Norton_Buffalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

UNDELETE_II I had received a few e-mails, noting that Wikipedia had absolutely nothing regarding Norton Buffalo, I typed my name in and found it to be true. Today, I submitted a biography from my web page, that could allow people to access this information. It was thereafter marked for "Speedy Deletion". The information i included, while it indeed comes from my own site, and while it, as well is regarding my own career, was posted as a means to inform people about me, not inflate my own ego. As a Grammy nominated member of the entertainment industry who has been playing on and releasing records for over 35 years, it seemed a disservice to the community to have nothing at all within the Wikipedia database. I understand fully, your concerns over conflict of interest, vanity etc, and respect them. Thus it would be great if a one of the folks within the Wikipedia community could examine this information and make it accessible. For more information you can check my webpage at www.norton-buffalo.com. I think you will find that it is fair and balanced ... I have had a long and blessed carreer. Thanks for your consideration regarding this. NB Buffharp 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. conflict of interest applies. Please let a neutral third party write an article, rather than copy-pasting your website content, which violates our licensing and neutrality policies. Please don't feel bad, this happens all the time. you could try posting a link and some other, independent sources at requested articles. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice. Reproducing the text of another website without some evidence of explicit permission ("Because I said so" from a random editor, I'm afraid, isn't sufficient) is verboten. You'll have to send an e-mail message to permissions at wikimedia dot org -- using the same domain for the e-mail message -- to get the approval. Bear in mind that doing so effectively means giving up your right to control the material, under GFDL, and it will be edited. --Calton | Talk 00:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The noob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AFD1|AfD2)

Administrator, in closing, decided delete when there was no clear consensus for delete. Disregarding sockpuppets, there were 27 keeps and only 12 deletes with clear accepted claims towards notability and verifiability through sources independent of The noob by a number of experienced Wikipedians. To assert that a sufficient number of the keeps were offered in bad faith (see Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators) in order for there to be a rough consensus to delete is unbelievable. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but Wikipedia is also supposed to operate by consensus rather than fiat. This deletion therefore needs to be subject to further review on the basis of its irregularity with respect to Wikipedia's basic principles. Balancer 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion. Consensus is an assessement of the relative weight of arguments against policy not a straight vote. There may be a lot of keep votes but mostly they are on the side of ILIKEIT. Reading through the AFD, there does seem to be a lack of evidence of Verifiable & Reliable sources cited. Unfortunately, the AFD doesn't list the sources claimed but I thought that Guy's Comment [[1]] in the AFD was a good summation of the arguments. --Spartaz 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such was not my argument (I have still never read The noob and could have cared less whether or not the author was on vacation), nor the argument of many other of the "keep" votes. Again, disregarding the numerous ILIKEITS (and their converse, the IDONTLIKEITs invoking fancruft) leaves at best a scenario in which there is clearly no consensus. The argumentation offered in favor of the deletion was no greater in substance or support than that against. If that's a consensus for deletion or anything resembling a consensus, I'll eat my hat. I've been working with consensus decision-making processes since before Wikipedia has. Balancer 22:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Deletion and keep. Admin acted against the consensus in the AfD. Mathmo ^Talk 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote, consensus is reflected in policy, WP:V, and guideline, WP:RS. No credible rebuttal was given to the failure of this consensus requirement. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion when weighted by strength of argument and adherance to policy and precedent, as well as considering the comments from the first afd, it is clear that the concensus has been clearly stated. Even those arguing for keeping the article state "the vast majority of wikipedians want to delete". It was a good call by the closing admin. Jerry lavoie 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Apparently incorrectly state, to judge from the tally. A clear supermajority was in favor of keeping the article. Please read the actual AFD carefully; I am asking that this closing be overturned on the basis that it was closed in what amounts to an irregular fashion. There was clearly no consensus to delete the article among those participating, and no compelling reason was given for discounting the clear consensus to keep the article. (There was also clearly no consensus to delete in the first AFD, in which substantially less evidence was presented for the comic's notability, and which contained all the same assertions of lack of notability, in some cases by the very same editors, and a smaller quantity of clear support by established Wikipedia. The only variables that have changed have changed in favor of the "keep" of the debate between the first and second AFDs, and yet the first was labeled "no consensus" and the second "delete" by closing administrators.) Balancer 23:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Deletion and keep.
  
  • 0. WP:WEB is under discussion, pushing delete before policy crystallizes is a bit tarded.
    
  • 1. 27 EXPERIENCED EDITORS vs 12 EXPERIENCED EDITORS is consensus at best, or more like CLEAR KEEP.
    
  • 2. It's published on biggest mmo oriented website (mmorpg.com).
    
  • 3. It's published in norwegian magazine (that information didn't make to AfD discussion because SOMEONE PROTECTED IT).
    
  • 4. More than 100,000 google hits. Top3 of of 1.8M for "the noob"
    
  • To sum it up - two notable sources, 27 vs 12 in favour of keeping (only experienced editors, everyone else was PROTECTED from discussion), AfDing while author is on vacation, going for Deletion instead of requesting better sources - I just cannot bloody believe how the hell this article could be deleted. 87.205.129.190 23:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)JoeTF[reply]

• • This is a wiki, everything is always under discussion. If you feel that WP:WEB is not serving the interests of the community, then it needs to be changed per consensus, not in an ad hoc manner when it is brought into discussion.
    
  • AfD is not a vote. It is a check and balance on the power of administrators to delete as policy permits.
    
  • Many things are published on big websites. In fact, lots of stuff gets published on big websites, and we as editors have to screen it for notability. Tangential mentions by notable sources do not establish notability.
    
  • Once again, tangential mentions do not establish notability. The article was not protected, it was semiprotected, and only as a response to abusive sockpuppetry. Any editor could still have made a comment on the AfD talk page, or on the talk page of another editor active in the AfD discussion. Blaming an sprot for being unable to introduce a point is a weak cop-out, at best.
    
  • No, it doesn't have more than 100k hits on Google. The phrase "the noob" has that many. Don't be deceptive by assuming that the combination of two short and common words always refers to a certain webcomic.
    NetOracle 05:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, you're so quick with posting your blantant lies and poor attempts at psyops. Really, this AfD will get you banned from Wikipedia.
    

• 0. No, everything isn't always under discussion and YOU KNOW IT WELL. WP:N has reached clear consensus recently and no one questions it. However, WP:WEB had big flashy "DISPUTED" tag just few hours ago and now discussions rage about bringing it back on talk page.
  
• 1. Apparently, AfD is a vote when more people scream for deletion and isn't when sides are equal or the dreaded 'keep' side wins. In this case, only experienced editors were allowed to vote their concerns (everyone else, author included was conviently PROTECTED from doing so). It ended 27 v 12, which is clear consensus for keeping the article.
  
• 2. What the hell is this?! I don't give a shit how many things are published on muyspace nor how notable they are. We are talking about publication (in fact syndication) on not major, but biggest industry website that publishes mentioned comic weekly.
  
• 3. Once again, I don't have a clue what you are talking about, but surely not about Pegasus reprint. Noone in whole AfD discussion questioned it, you simply decided to ignore it's presence.
• 4. 100k hits for "the noob"?! That's a classic. In line you were replying I stated that this prhase has 1.8 million hits! You clearly didn't checked, took numbers from of your ass and again, BLATANTLY LIED TO THE PUBLIC.

There were so many ABUSES during this AfD, the bans should fly. 87.205.132.43 15:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)JoeTF[reply]

• Overturn Deletion and Keep
  • Notability asserted due to publication in other sources besides it's home page - MMORPG.COM, Pegasus Magazine.
  • Notability asserted due to positive article placement in the European World of Warcraft website.
  • Notabliity asserted due to nomination for arguably THE major webcomic award, the WCCA in 2006
  • Notability asserted due to Alexia.Com rank of 32827 as of today, and a constant 20 million hits a DAY.
  • Notability asserted due to a number of valid reviews of the comic.

