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If you think that the close was wrong and wish that an admin would have closed it as delete then why on earth would you endorse the closure? That makes absolutely no sense. Otto4711 (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Please re-read. I think that you believe that the polynumerous participants in the discussion were wrong, AND I think that the administrator closed the debate perfectly well. These are not only perfectly compatible statements, they are actually not related to eachother in any real way. I have no opinion about the article itself. However, having read the nomination and having read all of the particpants comments and recommendations (some call these votes), it is clear that the participants did consider your statement that the article violated policy. They also made it clear that they do not care about that as it pertains to this one article. They felt that the valuable encyclopedic content therein warranted making an exception to that policy, and many even invoked WP:IAR. So the administrator weighed this into account and made the call that the debate with that many unanimous people saying the opposite of the nom as the sole voice on the other side had indeed achieved consensus, and that consensus was indeed keep. Any other result would have certainly been overruled at delrev, so why waste process to make a point? JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak endorse, but endorse nonetheless. Roughly, no one besides the nom favored deletion. Roughtly, that's consensus right there. I don't really like it either, but I don't see that there's a good reason to overturn or relist it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as keep No evidence of policy violation has been provided to justify overturning consensus. Alansohn (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse, this one was decided fairly but Otto decided to throw a tantrum. PMA (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Otto's view of policy is not supported by consensus at either of two successive Afds by the many respectable editors there. He may be right, or he may be wrong, in what ought to be the policy, but that's another matter. DGG (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Clear consensus. The nominator can use any arguments they have to persuade the community, but it's up to the AfD participants to determine whether they are convinced or not. AfD is not an one-man business. - PeaceNT (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Clear consensus to keep --Rumping (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Per all reasons above. Lets kick this pig! Kimu (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Even after discounting the invalid arguments, there was not a clear consensus to delete this page. Note that it can always be renominated if the page remains unimproved after a reasonable period of time. Rossami (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn closure (and delete the article) - Otto4711 is absolutely correct, nobody in the AfD adequately addressed the WP:NOT#PLOT policy violation - fictional universe timelines themselves are nothing but plot, even if the fictional universe has real-world events in it. I like the list, I don't agree with WP:NOT#PLOT, and I don't want the list deleted either. But it does blatantly violate policy as Otto4711 has pointed out, and no amount of I like it votes will change that fact. BUT, there's another important issue that needs to be addressed: the list is a derivative work and as such violates Universal Pictures' copyrights. It's not just a passing mention of the plots of the films, or a critique. It is a representation of the fictional universe itself, and a condensation of its internal history. I think it should be sent over to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for analysis. The Transhumanist 01:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Until consensus has been achieved on whether to keep the material up, I have scrubbed the article clean, to avoid possible copyright infringement. As WP:V states:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales ^[1]

Original research which is derived from copyrighted material cannot stay up simply because "needs a cite" tags are added. The burden of proof is on the editors attempting to add or restore material. I ask that editors wait until a consensus has been reached before re-including the material.

The kind of material that has been put on Wikipedia recently (see WP:FICT) was also on GeoCities several years ago and they were sued for copyright infringement over it, and forced to pay millions in royalties. It wouldn't be a good idea to put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy just because "it's good" or "it's interesting" or "it's funny."

