List of jazz clubs – Overturn and relist at AFD. Personally, I don't think the article is any better than this. However in the light of newer information added and more people interested in maintaining it, I feel that it deserves a fair hearing at AFD. – Srikeit 17:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of jazz clubs 2 --Srikeit 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of jazz clubs (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Overturn speedy delete. Significant new information added to list (locations), justifying renewal of article and addressing differentiation between the list and a category. Issues raised in past afd resolved. The most recent revisions illustrate the difference between the originally AfD'd version and what had changed.Freechild 22:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Your comment about the deleting admin is not necessary or appropriate. If you have reason to think the AfD should be overturned, then bringing it here is the right thing to do, and Cordesat gave you good advice. Chick Bowen 03:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] I didn't say I had any disdain for the list. Given that the list was essentially a recreation of deleted content by stating that it will never be complete (which was the main concern in the AFD), I endorse my deletion. A category would work far better in this case. I'll restore the history behind a tag. --Core desat 05:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. A category does not and cannot relay details related to locations. That effectively makes it more difficult for users to swiftly ascertain the geographic distribution of jazz clubs. Information on WP should be easy to access, and a list adds to that ease-of-use. Additionally, the new form of the list relied only on actual articles, which addressed the issue with redlining mentioned in the original AfD. By way of precedence, there is a List of opera houses, List of indoor arenas and even a Category:Lists of stadiums. See List of buildings for more. - Freechild 06:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] A category can relay details related to location using subcategories -21:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Endorse Closure Doesn't look like there are any problems with the AFD. Hard to see how a list like this can be properly maintained or finished. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted. The addition of the locations really doesn't add anything to the article. It is still just a category in disguise. I think the result will be the same if the new version is brought to afd. --- RockMFR 18:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn This is a perfectly valid subject for a list. Haddiscoe 19:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per Haddiscoe; also, appears more and additional info is being added per Freechild.A Musing 20:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist. The recreation certainly looks better, but I'm unsure whether I'd call it significantly different; however, the original debate was minimally-attended (a point curiously heretofore unmentioned.) Given the continuing debate over the "list vs. category" question in general, and the oft-expressed desire for solutions tailored to the circumstances of each case, I do think more discussion would clarify these issues. Original AfD wasn't wrong, but its under-attendence means that it has less conclusive force. Xoloz 01:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of jazz clubs – Overturn and relist at AFD. Personally, I don't think the article is any better than this. However in the light of newer information added and more people interested in maintaining it, I feel that it deserves a fair hearing at AFD. – Srikeit 17:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of jazz clubs 2 --Srikeit 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Overturn speedy delete. Significant new information added to list (locations), justifying renewal of article and addressing differentiation between the list and a category. Issues raised in past afd resolved. The most recent revisions illustrate the difference between the originally AfD'd version and what had changed.Freechild 22:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your comment about the deleting admin is not necessary or appropriate. If you have reason to think the AfD should be overturned, then bringing it here is the right thing to do, and Cordesat gave you good advice. Chick Bowen 03:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I had any disdain for the list. Given that the list was essentially a recreation of deleted content by stating that it will never be complete (which was the main concern in the AFD), I endorse my deletion. A category would work far better in this case. I'll restore the history behind a tag. --Core desat 05:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A category does not and cannot relay details related to locations. That effectively makes it more difficult for users to swiftly ascertain the geographic distribution of jazz clubs. Information on WP should be easy to access, and a list adds to that ease-of-use. Additionally, the new form of the list relied only on actual articles, which addressed the issue with redlining mentioned in the original AfD. By way of precedence, there is a List of opera houses, List of indoor arenas and even a Category:Lists of stadiums. See List of buildings for more. - Freechild 06:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A category can relay details related to location using subcategories -21:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Closure Doesn't look like there are any problems with the AFD. Hard to see how a list like this can be properly maintained or finished. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The addition of the locations really doesn't add anything to the article. It is still just a category in disguise. I think the result will be the same if the new version is brought to afd. --- RockMFR 18:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This is a perfectly valid subject for a list. Haddiscoe 19:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Haddiscoe; also, appears more and additional info is being added per Freechild.A Musing 20:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The recreation certainly looks better, but I'm unsure whether I'd call it significantly different; however, the original debate was minimally-attended (a point curiously heretofore unmentioned.) Given the continuing debate over the "list vs. category" question in general, and the oft-expressed desire for solutions tailored to the circumstances of each case, I do think more discussion would clarify these issues. Original AfD wasn't wrong, but its under-attendence means that it has less conclusive force. Xoloz 01:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Category:Jimmy Kimmel Live – "Keep" closure endorsed. Relisting subject to standard editorial discretion. – Xoloz 01:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Jimmy Kimmel Live (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`CfD`)` Overturn and delete - CFD was closed "keep." The closing admin stated that it was not deleted because "no other participant was convinced" by my argument. The admin clearly did not take the quality of the so-called "arguments" of the other