The article can be stated as notable for any of these reasons, the fact that is has five of them makes it even more so. Granted that some of the notablity isn't first class (a nomination, not an award). Granted that some of the reviews are mediorcre, but the FACT that is was noted for a review is criteria enough. Having said that, any one of these items is a valid argument for meeting notability, the fact I can list five should be more than enough for a keep decision. The nominators, and the administrator who enforced the delete decision are using AFD indescriminatly, when citation and improvement tags should have been used instead to address their concerns about the article.

At the very least, there was specific, qualitative and quantatative support for a keep decision, there was no consensus for delete as asserted by the deleting administrator, and a no consensus decision should have been the very minimum outcome. Timmccloud 00:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The notability of the WCCA is in question. It is not so rock solid as to automatically convey notability to anything it nominates.
    • The WCCA article has been restored from deletion, and is under discussion. All the more reason for ANY webcomic to be given a "no consensus" until the WCCA question is settled.Timmccloud 13:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no way that site is getting 20 million hits a day. Suggesting it gets even 200k is a stretch, and a single system at The Planet (even if it hosted nothing else, which it doesn't - thenoobcomic.com shares its server with other sites) would quickly exhaust its resources and bandwidth given that level of load. Furthermore, it is only a PR5. NetOracle 06:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad, 3 million page views a day on 2/14: Alexia.Com proof here. Timmccloud 13:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• NetOracle could only attack two of my five assertions of notability. Notability asserted due to the other three. Timmccloud 13:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I believe that there was no consensus to delete, and the administrator was too quick on the trigger here. There was valid argument in both directions, and anyone reading the AFD should agree there was "No Consensus". The noob had been through AFD before with a no consensus, and the article had been improved between AFD nominations. Also, improvements were made to the article DURING the AFD to address some concerns raised in the AFD, and they were ignored. Timmccloud 13:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore. There was not consensus to delete - there were as many crap delete arguments as there were crap keep ones. Proto ► 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You have gotta be kidding me. There were as many crap delete arguments as there were keep ones. There were valid delete arguments. Please take some time out to read the arguments instead of counting the "votes". — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore-Even giving considerable leeway, there was no solid consensus to delete. At worst, the result was no consensus.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per comments above. AfD is not a vote. The result of any AfD should be determined by whether the discussion has shown that the topic meets our guidelines. In this AfD, the sources on The noob were discussed and none were found to be reliable and non-trivial by the delete voters. The keep voters did not convincingly address the concerns. Regarding "crap" delete arguments, I think Proto must have read the wrong AfD; almost every delete voter indicated that he/she evaluated the sources and found there was not enough reliable source material to satisfy our guidelines; see e.g. some of the comments of User:Sandstein, User:Nydas, User:Dragonfiend, User:Seraphimblade, User:Leebo86, and User:JzG (sorry if I missed a couple of good ones). Pan Dan 02:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion This was a well-judged call by the closing admin. As per Pan Dan, the delete arguments were much stronger and rooted in policy than the keep ones, which were flimsy, relying on somewhat exaggerated fansite mentions (which are unreliable indicators of encyclopedic notability) and self-published books (via lulu.com) (And as for the WCCA awards, the "honorable mention", this means that the comic failed to get into the final four nominee stage i.e. 5th place gets you a mention in the also-rans list - this is a weak assertion of notability). AFD closing is not based on vote-driven consensus that exists outside of fundamental policy requirements. Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 03:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure I have made some deletion decision on large, complex AfDs, and have also closed AfDs against the "!vote tally" based on the strength of the arguments. In reading through this closing, I find this a borderline case. However, I'm not going to recommend overturning the AfD because the large amount of sock puppetry and outside participation makes me concerned with the difficulty in gaging true consesnsus, and I think the weight of the arguments by the delete proponents was greater than that of the keeps. It's a close call, but I think the blatant sock puppetry is enough for me to not want to reopen this. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - The number of votes is irrelevant, as AfD is not a vote. The closing administrator was right in applying established policies and guidelines to the article. The whole point of having policies and guidelines is to ensure consistency in encyclopedic standards. If you don't like the policies, build consensus and change them. This is, after all, a wiki. Overriding widely applicable policies for the sake of one article is inconsistent with the entire point of having policies - AfD is not the place to re-factor policy on a wide scale, as AfD tends to involve only a small cross-section of editors. General policy changes tend to involve a broader group of editors, and requires a consensus from a greater part of the editing community. Should consensus establish policies which allow the material we just deleted, then the article can be un-deleted and editing can resume from where it left off. NetOracle 05:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The keep arguments were rooted in the exact same policies as the delete arguments - there were more of them, and they were more widely accepted by established editors. The consensus of the editors engaging in the AFD was crystal clear... and this consensus plays a critical role in Wikipedia's core policies and in particular the deletion policy. This isn't about counting votes; this is about looking at opinions and bringing a community into agreement (Of course, the "vote count" has some relevance in testing for consensus; see Wikipedia:Consensus. Broad support does not entail consensus, but consensus entails broad support) This is not about puppets; it's fairly easy to discount all the puppets looking at the AFD.

Let me explain exactly what the problem is. To quote what Wikipedia:Deletion Policy says about closing an AFD: At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus for deletion has been reached, the page will be removed per Wikipedia:Deletion process; otherwise the page remains. Let me emphasize this: According to Wikipedia policy, a rough consensus for deletion is required to delete. This is not optional; this is part of a policy, not a guideline.

There was no rough consensus to delete the article. You can make claims (which I, of course, along with many others, will call patently false) that the "delete" arguments are in fact stronger, but you cannot support the contention that there was a rough consensus of any kind favoring deletion among the AFD editors. The comparison to the first AFD is particularly striking in that regard; the "keep" side offers vastly stronger arguments and has much wider support among wikipedia editors than in the first AFD, concluded as "no consensus," while the "delete" side is unchanged.

The closing admin does have the right to make some judgement calls in interpreting the consensus of those contributing to an AFD; the closing admin, however, is not asked to, and should not, decide by personal fiat, constructing something that cannot be truthfully called a consensus to delete an article essentially from their own opinions. This DRV is all about the question of whether or not an administrator can exercise not only the role of interpreting consenses of AFDs, but decide on what the "consensus" is on his or her own - over the objections of the rest of Wikipedia.

If the latter is the case, then our next task is the truly monumental one of stripping all mentions of consensus from the various applicable WP:Policy and WP:Guideline articles, because the term is simply no longer applicable in such an environment.

This is not a webcomics issue. This is a Wikipedia policy issue. This deletion, and several others like it, are setting new policy through precedent, removing the rough consensus clause and replacing it with the remarkably different clause "The administrator may or may not consider your opinions and then will delete or not delete the article as s/he feels fit based on their own personal opinion of the article's merits."

Pan Dan and Bwithh, my apologies for putting you on the spot, but do you really endorse the piecemeal destruction of consensus at Wikipedia? If so, I invite you to put up an AFD on Wikipedia:Consensus, because it's going to have to go eventually if this keeps up. Balancer 06:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DP is clear on this: "So deletion is not a strict "count of votes", but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing."

WP:DGFA is clear on this: "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions."

Furthermore, the article on Rough consensus describes rough consensus as "the "dominant view" of a group as determined by its chairperson."