Delete. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment [citation needed] I've never heard of this, although it almost sounds like some other things I have heard of. I note that the policy you point to is unhelpful in this regard. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Copyright isn't even the issue here in this DRV. If you think there's a copyright problem, do it properly. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Overturn and Delete - Ignoring the potential legal issue the article is essence is almost entirely a plot summary which requires copious original research to hold itself together. Guest9999 (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse as Keep - This is neither a plot summary nor a copyright violation. It consists of single sentences of in-universe and out-of-universe facts, distilled from all three movies and a few secondary sources, presented in chronological order with an explanation of the time travel theory as presented within the films. There is no reasonable way to construct a story as such from what is here; as such it is not a plot summary. Moreover, copyright for a fictional work rests in the presentation of ideas in the form of plot, character, images, dialogue, literary style, etc. The article contains little or nothing of these elements. What is there is well within the norms for fair use for educational and critical purposes, which is what this is. Facts about a fictional work for critical and educational purposes do not constitute copyright violation. Nor is there anything inherently wrong with sourcing an article about fictional works primarily from the work itself, as long as a) it's not the only source, and b) notability is established. As one of the most successful film trilogies of the past several decades, this easily clears the notability hurdle. Additional sourcing from the DVD extras, magazine articles, books, etc. would be helpful, but nothing about the article as it stands should be construed as fatal to its continued existence. --Karen | Talk | contribs 07:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently the only sourcing on the page are; the movies and novels based on them (not independent sources), what appears to be a fansite (no a reliable source) and one mention in a science fiction magazine, does this really constitute the significant coverage by reliable, independent sources required to establish notability? (There are also a lot of "historical facts" which are sourced to Wikipedia (not a reliable source), I imagine this could be fixed if they truely are historical facts). Guest9999 (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly all the historical facts that aren't explicityly referenced in the films should be removed anyway as there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the events as they occurred in the Back to the Future universe happened at the same time (or at all) as when they occured in the real world. Guest9999 (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that this popular series of films from the 1980s, the subject of much merchandising, fan sites, magazine articles, two Universal Studios rides, etc., has failed to establish notability, or that the words of the film's director and writer are not a reliable source of information about the film's premise and plot? I agree that some of the references are a little lame, but the person who added many of them was clearly directing to other Wikipedia articles where one could find further sourcing for non-controversial, out of universe facts that probably need no sourcing here to start with. Starlog ran numerous articles about the films, but unfortunately they aren't all about this particular aspect of them, and are not online. By the way, it is not a science fiction magazine. It is a media magazine about the genre. As for independent sourcing generally, it's good to have, and it would be nice if someone would take the time to turn some up. However, it is perfectly acceptable to rely almost entirely on primary sources, supplemented by DVD extras, author interviews and the like, for an article about a work of fiction. Otherwise you would need to find a source for every detail of every plot of every notable book or film covered here, which is clearly unreasonable. If Doc Brown says in BTTF Part Two that a new timeline was created in which such-and-such happened, it is not OR to report that, sourced to the film itself. --Karen | Talk | contribs 07:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse; six people !voted for keep, with only the nominator to delete. It's not DRV's job to delete an article for cause; DRV analyzes whether an AfD was closed correctly. If you want to argue the case, do another AfD after a suitable time; if you think you have AfD-overriding reasons for deletion, go find someplace in Wikipedia where they delete articles over clear consensus. DRV isn't that place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and everyone has pretty much agreed that articles describing the plot of fiction can be sourced directly from the primary sources, not just in the two afds here but generally, and that a brief description of the plot of a book is not a copyright violation. Attempts to say otherwise at various policy pages have all failed to get consensus. I note that the issue has now been raised in yet another place, a proposed [[WP:Fan fiction], and is meeting the same response.DGG (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

