Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 17

Myles Dyer blade376 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

"Speedy deleted due to a previously deletedArticle of a similar nature, also because of new info that was not included in the previous article. Irejectreality (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think the article should be undeleted? Aecis^Brievenbus 23:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was deleted because it was seen as a "Repost" of a previous article about blade 376, although it is almost completely new. it got a solid structure, it's all referenced, and should at least be given a chance. Although the original article for blade376 was taken down because it was for a "Non Notable Internet "Celebrity" in the past few months he has done a lot of charity work, and is taking part in the competition "Upstaged" which has earned him a large gathering. May i also note that this article is only very slightly based on the original article, which was sent to meby the original author, so is basicallya completely new article, which is follows wikipedias notability guidelines (As far as i can be sure) and is fully referenced. Irejectreality (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• After having looked at Myles Dyer blade376 and Blade376, I feel that deleting Myles Dyer blade376 per WP:CSD#A7 is valid. This guy is basically someone who occasionally uploads something on YouTube. WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply however, since Blade376 wasn't deleted as the result of an AFD discussion. Keep deleted. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• I had reviewed that tag while it was placed, but before I could act on it, Jmlk had deleted it. What he deleted it under is not a speedy criterion; the closest thing it resembls is G4, which doesn't apply to speedy and prods. However, it should still have been deleted under A7 web. There's no need to undelete and delete under a new criterion, so I endorse his deletion. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The deletion log contains the speedy nom, which states "nn-bio", so I'm assuming that A7 was part of the reason. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

you may say that, but other less well known people from that site have fully functioning articles on wikipedia, such as nalts boh3m3 and renetto. If these people are fine to have an article, then why can't blade376?? Irejectreality (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ben Going (boh3m3) has been covered by i.a. Associated Press, the New York Times, Newsweek, New York Post, CNET and Newsday, to name a few sources. Paul Robinett (renetto) has been covered by The New York Times, New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and BBC News. Kevin Nalty (nalts) has been covered by The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times and ABC News. If you can provide similar sources for Myles Dyer, you've gone a long way towards establishing his notability. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see what i can find. I do know hes had quite a bit of press coverage, it's just finding it. I'll update this shortly, so if you cancheck bac then, i'll be very greatful Irejectreality (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• 'Endorse deletion, content qualifies for speedy and the requester has no significant history other than promoting this subject. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to the Future timeline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to the Future timeline (3rd nomination)

This was closed by User:Haemo as "The result was Merge to Back to the Future trilogy", but "merge" was only suggested by one of the twenty participants in the discussion. It appears that merging is Haemo's personal solution, and not a neutral or proper interpretation of the consensus represented in this discussion. There's no possible way that merge can be interpretted from this discussion. Haemo has clearly stepped over the line here. Except for the one merge !vote, the discussion was divided strictly between those who wished to keep and those who wished to delete, with the keeps prevailing either directly or defaulting to keep via no clear consensus. I'm baffled by Haemo's closing of this deletion discussion as "merge". The merge should be overturned and the list kept as per the real consensus. The Transhumanist    21:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the page still unsourced ? Nick (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My closure was not based on merely the bolded !votes — it was based on the arguments made, and their basis in policy. The strongest policy-based argument made was that this article has insufficient 3rd party sources to demonstrate notability — as such, most of the article was some form, or degree of original research. The strongest argument in favor of keeping the subject was that renomination was premature — the "sources exist" argument was not compelling. As such, I found that the consensus of the discussion was that the article was inappropriate. No editors contested the deletion argument, while the keep arguments were roundly contested. However, nearly all of the "delete" arguments argued the content was better dealt with briefly in the articles on the respective films, and that it was the concept of the timeline as being independently notable that was the issue. Consensus clearly indicated that there was some plausible place for the material in other articles — since the clearest suggestion for which article was to Back to the Future trilogy I settled on that.

Your statement that Keep was the "correct" consensus is wrong. AFD is not a vote, and if I had gone merely by the strongest bolded recommendations, this article would have been deleted. Instead, I opted to actually read what people recommended, and decided that consensus was in favor of this content in some form — just not as a stand-alone article. --Haemo (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The subject is "Back to the Future", and it is obviously notable. The word "timeline" is a standard Wikipedia construct, a specialized form of "list", and pertains entirely to the format in which the material is organized - it is not subject to the notability requirement. The contents of articles (including lists and timelines) are not subject to notability (see WP:N#NCONTENT, only the subject of the article is. For example, the List of World War II ships doesn't have to provide notability of the list as a list but only of the subject it displays in list form, the same applies to timelines as timelines, such as the Timeline of World War I -- timelines do not have to have been published elsewhere or referred to elsewhere -- Wikipedians have constructed timelines in the same way that they construct lists and other articles, and timelines are no more a synthesis of their respective topics than articles or lists are of the topics they present. Chronological representation of material is just one of the formats used in Wikipedia to present information, and that's what the word "timeline" in Wikipedia articles refers to. Therefore, the argument that you identified as the strongest in the discussion is actually the weakest, as it has no basis under Wikipedia policy. The Transhumanist    22:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not AFD part deux — this argument was not advanced in the discussion, therefore it would be impossible to close based on it. The notion that a novel collection of original research on a subject becomes immune to notability guidelines because it is called a "timeline" is debatable — and, indeed, was debated. Your rationale for overturning this discussion was that it did not reflect the consensus — I have argued that it does — whereas you have instead advanced a new argument which was not displayed in the discussion as a rationale for keeping it. The core contention you make here was discussed, and was found to be outweighed by the problems of original research, plot summary, and the fact that the material could be better treated in other articles. You seem to be confused about your rationale for overturning this discussion, since you are arguing that the close did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, based on an argument that not made in the discussion. --Haemo (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Not so. My rationale pertains to the strength of an argument which you based your decision on, and as you stated above upon its basis in policy, and I showed how that argument was weak based on Wikipedia's policies and standard conventions - in other words, I was evaluating your interpretation of policy as you applied it to the closing of the AfD. And I provided a more sensisble alternate interpretation. The Transhumanist    22:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