This is not an attack on consensus. Consensus was reached, and the closing admin used his discretion to properly weight the points made, apply policy as appropriate, and consider issues of bloc voting and puppet voting (as AfD is not a vote). NetOracle 06:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Consensus does not say that majority votes overrule core policies such as WP:V. My comment "AFD closing is not based on vote-driven consensus that exists outside of fundamental policy requirements." reflects this, and is in line with Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus. It has nothing to do with lobbying for the "piecemeal destruction" of WP:Consensus. Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 06:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. To sum up what Bwithh and others say above, the closing admin was correct in applying the mandatory core policies even in the face of a lack of numerical consensus. Sandstein 06:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability was mentioned by exactly one "delete" voter, who was (a) busily denying the existence of the multiple non-trivial materials found in sources independent of the comic that the "keep" voters had been busily pointing out, and either (b) apparently arguing about notability, not verifiability, or (c) neglecting that the "independence" property of WP:RS does not apply to this class of articles. I quote from WP:V: Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

In other words, WP:V is not an issue for this class of articles; it is trivially easy to verify per WP:V anything you like about the content of The noob simply by examining the comic itself. Copyright violation is not present, and it is clearly possible to write a NPOV article about The noob, so the other two key policies are also out as suspects. None of the core policies apply.

Note that by definition of consensus, the administrator cannot manufacture the consensus, only encourage it and read its presence or absence. According to the logic presented in defense of this deletion, the entire AFD process is left up not to administrator judgement of the consensus of participating editors, but administrator whim. The closing administrator could have at least as easily passed judgement saying "keep" or "merge" or "no consensus" by your standards, and other administrators probably would have decided differently, in which case the AFD becomes a real crapshoot based on who shows up to close the article. Balancer 07:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist, the second nomination appears to have been tainted. RFerreira 08:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion AfD is not a vote, and I believe that the closing admin did more than count numbers, by relying on the weight of the arguments used. Nick interpreted policy correctly. riana_dzasta 12:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore. Consensus was clearly to keep, and there were valid arguments offered on all sides, closing admin chose to value own opinion more. That's not the same thing as "not a vote": AFD isn't a vote, but admins can't ignore others opinions just because they disagree with them. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My comment was a sum of all the arguments presented in the debate. The keep arguments were not ignored. Do you have evidence of its notability? Sources? Links? Claims should be verifiable. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• My reasoning above was the sum of all the discussion that took on the AfD discussion. Could you provide the valid keep arguments which I have seemed to ignore? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. Determining consensus does not mean head-counting, nor does it require taking WP:IDONTLIKEIT-style arguments into account. NetOracle's nominating statement covered the bases, and his points were not obviously refuted by anyone arguing against them. Admins can, and should, ignore opinions (including all variations on "NOT FAIR!", "this number is BIG", "seems notable enough to me as a fan", "all my buddies love it") which contradict Wikipedia policies and guidelines when closing AfDs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angusmclellan (talk • contribs) 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Opinions ignored included "published on a huge portal", "nominated for awards", "Alexa ranking bears out... very heavily trafficked with great prominence", "regularly very highly ranked", "recognition by notable websites", "cited by established publications", "referenced by notable sources", "referenced on major sites and published", "sufficient sourcing of a reliable nature", "three published books on it" (from the person who made Notability a guideline, no less), "cruft cannot be the primary reason for deletion", "more then two real reliable sources". That's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT style arguments, and that's a lot of them. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of them are. The first two you mention are variants on "big number" and "I've heard of it". As for the other things you mention, "cited" means something very different in my idiolect, likewise "referenced", and so too must "sufficient sourcing"; based on the googlecache the article had no reporting that would have impressed me with its independence, non-triviality, and reliability. The published books were not, again employing the McLellanese idiolect, "on" the subject; they are part of the subject. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - some desperately unimpressive reasons for keeping, lots of ILIKEITs, but there seems to be sufficient reason to have another look at this with a semi-protected AfD. Needs some more eyes. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. `'mikka 19:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep The article was obviously after my research about a notable comic although unknown to me personally. Don't know the story behind this controversy deletion. But I think it should be given benefit of the doubt. Lord Metroid 20:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. AFD is not a vote, and weighing arguments is the job of the closing admin - the closing admin does not just rubber stamp a debate after just counting the arguments. --Coredesat 20:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn No, AfD is not a vote but this kind of decision is an abuse of the admin's discretional power. What's the point of having a 5-day AfD process if an admin then comes and says: "actually I understand policy and you don't so I see a consensus to delete." In the long run this creates frustrations in the community that are extremely harmful. I consider myself a deletionist and my own preference would be to not have things like "the noob" on Wikipedia but I am aware that this might not be the majority's opinion and I'm willing to accept that fact. No credible evidence that the article contradicts fundamental policy was made. There are clearly good primary sources on the subject and some not so convincing but not completely trivial either secondary sources were also available. I don't think it passes the WP:WEB bar but I think enough people disagreed with that assessment in the AfD and there was no clear consensus to delete. In the absence of consensus, the default is to keep. Pascal.Tesson 00:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The five day AfD process did not yield enough keep arguments having valid reasons for including this article. None of the overturn "voters" on this DRV have giving an inkling of reason or evidence (as in multiple, non-trivial, independent sources) as to why this article should be included in Wikipedia. I am glad you are not an administrator. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 07:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I - and apparently most of the other 27 non-puppet "keep" voters - feel otherwise, that we have invoked either mentions in multiple, non-trivial, and independent sources to establish notability (MMORPG, World of Warcraft, and WCCA nomination all can be taken as independent and non-trivial mentions) or the specifics of the WP:WEB criterion (being published on an independent and well-known site, e.g., MMORPG.com)). That you, unlike the vast majority of participants of the AFD as a whole, do not agree that those sources are non-trivial and independent mentions does not magically create from the handful of "delete" votes a consensus to that effect. We have a "no consensus" result (seen in the previous AFD for this article) for a reason. I will note that this case is similar to the Starslip Crisis and Web_Cartoonist's_Choice_Awards AFD closures (the former involving the same administrator, and the latter involving a similar case of the administrator deciding against a clear policy-based consensus of Wikipedians), which have already been overturned in review as improperly closed.

• I realize my arguments are lengthy and difficult to read, so I'll summarize. Wikipedia:Deletion Policy tells us that the closing admin can only delete an article if there is a rough consensus to do so (there was not) or if the article cannot but violate of one of the three non-negotiable conditions of verifiability, neutral point of view, and legality under copyright law (all easily satisfied by the article). Ergo, the deletion is in violation of policy. Balancer 08:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are the sources that say that it was well-sources? Where are the reliable sources? Please stop the continuous jabber about rough consensus. Consensus only forms on the back-bone of policy. Arguments outside policy are not considered valid. Stop referring to the number of "votes" on AfD. AfDs are discussions and not "votes" for deletion. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The back bone of policy (Wikipedia:Consensus) is something you're not supposed to ignore as an administrator, nor is the rough consensus clause of Wikipedia:Deletion policy a clause you can freely throw away without rewriting that policy.