participants (one wanted it kept because I'd said that it had guests of the show and it apparently doesn't, the other copied and pasted an identical general comment about deleting TV series categories into several CFDs and was ignored in every other CFD). The precedent against categorizing people by the projects on which they work is strong and clear. We do not categorize actors, writers, directors, producers, "personalities" etc. by their TV shows or networks. The admin obviously completely ignored that precedent. Based on the strong precedent that's been established and the utter lack of persuasive counter-argument as to why this category should be some sort of exception, the CFD closure should be overturned and the category deleted. Otto4711 13:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Clearly no consensus to delete. A relist in time may be applicable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse precdent is non-binding. If no-one in the discussion other then you wanted to delete and there was a factual error in the grounds for nomination, I'd say that this was well within administrartive discretion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - the grounds for the nomination were that the category contains "cast, crew and guests." The keep was premised on the supposed lack of guests. Hardly seems like the sort of "factual error" which should derail a nomination. Otto4711 15:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] You stated "category is being used to capture cast, crew and guests" and you were challenged on the assertion that the catagory contained guests. You partly conceded this point. The factual basis for the listing was therefore unsound. I loathe process wonking but you seriously can't expect to get something deleted if none of the persons responding agree with you and if the factual basis of the listing is at least partially sucessfully challenged. If you are really unhappy wait a few weeks and list it again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] As above, I doubt I'd call the close a "keep", but there certainly wasn't a consensus to delete either. --pgk 14:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Don't know why we are debating this. There's no consensus to delete in that discussion - but indeed there was little participation in the discussion - I suggest that the nom withdraws this DRV, and relists the category on CfD. --Doc^g 15:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] I would be happy to withdraw and relist, but the last time I did that without going through DRV first a zealous admin speedy closed the re-nomination and slapped a penalty on me for "disruption." If the closing admin tells me I can relist without risking a penalty then I'll go ahead with it. Otto4711 15:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment In general (at least where there is no discernible disruptive intent or disruptive tendency), I don't think the community objects to the immediate relisting of a page where the XfD engendered little participation; if the basis for a closed XfD is troublesome to an editor, his having expressed his concerns earlier might well would have resulted in the XfD's being relisted to generate a clearer consensus, especially where such concerns relate to the inconsistency of one decision with another similarly situated. Here, though, it should be observed that many other television program categories are now at CfD, and the ultimate disposition of this one ought, absent special circumstances, to mirror that of those CfDs. Joe 23:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] That's my point though, is that the outcome of this CFD doesn't mirror the results of any number of CFDs. Categorizing performers by their performances (which extends to crew members by the shows they work on) is overcategorization. The community has spoken loud and clear on this and dozens or hundreds of categories capturing actors, writers, directors, etc. broken down by film, television series, studio and network have been deleted as a result. Again, I have no objection whatsoever if the closing admin or any admin will step in here and assure me that a relist will not lead to a charge of "disruption," or if one wants to overturn and relist on his or her own, but since I really don't feel like serving out a bogus block for a good faith relist I won't do it on my own initiative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 27 May 2007 Otto, please consider my below comment such an endorsement for relist one month from the original listing. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - I think we've all had cases where we viewed that the consensus was wrong. The admin really had no choice, and you can't expect them to WP:IAR on something like this. Just let it sit for a month and then try again if you want. Nothing will be harmed if deletion of this cat is postponed for a bit. I doubt it will survive a second attempt. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse but relist. The closing was proper (personally I would have closed it as "no consensus" but that's not a substantial difference) but per lack of debate on the topic, it should be relisted or renominated if anyone wants more feedback. >Radiant< 10:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse keep Looks like consensus from the Cfd was keep--Sefringle 02:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relist. I too would have closed this as "no consensus" because there is a strong recent history of deleting similar categories, and this one has the same overcategorization problems. I suspect that many of us simply did not notice this one. I've gotten complacent about these categories since the big battle was fought over "actors by performances". Since that has settled, it seemed that there was tacit support for deleting these categories. I could name 5 to 10 CFD regulars who would probably vote to delete. Yes, we all missed this one. Relist. I'll wager it is quickly deleted. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Category:Jimmy Kimmel Live – "Keep" closure endorsed. Relisting subject to standard editorial discretion. – Xoloz 01:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Overturn and delete - CFD was closed "keep." The closing admin stated that it was not deleted because "no other participant was convinced" by my argument. The admin clearly did not take the quality of the so-called "arguments" of the other participants (one wanted it kept because I'd said that it had guests of the show and it apparently doesn't, the other copied and pasted an identical general comment about deleting TV series categories into several CFDs and was ignored in every other CFD). The precedent against categorizing people by the projects on which they work is strong and clear. We do not categorize actors, writers, directors, producers, "personalities" etc. by their TV shows or networks. The admin obviously completely ignored that precedent. Based on the strong precedent that's been established and the utter lack of persuasive counter-argument as to why this category should be some sort of exception, the CFD closure should be overturned and the category deleted. Otto4711 13:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Clearly no consensus to delete. A relist in time may be applicable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse precdent is non-binding. If