But, the discussion indicated to me, that your rejoinder to that argument was considered and rejected. This may seem ironic, but I am not trying to interpret policy here at all — I'm determining which policy-based arguments were held to be the strongest in the discussion. I may believe, for example, that WP:NOT#PLOT is a bogus policy without consensus support in the community and any argument based upon it is equally bogus — however, I would still judge these as policy-based arguments, and look at how the discussion perceived their strength relative strengths. If an argument is weak, based on my interpretation of policy over which there is (and was) discussion, but the debate does not agree with my interpretation I should nonetheless defer to the consensus in the discussion. To give a personal example — I dislike "No sources demonstrate notability" arguments in discussions, because they are a negative statement. However, I would not overturn a discussion which held those to be the compelling argument on a subject. --Haemo (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and close as no consensus, looking at that AFD, I don't see consensus to merge. --Pixelface (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing something as merge, keep, or no consensus won't make a difference, the end result is the same each time. If he had closed it as a 'no consensus', he could've still merged the thing. Even now, anyone who disagrees can revert the merge, since nothing's been deleted. - Bobet 14:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse merge Haemo's explanation is reasonable. AfD is not a vote. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - A well-reasoned decision, compliant with the AfD. -- Kesh (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Closing admin is not bound by the numbers and is charged with interpreting the entire debate, including the relative strength of the arguments and their concurrence with policy and guidelines. Closing as merge reflects both the desire to preserve the information in some form and the policy and guideline arguments against keping the article as a separate entity. Otto4711 (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, strongly, or overturn and delete outright. Local consensus cannot override official policy, and you will never find a clearer example of original research on Wikipedia than this. The first and second afds are actively nauseating. —Cryptic 21:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, very moderate. I'd have nuked it as worthless badly sourced cruft. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse merge, looks like a reasonable outcome. Yes, this was OR, but there wasn't consensus to delete it, and merging was the best solution; AFD is not a vote. --Coredesat 06:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak endorse. I don't like it, and I think in time it will just be merged out again for space reasons. But it does work, and I can see it as a valid close. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Overturn to keep  !votes go toward keep and it comes back to two questions: #1 is this OR, and #2 is it notable. #1 I don't have a clue on. #2 I'd have to say the topic as a whole is, and breaking this out seems like a reasonable decision. A merge seems like a poor idea given the size of the articles involved. Plus merger wasn't really anything near the consensus (perhaps because people were aware of the size problems) Hobit (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse As long as the info remains at Back to the Future trilogy#Time Travel Theory where it is now, it works out fine, and that article is the better for it. In any event, that article is unlikely to really need to grow--twenty plus years in, we're not likely to get another sequel or major new information. Never say never though, I suppose... Lawrence § t/e 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

History of For Better or For Worse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

An article which clearly completely fails a standard policy WP:NOT#PLOT, but was kept. Not only does the article contain plot summary, it is nothing BUT plot summary. Given the recent RfAR on fiction, where editors described WP:NOT as "disputed", this could set a precedent. Black Kite 20:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. Article clearly fails WP:NOT#PLOT, which was the whole point of the nomination, and the Keep votes in this AFD do not answer this. It seems the closing admin just counted noses. This was a terrible closure. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Although there was no consensus to delete (and at the very least, the AFD should have been closed as "no consensus" rather than as "keep"), no one in favor of keeping the article presented any argument that it is not a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Rather, the "keep" arguments were based on the article's being "useful" and the fact that it was previously removed from the main For Better or For Worse article. Frankly, neither of those arguments outweighs the fact that the article is a policy violation. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Your claim that "no one in favor of keeping the article presented any argument that it is not a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT" is false. At least two people in that AFD mentioned that the article was split off and could be merged back in (which renders WP:PLOT moot). The simple fact is that the content is not a "policy violation" if it's put back where it came from in the first place. I should point out that the article actually complies with the initial wording of WP:PLOT: "Wikipedia articles should not act solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction, but should offer summarised plots in conjunction with sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series." --Pixelface (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion [this is a typo, see below], based on what the AfD closer had to work with. A good close, by those means. If the "history" of this particular comic strip is "notable", I don't see why it can't be included in the parent article, as expressed by those in the original debate. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean endorse closure? It wasn't deleted. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the place for this is in the parent article, except that this is far too long and detailed, and a useful summary of the important plot points already exists there. Black Kite 20:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's of course what I meant. Too many AfDs and DRVs. Here is my revised statement:

• Endorse closure' as keep, based on what the AfD closer had to work with. A good close, by those means. If the "history" of this particular comic strip is "notable", I don't see why it can't be included in the parent article, as expressed by those in the original debate. However, the closer followed what the discusssion seemed to want. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. Unsourced, nothing but plot summary, utterly misconceived. This isn't what Wikipedia is here for. Perhaps someone could put it in Comixpedia; it doesn't belong here, though. Nandesuka (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure' as keep - the community has decided to keep this, which provides the opportunity to fix it. If it isn't fixed in a reasonable amount of time, it can be nominated for deletion again. In the meantime, we should respect the consensus. There is no procedural point upon which the AfD should be overturned, and therefore it should be upheld. The Transhumanist    21:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's clearly procedural - "The community" doesn't get to rewrite policy, and the AfD should've been closed in line with policy - which it wasn't. If it was WP:BLP that was the issue here, there would be little argument - why is WP:NOT different? Black Kite 21:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree consensus should be respected. The AFD did not reach any consensus, but WP:NOT does have consensus. This article is in violation of WP:NOT and there is no way to "fix" this article other than by deleting it. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• The community actually does get to rewrite policy. Policy flows from consensus, not the other way around. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Personally I don't think WP:PLOT even belongs in WP:NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Policy is written by the community; that is not the same as a small cadre of editors choosing to ignore policy and claim it as "consensus". Consensus is what created the policies in the first place. If you wish to rewrite WP:NOT, then WT:NOT is the correct venue. Black Kite 22:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think you'll find there already is a discussion going on at WT:NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is no procedure on display here at all. The full text of the closure was "The result was Keep." With an obvious result that is probably okay to do, but in this AFD the glaring WP:PLOT was simply ignored—the article has simply no other content except plot summary—with no rationale given for this Keep. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure as keep, there was no consensus to delete that article and DRV is not AFD round 2. If necessary the content can be merged back into the For Better or For Worse article (since it was spunout in the first place). WP:PLOT doesn't even belong in WP:NOT, it belongs in WP:WAF. And Angr redirecting the article after the AFD was over was disruptive. --Pixelface (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• It needs to be merged back into the parent, then. WP:SPINOUT clearly says "Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies.". Black Kite 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• So I take it you'll be withdrawing this DRV? --Pixelface (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• My redirecting the article after the AFD was over wasn't nearly as disruptive as the creation of this "article" in the first place. It shouldn't have been spun out of the main article, it should have been simply removed from the main article. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Why? The article still exists. Black Kite 22:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• You said it needs to be merged back into the parent. I take it you brought this to DRV so it could be deleted but if it's merged it can't be deleted. --Pixelface (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly, if the material is put back in the main article then this doesn't need to exist any longer. (It shouldn't exist separately anyway, hence the DRV - but a summary of this material is unobjectionable as part of the larger topic). Black Kite 22:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• If the material is put in the main article, the history for this article needs to exist to fulfill the GFDL. Merge and Delete is never the right option.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• You're suggesting a merge then delete? Go read WP:MERGE, particularly the part that says "Merging — regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect." --Pixelface (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• A merge always needs a redirect (unless there is no edit history). However, since this article is entirely plot summary, it can be deleted wholesale. None of this makes a point; it just recaps what happened in the strip for 25 years. That said, if this information is considered helpful in the parent article, a merge would be an acceptable solution. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• The article was created on October 12, 2006 by JenKilmer[1], who spun it out from the main article[2] since the article was getting too large. We have plot summaries for 2 hour films and years and years of soap operas, so why not plot summaries for comic strips that have been published for nearly 30 years? DRV is to determine whether the closing admin interpreted the debate correctly and so far I have seen nobody here who says there was consensus to delete in that AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• There was WP:CONSENSUS to delete. None of the Keep voters addressed the nominator's valid policy concern. This was not a poll. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• There actually was no consensus to delete and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Editors can ignore WP:PLOT if they think it improves Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• You cannot invoke IAR to ignore a policy that you don't agree with. That is utterly ridiculous and tendentious. Black Kite 23:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Actually that's exactly what IAR means. --Pixelface (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• WP:IAR applies to editing, not to AFD. It means you do not need to be fluent in Wikipedia's rule system to edit. It doesn't mean all policies are void if you don't like them. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, no, it applies to everything. Essentially, it's there to keep Wikipedia from turning into a bureaucracy. If blindly following the "rules" leads to a conclusion that is clearly absurd, or is at odds with the consensus of interested editors in a particular situation, you ignore the rules and do what's not absurd/in accord with the wishes of those participating in the discussion. Bureaucracy is bad. Avoid it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• But in this case, Pixelface is invoking IAR in order to achieve a situation that is clearly absurd, namely that an article that has no encyclopedic value whatsoever, and never can have any encyclopedic value whatsoever, should be kept. The rule Pixelface would have us ignore is the "rule" that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 00:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• What is it that makes an article encyclopedic? Can you give a concrete definition, or are you just using it as a cover for your destructive ambitions? There's nothing absurd about it--its contents are perfectly appropriate for an encyclopedia. I fail to see how anyone could ever think otherwise? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• The phrase "your destructive ambitions" might not be in the spirit of assuming good faith. You had better invoke WP:IAR, and fast. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support closure as keep or no consensus. The parent article covers a comic strip which has has a 27 year history. This article does needs clean-up but deletion is not the answer. The parent article, which existence would seem to negate the entire WP:NOT#PLOT issue, seems well-balanced and it looks like this was spunoff to deal with size issue, seems cruel to now delete content when they were trying to follow protocol. If WP:NOT#PLOT is such a big deal then add a lede summary to address that concern. If it otherwise needs rewriting then perhaps that should be addressed. Benjiboi 22:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak endorse closure. First, the article as it stands is nothing but plot summary, which is not -- absent real-world information -- encyclopedic. I would have recommended deletion had I participated in the AfD. However, it is clear that there was no consensus to delete the article among those who did participate. While I realize a closure must take into account the strength of arguments, I believe a "delete" result cannot be reasonably supported given the discussion that occurred. I personally would have closed it as no consensus, based on the weakness of the "keep" arguments, but I don't find that to be grounds for overturning. I would support a relisting to clarify consensus. Powers ^T 23:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete - The article even states itself at the beginning: Story outline by year. Violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, with no rationale by closer as to why this should be kept over policy. -- Kesh (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Can I just ask again those endorsing - at which point did we allow a small "consensus" (actually, it wasn't even a consensus at 6/4) of users to agitate to keep utterly unencyclopedic material in this encyclopedia completely against policy. What on earth is the point in having policies if we completely ignore them? I have never, ever, seen such a clear-cut example of an XfD which is a clear Delete where policy is being completely ignored. "If WP:NOT#PLOT is such a big deal...." - it's a POLICY. I find this DRV so far utterly unbelievable and a shocking indictment of what we have allowed Wikipedia to become. Black Kite 23:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe the interpretation is that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is policy, but the specific application of that policy to (in this case) plot summaries, is not writ in stone. Alternatively, if you prefer, the consensus was not that the current content of the article is encyclopedic, but rather that the article topic ("the fictional history of the characters in the comic strip For Better or For Worse") is encyclopedic -- and thus that the article should be improved rather than deleted outright. That opinion is within the bounds of What Wikipedia Is Not policy. Powers ^T 23:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Disagree. WP:NOT#PLOT is quite clear, and we don't keep articles that "might be improved" if they utterly fail policy. After all, we wouldn't keep a WP:BLP violation on the basis that someone might fix it, or a WP:BIO violation just in case that person became notable in the future. Black Kite 23:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
      • This isn't about WP:BLP and this isn't an article about living person, which has stricter standards. Go read the editing policy. --Pixelface (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
        • OK, just tell me - which bit of WP:NOT#PLOT is unclear, or doesn't apply to this article? Tell me that, and I'll withdraw this DRV. Black Kite 23:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
          • You should have withdrawn it right after you said "It needs to be merged back into the parent, then." --Pixelface (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
            • And again - tell me which bit of WP:NOT#PLOT is unclear, or doesn't apply to this article? Black Kite 23:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
              • WP:PLOT says "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." It doesn't say articles lacking that should be deleted outright. The For Better or For Worse article *does* contain real-world context and sourced analysis, as well as detail on the comic strip's historical significance. This is a sub-article of that article — which is evident by the presence of the {{main}} template under the ==Key storylines== heading. If you *insist* that this article be viewed as an island, information about the work's development and real-world context can be merged from the main article to this one. Or this sub-article can be merged back into the For Better or For Worse article. Now what makes you think Keilana interpreted the AFD incorrectly? --Pixelface (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
                • So you are proposing that an article composed entirely of plot summary can be saved by adding a token amount of non-plot content? Solutions based on raising article quality from unacceptable to merely bad-but-WP:ILIKEIT demonstrate that this AFD could only have been closed as Delete. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • One of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that poor articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. I've already offered a solution — merge the content back into the article it came from — which shows that the AFD could not only have been closed as delete, and that Keilana actually closed it properly. --Pixelface (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay there's something wrong with my browser. When I type in WP:NOT#PLOT, I come to a page that looks like Wikipedia, but it says

      Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot.

      Please tell me what it says when you go to WP:NOT#PLOT, cos when I scroll up on this page, I swear it says it's a Wikipedia policy. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Go type in WP:IAR and tell me what your browser says. --Pixelface (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
        • On that basis, I could press "Delete" on this article right now, because I'd be improving the encyclopedia by deleting an unencyclopedic article that fails a core policy. I'd think about that before you go flinging IAR around. Black Kite 23:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry. What was that? I'm trying to help Edgarde with his browser. --Pixelface (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Thanks Pixelface. Looking at this page is seems like "Ignore all rules" is your only line, so perhaps discussions relating to procedure and policy may not be your strong point. I have more on IAR above. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Oh I know all about policy and procedure. DRV should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome. I'm glad you're browser is working better now. --Pixelface (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Ahem, please save the snarkiness for off-wikipedia use; to both your points this article is the plot of the parent article and as such WP:NOT#PLOT wouldn't seem to apply. That is, if we put all this content back into the parent it wouldn't be a WP:NOT#PLOT issue. DRV process is to see if the AfD was closed properly. Benjiboi 23:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed; and it wasn't, because it was closed against policy. Black Kite 23:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia works by building consensus. When there is no consensus to delete during an AFD, the article is kept. If referring to policy is all that was required, it would be unnecessary for editors to comment in deletion discussions. --Pixelface (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• You clearly misunderstand the function of AfD. Whilst the comments of those at AfD are taken into account, they are always subordinate to policy. Black Kite 23:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AFD was not closed properly, as stated above. And WP:NOT#PLOT also means excessive plot summary is still not desirable even in an article that contains other content. WP:SUMMARY does not make the presence of a parent article into a policy escape clause. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Black Kite, those policies were built by community consensus, and even if those expressing opinions on AfD aren't citing the policies you wish the person closing the AfD also needs to look at the consensus of the AfD. edg, this article wasn't created nor does it exist in a vacuum. Benjiboi 00:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly not, but if we're starting to ignore policy in favour of ILIKEIT votes in AfD discussions, then we need to look very carefully at some very problematic areas that this could lead us. That is my concern. Black Kite 00:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• When editors ignore a policy, that indicates the policy doesn't actually have consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• No, it just indicates tendentious editors to me. As I said, the place for policy discussion is not in articles. Black Kite 07:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• And please point out to me the "ILIKEIT votes" in that AFD (or point me to the AfD discussions you're referring to). Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. When a handful of editors ignore a policy, that indicates we ought to correct their misunderstanding here at deletion review. --Dragonfiend (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Then please go read the editing policy which says "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to:...move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)." And go read WP:ATD, which is also policy. --Pixelface (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reading suggestions, but I am already quite familiar with our guidelines and policies and simply disagree with your seeming ignorance of key portions of them. --Dragonfiend (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
      • You seem to be ignorant of several policies yourself — particularly the original wording of WP:PLOT which actually allows for this article. --Pixelface (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the trip down memory lane. Ahh ... 2006. Those were good times. --Dragonfiend (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Angr's argument is compelling. — Dulcem (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete — per Angr's argument which puts it well. --Haemo (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep Pixelface makes some good points. A merge discussion on whether it should be in the main article or kept separate is more appropriate than deleting this material outright. Buspar (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as keep; comprehensiveness requires the existence of a subarticle for greater detail. We have to reconcile the idea that articles should not be solely based on plot with the need to expand content. Certainly one could write more about the history of this strip than just the history of its storyline, so isn't that a solution? If someone could just expand the scope so that the article discussed the author's ideas about the strip, syndication and popularity over time, awards...any kind of "real world" history, we could avoid this argument. Everyking (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Someone has done that - it's in the main article already. Black Kite 07:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm just pointing out how the article could be expanded so that it is more than just plot. Everyking (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete per Angr. Keep !votes had no basis in policy. Resolute 14:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. No policy asserted that would justify retaining this. Eusebeus (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as keep Storyline of a notable comic strip is an encyclopedic topic, and articles of legitimate subjects should stay as it has every chance to be improved. A page of this type is acceptable in that it allows for a clearer and more logical orgnization of a large topic, see WP:NOT#PLOT where it says "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." (that does apply to stand-alone articles) Clean up the article, trim it down to just one or two paragaphs as you see fit; it's still not a reason for deletion. I'm surprised that some editors have asked to overturn the close and even delete the article; there is no consensus, by any means, for any act of deletion in that AfD. DRV cannot go blatanly against the will of AfD participants. The most they should ask out of this DRV is a relist, not deletion. A merge or a no consensus would require keeping the article anyway. Good close. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn & Delete Consensus should be judged against policy not headcount. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete; Weight of keep argument: WP:ILIKEIT = 0. — Coren ^(talk) 20:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you please point out the ILIKEITs in that AFD and why you think Keilana interpreted the debate incorrectly? --Pixelface (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Keep argument: appropriate spin-out page for plot of a series. Suggest those wanting to delete wait 5 or 6 months, when there might be clearer consensus for their position in another AfD; this is what would be appropriate.. Those who say no basis in policy, mean, no basis in their interpretation of policy. But the way we interpret policy is according to the expressed consensus. DGG (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• There can't be any interpretation of policy here - this is just "what happened this week in this cartoon" which people add to occasionally and that's it. It's sat there and failed WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NOT for a long time - why should it change in six months? Black Kite 06:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• As stated before, I think the WP:V and WP:NOT are answered by WP:SIZE and suggested breakout rules. But WP:OR isn't. Could you identify the OR you see? 68.40.58.255 (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure This isn't AFD part 2 so all this talk of why it should or should not be deleted is irrelevant. The closure was reasonable and should be upheld, though "no consensus" would probably have been a better summary. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. This is, in fact, not nearly as clear cut as those arguing so vociferously to remove this content would like us to believe. It seems obvious to me that WP:NOT#PLOT was written about articles that were standalone plot summaries with no other context or content. But this is a sub-article that was split from a lengthier main article. I see no evidence that WP:NOT was meant to apply to a sub-article written under the auspices of WP:SUMMARY, which is an essential guideline for writing an encyclopedia. I cringe to imagine the destruction that would follow from such a narrow-minded reading of WP:NOT. That this is the result of following the summary style guideline makes it a special case, and Keilana correctly interpreted the previous discussion. --JayHenry (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no formal distinction between standalone articles and "sub-articles". A reader encountering this article for the first time sees a "standalone plot summary with no other context or content". When content is spun out from a main article into a sub-article, the sub-article has to meet all the requirements other articles are subject to, including WP:NOT#PLOT. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • If we need to write rules and policies about the difference between standalone articles and subarticles perhaps we should do so. I'm not a big fan of WikiLaws and see this as an obvious example of a moment for a common sense exception (and thus find a common sense closure of an AFD appropriate). Of course, I've been here long enough to know that common sense is not popular, but I'll advocate for it nonetheless. The vast majority of people coming to the article are, of course, going to be coming to the article because they are looking for the information, probably via the For Better or Worse article. So your initial statement is simply not true most of the time. How else does someone get there? The random page button? Okay, but even then surely they'll read the first sentence where it explicitly states that it's broken off the main article. Respectfully, I disagree with your conclusions. --JayHenry (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      • THe problem is that the nature of enwiki means that "common sense exceptions" are immediately used as precedent (though frankly, I don't think this is an exception - it's as clear a failure of WP:NOT as I've seen, especially as a cogent summary of the plot is already in the main article, and has been for a while. This article is effectively "what happened this week in this series" - look at the last paragraph "April visits Grandpa Jim and Iris. Anthony and Elizabeth become engaged on March 13,2008,with both of them subsequently talking to Francoise individually about their relationship." Is this encyclopedic information? No. Black Kite 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
        • To be clear, the only thing I'm endorsing is that common sense tells me we should not give sub-articles a lawyerly and unbending reading of guidelines and policies that were written to apply to standalone articles. An overly lawyerly reading of WP:NOT could lead one to delete Timeline of Jane Austen. I think this is an example where we probably agree that it would be idiotic to delete -- right? -- a scholarly and extremely encyclopedic article about an important literary subject that could run afoul of some of the strictures of WP:NOT. The difference perhaps, is that the Timeline of Jane Austen is extremely well done, whereas this article is a mess. I don't disagree that the article needs substantial clean up. But I don't see that as a reason to take it to AFD and DRV. --JayHenry (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
          • No, the difference between Timeline of Jane Austen and this article is that Timeline of Jane Austen is a timeline of things that happened in the real world, not a fictional universe. And the last thing we need to do is create a difference between standalone articles and subarticles. Articles are articles, and all are equally subject to policies like WP:NOT. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I understand that it doesn't run afoul of WP:PLOT, but I'm reluctant to advance arguments of where it might run afoul of other aspects of WP:NOT, for fear that someone would then rush to delete the article to demonstrate how important they want "WP:NOT" to be. Goodness, I'm merely talking about using sound editorial judgment and considering the context within Wikipedia of an article. Sorry, but you're mistaken if you think WP:NOT, because it is "policy", takes priority over having a good encyclopedia; sometimes having a good encyclopedia means considering the context of an article in relationship to other articles. I'm arguing that's the case here. I'm not saying that a sub-article is exempt from every single sentence of WP:NOT. I'm saying organizational scheme and context are perfectly apropos considerations. Please, I'm not being a radical here. --JayHenry (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
              • I don't think WP:NOT takes priority over having a good encyclopedia; on the contrary, WP:NOT defines what a good encyclopedia is. And History of For Better or For Worse is no part of a good encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 02:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
                • To be clear: I do agree that this particular article, as written, is not a quality article at the moment; I disagree that it never could me. And I'm extremely reluctant to endorse the notion that such an article, as part of a broader scheme, could never be "encyclopedic" under any circumstances. --JayHenry (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete, per Coren. Much handwaving and misdirection from the "Keep" side, litlle actual policy or reasoning. --Calton | Talk 03:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, keep arguments were not grounded in policy, and Wikipedia is not a plot guide. --Coredesat 07:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Although I like the information, it is simply not wikipedia's mission to present a (detailed) plot overview without offering analysis. WP:FICT makes an excellent point in suggesting a trim of plot first before creating spinouts. If that had happened 1.5 years ago (when WP:FICT said other things), this article would never have been created in the first place. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep Article was split as per WP:SIZE. Viewing the topics as a whole notability is obvious. Per WP:IAR the first goal is to make wikipedia better. Making one huge article on the topic is clearly the wrong thing and insisting on a "break-out style" where the sub-topic broken out is notable isn't the right way to write this article (else that's how people would have broken it out). Put another way: there were valid policy reasons for the keep. They were, IMO, stronger than the deletes so a keep was rational and correct. Hobit (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - the article should not exist on its own per WP:PLOT but it would seem appropriate for information on the history to be included in the main For Better or For Worse article. Most of the arguments for keeping the article seem to be based on WP:SS but even if the two article were combined as they are now (and I imagine the history article will be pruned/cleaned up as suggested in the AfD), the resulting article would be under the 50K limit suggested at WP:SIZE. Guest9999 (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. While Wikipedia isn't for bare plot summaries, spinning off sub-articles that dwell on plot information may be a useful technique for dealing with large articles. I'd be happy to see this deleted myself but other conclusions are possible (including a drastic trim and merge back to main article, which would be "keep") based on the discussion. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  Are you certain this closure does not contradict policy? The parent article already contains a summary of notable storylines, so the merge you propose is neither needed nor likely to be attempted. A recent redirect was promptly reverted. It is hard to see how a Keep in this case is anything less than a Keep. Are you really certain you endorse this? / edg ☺ ☭ 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  If it remains as it is, we can continue the discussion from there. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  I switch to abstain because I think the principles advanced in either direction have merit. In balance I don't believe the deletion of this article would result in a loss to the encyclopedia. I reiterate that the closer made a good and decent call. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge, or relist. This is excessive detail for a general encyclopaedia and the debate appears to me to have been distorted by canvassing. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Reminder: in Deletion review, the main decision being made is to Endorse or Overturn. While a "Relist" is basically an overturn, a "Merge" may be interpreted either way. As for canvassing, this Review was instigated by a dispute on WP:ANI. I'm not aware of any actual canvassing. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep Appears to be a proper list article. Perhaps it needs a template that points back to the section it spun out of, but this nom appears to be a "second bite at the apple." Ursasapien (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

