< 2012 September 2
Deletion review archives: 2012 September
2012 September 4 >

3 September 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bruenor Battlehammer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was nominated for deletion because though independent reliable sources appear in the article, they don't provide "significant coverage" per WP:GNG since, as I explained in my reviews of the sources in the nomination, all of them are one-sentence mentions of the character's name, clearly identified in GNG as "trivial". The issue was serious enough that it was notified years before by another user at the article talk page (without being adressed).

Yet the AfD was closed on "keep". While there are indeed only keep !votes, the problem is that neither of them addressed the lack of significant coverage. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, participants are asked to "explain how the article meets/violates policy" rather than merely stating it does, and I don't see any explanation as to the "how". First comment states "despite the nominator's arguments, the sources included should be enough to pass WP:GNG" (and the reason for that is left for the reader to guess), later a "Per first comment" (username omitted), then "Appears to have appropriate independent, reliable sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG", then "The article does have multiple reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the subject" (does not even mention "significance"). One comment states "the nominator's claim that sources 2, 5 and 6 are primary sources is debatable" yet the following keep comment disagrees ("While I don't think the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide books are independent...").

The most disturbing comment is the last, which states "It seems to me that the nominator's reasons, if accepted, would mean that there would rarely be articles on fictional characters in fictional universes, or in game universes". Since my nomination was based on WP:GNG, does that mean that, per this comment, the GNG wouldn't apply to fiction ? Taking that into account for the close would have repercussions on GNG...

None of the "keep" comments satisfyingly adress the nomination, and though sticking to his close, the closing admin even acknowledges that these were not idea arguments[1]. Anyone looking at the article can see it only has 3 or 4 sentences that are not plot summary, I think there was ground for a "per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS" close on delete. If too extreme, then I think maybe a no consensus without prejudice to merge would also have been appropriate. But in any case I think there is a need to adress the fact that the comments did not follow WP:AFDFORMAT, and since AfDs are not votes but are based on "strenght of arguments", "keep" was far from being the only possible outcome (weak arguments can be ignored). Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Afd closer One quick note, the comment of mine that Folken de Fanel links to was actually a typo on my part (I meant "ideal" but wrote "idea"). My thinking was that these were not ideal arguments, but most were acceptable. Also, I didn't address the idea of a merge (which often makes sense with articles on fictional characters) since it wasn't raised by anyone at the Afd. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This close was fully in accordance with the consensus.—S Marshall T/C 22:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, that is not what I'm saying. That there are only "keep" !votes is a fact that I acknowledged. I'm saying all these "keep" !votes are not valid in that they don't explain how/why the article would "meet the guidelines" according to them. Per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted". Not all arguments count, and my view is that arguments that should have been discounted because they're more votes than arguments, have been taken into account. I did not open this DRV to know whether there are only keep !votes in there (that's the case), but if the !votes are acceptable or not.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Mark Arsten had agreed with you that the !votes weren't "acceptable" and closed it as delete, then he would be dragged straight back here to DRV and overturned in a rare September snowstorm. If he'd done that, we'd be saying words like "supervote" quite stridently. We'd be pointing out that a sysop's job is to implement the consensus.—S Marshall T/C 10:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your scenario doesn't seem to be in line with WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. If no strength of argument is found, then a close on delete is not a supervote, AfD not being headcounts. And that's why I took this to DRV, though there are only keep votes (omission of "!" before "vote" is voluntary), I don't think they provide strong arguments and there was ground for another outcome than "keep" (not necessarily "delete", but I think a keep here is too controversial with arguments that clearly don't meet WP:AFDFORMAT).Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, it appears to be your good faith view that you as nominator were right and all the other participants' contributions should receive little weight. I also see that you've replied to everyone else who's participated, individually, which indicates that you care very much about the outcome. I'm sorry, but I really don't think DRV will overturn this one for you. Nor should it. I hope this doesn't make you too unhappy, and good luck with your future nominations.—S Marshall T/C 12:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I only found one reliable news source,[2] and that only says, "Arvada 421-6368. Ten Towns BBS (Easthaven); sysop Bruenor Battlehammer." Google books brings up more hits,[3] but they don't seem to add up to much. It's doubtful that the topic meets WP:GNG. Per the Deletion guidelines for administrators, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." The keep arguments are valid, of course, but seem weak and I think the closing admin should have discounted some of the arguments. Apparently, the closing admin thought otherwise. The closing admin's close itself carries weight at DRV and I don't think that has been overcome. Feel free to list the article at AfD on or after 29 November 2012 (3 months from the 29 August 2012 close). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - policy and numbers both carry weight in AfD - this is pretty marginal with respect to policy, and very one sided with respect to numbers. Strong policy arguments can weigh heavily against middling numbers, but that isn't the case here. WilyD 10:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Understandable nomination, but the solution is not deletion. I agree with there is virtually no worthy content in the article. Whatever the references, there is no secondary source material in the article. The solution is to apply the advice of WP:WAF. Then, most likely, it will be obvious that the article will need to be merged and redirected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closing against a unanimous response is possible if and only if there are clear policy violations mandating deletion, e.g. that the content in its entirety is unverifiable, or a copyvio etc. Cases where editors unanimously ignore core policies are exceedingly rare, because most endorse the core policies fully. In this case, there is a simple disagreement on whether the provided sources are sufficient to satisfy a notability guideline (not a policy). Regardless of the exact wording of the guideline, guidelines have exceptions (whether this article actually does violate the wording of the guideline is a separate matter), and so issues like that are resolved by consensus. In this case the consensus was clearly against deletion, and they made a case that at the very least has merit. I see no other way that this could be closed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lakireddy Bali Reddy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion review didn't take into account substantial importance given to the Reddy and his actions in international news media, books, and academic literature, as well as independent notability. Anirvan (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of the article about California landlord and sex/labor trafficker Lakireddy Bali Reddy was predicated on the BLP1E policy, but (a) that's not a blanket policy to erase all people who are best known for a single incident (otherwise we'd have deleted Rodney King), and (b) Reddy is a public figure notable for other reasons.

