< March 1	Deletion review archives: 2008 March	March 3 >

2 March 2008

John McCain lobbyist controversy – Speedily closing - whether the redirect could be considered "deletion" or not does not change the fact that no history was deleted - redirection is not deletion unless the history is deleted (redirection has never been considered deletion). As such, this is not within the scope of DRV, as there is no deletion to review. any discussion that could be had here should be had on the article's talk page, as redirecting is editorial, and this redirect was not the direct result of a deletion debate. Clarification: From what I have read, the article was kept in its AFD, then someone else redirected it. Anyone could have reverted this redirect, and asked the person who inserted the redirect to discuss it on the talk page. This is essentially a content dispute, which is not in the scope of DRV and never has been. – Core desat 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
John McCain lobbyist controversy (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` The article prior to blanking and redirection This article was recently retained as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, in which there was a clear consensus, and a judgment by the closing administrator, that the article concerned a notable topic, and did not constitute a WP:BLP violation. Some editors are now insisting on blanking and redirecting the article anyway [1] [2] [3]. Has consensus really changed in this much in last three days? John254 13:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] This entry seems to have nothing to do with deletion. Redirection and merging are editing decisions. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy close redirects are an editorial decision to be worked out on the talk page. Go there. If that fails try dispute resolution. There is no deletion here to be reviewed.--Doc^g 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Redirection may be editorial in form, but it amounts to a deletion in character. Per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, an action which effectively results in deletion may be reviewed here. John254 14:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] But, more simply, the proper response here is to revert the redirection and then discuss at the talk page. Of course, John reverted here (albeit, AFAICT, without a substantive talk page note thereafter) and was himself reverted by Will. Surely it is submitted that when an action is undertaken for BLP reasons, associated issues ought to be discussed before reversion, but, well, we had that discussion, and the community determined that the article did not violate BLP. If an editor wishes to redirect an article that is of a form substantially similar to that that survived AfD, they may surely do so, and just as surely may another editor revert that redirect; thereafter discussion ensues. If, though, the former editor maintains that the article('s existence) contravenes BLP and must be redirected and suggests that the redirect should not be reversed in the absence of a talk page consensus for reversal, he has reversed our general presumption against deletion/redirection (which, contrary to certain misapplications of WP:BLPUNDEL and certain misunderstandings of the "do no harm" provisions of BLP, exists even for articles that are substantially biographies of living persons or that otherwise have significant BLP implications) and essentially annulled the AfD, requiring that a community consensus-based discussion be had to keep material where such a discussion has already been had and where the burden is properly on those suggesting that that discussion reached the wrong conclusion; DRV, then, is as a good a venue as any to discuss what amounts to a rejection of the AfD as being contrary to established policy, at least until those who believe a redirect to be appropriate permit reversion to the version that survived AfD and then take their case to the article's talk page (perhaps with a content RfC) or to BLP/N. Joe 18:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The article was nominated for BLP concerns. Most of the keeps failed to factor that in. The truthfulness and verfiabliness has further questioned by this news article. In short, i would overturn AFD and delete, and make sure future incarnations of discussion about the story focus on NYT's journalistic ethics rather than McCain himself. Will ^(talk) 14:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The controversy has been reported extensively in a large number of reliable sources -- please see [4]. Per WP:NPOV, we should not assert that, because one source questions the accuracy of reporting by other reliable sources, that the allegations are unfounded, and that the article therefore merits deletion. Our purpose is to characterize controversies such as this, not to take sides. The article is well sourced, concerns notable events, and does not constitute a WP:BLP violation. John254 14:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] This is forum shopping, take it to the talk page. We don't review redirects or merges here. If we open those floodgates.....--Doc^g 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Then we might actually have to discuss blanking and redirection at AFD, instead of implementing it unilaterally? Why, the massive edit wars over redirection that are the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 might actually have been prevented. How horrible!. John254 14:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Of course, if we're actually concerned about "forum shopping", the consensus to retain the article expressed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy would have been respected, rather than blanking and redirecting it anyway (editors participating in the AFD discussion would have supported merging, not outright retention, had there been a consensus to do so.) John254 14:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment standard stuff, no deletion buttons have been pressed and redirecting is an editiorial decision, nothing to review. Similarly AFD debate outcomes aren't binding decisions on the community (Though in the immediate space of time following the debate it is indicative of the commuity feeling, a merge/redirect/whatever decision can still be reached). --81.104.39.63 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] comment Standard stuff, all right, and wrong. Redirects that amount to the deletion of a substantial article are in effect deletions, and its time we recognized this. this particular one is an obvious attempt to reverse the decision just 3 days ago that the article was not BLP--the views of a few people at an article against general consensus expressed elsewhere in a proper forum that it does not