There weren't many people actively discussing at this AfD, but a nom and a delete, a neutral, a weak keep, and after relisting for more discussion another keep don't make a consensus to delete to me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn this does not look like delete consensus to me. If there was some compelling reason to see it as delete, then the closing admin should have elaborated this, as the outcome seems completely out of line with the debate. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn I can't see a clear consensus to delete here and the sourcing provided from the article just before deletion appear to be just about good enough. Thrasher magazine seems to have a pretty substantial back catalogue and has been around since at least 1981 so an interview there looks like fairly substantial independant press coverage. The bar for inclusion is actually really low though its sometimes hard to believe with the amount of dross that needs to be cleared out on a regular basis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. There was no consensus to delete. If there's no consensus, the default is to keep the article. In this AfD there was only one delete comment other than the nominator. There was one neutral, and two keeps. There was no explanation about the reason for deleting the article, so there are no points to answer on that. Based only on the AfD page itself, the result should have been either "keep" or "no consensus, keep by default". Aside from that, the band has been mentioned in at least a couple magazines and has several albums, making it notable enough to have an article that can be expanded. --Tikilounge (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn or relist no clear consensus --Rumping (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn closure to "no consensus". This was not a clear call. And given that the closer did not articulate any reasoning at all, I'm not willing to extend the "admin discretion" in this case. Rossami (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Relist no consensus - User:RiverHockey said "Delete as nn and per Martijn Hoekstra" but User:Martijn Hoekstra subsequently changed to neutral and cited further information. No way to know if User:RiverHockey even saw the comment. If we discount RiverHockey the only delete is the nominator and there are two keeps. There's no way to establish consenus from that - especially for deletion.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn No delete consensus and has enough publicity to keep the page. --Publictransport (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist very borderline as regards WP:MUSIC, but this isn't AFD2. BLACKKITE 12:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-admin closure with no explanation given. Not even snowball cited which I still would disagree with because so far only votes are from people directly involved in editing the article. Also so far only one vote has listed a valid reason to keep. Ridernyc (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

this editor has also closed this AFD early with no explaination[1]. Ridernyc (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• If anyone disagrees with that decision (which was made prior to me knowing that AFDs shouldn't be closed before 5 days after the AFD is listed, unless WP:SNOW or Nom Withdrawl applies) please relist it as well. --Chetblong^Talk_Sign 19:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, I closed the AFD because the consensus was keep. Chetblong^Talk_Sign 12:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment AFD's stay open for 5 days unless you can cite a reason such as snowball This AFD has been open for a day and half. Ridernyc (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse as valid snowball close abstain The rationale for deletion, editors acting up, is not a reason to throw a viable article away, there are several other avenues open to do solve the issue. I provided some sources to demonstrate notability in the hope that the nomination would be withdrawn without drama and accusations of WP:POINT and all the rest of it. Instead there's a comment about the two editors involved in a revert war. That can be sorted out, the revert war is being dealt with at WP:ANI, discussion about improvement can take place at WP:VG or the article talk page. The case for merging would be an extremely weak one judging by the sources out there and the current reasonable state of the article, but there's no basis for an AFD whatsoever. Rather than going through another empty process to reopen yet another, why can't we just deal with the problem with the sources which exist? Someoneanother 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

lack of reliable 3rd party sources to establish notability outside the franchise and to establish real world context are reason for deletion. Ridernyc (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not when they can be dug up in seconds from google. A perfectly valid reason to bring up discussion on the talk page or with the project, or to use RFC, or request input from other users, but not to throw out the entire article. Someoneanother 13:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So are we going to have the AFD here instead of where it should be, because I strongly disagree with your points but this not the place to do that. Ridernyc (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources are available and easily found online, they were there before the AFD was brought and they're there now. The subject of the article is not non-notable therefore there's no case to answer. "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page". There is no need to push through this pointless process when it can be fixed within a reasonable timescale, volunteers should not have to drop everything because the threat of deletion is hanging over an article which would not even be under scrutiny if it were completed with the sources available. Someoneanother 14:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're effectively saying "this article isn't good enough, but everyone else is expected to know that it could be made encyclopedic, but for the fact that no-one can be bothered to improve it". Do I have that correct? Because this article has existed for nearly three years with no decent sourcing, so I'm not surprised the nominator assumed that this was because none existed. BLACKKITE 14:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychic abilities are no more necessary to check for sources than to check the edit history. Since Ridernyc disagrees that the sources do the job I am withdrawing endorsement for the closure, but AFD is not merge and is not the answer to troublesome editors. Someoneanother 15:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