It's a sad day when Wikipedia has to quash freedom of speech in order to "uphold policy". —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to have confused wikipedia the project to build a free encyclopedia, with wikipedia the experiment in personal expressions of free speech. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: Freedom of speech is (1) not an absolute, and (2) doesn't apply to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Free speech). Userboxes that attack an individual are most emphatically not permitted under our policies (which DO apply, while freedom of speech does not). Further, the userbox was replaced by one that does not identify a particular person, though it is polemical (and userboxes have been deleted on that basis before). See User:Bleveret/Userbox/ruin, which makes this DR pointless. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Darren M Jackson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

If you ignore the extra keep vote by User:Diamonddannyboy, the multiple comments by him, and the comment by the single purpose ip of 90.208.51.74, then there is indeed a consensus to delete. Furthermore, nearly all of the keep votes admit that there are no reliable sources for the subject of the article. RogueNinja_talk 17:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• The original editors who put it up for deletion even came to its rescue, it has five keeps by indepentent editors, not to include those by User:Diamonddannyboy but five from others, notablity was proved under WP:ATHLETE17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• The above comment was added by User:Diamonddannyboy - RogueNinja_talk 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• On the AFD entry page there is Five keeps indepentent of daidannyboy and four deletes and one weak delete. why is put up again for a review. This again due to it being part of the Romany project. 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamonddannyboy (talk • contribs)