• If you didn't see where the talk about sources was on the AFD, it was entirely inappropriate for you to close the AFD. As far as the "sources": Read WP:V and pay attention to the clause that I already quoted for you above regarding verifiability. Read also WP:WEB, bearing in mind that MMORPG.com and Blizzard Entertainment are independent of The noob and quite prominent indeed, meaning that (a) MMORPG.com publishing The noob qualifies under the WP:WEB standard of being published by a well-known independent source and (b) it meets the standards for being discussed by multiple independent published sources. All this was, of course, discussed at great length in the AFD. To everyone else, I suggest you read closely Nick's comment above and pay attention to the value he is placing on consensus. It demonstrates my point about precedents precisely. Balancer 10:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus is formed on policy. Rough consensus is gauged by taking the weight of delete and keep arguments in mind. MMORPG.com is a single source of trivial credibility. Moreover, it has published a mere comic strip of The noob and makes no comment whether trivial or substantial on the subject. Where is the link to Blizzard Entertainment site? Is there any more than a trivial transitory mention of the subject. Or is The noob subject to substantial attention on the website? We need multiple, non-trivial and independent sources for the website. Quit going around in circles. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, please don't resort to personal attacks. As you can see on User:Timmccloud/The noob, an effort was clearly made to support the article with sources. Yes the sources are of fairly low quality but they are not all blogs or forums. It has gotten some recognition through the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. As I said, it is indeed pretty fringe but there was no consensus that these were insufficient. Pascal.Tesson 15:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you have a major misunderstanding of policies here. I am not resorting to "personal attacks". I see nothing more than exchange of pleasantries and badinage. Kindly review the policy, please. You are trying to unilaterally re-write all the guidelines. Do so on the relevant talk pages. Also, I must request you to take a look at your previous request for adminship which failed due to a lack of knowledge of the core policies of Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. majority rules —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.2.60.97 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • No it doesn't. Wikipedia isn't a democracy. -Amarkov moo! 19:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If I might point out something here: Simply because Wikipedia is not a democracy does not mean that an admin is always totally justified in going against a majority. It seems to me that some of you here think that should an administrator choose to support a minority opinion, he must automatically have good reasons for doing so, and thus is beyond questioning. Particularily since the administrator's job here was to determine whether or not a consensus for deletion existed, this is obviously not the case. This isn't to say that a minority can't create a consensus, (although I don't think that they did in this instance) but please don't use the fact that Wikipedia isn't a democracy to auto-justify every minority victory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.5.239 (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn. Prolly the people who voted delete are sticklers for notibility in a sense that if they never heard of the site, it's not notible. 24.185.47.131 (talk)
• Overturn per Balancer. The page was initially kept so how can a site become not notable? Hendry1307 15:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn NetOracle put forward 2 arguments; that the comic is not notable, and that there was a excess of 'cruft'. Notability was demonstrated clearly through the fact that the comic has been mentioned and even published on independant and notable sites.

http://www.mmorpg.com/humor.cfm - This is where The Noob is published on MMORPG.com

http://www.wow-europe.com - A news post was made on 16/2/06 about The noob. I dont think anyone is doubting the notability of World of Warcraft.

Since it is clear the comic is notable, and this can be proven with the above links, this leaves only the cruft argument. An article can not be deleted on this basis alone. I will admit that the article could use cleaning up, and that would have been the appropriate tag, rather than an AfD. The article should be restored and protected, and I will get to work cleaning it up a bit. Luckyherb 23:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn It is quite obvious from reading both AfD, WP:WEB, WP:RS, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and even this review that the admin based his deletion on flawed argumentation. First of all the Reliable resource is obviously the online comic itself, being the primary source. Naturally, the so-called non-verifiability claim for deletion is an impossible one since the primary source still exists! Also, Nearly Headless Nick cites WP:WEB by claiming it needs to have multiple sources, which is simply not true. WP:WEB clearly states that any one of the three criteria is enough for notability and in this case the third criterium applies. In short, there was no basis for deletion (in my humble opinion). --Livinginabox 03:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn As mentioned above, a Norwegian magazine has published a chosen page of the comic, and not "just a mention of the name/site" but as content provided to the reader. A magazine specializing in fantasy articles and coming out 4 times a year thinks that this comic's content is worthy to occupy some of its space. That's a published work, however minor, and independent from The Noob books, so the WP:WEB criterion seems to be satisfied. Maurog 13:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is no criterion for inclusion. Content and review are absolutely different. The source you provide is in itself, not worthy of substantiating any article with – [2]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not worthy just because it is new and only 2 issues are out? In a few years when there are 20 issues, it suddenly becomes "worthy"? I may be with you on that, just trying to prevent a state of events in which something is referenced and/or published in written works but is not recognized as existing by Wikipedia. When I search for a subject on Wikipedia, be it an online comic or anything else, I expect to find information. I'm only here because I did, and I didn't. Maurog 14:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It needs to establish notability, buddy. Then only it is worthy of inclusion. It happens all the time, some articles just don't pass the WP:N threshold and then they have to be deleted. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  
• I strongly suggest that Nearly Headless Nick actually read the WP:N before citing it, and responds with arguments based on actual Wikipedia policy! Notability has clearly been established according to WP:N and Wikipedia:Notability_(web). May I also remind him that "(..Notability..) is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance" (source: WP:N)", so it's continued (re-)distribution on http://www.mmorpg.com/humor.cfm is enough for a notability claim, as very clearly defined in Wikipedia:Notability_(web). Also, this is not a discussion on inclusion, a clever attempt at sidetracking though, but a review of the deletion by Nearly Headless Nick himself. -- Livinginabox 15:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC) This was Livinginabox's third edit. Spartaz 15:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - it looks like it was a reasonable judgement call by Nick. Guettarda 19:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Deletion and keep *As a casual Wikipedia user the continuing war against webcomics in Wikipedia raises concern in my mind. These comics are an essential critique of the exponentially growing subculture of online gaming. The noobcomic, although appearing trivial to an outside viewer is infact an insightful parody into the world of massively multiplayer online role playing games. It strikes this parody against even the oldest mmorpgs such as text-based mud's through to Ultima Online and to the most current of games such as World of Warcraft. Despite the contrary discussion above a simple search on google into 'the noob comic' reveals 899,000 hits and 'cliche quest' (the fictional mmorpg on which the comic is based reveals 598,000 hits [accessed 22:39 on 19/02/2007]; This seems highly indicative to the large interest in the article. I cannot understand the logic behind the removal of this article considering the comics social commentary value and its clearly wide appeal. Indeed removing it greatly diminishes the usefulness of Wikipedia as a source to Social Science students who may be studying the subculture and indeed the value of Wikipedia as an all-encompasing encyclopedia. Additional alarm is raised when considering the removal of this article when there was clearly a vote in favour of keeping the article even with the silent majority not being counted. I hope this article is reinstated soon as with the removal of GuComics article last week and any other webcomics which seem to be suffering a wiki-witchhunt at this moment in time. Concerned Wikipedia User —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.40.16.70