challenge BLP should be respected. This is wikilawering at the most extreme--experienced people using a gap in the procedures to violate clear consensus. DGG (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Not sure what you think needs recognising, materially what is the difference between discussing the merge/redirect/whatever on the articles talk page and declaring it a deletion and discussing it here? WP:DRV has no special authority, a decision here is no better or worse than a decision elsewhere. (If we truly believe the original deletion debate represents the communities desire to maintain an article (rather than the substantive information), and people don't respect that, why would they respect the outcome here any better?) If the community believes the article should stand, then it'll be a slam dunk wherever it gets discussed. What deletion process would we be reviewing here? The editorial decision to redirect is simple, did someone edit it to a redirect? Yes, process is fine, since that is the defined process. Such things are part of the bold revert discuss cycle, it should simply be reverted by the interested editors and discussion ensues. Are we then reviewing the WP:BRD as a "process"? Isn't the failure of editors on one side or another to do that a behavioural issue best suited to normal dispute resolution?. Wikilawyering I can see what you are getting at, not quite the term, but yes using "the rules" in a precise form to force a view point, again though that's a behavioural issue and should be subject to WP:DR. If the community perceive it to be quite such a problem, they are quite capable of generating new policy for redirections to explicitly cater for such situations. I agree that this sort of thing is frustrating to the editors, but it would also be frustrating if deletion review went for some sort of land grab over editing decisions/discussions, when there are already numerous forums to address those particular issues. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The virtue of considering the matter here is that, if a decision to un-redirect the article is reached, it will be implemented administratively. If, next week, editors assert that consensus has changed and that the article needs to be blanked and redirected again, they may not simply remove the article unilaterally, but would instead need to bring the matter to AFD. Such a process is necessary to avoid a protracted edit war over the redirection of this article. There is no "land grab over editing decisions/discussions" here, since blanking and redirection in this context is tantamount to deletion, and in no way comparable to any ordinary dispute over article content. John254 17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Nope, a decision here has no special authority. Here is no different to anywhere else and doesn't make and enforce binding decisions. This page makes decisions the sameway as everywhere else, by consensus, the same consensus can be reached anywhere else and has the same force. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] A decision made at an XfD discussion actually carries with it a great deal of authority. Suppose for instance, that an article is deleted as a result of an AFD discussion. Does that deletion thereby technically prevent a user from recreating exactly the same article? No. However, if deleted content is recreated in a "substantial identical" form which does "not address the reasons for which the material was deleted" it is subject to speedy deletion pursuant to CSD G4; the user(s) responsible for recreating the offending material may be warned, and, if necessary, blocked. Likewise, editors who fail to respect a decision here to un-redirect the article may be warned and blocked. While redirection may be discussed at AFD again, users will be forced to stop unilaterally blanking and redirecting the article. John254 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] AFD has special authority with regard to delete/do not delete decisions (administrative actions), not editorial decisions. Editorial decisions implemented through AFD or DRV have no special authority and can be revisited at any time at the article talk page. Reverting a redirect is not an administrative action and anyone can rerevert at any time; that's why the recent revert battle in which you involved yourself wasn't a wheel war. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] If we contend that "editorial decisions implemented through AFD or DRV have no special authority", and that redirection really is an "editorial decision", not a deletion, we are essentially approving intractable edit warring over redirections, of the type considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. Talk page discussion over redirection probably won't work, because it is a binary decision, as to which no compromise is possible: either the article is redirected, or it isn't. It's not as though we can discuss a new version of the article that might resolve objections to previous competing versions. The only process which has been shown to be amenable to resolving such a matter is an XfD discussion, closed, in controversial cases, by an administrator, and not being subject to unilateral reversal. John254 18:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] G4 is just a recognition of consensus. In the case of G4 is was a consensus reached on xFD. If someone isn't willing to abide by the consensus, it maybe considered disruptive and action taken. This is absolutely no different to a consensus being reached on an articles talk page, we expect people to abide by the consensus and may consider their action disruptive etc. etc. (We have caveat's for G4 such as things changing substantially, the same true for consensus discussion elsewhere). xFD pages having the decision recorded are not magical, the significant part if the consensus reached, that is what we deal with and "enforce". If consensus is reached on the articles talk page it is every bit as enforceable/unenforcable as being reached anywhere else. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Because talk pages discussions do not have administrative closure in controversial cases, they often do not have ascertainable outcomes. If we can't know what the consensus is, it cannot be enforced. John254 19:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Consensus is recorded in the discussion, the close is merely a summary and has no impact on the actual consensus reached. This is the way merge/redirect and lots of editorial decisions have been made for years without the need for someone to declare an administrative closure for people to be sure of the outcome, so far (at least) there hasn't been a need to provide for such closure of these debates, if there is then it needs to be discussed and the best way of achieving that established (e.g. asking an admin to close a debate on the talk page after a suitable period of time or whatever), trying to reuse an existing process setup for something quite different is unlikely to be the optimal solution --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Conditional Keep and unredirect. The condition is based upon the fate of the Vicki Iseman article. If Iseman is deleted at DRV, then this article should be retained as it existed before redirection. If the Iseman article is retained, than this article should be redirected to it; there is no need to have two articles that substantially relate to a single event. Horologium (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] keep/unredirect per DGG and Horologium. I don't know if it was intended to be so but this certainly looks like an attempt to get around the AfD. The consensus to keep was clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] No action, per Doc. Take this to the talk page, please, where so far as I can tell it has not been brought up; and if you don't like the redirect, you seem quite capable of reverting it. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I reverted the redirection once. I hardly think that continued reversion would resolve this issue, however. John254 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Close as there's nothing to review here. DRV doesn't have a remit to review merging or redirection, only actual deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, actions which effectively constitute deletions may be reviewed here. John254 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Unredirect - and I have done so. This is an attempt at whitewashing and ignoring a major political issue. The controversy is real, the New York Times is not a tabloid. We need to discuss the reports and the criticism in a balanced, NPOV fashion. FCYTravis (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

John McCain lobbyist controversy – Speedily closing - whether the redirect could be considered "deletion" or not does not change the fact that no history was deleted - redirection is not deletion unless the history is deleted (redirection has never been considered deletion). As such, this is not within the scope of DRV, as there is no deletion to review. any discussion that could be had here should be had on the article's talk page, as redirecting is editorial, and this redirect was not the direct result of a deletion debate. Clarification: From what I have read, the article was kept in its AFD, then someone else redirected it. Anyone could have reverted this redirect, and asked the person who inserted the redirect to discuss it on the talk page. This is essentially a content dispute, which is not in the scope of DRV and never has been. – Core desat 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article prior to blanking and redirection

This article was recently retained as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, in which there was a clear consensus, and a judgment by the closing administrator, that the article concerned a notable topic, and did not constitute a WP:BLP violation. Some editors are now insisting on blanking and redirecting the article anyway [1] [2] [3]. Has consensus really changed in this much in last three days? John254 13:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entry seems to have nothing to do with deletion. Redirection and merging are editing decisions. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close redirects are an editorial decision to be worked out on the talk page. Go there. If that fails try dispute resolution. There is no deletion here to be reviewed.--Doc^g 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirection may be editorial in form, but it amounts to a deletion in character. Per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, an action which effectively results in deletion may be reviewed here. John254 14:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But, more simply, the proper response here is to revert the redirection and then discuss at the talk page. Of course, John reverted here (albeit, AFAICT, without a substantive talk page note thereafter) and was himself reverted by Will. Surely it is submitted that when an action is undertaken for BLP reasons, associated issues ought to be discussed before reversion, but, well, we had that discussion, and the community determined that the article did not violate BLP. If an editor wishes to redirect an article that is of a form substantially similar to that that survived AfD, they may surely do so, and just as surely may another editor revert that redirect; thereafter discussion ensues. If, though, the former editor maintains that the article('s existence) contravenes BLP and must be redirected and suggests that the redirect should not be reversed in the absence of a talk page consensus for reversal, he has reversed our general presumption against deletion/redirection (which, contrary to certain misapplications of WP:BLPUNDEL and certain misunderstandings of the "do no harm" provisions of BLP, exists even for articles that are substantially biographies of living persons or that otherwise have significant BLP implications) and essentially annulled the AfD, requiring that a community consensus-based discussion be had to keep material where such a discussion has already been had and where the burden is properly on those suggesting that that discussion reached the wrong conclusion; DRV, then, is as a good a venue as any to discuss what amounts to a rejection of the AfD as being contrary to established policy, at least until those who believe a redirect to be appropriate permit reversion to the version that survived AfD and then take their case to the article's talk page (perhaps with a content RfC) or to BLP/N. Joe 18:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was nominated for BLP concerns. Most of the keeps failed to factor that in. The truthfulness and verfiabliness has further questioned by this news article. In short, i would overturn AFD and delete, and make sure future incarnations of discussion about the story focus on NYT's journalistic ethics rather than McCain himself. Will ^(talk) 14:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy has been reported extensively in a large number of reliable sources -- please see [4]. Per WP:NPOV, we should not assert that, because one source questions the accuracy of reporting by other reliable sources, that the allegations are unfounded, and that the article therefore merits deletion. Our purpose is to characterize controversies such as this, not to take sides. The article is well sourced, concerns notable events, and does not constitute a WP:BLP violation. John254 14:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is forum shopping, take it to the talk page. We don't review redirects or merges here. If we open those floodgates.....