Here are the facts that didn't come up in the AFD discussion:

Thanks for your input! I made sure to checked with closing admin Joe Decker, and you can read his comments here.

Comment: Indeed, I'm happy to stick by my comments there, thanks for the notification. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 18:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joe Decker closed the AfD correctly, of course; "endorse" is certainly the technical outcome we're looking at here. The new sources provided imply that a new article could be written that overcomes the reason for deletion, so on the face of it, it could be argued that DRV has no role. But I don't like that outcome because it means allowing creation of a BLP about a person convicted of trafficking children for sex, and I feel would be irresponsible without examining a draft article. I would like to suggest that Anirvan begins a userspace draft accordingly.—S Marshall T/C 19:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. I don't think its a WP:BLP1E. However, in the fifteen days the article was listed, only a few people cared enough to add their opinion and those that did were of clear consensus. From the AfD alone, you can tell that there isn't much interest in this topic. If the article were without BLP problems, then I doubt the AfD would have went the way it did, given the extensive amount of source material for the topic from December 8, 1999[4] through at least Sept 2009[5]. I agree with S Marshall that any editor can present a draft article to DRV and request that it be posted to article space. (As an aside, in searching the matter, I found Lakireddy Bali Reddy College Of Engineering[6].) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation As founder of the college, an article can be written. If BLP violating material is added, the atticle can be protected, but I do not think reporting the convictions would be a BLP violation, though I doubt I would use the full details of the case as the deleted article did. Arnivan is a reliable editor who has not previously worked on this article, so I assume he asks here because he wants to write an article, and he might as well write the article now as later. I would have restored it if asked--I don't think Joe recognized the significance of the college (not that it inherently makes for notability , but in practice it means there will be published material for notability, and indeed there is and always was). It's a pity this was not noticed during the AfD . DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request temporary undeletion to review. The deletion discussion was weak. BLP1E usually allows for a merge and redirect. Apart from BLP1E, were there BLP concerns with the deleted content? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closer under review. DGG roughly has my feelings on this correct, including my missing the relevance of the college, which was in the refs but not in the text, and was only mentioned in passing in the refs provided. I've restored (temporarily) to [[7]] for review as requested by SmokeyJoe. It seemed clear enough to me that the criminal event was notable, and given the college relationship seems uncontroversially significant, I don't see a problem with regard to recreation/restoration. Apologies if I was overly hesitant here previously.
(Added:) When I looked for sources myself, the vast majority of what came up easily related to the criminal stuff. My general sense was that if the sourcing wasn't quite up to snuff in the article it was verifiable, I do think that can be carefully handled. What's more complex is the editorial process of giving due weight. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is a talk page deleted by a retired admin per G8, but this page is referenced in Wikipedia:Pornography and may fall under ((G8-exempt)). Please undelete the page and add the ((G8-exempt)) template if you feel that is appropriate. Thanks! —D'Ranged 1 talk 02:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and add clarifying comment - to help prevent another mistaken speedy deletion.
  • Rossami's 27 April 2006 comment restoring the page noted "‎Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD: restored - accidental speedy".[9]
-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore possibly speedily. This is pretty clearly an invalid G8 since it expressly excludes in particular deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere. Could well be tagged with G8-exempt. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
More