Dance Dance Revolution 2ndMIX song list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I believe the consensus was misread. Most people believed that merging the articles, either into their parents or into a single article, was the right way to go, but the closing admin decided it wasn't "practical" to do so and just went with "delete", because the list was indiscriminate. The delete votes were "listcruft" or "unencyclopedic" with no real strong reasoning, and none objected to a merge (some supported it). I believe the list is not indiscriminate (and cannot see where it qualifies as such), I believed the closing admin overlooked consensus improperly, and I believe there was doubt here, and when there is doubt, do not delete. I would like to see this and the other articles involved in this AfD overturned so that they can be merged. UsaSatsui 20:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, the admin acted on his own opinion, not the concensus. If he wanted to argue it was impractical he should've done so in the AfD. Sockatume 20:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. "Impractical" is not a valid reason to go against consensus. Consensus was clearly for Merge, not Delete. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Merging was more than practicle (sic) enough to do. (jarbarf) 21:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn; the closing admin actually did close it as a merge but deleted the edit where he did so. I don't believe the listing of difficulties should be kept, but a simple list of songs in a game based on music is not a problem. --NE2 22:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn As I learned in my delrev for United States Presidential trivia it is possible to protect the redirect to preserve edit summaries for gfdl licensing impracticalities, while still meeting community concensus for merging the article into others. The concensus was extremely clear for merge Jerry lavoie 23:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, weakly. A merge was impractical because the articles were gigantic already, and merging them was ludicrous. The closer didn't get that point across particularly well, but the correct decision was made (there was as strong an argument to delete as to merge). Proto ► 00:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it does turn out these articles are impossible to merge, then I would support a deletion without question. I just think the attempt should be made first. --UsaSatsui 09:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete. Consensus was to merge, and I see no reason why that could not have been accomplished. RFerreira 08:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, valid closing argument. Kusma (討論) 10:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, valid and strong reasoning. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, `'mikka 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid reasoning. The impracticality of merging these articles anywhere is one of the reasons I nominated them on AFD to begin with. The result would be several incredibly long articles, or one article that would be one of the longest on this Wikipedia (the SuperNOVA list had previously been fourth on that list). --Coredesat 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's valid reasoning, I'd like to know what the thought process was...he looked at it, said "Can't be done", and left it at that? I also can't see the logic behind "This is getting too big, let's axe it". Wikipedia is not paper.--UsaSatsui 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from closing admin: Many AfDs get a lot of merge opinions because people are reluctant to delete. In many cases, and many AfDs that I've closed, it doesn't appear as if people have actually considered what to merge and how the merge would be performed. In this case, the sheer size of some of the lists makes merging them into the articles impractical—the articles will be overwhelmed by the merged song list. Once an article is merged it is deleted (blanked actually because of GFDL), and only one person said the lists should be kept. That leaves delete as the viable consensus. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for giving an explanation. I disagree that people vote "merge" because they're too afraid to vote "delete". To me, it says "I want to keep, but not in this format". I also agree that while merge was the consensus, there was a disagreement on where to merge it too. --UsaSatsui 04:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't reword my phrasing. I didn't say they were afraid. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Either way you phrase it, it works out to the same thing: you're considering "merge" to be "I want to delete, but I don't want to actually say delete". Unless you'd like to clarify your comment, because that's how I read it. --UsaSatsui 00:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The proposed merge was not into the articles, but into one list with all the duplicates unduplicated. --NE2 06:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Your comment makes me wonder if you read the AfD. There are 5 suggestions to merge into the parent articles (what my comment above references); one comment favoring merging into the parent articles, but also supporting a merge into a single list of songs; 2 suggestions to merge into a single list of songs; and one suggestion to merge all of the articles and all of the song lists into a single article. Frankly, it doesn't matter which one of those you want to consider, merging is impractical. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI have a suggestion: The main disagreement seems to be on the viability of merging, either into parent articles or into one article, and nobody really agrees that the articles should be kept as they were anyway. Let me try it: put the pages into my userspace and let me see if I can do anything with them. I do have a couple of ideas. --UsaSatsui 04:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a very workable suggestion. Balancer 10:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This was a fully sourced article that met WP:V, there was a clear majority for keep and the article referenced notable sporting achievement. Yes, it still needs work, but that is the way with stubs. Simply, a wrong admin decision. Overturn and Keep. Bridgeplayer 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Text recreated here – User:Bridgeplayer/Hillcrest Christian School. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as per above. Also, if anything, the closing should've been at least no consensus according to the debate--† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 17:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I hate schools, but we have repeatedly shown that there is no consensus to delete them. Undelete this and move on.--Doc^g 18:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia works by consensus, and a consensus did not exist to delete this decent article. (jarbarf) 19:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I was so expecting this to come to DRV. Although the outcome of this debate was no consensus, I endorse the deletion as I strongly stand for the reasons I gave when I nominated this for deletion. No user provided sound arguments against those reasons.--Húsönd 19:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to read this post (and the thread that follows) on Slashdot if you don't think any "sound reasons" were provided. (jarbarf) 19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read positions such as those in the thread countless times. Supporters of high school articles often reduce the issue by saying that those articles are useful and harmless. Wrong. They are useless, as the information they possess is almost always unencyclopedic material that should be hosted on the schools' websites instead, such as timetables, teachers, addresses, POV reviews, etc., and they are also harmful as they waste precious recent changes patrollers' time with the huge amount of vandalism they receive and dubious edits that are hard to decide whether to revert or not.--Húsönd 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but you and I must have been reading completely different articles then. I disagree in the strongest possible terms. (jarbarf) 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not news for me...--Húsönd 19:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I may though suggest high school supporters to become active vandalfighters. That would be really useful for them to understand why so many people are against these articles.--Húsönd 19:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hogwash. Feel free to review my past 500 edits, many of which are vandal reverts. Vandalism is widespread all around Wikipedia and is hardly a reason to delete an article. (!) Any subject which someone feels passionately about (politics, religion, school) is vandalized. This should not be a surprise given the open nature of the project. I am surprised at the lack of respect for consensus though. (jarbarf) 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's really a moot point. Politician articles are among the most vandalized articles on wiki as well. Should we stop creating those? --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 03:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion While I like good school articles that have real N, which roughly translates as something to say, most of them don't. and this is one of them. The total claimed N is a small share of local & state championships in a few sports. Any school that competes at all will occasionally manage that. The RS are very marginal: one is the college alumni magazine for the coach of one of the teams, the local site for an obscure sport, and a directory listing. And the teaching of spelling is not among the notable successes of the school DGG 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per nom. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, "secondary sources" are trivial mentions and as such are properly disregarded. The school was mentioned in them in passing, as a place where a sports event happened to happen, a club happened to be formed, or a sports player happened to attend. There is not enough in them to support two sentences, let alone a comprehensive article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. There is no reasonable way to conclude that the AfD for this article supported deletion. At best, it was "inconclusive". Consequently, the article was deleted in error, regardless of it's mertis. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. AfD followed due process, the notability concerns were not addressed. If someone feels like recreating the article with sufficient notability cited, there's nothing stopping them. Sockatume 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Has this school won any major (or even minor) academic awards? Athletic awards? Is it historical in some way, like being the first private school in Mississippi? The article as I see it in the userspace doesn't assert notability. I have no comment on whether to overturn or not right now, but I do have a reminder: AfD is not supposed to be a vote. --UsaSatsui 21:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn there was no consensus for this deletion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There is no consensus to delete schools, and keeping this debate open as the number of school articles heads into the tens of thousands is disruptive and pointless. Cloachland 22:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Support Overturning. As the nominator of the article for the AfD said (Húsönd 19:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)), "the outcome of this debate was no consensus". Any time there is no consensus the result must be to keeping the article. Mathmo ^Talk 22:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Husond and Sockatume. The concerns of the nominator were not addressed, and schools can fall under WP:N (lack of a policy specifically regarding schools is not a reason to keep them). --Coredesat 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete, no consensus to delete, no significant policy argument to override the lack of consensus, thus should not have been deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/ undelete no concensus for deletion. Very concerned about post above that says "Although the outcome of this debate was no consensus, I endorse the deletion"... are we just ging to throw out all rules here except WP:IAR? Jerry lavoie 23:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - yet another AfD closed with no clear consensus for delete and no rationale provided by that admin for his decision to ignore the numbers, eg if the arguments were much stronger for delete, then the decision must be explained.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, schools are not inherently notable, and the AFD failed to produce evidence of notability. Proto ► 00:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As it happens the school has had a number of state-wide athletic successes which indicate notability. However, that is not the point. We are not re-running the Afd but deciding if the AfD was properly closed. The closing admin went against the body of opinion and arguments and that is unacceptable without a good reasoned argument in the AfD closing. See Golden Wattle's well made comment above by another admin. Bridgeplayer 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and undelete. The closing administrator provides no insight or rationale as to why this was deleted, and there appear to have been signs of notability within the article anyhow. Silensor 02:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Unless I missed it, nobody in the debate indicated that they actually looked for sources to find out whether this school passes or fails our guidelines. So there was certainly no policy-based consensus to delete. So overturn. However, since the burden is to show that the school passes our guidelines, relist. Pan Dan 03:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have beefed up the Alumni in the user space version. We now have Mississippi's first junior Olympics finalist and a 2006 Miss Mississippi winner/fourth finisher in Miss America 2007 who got a commendation from the Mississippi Legislature while a pupil at Hillcrest. Bridgeplayer 03:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the arrival of new information, but honestly, the fourth finisher in Miss America brings as much notability to this school as she does to the market where she buys her groceries. The school has nothing to do with the award and it cannot be considered notable just because she happened to be a student there. Notability is not contagious. --Húsönd 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not so, which is why notable alumni are in the draft schools notability criteria. However, a commendation by the state legislature while a student unarguably does bring notability to the school. Bridgeplayer 05:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete - schools are notable, no reason to override apparant lack of consensus. --BigDT 04:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per above comments, I can see a fair case of notability being made for this school. RFerreira 08:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I believe schools are notable, if only because of the huge impact they have on their pupils (how many people reading this, for example, learnt to read at school?). I don't understand the crusade that some editors appear to be on - constantly demanding to know why schools entries should exist. There are plenty of entries on Wikipedia that I have no interest in what so ever (e.g. the thousands of article on US roads), so I don't read them. Why can't people do the same for schools? Markb 08:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Mmm, I thought about it overnight. All schools are notable doesn't seem to be a valid argument to me. The article, in this very case, did not provide independent and reliable sources to validate a keep closure. However, in the interest of the encyclopedia - I would suggest overturning my decision because -