no-one in the discussion other then you wanted to delete and there was a factual error in the grounds for nomination, I'd say that this was well within administrartive discretion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the grounds for the nomination were that the category contains "cast, crew and guests." The keep was premised on the supposed lack of guests. Hardly seems like the sort of "factual error" which should derail a nomination. Otto4711 15:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "category is being used to capture cast, crew and guests" and you were challenged on the assertion that the catagory contained guests. You partly conceded this point. The factual basis for the listing was therefore unsound. I loathe process wonking but you seriously can't expect to get something deleted if none of the persons responding agree with you and if the factual basis of the listing is at least partially sucessfully challenged. If you are really unhappy wait a few weeks and list it again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I doubt I'd call the close a "keep", but there certainly wasn't a consensus to delete either. --pgk 14:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know why we are debating this. There's no consensus to delete in that discussion - but indeed there was little participation in the discussion - I suggest that the nom withdraws this DRV, and relists the category on CfD. --Doc^g 15:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to withdraw and relist, but the last time I did that without going through DRV first a zealous admin speedy closed the re-nomination and slapped a penalty on me for "disruption." If the closing admin tells me I can relist without risking a penalty then I'll go ahead with it. Otto4711 15:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In general (at least where there is no discernible disruptive intent or disruptive tendency), I don't think the community objects to the immediate relisting of a page where the XfD engendered little participation; if the basis for a closed XfD is troublesome to an editor, his having expressed his concerns earlier might well would have resulted in the XfD's being relisted to generate a clearer consensus, especially where such concerns relate to the inconsistency of one decision with another similarly situated. Here, though, it should be observed that many other television program categories are now at CfD, and the ultimate disposition of this one ought, absent special circumstances, to mirror that of those CfDs. Joe 23:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point though, is that the outcome of this CFD doesn't mirror the results of any number of CFDs. Categorizing performers by their performances (which extends to crew members by the shows they work on) is overcategorization. The community has spoken loud and clear on this and dozens or hundreds of categories capturing actors, writers, directors, etc. broken down by film, television series, studio and network have been deleted as a result. Again, I have no objection whatsoever if the closing admin or any admin will step in here and assure me that a relist will not lead to a charge of "disruption," or if one wants to overturn and relist on his or her own, but since I really don't feel like serving out a bogus block for a good faith relist I won't do it on my own initiative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 27 May 2007

Otto, please consider my below comment such an endorsement for relist one month from the original listing. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I think we've all had cases where we viewed that the consensus was wrong. The admin really had no choice, and you can't expect them to WP:IAR on something like this. Just let it sit for a month and then try again if you want. Nothing will be harmed if deletion of this cat is postponed for a bit. I doubt it will survive a second attempt. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but relist. The closing was proper (personally I would have closed it as "no consensus" but that's not a substantial difference) but per lack of debate on the topic, it should be relisted or renominated if anyone wants more feedback. >Radiant< 10:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep Looks like consensus from the Cfd was keep--Sefringle 02:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I too would have closed this as "no consensus" because there is a strong recent history of deleting similar categories, and this one has the same overcategorization problems. I suspect that many of us simply did not notice this one. I've gotten complacent about these categories since the big battle was fought over "actors by performances". Since that has settled, it seemed that there was tacit support for deleting these categories. I could name 5 to 10 CFD regulars who would probably vote to delete. Yes, we all missed this one. Relist. I'll wager it is quickly deleted. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

NOT_JUST_FOR_PROFIT – Speedy closed: never has been such an article. – Mango juice^talk 11:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
NOT_JUST_FOR_PROFIT (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` PAGE_NOW_LINKS_COMLETELY_INACCURATELY_TO_NON_PROFIT_ORGANISATION Jim Lawn 11:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

NOT_JUST_FOR_PROFIT – Speedy closed: never has been such an article. – Mango juice^talk 11:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

PAGE_NOW_LINKS_COMLETELY_INACCURATELY_TO_NON_PROFIT_ORGANISATION Jim Lawn 11:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Nichole Marie Blackwell – Withdrawn by nominator – Core desat 06:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nichole Marie Blackwell (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` This AfD appears to have been closed improperly. There wasn't a consensus to merge and it was closed with the comment "The result was MERGE to Craigslist - this is an incident not a biography", clearly an AfD vote rather than an impartial judge of WP:CONSENSUS. --Oakshade 01:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] nothing to review. Merge ends up being an editorial decision, the redirect isn't protected, and you seem to be correct on the consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ah, didn't notice it wasn't protected and Jeff it quite right. I'm happy to let this one close early and withdraw the DRV. Can an admin please do the honors? --Oakshade 03:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Nichole Marie Blackwell – Withdrawn by nominator – Core desat 06:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This AfD appears to have been closed improperly. There wasn't a consensus to merge and it was closed with the comment "The result was MERGE to Craigslist - this is an incident not a biography", clearly an AfD vote rather than an impartial judge of WP:CONSENSUS. --Oakshade 01:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nothing to review. Merge ends up being an editorial decision, the redirect isn't protected, and you seem to be correct on the consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't notice it wasn't protected and Jeff it quite right. I'm happy to let this one close early and withdraw the DRV. Can an admin please do the honors? --Oakshade 03:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.