Doseuro – deletion by PROD automatically overturned – GRBerry 17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Doseuro (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Information on a significant company (Annual Turnover 4 million euro) 88.96.137.6 11:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Doseuro – deletion by PROD automatically overturned – GRBerry 17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Information on a significant company (Annual Turnover 4 million euro) 88.96.137.6 11:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Denialism – Deletion overturned. Please always tag the article up for an XfD discussion: that is one process-flaw that is universally significant. – Xoloz 16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Denialism (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`CfD`)` The Category was listed by an anon for CFD, but the Category page was never tagged, meaning interested parties were never aware of the CFD. Very sneaky. Reasonings given for deletion in the CFD appear specious and out of step with policy, guideline, convention and reality. FeloniousMonk 23:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per nom. This is a useful category for articles from Holocaust denial to Living dinosaurs. The CfD was not done properly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per nom and OM. Jim62sch 23:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] overturn I haven't made up my mind about the above comments, but I do note from looking at the deleted history of the category that there was no note on the category page that this was being discussed. Categories are hard enough to keep track of without having no notice on the category page and no notice given to the author of the category. At minimum, there should be another CFD, and very likely simple overturning with the option to CfD later makes a lot of sense. JoshuaZ 00:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. I'm pretty surprised at this nomination, as there was actually a complete consensus to delete this. --Kbdank71 03:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn for lack of notice. No comment on whether or not it should be deleted, but how can an informed discussion be held if interested parties are not present? There should have been a chance for defense. DGG (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment The discussion was open for seven days; no more notice is required beyond tagging the category page with an appropriate template. However, since the discussion happened six months ago (which is six years in Wikipedia time), I would support a relisting. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I just looked up the deleted category page, and it was never tagged with a deletion template such as ((csd)). Therefore, I support overturning the deletion with no prejudice to relisting. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Neutral - I think this is a useful category, and I would have voted to keep it. Still, I don't think that a tag on the category page would have changed the outcome of this CfD. Perhaps we could relist in hopes of exposure to a wider audience (which tends to appear following a DRV)? — xDanielx^Talk 06:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] ~~Endorse unless~~ people give some new information in this DRV? What are these arguments that weren't considered in the unanimous CFD? Please don't make this an appeal to "process wasn't followed" but bring in a solid reason. >Radiant< 08:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Never mind, per the below. >Radiant< 09:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Please. The Category was listed by an anon for CFD, and the Category page was never tagged, meaning interested parties were never aware of the CFD. Very sneaky. Also, as an aside about a standing problem in AFD/CFD: Why should anyone even bother making arguments to Keep when valid arguments like "It's useful" are being improperly discounted by those who insist on invoking WP:ATA to not count those comments in the final tally in contravention of the established guideline for discounting comments: WP:DGFA#Rough_consensus. No, we've experienced this one too many times already. Until people stop misusing WP:ATA to improperly discount the comments of others, there's really not much point in doing as you ask. FeloniousMonk 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sigh, this is one of the problems with category deletion reviews - once we empty them, we can't see what they were actually used for. So I can't see any basis to say that the CFD participants got it right, and I do see a clear process problem. Overturn and relist, because there is no way to know whether the correct decision was reached. GRBerry 15:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. I agree with GRBerry's argument, and strongly disagree with Radiant's. The problem here was with the process, not the weighing of arguments. Evouga 21:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Seems to be a pretty clear example of someone in the know with an agenda shamelessly abusing the system "anon" and certain admins apparently turning a blind eye. Thanks FM for catching this. Odd nature 22:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per GRBerry, and reminders to everyone that if something is on Xfd, and has no "...being considered for deletion" tag, ADD the darn thing - I'm going to Agf and hope it wasn't an agenda-driven sneak. I have half a mind to violate WP:SPAM to all those who unanimously voted "delete" on the Cfd. Puppy is cranky; puppy has good reason. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I don't think that that would violate WP:SPAM in that they are a small group of interested people. JoshuaZ 23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and reinstate category. Denialism (or if one prefers, "denial") of significant historical events or significant verifiable facts, is a legitimate category which has in common some motive, or set of motives, that creates bias w.r.t. empirical or objective historical inquiry conducted by separate, independent, objective researchers, and to the reporting of clearly established objective results of such inquiry. What appears to have been missed in the CfD is that each article in the category must pass muster as to WP:Reliable sources, WP:notability, WP:VER, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV#undue_weight, etc. So there ought be little danger of an endless collection of "denialisms"; the cat is self-limiting by the basic WP policies. ... Kenosis 23:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and reinstate per KC/GRBerry. If it isn't tagged, there's a problem in the deletion process. Guettarda 14:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Category:Denialism – Deletion overturned. Please always tag the article up for an XfD discussion: that is one process-flaw that is universally significant. – Xoloz 16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Category was listed by an anon for CFD, but the Category page was never tagged, meaning interested parties were never aware of the CFD. Very sneaky. Reasonings given for deletion in the CFD appear specious and out of step with policy, guideline, convention and reality. FeloniousMonk 23:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per nom. This is a useful category for articles from Holocaust denial to Living dinosaurs. The CfD was not done properly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per nom and OM. Jim62sch 23:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn I haven't made up my mind about the above comments, but I do note from looking at the deleted history of the category that there was no note on the category page that this was being discussed. Categories are hard enough to keep track of without having no notice on the category page and no notice given to the author of the category. At minimum, there should be another CFD, and very likely simple overturning with the option to CfD later makes a lot of sense. JoshuaZ 00:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I'm pretty surprised at this nomination, as there was actually a complete consensus to delete this. --Kbdank71 03:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn for lack of notice. No comment on whether or not it should be deleted, but how can an informed discussion be held if interested parties are not present? There should have been a chance for defense. DGG (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The discussion was open for seven days; no more notice is required beyond tagging the category page with an appropriate template. However, since the discussion happened six months ago (which is six years in Wikipedia time), I would support a relisting. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just looked up the deleted category page, and it was never tagged with a deletion template such as ((csd)). Therefore, I support overturning the deletion with no prejudice to relisting. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I think this is a useful category, and I would have voted to keep it. Still, I don't think that a tag on the category page would have changed the outcome of this CfD. Perhaps we could relist in hopes of exposure to a wider audience (which tends to appear following a DRV)? — xDanielx^Talk 06:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse unless~~ people give some new information in this DRV? What are these arguments that weren't considered in the unanimous CFD? Please don't make this an appeal to "process wasn't followed" but bring in a solid reason. >Radiant< 08:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Never mind, per the below. >Radiant< 09:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please. The Category was listed by an anon for CFD, and the Category page was never tagged, meaning interested parties were never aware of the CFD. Very sneaky. Also, as an aside about a standing problem in AFD/CFD: Why should anyone even bother making arguments to Keep when valid arguments like "It's useful" are being improperly discounted by those who insist on invoking WP:ATA to not count those comments in the final tally in contravention of the established guideline for discounting comments: WP:DGFA#Rough_consensus. No, we've experienced this one too many times already. Until people stop misusing WP:ATA to improperly discount the comments of others, there's really not much point in doing as you ask. FeloniousMonk 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, this is one of the problems with category deletion reviews - once we empty them, we can't see what they were actually used for. So I can't see any basis to say that the CFD participants got it right, and I do see a clear process problem. Overturn and relist, because there is no way to know whether the correct decision was reached. GRBerry 15:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I agree with GRBerry's argument, and strongly disagree with Radiant's. The problem here was with the process, not the weighing of arguments. Evouga 21:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Seems to be a pretty clear example of someone in the know with an agenda shamelessly abusing the system "anon" and certain admins apparently turning a blind eye. Thanks FM for catching this. Odd nature 22:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per GRBerry, and reminders to everyone that if something is on Xfd, and has no "...being considered for deletion" tag, ADD the darn thing - I'm going to Agf and hope it wasn't an agenda-driven sneak. I have half a mind to violate WP:SPAM to all those who unanimously voted "delete" on the Cfd. Puppy is cranky; puppy has good reason. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that that would violate WP:SPAM in that they are a small group of interested people. JoshuaZ 23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reinstate category. Denialism (or if one prefers, "denial") of significant historical events or significant verifiable facts, is a legitimate category which has in common some motive, or set of motives, that creates bias w.r.t. empirical or objective historical inquiry conducted by separate, independent, objective researchers, and to the reporting of clearly established objective results of such inquiry. What appears to have been missed in the CfD is that each article in the category must pass muster as to WP:Reliable sources, WP:notability, WP:VER, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV#undue_weight, etc. So there ought be little danger of an endless collection of "denialisms"; the cat is self-limiting by the basic WP policies. ... Kenosis 23:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reinstate per KC/GRBerry. If it isn't tagged, there's a problem in the deletion process. Guettarda 14:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arden Wohl – Restore article without prejudice against relisting at AfD. Original AfD seems to have been reasonably closed, but new evidence of notability has surfaced. – IronGargoyle 02:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Arden Wohl (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Arden Wohl was featured in July 2007 edition of Vogue, fulfilling notability requirments,(see http://parkavenuepeerage.wordpress.com/2007/06/28/the-hills/) she is also mentioned in movie short stub Coven (short film) She is currently working on the Playground Project with George Clooney, I think the article should at least be "unsalted", it was originally "salted", as I am new to all of this and did not know the proper protacol, regarding recreating of an article..I thought if you edited it properly you could remove the deletion tags..sorry this was originally removed because of notability requirments, but Vogue is a highly regarded publication. Tweety21 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] ~~Endorse~~: valid AfD per Morgan Wick's analysis of Gsearch results, and the consensus of established editors. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn: given the Vogue article. David Mestel^(Talk) 06:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Restore the last version before the AfD deletion, as this individual has had significant media coverage in Vogue magazine since the AfD discussion and therefore now apparently meets WP:BIO. No prejudice regarding relisting, but there should at least be another discussion before deleting again. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Restore on the basis of Vogue. I suppose even NYC socialites can be notable, though if there ever was a category where WP coverage is a little redundant, this is it. DGG (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Ah, but the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to provide redundant information. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I've unsalted in light of the new evidence of notability, but I'm hesitant to restore the original article. Previous versions were written with a heavily promotional tone. --Core desat 18:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Restore without prejudice to relisting. This is really just an issue of how stringently we judge notability. The AfD was already very borderline with 7 Delete votes and 5 Keep votes, four of which were expressed as Strong Keeps. I would have closed it as no consensus, though I wouldn't complain since it was a rather close decision. In light of Tweety's newfound linkage I'm fairly sure the article would pass under another AfD, though if others disagree I'd be happy with relisting. — xDanielx^Talk 09:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Arden Wohl – Restore article without prejudice against relisting at AfD. Original AfD seems to have been reasonably closed, but new evidence of notability has surfaced. – IronGargoyle 02:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arden Wohl was featured in July 2007 edition of Vogue, fulfilling notability requirments,(see http://parkavenuepeerage.wordpress.com/2007/06/28/the-hills/) she is also mentioned in movie short stub Coven (short film) She is currently working on the Playground Project with George Clooney, I think the article should at least be "unsalted", it was originally "salted", as I am new to all of this and did not know the proper protacol, regarding recreating of an article..I thought if you edited it properly you could remove the deletion tags..sorry this was originally removed because of notability requirments, but Vogue is a highly regarded publication. Tweety21 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse~~: valid AfD per Morgan Wick's analysis of Gsearch results, and the consensus of established editors. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: given the Vogue article. David Mestel^(Talk) 06:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the last version before the AfD deletion, as this individual has had significant media coverage in Vogue magazine since the AfD discussion and therefore now apparently meets WP:BIO. No prejudice regarding relisting, but there should at least be another discussion before deleting again. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore on the basis of Vogue. I suppose even NYC socialites can be notable, though if there ever was a category where WP coverage is a little redundant, this is it. DGG (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ah, but the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to provide redundant information. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've unsalted in light of the new evidence of notability, but I'm hesitant to restore the original article. Previous versions were written with a heavily promotional tone. --Core desat 18:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore without prejudice to relisting. This is really just an issue of how stringently we judge notability. The AfD was already very borderline with 7 Delete votes and 5 Keep votes, four of which were expressed as Strong Keeps. I would have closed it as no consensus, though I wouldn't complain since it was a rather close decision. In light of Tweety's newfound linkage I'm fairly sure the article would pass under another AfD, though if others disagree I'd be happy with relisting. — xDanielx^Talk 09:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Casey William Hardison – Overturned & reopening AfD ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Casey William Hardison (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Active discussion (AfD) speedied with no justification given; article was undergoing improvement. SamBC(talk) 03:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] The article was a useless mess of unsourced material and in violation of WP:BLP. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Casey_William_Hardison. You can always re-create it with good quality sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] The BLP discussion's last post was that it was being left alone for now as it was being improved. Several sources had been added, POV made more neutral, and edits pending establishing further notability, beyond the arrest and court case. This was noted on the AFD page as well as the edit log of the page itself. I actaully spent several hours on it last night, and would've done more tonight if I hadn't spent the time trying to steer a course through WT:COI that would do some good and reduce the amount of bickering, which seemed more immediately important as the AFD only started a day or so ago. SamBC(talk) 03:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] For that matter, which speedy deletion criterion were you applying? SamBC(talk) 03:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Deleted within the criteria established at WP:BLP. As I said, you are welcome to recreate with proper sourced material. If you need a copy of the deleted text, let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I will not be opposed to an undeletion, if there is a chance that the article can be written in accordance of WP content policies. Let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Well, I've been actively editing and have sources establishing his position as an activist and "amateur researcher" (with publications in about as major a publication as one gets in a fringe field) in the entheogenic movement (people who say that hallucinogens and psychedelics can be beneficial) and as an advocate of the freedom to take entheogens. You want me to list them all here? The crazy thing is, it's not as if I hadn't stated this on the page, in the log, and at the AFD. Plus, BLP isn't a speedy deletion criterion. The WP:CSD page makes it clear that speedy deletion is to be applied narrowly. SamBC(talk) 03:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist at AfD. I was about to !vote delete on this, as I have some doubts about real notability. But I do not see what BLP concerns there were: the man was convicted of drug manufacturing on a rather large scale, and appealed on unlikely but far-reaching grounds regarding the UK drug laws. The facts on what he was convicted of are not disputed--and even if they were, he was convicted and the appeal denied. The fact that he made the legal challenges he made is not disputed, & neither is the disposition of them. An example of BLP gone wrong once more by being used in an arbitrary way--there was no support for it at the BLP noticeboard. Another example of interfering with an ongoing AfD in a way that causes more trouble in the end. DGG (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn: clearly not a BLP issue: in the first place, the article isn't generally derogatory in tone; in the second, there's no suggestion that the stuff is actually untrue, or that he is averse to publicity; and most importantly, there are several sources, like this, this and especially this. The man's notability is something that can legitimately be discussed, but is not in any case a speedy issue. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Casey William Hardison – Overturned & reopening AfD ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Active discussion (AfD) speedied with no justification given; article was undergoing improvement. SamBC(talk) 03:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was a useless mess of unsourced material and in violation of WP:BLP. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Casey_William_Hardison. You can always re-create it with good quality sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The BLP discussion's last post was that it was being left alone for now as it was being improved. Several sources had been added, POV made more neutral, and edits pending establishing further notability, beyond the arrest and court case. This was noted on the AFD page as well as the edit log of the page itself. I actaully spent several hours on it last night, and would've done more tonight if I hadn't spent the time trying to steer a course through WT:COI that would do some good and reduce the amount of bickering, which seemed more immediately important as the AFD only started a day or so ago. SamBC(talk) 03:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For that matter, which speedy deletion criterion were you applying? SamBC(talk) 03:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deleted within the criteria established at WP:BLP. As I said, you are welcome to recreate with proper sourced material. If you need a copy of the deleted text, let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will not be opposed to an undeletion, if there is a chance that the article can be written in accordance of WP content policies. Let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I've been actively editing and have sources establishing his position as an activist and "amateur researcher" (with publications in about as major a publication as one gets in a fringe field) in the entheogenic movement (people who say that hallucinogens and psychedelics can be beneficial) and as an advocate of the freedom to take entheogens. You want me to list them all here? The crazy thing is, it's not as if I hadn't stated this on the page, in the log, and at the AFD. Plus, BLP isn't a speedy deletion criterion. The WP:CSD page makes it clear that speedy deletion is to be applied narrowly. SamBC(talk) 03:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist at AfD. I was about to !vote delete on this, as I have some doubts about real notability. But I do not see what BLP concerns there were: the man was convicted of drug manufacturing on a rather large scale, and appealed on unlikely but far-reaching grounds regarding the UK drug laws. The facts on what he was convicted of are not disputed--and even if they were, he was convicted and the appeal denied. The fact that he made the legal challenges he made is not disputed, & neither is the disposition of them. An example of BLP gone wrong once more by being used in an arbitrary way--there was no support for it at the BLP noticeboard. Another example of interfering with an ongoing AfD in a way that causes more trouble in the end. DGG (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: clearly not a BLP issue: in the first place, the article isn't generally derogatory in tone; in the second, there's no suggestion that the stuff is actually untrue, or that he is averse to publicity; and most importantly, there are several sources, like this, this and especially this. The man's notability is something that can legitimately be discussed, but is not in any case a speedy issue. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of people known as father or mother of something – Re-deleted the article per CSD G4. Under no circumstances should the AfD be overturned without an DRV, and under no circumstances should the article be restored unless said DRV has taken place. There is an established process for contesting an AfD. I have no prejudice in regards to reopening this DRV to contest the original AfD. – Kurykh 04:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of people known as father or mother of something (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` AFD was closed as delete on July 12 but instead of being deleted the page was redirected on July 13 to Pater Patriae. An editor unilaterally undid the redirect on August 3. When I noticed the article was back I tagged it for speedy deletion as a repost, but that was denied with the suggestion that it be brought here. I think the original close as delete was correct and the article should be deleted and not preserved as a redirect since no one is ever going to type "List of people known as the father or mother of something" in the Search box. Otto4711 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I would tend to agree with you; certainly an AfD closing as delete ought to lead to deletion, and the redirect that was made instead seems rather... random. SamBC(talk) 03:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] question I agree it should be deleted, but I don't see why you were directed here--this isn't the AfD enforcement department. It should just have gone back to AfD. DGG (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse original close. Rather than take it back to AfD, I'd recommend just deleting per the already established consensus. Should that be considered a G6 speedy or per WP:SNOW? >:-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of people known as father or mother of something – Re-deleted the article per CSD G4. Under no circumstances should the AfD be overturned without an DRV, and under no circumstances should the article be restored unless said DRV has taken place. There is an established process for contesting an AfD. I have no prejudice in regards to reopening this DRV to contest the original AfD. – Kurykh 04:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

AFD was closed as delete on July 12 but instead of being deleted the page was redirected on July 13 to Pater Patriae. An editor unilaterally undid the redirect on August 3. When I noticed the article was back I tagged it for speedy deletion as a repost, but that was denied with the suggestion that it be brought here. I think the original close as delete was correct and the article should be deleted and not preserved as a redirect since no one is ever going to type "List of people known as the father or mother of something" in the Search box. Otto4711 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with you; certainly an AfD closing as delete ought to lead to deletion, and the redirect that was made instead seems rather... random. SamBC(talk) 03:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
question I agree it should be deleted, but I don't see why you were directed here--this isn't the AfD enforcement department. It should just have gone back to AfD. DGG (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original close. Rather than take it back to AfD, I'd recommend just deleting per the already established consensus. Should that be considered a G6 speedy or per WP:SNOW? >:-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs)

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

Jonas Jacobi – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice to a recreation that 1) has a clear assertion of notability and 2) is sourced, which the last draft was not. I note that in the AFD some sources (of debatable quality) were used that showed the article as written contained significant errors - but nobody chose to improve the article. The deciding factor, in the end, is that if there had never been an AFD I'd be willing to speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7. There is strong, project wide consensus against having articles, especially bios of living people, that don't assert encyclopedic significance. This individual may merit an article, but he doesn't merit that article, and any article on him really needs to be written afresh from reliable sources. – GRBerry 12:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jonas Jacobi (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` I think this AfD should have been closed as no consensus, or as withdrawn by nominator. There were three Delete votes, and two regular Keep votes. The nominator then retracted his position, changing it from Delete to Keep, making the vote count 3-3 tie or arguably 3-2 Keep depending on how you look at it. The case for deletion was an attack on notability, and the subject's notability as a published author is at least borderline if not unarguably sufficient (see e.g. this and this, easily found with a very quick search and posted in the AfD), so I think (lack of) consensus should have been followed. — xDanielx^Talk 00:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse my deletion. I closed as delete primarily because there is no WP:N: the article lacking sources say he's a product evangelist for a big company - that is not inherently notable: evangelist is a fancy word for marketing guy; First (a) it's not a vote; majority doesn't win or necessarily give a consensus; and even the editor bringing this to DRV (along with the other keep voice) could only muster "weak keeps", again acknowledging the problem of notability, and the other containing a thinly veiled personal attack (b) a nominator may withdraw a nomination, but when contrary voices are heard the withdrawal does not require a close in the nominator's favor; and (c) consensus is demonstrated not only by what is said at the AFD, but by the guidelines including WP:N and policies such as WP:BLP. If we were purely counting noses there were 3 deletes, 1 neutral, the nominator who wanted to withdraw the nomination, and 2 weak keeps, one claiming that the nominator was biased. The delete voices - including the nominator - while focusing on the spamminess of the article, also noted there was no Notability, in fact arguably there is no assertion of notability (see WP:CSD#A7). The neutral expressed concern with the notability issue. The keep voice had more procedural than substantive objections, but this is really not a court of law, and if the subject fails WP:N and the nominator fails to waive his hands in the proper order, it doesn't invalidate the argument and position of those who follow. The keeper also provided two websites that mention Jacobi in small articles as evidence of his notability. Those are not reliable sources (WP:RS) we expect to demonstrate notability; moreover, a brief blurb about somebody does not show notability. So in a nose count one could say 3 deletes + 1 neutral questioning notability = 4 vs. 0.5 (a weak keep), letting the nominator and keeper claiming bias thereof cancelling each other