1. Husond has rightly said that these articles attract the largest amount of vandalism. Vandalism is good in everyway. It gets us new contributors.
2. Since many of our active contributors are teenagers and school going students, I believe keeping school articles would have a positive effect in getting these students to experiment and edit the encyclopedia. Students inherently like to edit their schools' articles.
3. Wikipedia needs to be professional, in my opinion. We are an encyclopedia and we would generally not list articles that do not provide good-quality reliable sources. If we were to include only schools that are nationally known in some country, or are internationally known, we would end up having articles only on a small percentage of them.
4. I would further like to suggest lowering the notability threshold for schools and have a concrete inclusion guideline for schools. Ref – WP:SCHOOL. Thank you, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - The argument that 'this school is not notable in comparison to its peers' seems to me incorrect. By such a standard we should delete William Howard Taft for not being particularly notable in relation to other Presidents of the US... and the vast majority of city/state/country articles for not being particularly notable in relation to other such locations. Very few grade/high schools are significantly more notable than others of their kind... but every school is more notable than your average 'Joe Citizen'. The question then becomes whether a topic in general is considered notable or not. Presidents, countries, and even towns have been accepted as 'all notable'... even towns with populations less than some schools. I'd say that schools are also notable... pick almost any school and you can find hundreds of references to it in local newspapers. Usually spanning decades. That's notable. IMO the reasons people argue otherwise have little to do with notability and alot to do with the fact that many school articles are poorly written and heavily vandalized... but neither of those is a reason for deletion. If it's poorly written tag it for cleanup. If it is vandalized protect it. --CBD 12:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We are delving into the notability guidelines for schools here. The schools do not inherently pass WP:N. Cite anything from the deleted article that conforms with WP:V and WP:RS. They were all trivial sources with a transient mention of the schools. You might want to help out at WP:SCHOOL. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Notability guidelines should be set for schools, but I am inclined to think that schools should remain, especially if they are decent articles. Rkevins 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Administrator's closure did not reflect a rough consensus or invoke non-negotiable conditions. Balancer 10:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per the above. --Myles Long 01:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Russ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

"Nadia Russwas a fully sourced article. It was deleted with no reason. Need recreation. 2:47, 15 February 2007, Mount 135 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.88.88.200 (talk)

Key points raised in AfD were "little indication that the artist has had much impact beyond a small circle of friends" and "most sources are unreliable, trivial, and/or unrelated to the subject of the article". These need to be addressed here. Sockatume 19:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, without addressing any such points-this is not round 2 of AfD. Clear consensus was to delete, no counterarguments were provided, nor new sources. AfD already addressed the triviality/unreliability of the original sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. AfD was quite clear, no new evidence offered. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I think it is an abuse of this forum to posr article for delrv just because you disagree with those who contributed to the discussion. This is supposed to be for where you disagree with the admins determination of concensus of those comments. The debate had clear conscensus, so this delrev should be speedy closed per WP:SNOW. Jerry lavoie 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion.`'mikka 19:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion there's no reason to overturn the result of an AfD in which every opinion expressed supported deletion. Pascal.Tesson 15:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starslip Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AfD)