• As the closing admin, I endeavored to clean up various repeated comments by Diamonddannyboy (talk · contribs) and sort these things out, I obviously missed one bolded keep, but that didn't affect my close decision. My close was based on a few things...I don't count votes when I close AfDs, but I can't help but notice there are six different editors that registered some form of a "keep" comment and five going the other way. If I was a countin' type, that's a no consensus for sure. As noted in my brief closing comment, "Keep working on WP:BIO sourcing", I was aware of the general concerns brought up and sympathize with the arguments that the current sourcing is gray-area for notability guideline purposes. I took that into account as I viewed the large changes that occurred over the course of the AfD (compare: before/after and the addition of several references). These changes, and the comments from later in the AfD leaning towards keep (weak or otherwise) indicated to me that there was a trend of improvement within the article that merited a no consensus decision to allow further progress. I stand by my close, obviously, and also add that reference and notability tags may be appropriate for the article, and an AfD renomination--after vetting the new references--is a perfectly valid option (though I would hope substantial improvement time will be allowed). I would, naturally, have explained all this to RogueNinja if it had been brought up to me first... — Scientizzle 18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sustain keep a reasonable close;; the article was improved during the afd, and most of the keeps followed that improvement. DGG (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think this should be revisited. One of the keeps, for example, argued: It seems to me that an unfortunate combination of an underground sport and a long-repressed ethnic group requires sketchy sources. In fact, information from this secretive people is so rare that Mr Jackson must be notable for even courting attention this far into the mainstream. That could be read as countering systemic bias, or it could be read as "keep despite failing core policy because it's hard to cover this subject otherwise". Yes indeed, bare-knuckle fighters are not widely covered. Neither are fighting dog breeders or cock fight promoters. Do we take whatever we can find in order to cover these subjects, or do we simply decide that they are too much of a niche for us to be able to cover without violating policy? Guy (Help!) 20:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sustain keep I argued for a weak keep of the article after making changes to layout converting to prose (sorry realised that it was more than layout) and trying to track down references. Still, in spite of that bias, I would argue that the article started off as unsuitable for Wikipedia, and after the work of several editors (in which I was involved) during the AfD it reached a point where it is worth giving it more time. My impression of the AfD debate was that most commentators had moved to that point as well - not that there was a strong desire to keep, but instead a belief that the article had been improved sufficiently over the course of the AfD to warrant keeping for now. As recommended by Scientizzle, I'll continue to chase down and verify the remaining references, and if they can't be verified (or aren't sufficient), and if no other support for the article is found, I expect to see the article renominated in a couple of months. - Bilby (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sustain keep The primary editor is a newby and as such botched all sorts of things including dealing with those who came along to delete their work. Right now they're trying to figure out how to cite a magazine interview even though that work isn't online. If, as has been suggested there simply isn't enough RS to support this then I'm quite confident someone will quickly AfD at the first chance possible. Until then I'm willing to AGF. Benjiboi 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm going to simply say what I have said from the start of the afd, and that it the aticles proves notable under wiki guide lines AP:ATHLETE must compete in a fully professional league. See pro record from sherdog this proves Jackson competed in a fully professional league, it does not say is in AP:ATHLETE is Jackson a fully professional. Enough is done, come on guys!!! its a great article thanks to all those that helped 07:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamonddannyboy (talk • contribs)

• Comment Added more reliable source from the Romany Routes website. see Darren M Jackson ref 7. 10:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Diamonddannyboy, the primary author and contributor has been blocked for one week so is unable to make further corrections or contributions until then. They were blocked for sockpuppetry apparently to sway articles from being deleted. Benjiboi 19:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sustain keep Keep under WP:ATHLETE relibale sources.— 90.208.218.50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Template:Rnb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The template was deleted without any prior discussion or voting about this template. There was a voting about the project page connected to it, but NOT about this template. If there was any discussion about this that I didn't notice, please inform me. This request also concerns the subpage Rnb/button. Freestyle 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a previous deletion discussion which was closed as "Userfy" - that is when material not suitable for the main namespaces (article, template, wikipedia etc) is moved to the userspace rather than being deleted. The Random Button was deleted because the creator moved the template back into the Wikipedia namespace. The nominator was well aware of this prior discussion - he took part in it, after all, but for the benefit of others Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Random Button. I'm also a little disappointed this was brought to deletion review by the nominator without any discussion, I was never asked to undelete or explain the deletion first. That's just not cricket, I'm afraid. Nick (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This template was deleted also without giving me (one of the main contributors) any notice or a chance to give my opinion prior to deletion, so I recognise this disappointment in a way, although you didn't quite put hours of work in deleting this template as I did making it. Still I do agree with you that it would've been better if I'd came to you before starting this request. Sorry about that.

As I said the discussion that took place earlier was about removing the project page connected to this template. I can see that having a project around a template would be not wanted, but deleting the project page does not grant the right to delete the template alltogether. At least I was not aware that the discussion was about the project page and the templates. This should have been made more clear by the nominator at the time, and I seriously doubt this was clear to all other voters. I think this unclearness might even be the reason why it has been put back in the first place. Freestyle 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia:MFD#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Random concludes with the project being kept, I'll restore the random template into your userspace. Nick (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse, allow userfication in Freestyle nl's userspace if requested. VegaDark (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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

It's not about having the close changed but rather I don't understand what the closing admin wants me to do. I'm not sure if they're notable, or s/he simply wants me to unbundle and renominate them or...? I'm not fluent in Wiki and I haven't heard an answer to my question. I don't want to do the wrong thing, but I don't know what to do. There doesn't appear to have been any consensus so judging from that doesn't help me much. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for any confusion I may have caused. As for your question, I didn't see it for some reason, I must have missed it. As for the close, there were some that may, on their own, achieve a consensus to delete, but the articles as a bundle did not. So, if you feel that some are less notable than others, I would recommend renominating them individually to get a clear picture of what should stay and what should go. Does that help? Again, sorry for the confusion. Keilana|^{Parlez ici}

No worries. Just saw your note now on my talk page, but replying here to keep it all in one place. I wasn't aware that a whole bundle needs to go one way or another, I thought they could be considered together to avoid the same arguments copy pasted in several AfDs and cluttering the page but that individual articles could be kept or deleted. My mistake, I'm still learning. Thanks for the clarification. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)