out. But we're not counting noses, we're evaluating the arguments, of which the deleters had by far the stronger position. I wouldn't mind a relisting or a recreation, if those who !voted keep can demonstrate meeting WP:N with independent reliable sources - not the business or trade press that if we took 2 blurbs = notability would give notability to virtally every professor, band, high school athlete, patentee, or businessperson. A position inherently rejected here given that we have notability guidelines for some of these none of which suggest that 2 blurbs is sufficient to show notability - in fact the hurdles are significantly higher. Given their inability to do so during the week this was on afd, I cannot expect that they can do so now. I would like to see someone cite these reliable sources in this DRV since no one bothered to add them to the article nor cite any during the Afd, rather than take it on trust that they'll magically appear. Carlossuarez46 01:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Your summary of the AfD is many things, but it certainly isn't neutral. "[L]etting the nominator and keeper claiming bias thereof cancelling each other out" is peculiar logic, since (A) they both supported keeping the article and (B) the claim of possible bias seems to have been made without noticing that the nominator had retracted his position, so we can ignore the claim for the purpose of evaluating consensus. Counting a weak keep as only half of an opinion is rather unfair since the motivation for a Week Keep is generally not "I don't want my vote to have as much weight as anyone else" but rather "I support a Keep but for the sake of courtesy I'll acknowledge that this is a close call." Counting a neutral vote as a Keep vote is bizarre, for lack of a better term. The editor said "I'd like to see a more thorough and cited discussion regarding this person's notability", not "this person is not notable". He then proceeded to point out why the subject appeared to be notable. I think his comment suggests that he was leaning Keep, but for the sake of impartiality let's consider it a neutral vote, since that's what he said it was. The vote was very clearly a 3-3, with 1 neutral--and there was no nominator support for the deletion, so if we're comparing this to AfD standards where the nominator contributes a sort of "ghost vote" for delete it's effectively the same as a 3-2 for Keep. Granted, the AfD forum is not a vote. But with exceptions for extreme cases (sockpuppetry, clear copyright violation, etc.), it's up to the community to judge whether a subject meets standards of notability and the like. Your own assessment of notability does not trump the community's. The subject of the AfD is a published and well-read author, well-known essayist, a CEO, and an overall influential figure in his industry. These attributes have been recognized by reasonably reliable sources which were brought up in the AfD, such as this one. It may not unquestionably pass WP:RS with flying colors, but there is no obvious reason why it wouldn't, and no such argument was brought up in the AfD. The traditional requirement is that deleting an article requires a two-thirds vote. The two-thirds rule is now essentially deprecated to encourage constructive discussion rather than bureaucratic vote-shooting, but it's still a fair guideline to follow as long as the votes express reasonable judgments and no illicit tactics were involved or what not. In this case there was either a 3-3-1 tie (no consensus) or a 3-2-1 keep, depending on how you look at it. You gave yourself a super-vote by closing the AfD as Delete given a clear lack of consensus. This is very much against WP:DGFA, especially when your (unstated) reasons for supporting deletion were no different from the reasoning that was already presented, considered, and rejected by a good half of those involved. — xDanielx^Talk 09:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] The other keep voice claimed the nominator was biased against the subject, do you credit that? Seems not, but can't be sure given your comments and nose-count. If so, then the nominator's voice is discountable as being acknowledgedly biased. If you don't credit that claim, and it seems that you might not given that you now claim that it was made in ignorance of manifest facts, do you want to grant validity to someone who casts such aspersions you acknowledge are ill-founded and only then can come up with a "weak" keep apparently based on the aspersions you no longer endorse. And the nominator's withdrawal is not a "keep", a nominator's withdrawal is a withdrawal - it may be neutral, it may be that he just didn't want to be maligned by false accusations, you read more between the lines than are there, I'm afraid. We should read the comments and arguments not just the "votes" - the neutral which I didn't count as keep despite what you say (you did that, really) - wanted to see something that no one could or did provide. Again, you ackowledge that the sources as to his notability do not pass WP:RS. Not surprising because he is not notable and borderline speedy because nothing in the article asserts his notability. The 2/3 rule is you cite: Where is that noted? Where can I find that? And if that's the stated protocol, then to hell with comments, why doesn't everyone just vote (as apposed to !vote) because under such a rule, it's purely a head count. I belive that there is no 2/3 rule and that the community has spoken in consensus by adopting the WP:RS and WP:N and WP:BLP - is it troubling no one that this is an unsourced article about a living person? So if 1/3 of the people, plus one, who show up and comment during the week to say "keep" despite these guidelines then the article is kept - that's neither been the rule nor the outcome here. If you'd like to propose adoption of that rule, you should discuss it at the talk page of WP:DELETE. Carlossuarez46 17:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] In the first place, the final "keep" commentator relied mostly on the opinion of xDanielx, adding the suggestion of bias merely as an afterthought. In the second, I don't know how you read his comment as acknowledging that the sources don't pass WP:RS - all he's saying is that they could be better. With regard to the neutral commentator, I think he mis-typed, and what he meant to do was take issue with your claim that it was effectively a "delete", which is patently false. With respect to the nominator, suggesting that he withdrew his nomination because of a throwaway suggestion of bias (understandable given the somewhat aggressive tone of his nomination) is absurd. Regarding the more substantive point, while AfD is not of course a vote, the balance of commentators often helps to gauge community consensus on an issue. In this case, sources were produced which purported to demonstrate the subject's notability. It was claimed that they did not pass WP:RS (which is arguable); several editors considered this claim and rejected it, and no consensus was formed. It's as simple as that. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm still trying to fathom your statement that the allegation of bias was "understandable" in light of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Carlossuarez46 23:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Read that again, Carlos. That isn't what David is saying at all. Xoloz 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Xoloz or David: What does the parenthetical here mean: "With respect to the nominator, suggesting that he withdrew his nomination because of a throwaway suggestion of bias (understandable given the somewhat aggressive tone of his nomination) is absurd." Carlossuarez46 19:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Mathmo, I think, made his comment without noticing that Rursus had retracted his nomination. It was understandable since the original nomination was, as David said, rather aggressive, and Rursus's retraction wasn't highlighted with big bold letters. Also, let's not exaggerate what Mathmo said -- "also smells of potential personal bias" is not as strong as "this nomination was biased and made in bad faith." It was a minor communication error and doesn't change the fact that both Rursus and Mathmo supported keeping the article in the end. — xDanielx^Talk 06:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Carlos, if you're only interested in attacking straw men then there's not much point in arguing. I did not say that we should count the neutral vote as a keep vote; I said "for the sake of impartiality let's consider it a neutral vote, since that's what he said it was." I did not "ackowledge that the sources as to his notability do not pass WP:RS". I quote: "It may not unquestionably pass WP:RS with flying colors, but there is no obvious reason why it wouldn't, and no such argument was brought up in the AfD." I did not say that the 2/3 guideline is a part of current policy. I said: "The two-thirds rule is now essentially deprecated to encourage constructive discussion rather than bureaucratic vote-shooting, but it's still a fair guideline to follow as long as the votes express reasonable judgments and no illicit tactics were involved or what not." If you'd like to see the deprecated (not to be confused with "current") policy, you can go through the page history or view an archived version such as this one. I did not say that we ought to follow the 2/3 rule strictly as was done back in 2004. Please read my comments more closely before criticizing them. — xDanielx^Talk 10:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relist but someone else will have to sponsor the deletion rather than the original nominator, for he withdrew the nomination in the course of the debate. I have no opinion on the merits, which seem equivocal, but a delete in the face of that seems a little excessive. (I agree it was not an automatic speedy keep, because someone else had spoken for deletion.) I'd have closed no-consensus if I had thought that his withdrawal was wrong. DGG (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as no consensus. While the subject's notability may be rather dubious, it's certainly arguable on both sides, and I don't see anything remotely resembling a consensus in the AfD, especially since two of the deletes were submitted before some of the sources came to light, and the final delete cites as its sole rationale the nominator, who had withdrawn his somewhat curiously-argued nomination. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as no consensus, with no prejudice to re-listing. When the nominator flip-flops, it seems the consensus of other participants should be extremely clear to justify deletion. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, AFD is not decided by vote counting, and that misunderstanding appears to be the sole reason Daniel brought it here. >Radiant< 08:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] If I may ask, which argument was it that you found so overwhelmingly compelling so as to justify overriding (lack of) consensus? Was it the "'...for Dummies' books aren't notable enough" argument? If so, it may be worth noting that he never wrote any such book; Pro JSF and AJAX doesn't present itself as one, anyway. Was it the "seems to be only marginally notable" statement? Or "[d]elete per nom, down with spam"? Was it one of the four retracted nominational arguments? The first is not really a deletion argument; the second is unevidenced, contradicted by links which were listed in the AfD discussion, and not a reason for deletion anyway; the third was again unsupported and not a reason for deletion; and the fourth was a complaint/warning about sneaky websites. If I may quote Descartes, there doesn't seem to be any "argument so strong that it can never be shaken by a stronger argument [or by community consensus]." — xDanielx^Talk 11:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] You'd have to ask the closing admin for his reasoning, but your statement again begins with a fallacy. If there is an "overwhelmingly compelling" argument, that does not "justify overriding consensus", but instead it means that consensus lies with the argument. Consensus does not consist of the ten-twenty people that participated in any particular AFD, but of the Wiki at large. >Radiant< 12:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Since when has the "consensus" position been taken to mean the closing admin's idea of the stronger position? The role of the closer is not to determine which side s/he fancies, it is to gauge consensus based on the opinions expressed in the AfD. There can be exceptions in light of clear, uncontentious policy violations (see, e.g. WP:DGFA), but borderline notability generally isn't one of them, least of all when the argument was already considered by each of the AfD participants and rejected by exactly half. — xDanielx^Talk 22:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] And that is a false dichotomy, not to mention a straw man. >Radiant< 08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] A dichotomy of what? Where is the straw man? — xDanielx^Talk 09:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as no consensus; neither the weight or numbers nor weight of arguments for deletion is compelling. Evouga 22:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion Simply put, I cannot claim that the deletion of this article -- which lacked WP:RS completely, and contained assertions of notability that were very thin -- an abuse of administrative discretion. I could imagine some folks using CSD G11 to delete this; although I wouldn't support that, it also wouldn't be absurd. As it stands, the draft is quite weak. Xoloz 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. The deletion debate was side-tracked by secondary issues of COI and AGF but the fact remains that this is a bioagraphy article with no assertion of encyclopedic notability. Thus deletion is so clearly the correct outcome that a relist is unnecessary. Eluchil404 03:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jonas Jacobi – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice to a recreation that 1) has a clear assertion of notability and 2) is sourced, which the last draft was not. I note that in the AFD some sources (of debatable quality) were used that showed the article as written contained significant errors - but nobody chose to improve the article. The deciding factor, in the end, is that if there had never been an AFD I'd be willing to speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7. There is strong, project wide consensus against having articles, especially bios of living people, that don't assert encyclopedic significance. This individual may merit an article, but he doesn't merit that article, and any article on him really needs to be written afresh from reliable sources. – GRBerry 12:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this AfD should have been closed as no consensus, or as withdrawn by nominator. There were three Delete votes, and two regular Keep votes. The nominator then retracted his position, changing it from Delete to Keep, making the vote count 3-3 tie or arguably 3-2 Keep depending on how you look at it. The case for deletion was an attack on notability, and the subject's notability as a published author is at least borderline if not unarguably sufficient (see e.g. this and this, easily found with a very quick search and posted in the AfD), so I think (lack of) consensus should have been followed. — xDanielx^Talk 00:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my deletion. I closed as delete primarily because there is no WP:N: the article lacking sources say he's a product evangelist for a big company - that is not inherently notable: evangelist is a fancy word for marketing guy; First (a) it's not a vote; majority doesn't win or necessarily give a consensus; and even the editor bringing this to DRV (along with the other keep voice) could only muster "weak keeps", again acknowledging the problem of notability, and the other containing a thinly veiled personal attack (b) a nominator may withdraw a nomination, but when contrary voices are heard the withdrawal does not require a close in the nominator's favor; and (c) consensus is demonstrated not only by what is said at the AFD, but by the guidelines including WP:N and policies such as WP:BLP.