--Doc^g 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we might actually have to discuss blanking and redirection at AFD, instead of implementing it unilaterally? Why, the massive edit wars over redirection that are the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 might actually have been prevented. How horrible!. John254 14:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if we're actually concerned about "forum shopping", the consensus to retain the article expressed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy would have been respected, rather than blanking and redirecting it anyway (editors participating in the AFD discussion would have supported merging, not outright retention, had there been a consensus to do so.) John254 14:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment standard stuff, no deletion buttons have been pressed and redirecting is an editiorial decision, nothing to review. Similarly AFD debate outcomes aren't binding decisions on the community (Though in the immediate space of time following the debate it is indicative of the commuity feeling, a merge/redirect/whatever decision can still be reached). --81.104.39.63 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Standard stuff, all right, and wrong. Redirects that amount to the deletion of a substantial article are in effect deletions, and its time we recognized this. this particular one is an obvious attempt to reverse the decision just 3 days ago that the article was not BLP--the views of a few people at an article against general consensus expressed elsewhere in a proper forum that it does not challenge BLP should be respected. This is wikilawering at the most extreme--experienced people using a gap in the procedures to violate clear consensus. DGG (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you think needs recognising, materially what is the difference between discussing the merge/redirect/whatever on the articles talk page and declaring it a deletion and discussing it here? WP:DRV has no special authority, a decision here is no better or worse than a decision elsewhere. (If we truly believe the original deletion debate represents the communities desire to maintain an article (rather than the substantive information), and people don't respect that, why would they respect the outcome here any better?) If the community believes the article should stand, then it'll be a slam dunk wherever it gets discussed. What deletion process would we be reviewing here? The editorial decision to redirect is simple, did someone edit it to a redirect? Yes, process is fine, since that is the defined process. Such things are part of the bold revert discuss cycle, it should simply be reverted by the interested editors and discussion ensues. Are we then reviewing the WP:BRD as a "process"? Isn't the failure of editors on one side or another to do that a behavioural issue best suited to normal dispute resolution?. Wikilawyering I can see what you are getting at, not quite the term, but yes using "the rules" in a precise form to force a view point, again though that's a behavioural issue and should be subject to WP:DR. If the community perceive it to be quite such a problem, they are quite capable of generating new policy for redirections to explicitly cater for such situations. I agree that this sort of thing is frustrating to the editors, but it would also be frustrating if deletion review went for some sort of land grab over editing decisions/discussions, when there are already numerous forums to address those particular issues. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The virtue of considering the matter here is that, if a decision to un-redirect the article is reached, it will be implemented administratively. If, next week, editors assert that consensus has changed and that the article needs to be blanked and redirected again, they may not simply remove the article unilaterally, but would instead need to bring the matter to AFD. Such a process is necessary to avoid a protracted edit war over the redirection of this article. There is no "land grab over editing decisions/discussions" here, since blanking and redirection in this context is tantamount to deletion, and in no way comparable to any ordinary dispute over article content. John254 17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, a decision here has no special authority. Here is no different to anywhere else and doesn't make and enforce binding decisions. This page makes decisions the sameway as everywhere else, by consensus, the same consensus can be reached anywhere else and has the same force. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A decision made at an XfD discussion actually carries with it a great deal of authority. Suppose for instance, that an article is deleted as a result of an AFD discussion. Does that deletion thereby technically prevent a user from recreating exactly the same article? No. However, if deleted content is recreated in a "substantial identical" form which does "not address the reasons for which the material was deleted" it is subject to speedy deletion pursuant to CSD G4; the user(s) responsible for recreating the offending material may be warned, and, if necessary, blocked. Likewise, editors who fail to respect a decision here to un-redirect the article may be warned and blocked. While redirection may be discussed at AFD again, users will be forced to stop unilaterally blanking and redirecting the article. John254 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD has special authority with regard to delete/do not delete decisions (administrative actions), not editorial decisions. Editorial decisions implemented through AFD or DRV have no special authority and can be revisited at any time at the article talk page. Reverting a redirect is not an administrative action and anyone can rerevert at any time; that's why the recent revert battle in which you involved yourself wasn't a wheel war. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we contend that "editorial decisions implemented through AFD or DRV have no special authority", and that redirection really is an "editorial decision", not a deletion, we are essentially approving intractable edit warring over redirections, of the type considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. Talk page discussion over redirection probably won't work, because it is a binary decision, as to which no compromise is possible: either the article is redirected, or it isn't. It's not as though we can discuss a new version of the article that might resolve objections to previous competing versions. The only process which has been shown to be amenable to resolving such a matter is an XfD discussion, closed, in controversial cases, by an administrator, and not being subject to unilateral reversal. John254 18:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4 is just a recognition of consensus. In the case of G4 is was a consensus reached on xFD. If someone isn't willing to abide by the consensus, it maybe considered disruptive and action taken. This is absolutely no different to a consensus being reached on an articles talk page, we expect people to abide by the consensus and may consider their action disruptive etc. etc. (We have caveat's for G4 such as things changing substantially, the same true for consensus discussion elsewhere). xFD pages having the decision recorded are not magical, the significant part if the consensus reached, that is what we deal with and "enforce". If consensus is reached on the articles talk page it is every bit as enforceable/unenforcable as being reached anywhere else. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because talk pages discussions do not have administrative closure in controversial cases, they often do not have ascertainable outcomes. If we can't know what the consensus is, it cannot be enforced. John254 19:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is recorded in the discussion, the close is merely a summary and has no impact on the actual consensus reached. This is the way merge/redirect and lots of editorial decisions have been made for years without the need for someone to declare an administrative closure for people to be sure of the outcome, so far (at least) there hasn't been a need to provide for such closure of these debates, if there is then it needs to be discussed and the best way of achieving that established (e.g. asking an admin to close a debate on the talk page after a suitable period of time or whatever), trying to reuse an existing process setup for something quite different is unlikely to be the optimal solution --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep and unredirect. The condition is based upon the fate of the Vicki Iseman article. If Iseman is deleted at DRV, then this article should be retained as it existed before redirection. If the Iseman article is retained, than this article should be redirected to it; there is no need to have two articles that substantially relate to a single event. Horologium (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep/unredirect per DGG and Horologium. I don't know if it was intended to be so but this certainly looks like an attempt to get around the AfD. The consensus to keep was clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No action, per Doc. Take this to the talk page, please, where so far as I can tell it has not been brought up; and if you don't like the redirect, you seem quite capable of reverting it. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reverted the redirection once. I hardly think that continued reversion would resolve this issue, however. John254 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close as there's nothing to review here. DRV doesn't have a remit to review merging or redirection, only actual deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, actions which effectively constitute deletions may be reviewed here. John254 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unredirect - and I have done so. This is an attempt at whitewashing and ignoring a major political issue. The controversy is real, the New York Times is not a tabloid. We need to discuss the reports and the criticism in a balanced, NPOV fashion. FCYTravis (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:User jer (and associated categories) – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:User jer (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`UCFD`)` Reviewer's rationale was based on primarily incorrect information. Jèrriais is NOT a dialect of French, but a dialect of the Norman language dating back hundreds of years (with a rich written tradition). After Midnight's claim that it has "no official status anywhere" is also incorrect; Jèrriais is recognized officially as a regional language by the British-Irish Council. A GCSE is also expected to launch soon in Jersey to supplement the current Jèrriais teaching program there. None of us who were listed in the category were contacted for comment, either; this would have helped clear up much of the confusion, I expect. The Jade Knight (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Is there a distinct written form of Jèrriais? If so, can it be understood by those knowledgeable in Norman? My intention in asking this question is whether knowledge of Jèrriais could assist translation efforts directed toward the improvement of articles (e.g. translating a source). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] User:After Midnight appears to be the closing admin rather than the nominator, so it isn't After Midnight's claim... --81.104.39.63 (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. The claim was mine, based on data found in Ethnologue. ([5]) I had a great deal of difficulty finding any information on Jèrrais at first, since it is described as a variation of Norman, which also lacks an ISO 639-3 classification. (Under the older ISO 639-2 system, it was classified as "roa", which is "romance language (other)", but the far more extensive and precise ISO 639-3 system doesn't include Norman.) I finally found information for Jèrrais by searching the Ethnologue database by country, and reading all of the languages and dialects listed in the fairly extensive list of United Kingdom languages. I finally found it, listed as a dialect of French. (The Ethnologue link I provided above links to the main page on French; scroll down to the section on the United Kingdom for the notation of Jèrrais and the essentially similar Dgernesiais, spoken on Guernsey.) SIL International and Ethnologue are recognized as one of the definitive language groups out there, as they hold consultative status with UNESCO. FWIW, ISO 639-3 defines 7,589 languages, 6,912 of which are listed in Ethnologue's 15th edition. "jer", which was being used as the code for the category, is for another obscure language, Jere, which is the primary language of 64,000 people in Nigeria. And in regard to the lack of official recognition, it might be a good idea to add that link you identified to the article on Jèrrais, because there is absolutely no reference to official recognition of the language anywhere in the article, except for a brief mention of local support for signage and a school course. Horologium (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion - If a Wikipedia doesn't exist or is unlikely to ever exist in a particular dialect, then we don't need a category for it. VegaDark (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per above and UCFD. --Kbdank71 16:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per Horologium, pending a response to my initial question. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:User jer (and associated categories) – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer's rationale was based on primarily incorrect information. Jèrriais is NOT a dialect of French, but a dialect of the Norman language dating back hundreds of years (with a rich written tradition). After Midnight's claim that it has "no official status anywhere" is also incorrect; Jèrriais is recognized officially as a regional language by the British-Irish Council. A GCSE is also expected to launch soon in Jersey to supplement the current Jèrriais teaching program there. None of us who were listed in the category were contacted for comment, either; this would have helped clear up much of the confusion, I expect. The Jade Knight (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a distinct written form of Jèrriais? If so, can it be understood by those knowledgeable in Norman? My intention in asking this question is whether knowledge of Jèrriais could assist translation efforts directed toward the improvement of articles (e.g. translating a source). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:After Midnight appears to be the closing admin rather than the nominator, so it isn't After Midnight's claim... --81.104.39.63 (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The claim was mine, based on data found in Ethnologue. ([5]) I had a great deal of difficulty finding any information on Jèrrais at first, since it is described as a variation of Norman, which also lacks an ISO 639-3 classification. (Under the older ISO 639-2 system, it was classified as "roa", which is "romance language (other)", but the far more extensive and precise ISO 639-3 system doesn't include Norman.) I finally found information for Jèrrais by searching the Ethnologue database by country, and reading all of the languages and dialects listed in the fairly extensive list of United Kingdom languages. I finally found it, listed as a dialect of French. (The Ethnologue link I provided above links to the main page on French; scroll down to the section on the United Kingdom for the notation of Jèrrais and the essentially similar Dgernesiais, spoken on Guernsey.) SIL International and Ethnologue are recognized as one of the definitive language groups out there, as they hold consultative status with UNESCO. FWIW, ISO 639-3 defines 7,589 languages, 6,912 of which are listed in Ethnologue's 15th edition. "jer", which was being used as the code for the category, is for another obscure language, Jere, which is the primary language of 64,000 people in Nigeria. And in regard to the lack of official recognition, it might be a good idea to add that link you identified to the article on Jèrrais, because there is absolutely no reference to official recognition of the language anywhere in the article, except for a brief mention of local support for signage and a school course. Horologium (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - If a Wikipedia doesn't exist or is unlikely to ever exist in a particular dialect, then we don't need a category for it. VegaDark (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above and UCFD. --Kbdank71 16:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Horologium, pending a response to my initial question. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The Truth (Cherish album) – Deletion endorsed, but create redirect to Cherish (band). – IronGargoyle (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Truth (Cherish album) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Sophmore album by Cherish. Album was thought to have have failed WP:MUSIC because it was unreleased and not notable, but the release date was imminent. The lead single, "Killa", has so far peaked at ~~#66~~ #59 on the Billboard Hot 100, [6] and the album is set for release on April 29 [7]. I don't think there was enough consensus to delete, because only one person participated in the debate. Admc2006 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion partly on principle (because few things piss me off more than fans of minor bands creating A7 articles and then asking for review every time another copy is sold, as it were) but mostly because there is no suggestion above that independent reliable sources exist, regardless of one track making it to a low place on the Billboard charts. Try a userspace writeup and see how it goes. Sourcing is key. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment Very few minor bands have their upcoming albums announced on Forbes. [8] Catchpole (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment two people participated in the debate and both found sources lacking, seems fairly clear. Notability is not inherited even if the single has arguably become notable (I wouldn't believe it has), doesn't make the album which it may feature on also automatically notable. As the album is unreleased seems a bit of crystal ball gazing going on. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per Guy & agree with his frustration. Eusebeus (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Note that Cedead has recreated this article as of 21:55, March 5, 2008. As such I have tagged it for Speedy G4. -- Kesh (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - significant sources are still needed. BlueValour (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Nominator made a string of poor nominations to Afd, this was must have slipped through the cracks. If nothing else this should redirect to Cherish (band) until the album is released, VH-1 have information on their previous release. Forbes have covered the announcement of this album's release date (see reply to Guy). Catchpole (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The Truth (Cherish album) – Deletion endorsed, but create redirect to Cherish (band). – IronGargoyle (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sophmore album by Cherish. Album was thought to have have failed WP:MUSIC because it was unreleased and not notable, but the release date was imminent. The lead single, "Killa", has so far peaked at ~~#66~~ #59 on the Billboard Hot 100, [6] and the album is set for release on April 29 [7]. I don't think there was enough consensus to delete, because only one person participated in the debate. Admc2006 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion partly on principle (because few things piss me off more than fans of minor bands creating A7 articles and then asking for review every time another copy is sold, as it were) but mostly because there is no suggestion above that independent reliable sources exist, regardless of one track making it to a low place on the Billboard charts. Try a userspace writeup and see how it goes. Sourcing is key. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Very few minor bands have their upcoming albums announced on Forbes. [8] Catchpole (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment two people participated in the debate and both found sources lacking, seems fairly clear. Notability is not inherited even if the single has arguably become notable (I wouldn't believe it has), doesn't make the album which it may feature on also automatically notable. As the album is unreleased seems a bit of crystal ball gazing going on. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Guy & agree with his frustration. Eusebeus (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that Cedead has recreated this article as of 21:55, March 5, 2008. As such I have tagged it for Speedy G4. -- Kesh (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - significant sources are still needed. BlueValour (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Nominator made a string of poor nominations to Afd, this was must have slipped through the cracks. If nothing else this should redirect to Cherish (band) until the album is released, VH-1 have information on their previous release. Forbes have covered the announcement of this album's release date (see reply to Guy). Catchpole (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Universal_Artists – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Universal_Artists (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` (CSD A7: Article about subject that does not assert significance.) 96.224.30.35 (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Artists[reply] Endorse deletion, per WP:CSD criteria A7 and G11. Yet another article on a Brand New Company by a single-purpose account. No sources, no claim of notability, likely conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. The article didn't say a thing about why this business was notable; it just listed the four main people and some of their previous activities. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Universal_Artists – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

(CSD A7: Article about subject that does not assert significance.) 96.224.30.35 (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Artists[reply]

Endorse deletion, per WP:CSD criteria A7 and G11. Yet another article on a Brand New Company by a single-purpose account. No sources, no claim of notability, likely conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The article didn't say a thing about why this business was notable; it just listed the four main people and some of their previous activities. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

MileyWorld – Speedy deletion endorsed. No action taken on redirect currently in place. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MileyWorld (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Website is notable. See, for example, this article (text is from eOnline, but it was in several newspapers, apparently), directly stating this is a notable website. There's San Francisco Gate, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and the Kansas City Star (these are all wholly different articles; there are repeats in other notable newspapers like the Washington Post0. This is multiple non-trivial mentions, and does not qualify for speedy deletion. PS. If undeletion is chosen, then please fix Image:Mileyworld.jpg so it's not deleted. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted. Unfortunately, the news articles you provided did not qualify the website under WP:WEB. eOnline is just one source, not multiple sources. The others all fall under "Trivial Coverage." The San Francisco Gate offers only a brief description (3); the Seattle Post-Intelligencer merely mentions the name (1); and the Kansas City Star contains MileyWorld in a Letter to the Editor, which is unreliable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC) (closing admin)[reply] Endorse deletion. The Miley Cyrus official fan club web site should be discussed in the Miley Cyrus article rather than in a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. No independent sources establishing notability, article seems to have been promotional not encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - the page could also have been deleted as a G11. There was no indication of importance in the article. The content is unsourced and, judging by the reference provided by the nominator, quite possibly inaccurate. BlueValour (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] endorse deletion per King of Hearts. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. See this sentence, "Being a member of www.mileyworld.com, you get a chance to enter contests to win clothes Miley wore, signed guitars, and more." That has promotional written all over it... --Smashville^BONK! 23:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

MileyWorld – Speedy deletion endorsed. No action taken on redirect currently in place. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Website is notable. See, for example, this article (text is from eOnline, but it was in several newspapers, apparently), directly stating this is a notable website. There's San Francisco Gate, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and the Kansas City Star (these are all wholly different articles; there are repeats in other notable newspapers like the Washington Post0. This is multiple non-trivial mentions, and does not qualify for speedy deletion. PS. If undeletion is chosen, then please fix Image:Mileyworld.jpg so it's not deleted. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Unfortunately, the news articles you provided did not qualify the website under WP:WEB. eOnline is just one source, not multiple sources. The others all fall under "Trivial Coverage." The San Francisco Gate offers only a brief description (3); the Seattle Post-Intelligencer merely mentions the name (1); and the Kansas City Star contains MileyWorld in a Letter to the Editor, which is unreliable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC) (closing admin)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The Miley Cyrus official fan club web site should be discussed in the Miley Cyrus article rather than in a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No independent sources establishing notability, article seems to have been promotional not encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - the page could also have been deleted as a G11. There was no indication of importance in the article. The content is unsourced and, judging by the reference provided by the nominator, quite possibly inaccurate. BlueValour (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion per King of Hearts. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. See this sentence, "Being a member of www.mileyworld.com, you get a chance to enter contests to win clothes Miley wore, signed guitars, and more." That has promotional written all over it... --Smashville^BONK! 23:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