Page was deleted after a number of sockpupet votes for deletion; sockpuppet votes for "keep" were discarded but sockpuppets for "delete" were arbitrarily kept; initial nomination for deletion was a publicity stunt and not legitimate. More information available here and here. --zandperl 15:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist, due to abuse of process. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Excuse me. The process might have been abused. However, the point to relist is moot. The article explicitly pass the threshold of notability by providing multiple, independent, non-trivial sources to call for its inclusion. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So, in other words, you're going to stick to a clearly fraudulent vote, even though far more than half the delete votes were sockpuppets, and even though the nomination itself was a sockpuppet? I'm sorry, but not at least relisting this thing brings into question the validity of Wikipedia itself. At the very least, it proves that sockpuppetry is encouraged, and in some cases (for webcomics in particular), endorsed by mods and admins. -- Grev 15:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  AfDs are not votes. They are discussions and debates. It finally lies upon the closing administrator to gauge consensus by considering arguments based on policies and guidelines, while ignoring the WP:SPA trolls. We are not encouraging sockpuppetry and trolling here. Do you have independent, reliable and non-trivial sources for the article? If yes, please let us know. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No it doesn't mean that we endorse sockpuppetry. If a sockpuppet says to do X, and they're right, should we then deliberately not do X and hurt ourselves, just so that they don't get to be right? -Amarkov moo! 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If the original AFD was handled properly, then a new one would reach the same conclusions, so there wouldn't be any harm in doing one purely to clear out the appearance of impropriety. If the original AFD was NOT handled properly, then a new AFD would absolutely be the right thing to do. There's no potential downside to relisting, only potential gain. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have any evidence to prove that I did not handle the AfD properly? Or is it your own opinion and interpretation of policies? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There is, at a minimum, the appearance of potential impropriety, which you did nothing to dispell when you had the opportunity to do so at closing, choosing instead to say only that it was deleted and redirected. If you had decided to disregard the opinions of the large number of SPAs, you should have said so. If you decided to use admin discretion to disregard the relatively large number of "keep" opinions, you should also have left an explanation of why at the top of the AFD, as is customary in such things. These two errors, when combined, have made things look VERY sketchy, when there was no need for this. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Think of it this way: If a guy was convicted in a murder trial, and it later turned out that some of the witnesses had perjured themselves, or that the medical examiner didn't actually have a medical degree, the defendant would get a new trial (even if he were probably guilty). It's the same kind of thing here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, nobody provided reliable secondary sources. If you have any, though, please tell us. -Amarkov moo! 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn and relistEndorse Deletion, original AfD was bad faith nom. Even if it's non-notable, we need a real consensus, Which I'm now convinced we can get here. Wikipedia is taking a publicity beating over webcomics right now, in case any of you haven't noticed, and if we allow "anyone can walk in off the street and delete anything" to be repeated enough times we lose all credibility. The more important issue is, WHY were there no ((spa)) notices on the original discussion? --Random832(tc) 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, we need real consensus. This particular webcomic did not pass the threshold of notability. Do you have sources that comply with WP:V and WP:RS. If yes, please produce them, and if not, stop beating the dead horse. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not the place to relitigate the AfD. The deletion was tainted, it needs to be listed again, period. The original AfD also quoted as "consensus" things which are still being discussed, like WCCA notability. This whole thing raises serious questions about the deletion process, like the fact that only Keep votes get their contributions checked for ((spa)). --Random832(tc) 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Out of interest and as a recent nominator (prod and AfD) of multiple webcomics: could you give some links to the "publicity" beating Wikipedia is getting right now? Fram 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In addition to the article which precipitated this DrV, see http://www.websnark.com/archives/2006/10/time_for_the_ye.html --Random832(tc) 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, but I thought so: the "publicity beating" we get "right now" is, apart from the thing that started this, a comment from four months ago. Using this as an argument to review this AfD is a bit strange. I don't mind restarting the AfD (nor do I mind letting it be despite the sockpuppets), but please don't overdramatize this situation. Fram 16:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  ...and I thought this guy was going to put up something from CNN or BBC websites. Silly ol' me. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, The Comics Journal: http://www.tcj.com/journalista/ (search page for 'war on comics'). Also Fleen: http://www.fleen.com (look anywhere) Boxjam 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its Weblogs now, eh? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Guess I'll go nominate The Comic Journal for deletion now. Boxjam 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Join me, and together we will rule the galaxy. :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More links from the Schlock Mercenary Blog: One, Two, Three, along with things the blogs link to. --Sid 3050 17:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Starslip Crisis won the WCCA in one category and has been nominated for numerous more categories, thus fulfilling WP:WEB ("The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. (...) Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.", and I think I have seen some arguing that WCCA Notability is not even vital since the award is very well-known in the webcomic world, but that is semantics). See also the long debate that makes it clear that the WCCA non-notability is NOT widely accepted consensus and may very well be overturned: WCCA DRV. --Sid 3050 15:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Source? Back up your contention with sources that comply with WP:RS and WP:V. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Source for what? That the WCCA non-notability is not consensus and that it may be notable? Click the DRV link. Sources for the WCCA included a NYT article, a radio interview and an episode of Attack of the Show. Sources that Starslip Crisis won the WCCA? Here. That it has been nominated for more categories? Newcomer, Black and White, Flash, Site Design and Writer (indirectly). Additionally, the 2007 nominations (winners to be announced) for Black and White, Site Design, and Sci-Fi. --Sid 3050 16:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Those are two sites, and very reliable sources they are. Please review WP:RS. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The 2006 pages were hosted off-site, but they belong to the WCCA (check the WCCA site to see where the 2006 link goes to). Your emphasis on "very" implies sarcasm, I assume. WCCA strikes me as a reliable source because it's now in its 7th year, it will be presented at Megacon this year, it has been (in my eyes and the eyes of quite a few people in the AfD and DRV) non-trivially mentioned in the NYT, AotS, a radio station, plus there is discussion about other sources (which ended up in a discussion about who or what is a notable source online). Maybe you should just follow the DRV link instead of smugly tossing guidelines around. --Sid 3050 17:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I am still not convinced. /me tosses a guideline onto Sid's head. Whee! I am leaving, guys have fun here! :D — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to throw my hat into the ring, there's a question of just who it's meant to be notable to. Using the general press as measures of notability of a subject is fine for popular subjects, but it would lead to the conclusion that Feynman diagrams are not a notable subject. On the other hand using physics literature to justify the inclusion of Feynman diagrams would perhaps be akin to using webcomics blogs to justify the inclusion of any given webcomics article. And then you've got to wonder whether a general readership actually gives a damn about either. Sockatume 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  ...but it would lead to the conclusion that Feynman diagrams are not a notable subject. That example makes no sense whatsoever. --Calton | Talk 22:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  While the example can of course be proven wrong, the basic point remains. An almost completely web-based medium is bound to receive most of its coverage online (except for the uber-major sites like Slashdot - even though the current Slashdot article does very little to prove notability... hm...) because most of its audience is online. Just like scientists don't wait for some newspaper to inform them of a breakthrough in their field. Completely and systematically dismissing web source notability is bound to lead to a Notability term that excludes web-based content almost by default. The only ways to be notable under these rules are getting a dedicated article in some major newspaper or to get published in some way (other than self-publishing). Either is fairly unlikely, and even the few that pass this high guideline are in danger of deletion (like Evil Inc. recently). --Sid 3050 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  While the example can of course be proven wrong, the basic point remains. Nooo, that's kinda the point of "proving the example wrong". --Calton | Talk 00:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You proved a more or less poorly chosen example wrong and thus disproved the point behind it? I don't think it quite works that way. Feynman Diagrams have made their way out of research papers and into books, so the example doesn't really work well. Try more along the lines of things that scientists have just now found. Stuff that's not yet in widely available books. (Even then, it wouldn't FULLY work because I'm almost willing to bet money that Wiki has special rules for things like research papers - it would make sense and in a way is what this is all about.) Your reasoning right now is "Feynman Diagrams have been discussed in many books. Thus, web notability can be based only on the traditional press without the need to consider online sources as indicators for notability.". I'm not sure if you mean that, but that's what you got right now. --Sid 3050 01:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to me the *fair* thing to do would be to relist temporarily, but put it up on VfD again immediately and ban Kristofer Straub for process abuse. DannoHung 16:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...what's Straub's Wiki account, and how has he abused process? *cocks head* --Sid 3050 16:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • He abused it by making ten sockpuppets to show how easy it was to delete the article. absolute textbook WP:POINT. --Random832(tc) 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the info, I missed it completely. But why bring it up here? I'm sure that there are proper places for such things. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the way this AfD was handled, other than it being a possible reason for why this deletion had been a form of retaliation... correct me if I'm missing the obvious, I'm genuinely confused. --Sid 3050 17:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nevermind. I didn't know that this AfD had been started by one of his puppets. (Yes, I didn't check the second link in the nomination there. *hangs head in shame*) *laughs* Good one XD Err, I mean, BAD! Bad Straub! --Sid 3050 17:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh - it was pretty funny, but a clear violation of WP:POINT. Anyway, checkuser has confirmed the status of all but one of the socks. I have to wonder where the guy who's always putting ((spa)) tags in webcomic AFDs was when this was going on. Anyway, I've changed my !vote. --Random832(tc) 18:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. This needs to be debated without distractions and abuse.--Eloquence* 18:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.