If we were purely counting noses there were 3 deletes, 1 neutral, the nominator who wanted to withdraw the nomination, and 2 weak keeps, one claiming that the nominator was biased. The delete voices - including the nominator - while focusing on the spamminess of the article, also noted there was no Notability, in fact arguably there is no assertion of notability (see WP:CSD#A7). The neutral expressed concern with the notability issue. The keep voice had more procedural than substantive objections, but this is really not a court of law, and if the subject fails WP:N and the nominator fails to waive his hands in the proper order, it doesn't invalidate the argument and position of those who follow. The keeper also provided two websites that mention Jacobi in small articles as evidence of his notability. Those are not reliable sources (WP:RS) we expect to demonstrate notability; moreover, a brief blurb about somebody does not show notability. So in a nose count one could say 3 deletes + 1 neutral questioning notability = 4 vs. 0.5 (a weak keep), letting the nominator and keeper claiming bias thereof cancelling each other out. But we're not counting noses, we're evaluating the arguments, of which the deleters had by far the stronger position.

I wouldn't mind a relisting or a recreation, if those who !voted keep can demonstrate meeting WP:N with independent reliable sources - not the business or trade press that if we took 2 blurbs = notability would give notability to virtally every professor, band, high school athlete, patentee, or businessperson. A position inherently rejected here given that we have notability guidelines for some of these none of which suggest that 2 blurbs is sufficient to show notability - in fact the hurdles are significantly higher. Given their inability to do so during the week this was on afd, I cannot expect that they can do so now. I would like to see someone cite these reliable sources in this DRV since no one bothered to add them to the article nor cite any during the Afd, rather than take it on trust that they'll magically appear. Carlossuarez46 01:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary of the AfD is many things, but it certainly isn't neutral. "[L]etting the nominator and keeper claiming bias thereof cancelling each other out" is peculiar logic, since (A) they both supported keeping the article and (B) the claim of possible bias seems to have been made without noticing that the nominator had retracted his position, so we can ignore the claim for the purpose of evaluating consensus. Counting a weak keep as only half of an opinion is rather unfair since the motivation for a Week Keep is generally not "I don't want my vote to have as much weight as anyone else" but rather "I support a Keep but for the sake of courtesy I'll acknowledge that this is a close call." Counting a neutral vote as a Keep vote is bizarre, for lack of a better term. The editor said "I'd like to see a more thorough and cited discussion regarding this person's notability", not "this person is not notable". He then proceeded to point out why the subject appeared to be notable. I think his comment suggests that he was leaning Keep, but for the sake of impartiality let's consider it a neutral vote, since that's what he said it was. The vote was very clearly a 3-3, with 1 neutral--and there was no nominator support for the deletion, so if we're comparing this to AfD standards where the nominator contributes a sort of "ghost vote" for delete it's effectively the same as a 3-2 for Keep.

Granted, the AfD forum is not a vote. But with exceptions for extreme cases (sockpuppetry, clear copyright violation, etc.), it's up to the community to judge whether a subject meets standards of notability and the like. Your own assessment of notability does not trump the community's. The subject of the AfD is a published and well-read author, well-known essayist, a CEO, and an overall influential figure in his industry. These attributes have been recognized by reasonably reliable sources which were brought up in the AfD, such as this one. It may not unquestionably pass WP:RS with flying colors, but there is no obvious reason why it wouldn't, and no such argument was brought up in the AfD. The traditional requirement is that deleting an article requires a two-thirds vote. The two-thirds rule is now essentially deprecated to encourage constructive discussion rather than bureaucratic vote-shooting, but it's still a fair guideline to follow as long as the votes express reasonable judgments and no illicit tactics were involved or what not. In this case there was either a 3-3-1 tie (no consensus) or a 3-2-1 keep, depending on how you look at it. You gave yourself a super-vote by closing the AfD as Delete given a clear lack of consensus. This is very much against WP:DGFA, especially when your (unstated) reasons for supporting deletion were no different from the reasoning that was already presented, considered, and rejected by a good half of those involved. — xDanielx^Talk 09:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The other keep voice claimed the nominator was biased against the subject, do you credit that? Seems not, but can't be sure given your comments and nose-count. If so, then the nominator's voice is discountable as being acknowledgedly biased. If you don't credit that claim, and it seems that you might not given that you now claim that it was made in ignorance of manifest facts, do you want to grant validity to someone who casts such aspersions you acknowledge are ill-founded and only then can come up with a "weak" keep apparently based on the aspersions you no longer endorse. And the nominator's withdrawal is not a "keep", a nominator's withdrawal is a withdrawal - it may be neutral, it may be that he just didn't want to be maligned by false accusations, you read more between the lines than are there, I'm afraid. We should read the comments and arguments not just the "votes" - the neutral which I didn't count as keep despite what you say (you did that, really) - wanted to see something that no one could or did provide. Again, you ackowledge that the sources as to his notability do not pass WP:RS. Not surprising because he is not notable and borderline speedy because nothing in the article asserts his notability. The 2/3 rule is you cite: Where is that noted? Where can I find that? And if that's the stated protocol, then to hell with comments, why doesn't everyone just vote (as apposed to !vote) because under such a rule, it's purely a head count. I belive that there is no 2/3 rule and that the community has spoken in consensus by adopting the WP:RS and WP:N and WP:BLP - is it troubling no one that this is an unsourced article about a living person? So if 1/3 of the people, plus one, who show up and comment during the week to say "keep" despite these guidelines then the article is kept - that's neither been the rule nor the outcome here. If you'd like to propose adoption of that rule, you should discuss it at the talk page of WP:DELETE. Carlossuarez46 17:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the first place, the final "keep" commentator relied mostly on the opinion of xDanielx, adding the suggestion of bias merely as an afterthought. In the second, I don't know how you read his comment as acknowledging that the sources don't pass WP:RS - all he's saying is that they could be better. With regard to the neutral commentator, I think he mis-typed, and what he meant to do was take issue with your claim that it was effectively a "delete", which is patently false. With respect to the nominator, suggesting that he withdrew his nomination because of a throwaway suggestion of bias (understandable given the somewhat aggressive tone of his nomination) is absurd. Regarding the more substantive point, while AfD is not of course a vote, the balance of commentators often helps to gauge community consensus on an issue. In this case, sources were produced which purported to demonstrate the subject's notability. It was claimed that they did not pass WP:RS (which is arguable); several editors considered this claim and rejected it, and no consensus was formed. It's as simple as that. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm still trying to fathom your statement that the allegation of bias was "understandable" in light of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Carlossuarez46 23:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Read that again, Carlos. That isn't what David is saying at all. Xoloz 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Xoloz or David: What does the parenthetical here mean: "With respect to the nominator, suggesting that he withdrew his nomination because of a throwaway suggestion of bias (understandable given the somewhat aggressive tone of his nomination) is absurd." Carlossuarez46 19:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Mathmo, I think, made his comment without noticing that Rursus had retracted his nomination. It was understandable since the original nomination was, as David said, rather aggressive, and Rursus's retraction wasn't highlighted with big bold letters. Also, let's not exaggerate what Mathmo said -- "also smells of potential personal bias" is not as strong as "this nomination was biased and made in bad faith." It was a minor communication error and doesn't change the fact that both Rursus and Mathmo supported keeping the article in the end. — xDanielx^Talk 06:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Carlos, if you're only interested in attacking straw men then there's not much point in arguing. I did not say that we should count the neutral vote as a keep vote; I said "for the sake of impartiality let's consider it a neutral vote, since that's what he said it was." I did not "ackowledge that the sources as to his notability do not pass WP:RS". I quote: "It may not unquestionably pass WP:RS with flying colors, but there is no obvious reason why it wouldn't, and no such argument was brought up in the AfD." I did not say that the 2/3 guideline is a part of current policy. I said: "The two-thirds rule is now essentially deprecated to encourage constructive discussion rather than bureaucratic vote-shooting, but it's still a fair guideline to follow as long as the votes express reasonable judgments and no illicit tactics were involved or what not." If you'd like to see the deprecated (not to be confused with "current") policy, you can go through the page history or view an archived version such as this one. I did not say that we ought to follow the 2/3 rule strictly as was done back in 2004. Please read my comments more closely before criticizing them. — xDanielx^Talk 10:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist but someone else will have to sponsor the deletion rather than the original nominator, for he withdrew the nomination in the course of the debate. I have no opinion on the merits, which seem equivocal, but a delete in the face of that seems a little excessive. (I agree it was not an automatic speedy keep, because someone else had spoken for deletion.) I'd have closed no-consensus if I had thought that his withdrawal was wrong. DGG (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus. While the subject's notability may be rather dubious, it's certainly arguable on both sides, and I don't see anything remotely resembling a consensus in the AfD, especially since two of the deletes were submitted before some of the sources came to light, and the final delete cites as its sole rationale the nominator, who had withdrawn his somewhat curiously-argued nomination. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus, with no prejudice to re-listing. When the nominator flip-flops, it seems the consensus of other participants should be extremely clear to justify deletion. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, AFD is not decided by vote counting, and that misunderstanding appears to be the sole reason Daniel brought it here. >Radiant< 08:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I may ask, which argument was it that you found so overwhelmingly compelling so as to justify overriding (lack of) consensus? Was it the "'...for Dummies' books aren't notable enough" argument? If so, it may be worth noting that he never wrote any such book; Pro JSF and AJAX doesn't present itself as one, anyway. Was it the "seems to be only marginally notable" statement? Or "[d]elete per nom, down with spam"? Was it one of the four retracted nominational arguments? The first is not really a deletion argument; the second is unevidenced, contradicted by links which were listed in the AfD discussion, and not a reason for deletion anyway; the third was again unsupported and not a reason for deletion; and the fourth was a complaint/warning about sneaky websites. If I may quote Descartes, there doesn't seem to be any "argument so strong that it can never be shaken by a stronger argument [or by community consensus]." — xDanielx^Talk 11:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You'd have to ask the closing admin for his reasoning, but your statement again begins with a fallacy. If there is an "overwhelmingly compelling" argument, that does not "justify overriding consensus", but instead it means that consensus lies with the argument. Consensus does not consist of the ten-twenty people that participated in any particular AFD, but of the Wiki at large. >Radiant< 12:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since when has the "consensus" position been taken to mean the closing admin's idea of the stronger position? The role of the closer is not to determine which side s/he fancies, it is to gauge consensus based on the opinions expressed in the AfD. There can be exceptions in light of clear, uncontentious policy violations (see, e.g. WP:DGFA), but borderline notability generally isn't one of them, least of all when the argument was already considered by each of the AfD participants and rejected by exactly half. — xDanielx^Talk 22:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And that is a false dichotomy, not to mention a straw man. >Radiant< 08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        A dichotomy of what? Where is the straw man? — xDanielx^Talk 09:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus; neither the weight or numbers nor weight of arguments for deletion is compelling. Evouga 22:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Simply put, I cannot claim that the deletion of this article -- which lacked WP:RS completely, and contained assertions of notability that were very thin -- an abuse of administrative discretion. I could imagine some folks using CSD G11 to delete this; although I wouldn't support that, it also wouldn't be absurd. As it stands, the draft is quite weak. Xoloz 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The deletion debate was side-tracked by secondary issues of COI and AGF but the fact remains that this is a bioagraphy article with no assertion of encyclopedic notability. Thus deletion is so clearly the correct outcome that a relist is unnecessary. Eluchil404 03:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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