CareFlash – Endorse deletion as a proper WP:CSD#A7. Author has been given a copy for improvement in userspace. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
CareFlash (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Deletion Review Klostermankl (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] This page needed a little work. It was not advertising but informing those who could use it. I believe this page to be no different than the pages created for Facebook, MySpace, Revolutionary Health, or any other company for that matter. I don't quite understand why it was deleted, and if I make any further changes to this page or regarding this page, I will be careful not to appear as though it was advertising. My appologies. I request that this page be restored. Thanks, Klostermankl (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Restore and list at WP:AFD. The article did have at least one independent reliable source [9] which would have been taken into account had the article gone through the full deletion process at WP:AFD. The article should not have been speedily deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Restore and list at WP:AFD per Metropolitan. --Veritas (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment I have asked the deleting admin for restore and list at WP:AFD but request is being ignored User_talk:SchuminWeb#Deleted_Page:_CareFlash Also the article author has notified the admin of deletion review User_talk:SchuminWeb#Deletion_Review_for_CareFlash Igor Berger (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment After taking a look at the deleted article, I can say that whether or not it was advertising, there wasn't any assertion of notability, and therefore qualified for SD under A7. I can't support restoring this, as it would certainly be deleted following an AfD. However, if someone would like to have what was there so that they could work on improving the article in their userspace, I'd be happy to give them the deleted text. faithless (^speak) 11:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion of an advertorial-style article on a company of questionable importance, written by someone whose username matches that of the CEO of the subject (Bob Klosterman), and whose only contributions are this article and promoting the subject in another article. Userfy for Igor if he wants to work on it and completely rewrite to remove the spamminess and add proper sourcing establishing significance. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I advised the original aurthor of such affect, that the he can get the copy of the original article and continue working on it in his sandbox, if he so desires. When I first saw the article I did not believe that CSD was prudent but AFD should have been the route. But being that the article has been reviewed for notability, it has met my satisfaction of the process. Now it is up to the author of the article to improve it, if the interest is there. Thank you for the review. Igor Berger (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Please delete the article. I tried to tag it for deletion but an admin prevented me and reverted my tag. User_talk:NawlinWiki#CareFlash_deletion Igor Berger (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] here Igor Berger (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

CareFlash – Endorse deletion as a proper WP:CSD#A7. Author has been given a copy for improvement in userspace. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion Review Klostermankl (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page needed a little work. It was not advertising but informing those who could use it. I believe this page to be no different than the pages created for Facebook, MySpace, Revolutionary Health, or any other company for that matter. I don't quite understand why it was deleted, and if I make any further changes to this page or regarding this page, I will be careful not to appear as though it was advertising. My appologies. I request that this page be restored. Thanks, Klostermankl (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and list at WP:AFD. The article did have at least one independent reliable source [9] which would have been taken into account had the article gone through the full deletion process at WP:AFD. The article should not have been speedily deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and list at WP:AFD per Metropolitan. --Veritas (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have asked the deleting admin for restore and list at WP:AFD but request is being ignored User_talk:SchuminWeb#Deleted_Page:_CareFlash Also the article author has notified the admin of deletion review User_talk:SchuminWeb#Deletion_Review_for_CareFlash Igor Berger (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After taking a look at the deleted article, I can say that whether or not it was advertising, there wasn't any assertion of notability, and therefore qualified for SD under A7. I can't support restoring this, as it would certainly be deleted following an AfD. However, if someone would like to have what was there so that they could work on improving the article in their userspace, I'd be happy to give them the deleted text. faithless (^speak) 11:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of an advertorial-style article on a company of questionable importance, written by someone whose username matches that of the CEO of the subject (Bob Klosterman), and whose only contributions are this article and promoting the subject in another article. Userfy for Igor if he wants to work on it and completely rewrite to remove the spamminess and add proper sourcing establishing significance. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I advised the original aurthor of such affect, that the he can get the copy of the original article and continue working on it in his sandbox, if he so desires. When I first saw the article I did not believe that CSD was prudent but AFD should have been the route. But being that the article has been reviewed for notability, it has met my satisfaction of the process. Now it is up to the author of the article to improve it, if the interest is there. Thank you for the review. Igor Berger (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete the article. I tried to tag it for deletion but an admin prevented me and reverted my tag. User_talk:NawlinWiki#CareFlash_deletion Igor Berger (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
here Igor Berger (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.