if you insist I Have looked and so far have found no references other then plot summaries and minor mentions of game development of the new Resident Evil game which still has no release date. Take out the plot summary in this article which is simply recreation of plot summaries that belong in the game articles and you are left with a stub. Merger to a list of resident evil characters is a very valid option for all the resident evil characters with the exception of Jill Valentine and maybe Albert Wesker who due to the movies have enough notability on there own. Sorry just don't see these sources people keep claiming are everywhere and take a second to find. Again none of this should be mentioned here these are all issues for the AFD which was closed prematurely. Ridernyc (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and Relist - incorrect closure. BLACKKITE 14:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Relist non-admins should not close AFDs that early unless they withdraw the nomination or it's an obvious bad faith closure, which doesn't seem to be the case. Secret ^account 15:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Relist - probably would have ended keep, but there were no reasons to close the discussion early, it should be relisted in order to gain a thorough consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Relist - I didn't know that AFDs were supposed to stay open for 5 days, it was a mistake on my part and I deeply regret my decision. I'll only close AFDs that have been open for 5 days. With apologies, Chetblong^Talk_Sign 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

List of recent automobile models by type (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a relist of a DRV on 15 Jan. The original Afd was an incorrect interpretation of consensus as the nominators referred to 1.Article name, 2.Duplication, 3.Encyclopoedic worth. On point 1., as pointed out to me in this DRV, the article name is not a valid topid for discussion in an Afd. On point 2., As I was originally trying to point out in the original Afd, this list is not a duplication of List of automobiles as asserted by most delete voters. Before deciding based only on the Afd and DRV, look at this userfied copy of the deleted article, there is significant difference in the organisation of the content, they are indexed in a completely different way and are not copies of the same information. On point 3., again, as pointed out to me recently, this is not a valid topic for Afd votes. This article should be restored and the naming and encyclopoedic worth establish by consensus. To recap, the original Afd covers invalid discussion topics and an in my opinion an incorrect assessment that the article is duplication, and the DRV endorsements do not cover valid Afd issues, i.e. article name and encyclopoedic worth. Also, there was also very little input on the DRV by number of distinct voters, hence the relist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion again and speedy close. This article was the subject of a recent DRV and there is nothing in the nomination to suggest that further discussion would be helpful. As for the substantive points, they have been discussed before and rejected by consensus, without either new information or a procedural error there isn't much scope for review. However, a couple of the claims demonstrate misconceptions about AfD and merit a response. While article names are not the focus of AfD and are (almost) never a reason to delete an article, discussion of them is neither necessarily rare or inappropriate. Comments such as "Keep but rename" or "Delete or rename if kept" are both common and reasonable. There is no reason not to deal with a problem with an article's title at the same time as a deletion discussion, though it is a secondary issue. Also titles can strongly suggest problems with an article such as original research or indiscriminateness. In such cases the title is a symptom rather than a big problem itself but it still bears mentioning. Secondly, encyclopedic worth is a proper topic for AfD discussion, indeed it is the main discussion there. WP:N and WP:NOT issues are mostly questions of what Wikipedia should cover rather than what it can cover based on our core principles. While we try to have objective standards for the most part to combat bias, the question of what those standards should be is a largely subjective one driven by consensus as much as by any abstract rules. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify why you personally think this article should be deleted (rather than just endorsing previous votes)? There has not been consenus as there has been little attempt to build consensus, only repeated assertions of the in my opinion invalid Afd vote, and a rushed through and hardly contributed to DRV, merely repeating the invalid Afd. This is not consensus. The original Afd issue was that this article was content duplication, which I now disagree with (having not been able to in the Afd due to its premature closure), as have others. On that basis the Afd would never have resulted in a delete outcome, and issues of name and notability could be debated properly, with appropriate discussion and properly formed Afd topics. MickMacNee (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The AfD (which ran for a full 5 days) consensus was based on subjective inclusion criteria and unencyclopedic scope, rather than on duplication, which as you point out isn't really the case. The previous DRV was also perfectly in-line with established procedures. Wikipedia processes don't operate on a quorum but instead closers evaluate the discussion based on those who participated. On the merits, the article violates two of my pet peeves: it is a large list with only loose (if real) connection between its members; and it explicitly deals with recent things so that it can never be stable and good content added now will have to be removed later. But those are side issues; I believe that the consensus at the AfD was correctly determined by the closing admin based on strength of argument and numbers and the prior DRV was correct to endorse it. In those circumstances the normal action is speedy close. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplication was quite clearly one of the main deletion arguments, and to close when this fact is being disputed is a clear case of following procedure for the sake of it rather than debating the issue properly. There was definitely not an overwhelming majority of consensus regarding the article's merit, why do you not similarly object to list of automobiles? That also expands over time, and is a large collection of loosely connected members. Where else can you find a list of modern (ignoring the issue over definition of modern) vehicles of type xyz in WP? Vehicle types are clearly defined in WP. Car articles are everywhere in WP. Listing modern cars by type is something most other web sources seem to be able to do quite easily, it is laughable to suggest it is not usefull or worthy of WP. The article name issue, i.e. how to define modern, is easily solved with a proper debate, rather than a few paltry sentences in an Afd leading to the binning of a massive piece of work because it is your 'pet peeve'. This whole process stinks in my opinion, and I didn't even create or contribute to the article, that should surely tell you something about what the contributors probably think of this. Speaking of which I doubt any of the contributors even know this process is going on, and I can't see who they are because the 'due process' was followed. I doubt even the number of Afd voters exceeds the number of editors to the article. MickMacNee (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse and speedy close this article was up for DRV last week, and had very clear consensus in the AFD. The AFD lasted five full days it wasn't prematurely closed. Please DRV isn't used for I don't agree with this close, so let it be restored. Secret ^account 15:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I talking to myself here? How is this article content a duplication? Where was the consensus if it is not a duplication? How is closing an Afd with an open request for clarification not premature? Can someone please actually look at the article instead of just quoting the scriptures and standard phrases. This is supposed to be a review, so please review, just repeating statements is not a review. It is as plain as day that the article is not a duplication. It is as plain as day that renaming an article is not consensus to delete, it is as plain as day that the content is encyclopoedic, unless list of automobiles is similarly unencyclopoedic. Can we have some original comments rather than simple parrot fashion endorsements. Please remember if this content is dissapeared, then you lose another persons hard work at trying to create content. You should be doubly sure that that editor deserves such summary dismissal just because enough people can parrot phrases about content they didn't even contribute to making. MickMacNee (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and answer these good faith questions, even though I am afraid that my answers will be deeply unsatisfying. There was limited if any direct content duplication, though we try to avoid double coverage of subject matter even in different formats. Consensus to delete existed even excluding the comments about duplication based on the comments that the list was subjective in inclusion criteria and unencyclopedic in content and scope. That these assertions were challenged does not simply negate them, rather they must be weighed in the context of the entire debate. Simply asking a question at an AfD does not prevent it from closing. If the closing finds that the community has judged an issue closed that one person still finds it open is not grounds for moving forward. Renaming is a red herring, only one commenter brought up the idea of renaming in the AfD and that in the context of an overall "keep" vote. The clear majority of the comments were straight deletes. As much as it is a shame when GFDL released content, someone's hard work, is deleted, Wikipedia is simply not for everything. The inclusion of this list is certainly arguable, but is has been argued and a decision has been reached and endorsed. Despite my initial "I don't like it" reaction to the content I can see that it might be useful and would not be opposed to sending it to project space if the Automobile project wants it. Nevertheless, I feel that the initial admin's determination of consensus was correct. You have argued primarily that the AfD must be wrong because the content is good and should be kept, not that errors in process or new information clouds the result. Despite the maxim that "DRV is about process not content" that migt be enough to garner an overturn if you were clearly right. But I remain at best unsure of whether this is encyclopedic content and so must endorse the prior closure, based as it was on a reasonable consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I replied above and don't have much else to say, just that it seems we have different ideas about the concept of weight of consensus given the very few number of voters, the conceded invalidation of the duplication argument, and the total going against all communication principles by closing it mid-question (it should be noted that all the closing admin seems to do on WP is revert vandalism, and never seems to engage in communication on their talk page, as noted in ANI). I think this comes at the heart of the inclusionist vs. deletionist debate, and the way the policies are being applied here, application of consensus in this way is actually going to tip the balance towards deletion. It's easier to steamroller a deletion rather than save an article it seems. I would be interested to know how long that article had existed before I stumbled on it, and how many people had worked on it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Is anybody actually concerned? at the amount of work that is being binned here on a dubious 6-4 vote without anyone in the least bit bothered to give an original comment. Why am I wasting my time here? Somebody please convince me that WP is more than just this kind of banging your head against a wall trying to save content in the face of laziness? MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and Speedy close debate. I note that the nom does indeed have a very incompatible idea of consensus then that which is (and has always been) used on wikipedia, as noted in another delrev this past week as well. This delrev is not going to change such a fundamental concept, the user needs to accomodate the policy, not the other way 'round. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You were the admin telling me that article name is not a valid topic for Afd discussion, now you endorse this Afd where the exact same thing has occured? MickMacNee (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you reconcile keeping a factualy incorrect article based on the fact that only the creator opposes its deletion or merge/rename, when now, with more than one person wanting this perfectly factual article merged/renamed rather than deleted, even in absence of its creators/contributors, you completely change your opinion? MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have a new policy of not having any direct dialogue with you. Wait for the next guy to come along and chat with them; they might enjoy it more than I did. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting policy for an supposed admin to have. Most conducive to consensus. Feel free to strike your vote above if you are not willing to be challenged about it and its inconsistency with previous decisions. MickMacNee (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attack me, sir. I reaffirm my comment and !vote above. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Josephine James (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD]|AfD2)

Deleted following second nomination after originally being bulked together with several other porn actresses. There were very few conributors to the discussion, and the closing admin did not give a clear reason as to why this article should be deleted Citybest (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Non-notable porn star. There was nothing mentioned in the AfD or article to stress why she was notable. IMDB also is not a reliable source for notability. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • On the contrary. She is a very notable porn actress with several films to her credit. There are also other third party references besides IMDB to support this. This all stems from a comment made during this discussion a couple of weeks ago, which prompted a bulk nomination of articles on porn stars which I had created. The nomination was then withdrawn a few days later after the nominee apparently had a change of heart, but Josephine James was subseqently nominated again. I can't help feeling there is an element of unfairness here. The page wasn't hurting anybody, so why delete it. You say she's non-notable, but as I have stated above, and in the deletion discussions, this is not the case. She is a very notable porn actress. She has made several films, and I believe, even won awards for these. Citybest (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If she won awards (AVN for example) can you show us this? That would make her notable, since she would stand out from other porn stars. Also, just because she's appeared in several films, doesn't make her notable by default. I'd also check [2] as well as to what guidelines are needed for a porn actor/actress to be included. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I'll look into it. Citybest (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse my close, there was an obvious consensus to delete, the keep reasoning said that she did some porm films, so I think she's notable, which isn't policy based. DRV isn't AFD part 2 Secret ^account 15:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, we've already had AFD part 2. Citybest (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • As an aside, WP:PORNBIO used to list "has appeared in 100+ pornographic films" as a notability criteria, but that was removed since, the industry working the way it does, even appearing in 100+ films is no guarantee of genuine notability. So, certainly, appeariong in "several films" is not and never has been sufficient to justify a Wikipedia article. --Stormie (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion non-notable per well-established and bright-line subject-specific guidelines. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the AfD was not heavily trafficked, but the only objection was from the article's creator, and it's abundantly clear that at the time of deletion, there was nothing in the article to indicate that she passes WP:PORNBIO criteria. If, however, it is the case that she does, for instance due to having won well-known awards (and reliable sources independent of the subject can be cited to back that up), then feel free to recreate the article. --Stormie (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse The only "keep" argument asserted that the subject was notable as "a professional porn actress with several films to her credit", but the material was unsourced; the films themselves lacked notability evidence, and even when they didn't, appearance in several films per se wouldn't guarantee inclusion anyway. - PeaceNT (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems in the deletion discussion nor do I find any new evidence here that the AFD failed to consider. Rossami (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As the nominator, there is no reason why she should have a Wikipedia article. No awards, non-trivial coverage or reliable sources have been shown to exist. If you provide them, I might change my mind - but I just don't think they exist.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Adult-child sex (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD 1|AfD 2)

• For the deletion review discussion, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Adult-child sex.