• This makes me wonder whether we need more solid guidelines for closing AfDs. There were a handful of strong points made for keeping the article which were not countered. There no clear concensus to delete and I suspect the closing admin may have (with egregious wrongness) treated it as a vote. Sockatume 19:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and relist per the apparent abuse of process. (jarbarf) 19:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As an aside, because this seems to have escaped a lot of people: AfD IS NOT A VOTING PROCESS. VfD WAS. THAT'S WHY THE NAME WAS CHANGED Sockatume 19:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, most "delete" arguments were properly formed (lack of secondary sources, unverifiability) while most keep arguments were poor and properly discounted (ILIKEIT, GHITS, It's popular!). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs) 19:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Relist. Not sure there was consensus, but it appears there was a lot of nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, AfD is not a vote, and there is no sign that the closing admin was sock-puppet vote-counting rather than closing based on valid discussion of policy.There is also no sign that the sock puppets unduly influenced the discission, since the silliest of the sock ideas (such as "Delete ... Straub hasn't even been invited as a guest to conventions") were rejected. I see no reason to allow the sockpuppeteer to WP:POINT disprupt wikipedia by relisting the article. In the end it doesn't really matter if the socks were socks or new users as there is no ballot box to stuff. -- Dragonfiend 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a point, there. No matter who made it, he made a compelling case for the deletion of the article. However I'm still not sure that all relevant Keeps were dealt with, although you've got to wonder where you draw the line. Sockatume 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Request from likely closer Can someone who believes that sock puppets were an issue in the AFD close make sure this dicussion has a clear link to the evidence of suckpuppets - for example, the checkuser case? It will make my life easier come closing time. GRBerry 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume this is it: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Salby, also check the second link in the DRV nomination, it links to the guy behind the Keep Delete (sorry, my brain broke there) socks stating the what and why. --Sid 3050 20:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC) + Sid 3050 21:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found one more, related for at least one opiner. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wizardbrad. GRBerry 22:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, I am a fan of Straub's work and do not wish to see anything he has created sullied by any association with Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.135.126.29 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Overturn not on the basis of sockpuppetry, but contingent on the fact that those moving to delete did so on the theory that Starslip Crisis did not meet the notability standards of WP:WEB because the deletion of the WCCA article meant that the WCCA were "non-notable," and therefore did not qualify as an independent and well-known award. To quote WP:WEB:web-specific content are deemed notable if they meet any one of the following criteria ... 2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Claims that the WCCA is not well known and independent on the basis of "non-notability" cannot be considered to hold true, particularly if the WCCA article is undeleted as seems likely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balancer (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  Concur, the discussion seemed to swing on that to a degree, so that leaves more than a few Keeps up for debate. That's a good enough reason for a recreation of the article and (IMO) a relist to address those points. Sockatume 20:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • While Balancer did spend a lot of time talking about online awards, meanwhile other editors were talking about things like "What we need are multiple independent reputable sources per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:N, and searching at my library finds nothing worthwhile. " Actually meeting our policies was never addressed by anyone wishing to keep the article. -- Dragonfiend 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WEB are the official guidelines specifically developed to deal with applying WP:N to online content. You might want to read through them sometime. Balancer 21:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your input; I helped write WP:WEB, so I have read through it quite a few times. That guideline is not, and was never intended to be, a replacement for every other policy and guideline on wikipedia. -- Dragonfiend 21:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So why does WP:WEB have the award rule then? It's apparently not fulfilling policy, it effectively gets brushed aside, so am I right to assume that WP:WEB in its current form is flat out wrong? And since you helped to write it, why did you never take that rule out? It had been in there for more than a year. --Sid 3050 22:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist on AfD. Too many potential irregularities with previous AfD. Nick should not be held accountable for this, as no one person is able to forsee all potential abuses of process. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Definitely an attempt at disruption to try to prove some kind of point, but not done very well. No point in rerunning the process for the same result. --Calton | Talk 22:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist no consensus, no rationale provided by closing admin for ignoring vote numbers--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/ Relist the integrity of the AfD was polluted by fraud. It is impossible to determine the proper outcome from it. It would not hurt anything to relist it, and it would ease concerns over impartiality and socks. Jerry lavoie 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There's no need to relist; this whole travesty was a blatant violation of WP:POINT from start to finish. Put the article back, and if someone still legitimately feels that it doesn't belong here, it can be renominated and all sides checked for sockpuppetry. Rogue 9 23:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Keep The WCCA is the major webcomic award, to ignore that notability is absurd. Please note that the WCCA deletion itself is also up for deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_11, and if that is overturned a major argument about deleting this article is nullified, almost requiring a review. Timmccloud 00:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've declared the entire nomination and deletion debate void ab initio and reinstated the article. This is not a situation where the process was affected by some irregularity and the question is would the outcome have been the same absent the irregularity; the situation here is that the entire nomination and debate were corrupted and permeated by bad faith and abuse from their inception. Nothing useful can come of trying to salvage any portion of what happened here. Leaving the article deleted on this record is out of the question; overturning and relisting would be inappropriate because there has never been a good-faith deletion nomination; even overturning and keeping would be inappropriate because there was no good-faith deletion nomination or opportunity for discussion. If concerns about notability remain, there should be a new nomination and discussion without reference to the earlier debate, which should be treated as if it had never existed. I will note that I made that decision before I saw this deletion debate, but I would have done the same thing in any case. This is not, of course, a criticism of Sir Nicholas, who closed correctly based on the views that were available to him, or any participant in the earlier discussion or in this review other than the nominator and those who used sockpuppets in the worst abuse of a Wikipedia process that I have ever seen. Newyorkbrad 02:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who became famous only in death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The article needed cleanup/review, not deletion. The discussion was fairly split evenly (as noted on the deleter's page). I feel the problem is about scope & specificity not the title or concept behind the list. --Duemellon 14:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion Unless the entries all had references from an WP:RS confirming that they had become famous after death then its hard to see how this could have been anything other than Original Research. --Spartaz 15:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, fair interpretation of the debate. Arbitrary and subjective. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The Administrator, in closing, decided delete when there was no clear consensus for delete. When queried as to his decision making, the admin declined to comment, ie did not put forward the proposition that the merits of the delete arguments outweighed those of the keep arguments. The issue is perhaps that there is lack of shared understanding as to what "rough consensus" might mean. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus perhaps gives insufficient guidance. Wikipedia:Consensus states the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision. Wikipedia:Supermajority - a rejected policy but perhaps the content is useful because it reflects past decisions, states consensus is two-thirds or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD). 56% in favour of delete seems to fall outside the current understanding, the result should have been no consensus unless the closing admin articulated his reasons otherwise. If the closing admins had perceptions, perhaps he should have been contributing to the AfD and leaving it for another to close. The debate was opened 9 February, the standard to close is roughly 5 days (Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_lag_times), there would have been little harm in letting the discussion go just a little longer.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has very little to do with numbers. It has to do with the validity of argument. There could be 99 people making a nonsensical claim "X" while only one person makes an insightful, reasoned claim of "Y". The "Y" would carry the debate, even though it is only 1%. If both sides are well reasoned, rational views, and no solution can be found through discussion then the result is "no consensus", and the numbers do not matter. -- Samuel Wantman 07:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite your guideline or policy supporting the view - it does not appear to be in line with Wikipedia:Consensus which is policy. Moreover my objection is that the deleting admin failed to advance any argument for ignoring the numbers, even when questioned. No consensus by the way (which is what I think it was) means don't delete.--Golden Wattle ^talk 09:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse deletion reasonable and fair evaluation of the debate. Jerry lavoie 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Agree with closing admin. List is also, like Guy said, too arbitrary and subjective. Garion96 (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As is often said here at DRV, "AfD is not a vote". This means that administrators weigh arguments as policy when determining the outcome of a debate not just raw (or even adjusted) numbers. In this case the fact that there is no clear numerical consensus does not mean that a close based on the broad consensus enjoyed by policy and guidelines was mistaken. Eluchil404 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, AfD is not a head-count, well within closing discretion. Daniel.Bryant 06:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, but only if there is no prejudice to recreation in a better form. There has been some serious work put into this list, but it also seems that there was resistance to making the improvements necessary for it to become encyclopedic. Renamed, reorganized, with good criteria, sources and citations it could be made acceptable. If anyone wants to make an attempt at resurrecting this list, I'd be happy to provide them with the deleted list to cannibalize. Most good articles and lists start out as defective, flawed articles and lists. -- Samuel Wantman 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion with plenty of prejudice against recreation in any shape or form - a bundle of WP:ILIKEIT votes do not a consensus to keep make, or a even a no consensus. The worst thing was the way in which people seem to think "notable" is any less subjective than "famous": it isn't. For starters, what definition of "notable" do you use without falling into original research? Within administrative discretion. Quite apart from that, a list like this could become absolutely vast and unmanageable. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, `'mikka 19:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endore relist The actual title of the page belies it's intent & application in practice. The criteria for determining the degree & intensity of the fame has been created & was being debated well before the proposal for deletion came up. The criteria, indeed, is much more specific than the title states. Fame does NOT have to be as subjective nor original research. There doesn't have to even be a consensus regarding the fame of an individual to be included. The list is useful and can be done without opinion, if criteria is agreed upon & specific enough. I vote it is reinstated but after or only when interested parties make a concerted effort to develop criteria which reduces the chances for opinions & POV. --Duemellon 22:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The arguments for deletion were much stronger and carried the day. I also doubt that any recreation can be capable of fixing the problems with the premise of this article. — coelacan talk — 00:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse The discussion on the AFD could be taken as a rough consensus to delete, IMO; although more explanation would have been valuable and a "no consensus" result would have probably been most appropriate, the action was defensible. Re:Supermajority and Golden Wattle, there is a point to be made in terms of general AFD policy. Balancer 10:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per my comments as nominator and per echoing what's been said above. Otto4711 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Another of those arbitrary deletions of good and - yes, useful work. <KF> 03:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Robertson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Maya Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Torry Castellano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Brett Anderson (The Donnas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Speedily deleted as db-band, but this person was a member of The Donnas, a notable band, at the very least this article should redirect there. Deleting admin Brookie declined an undeletion request. Catchpole 08:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merged reviews for the three people; no need for separate discussions, all opinions to date in the other two were of the form "see Allison Robertson discussion below" GRBerry 14:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - this piece had already been deleted last year by another Admin. This "article" conisted of one bare sentence that completey failed to establish any notability. Looks like band pushing to me. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 08:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, "notability by association" isn't. If the article can be recreated in a way that shows why the individual (not her band) is notable, someone should, else she should be covered in the band article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect each to The Donnas. Notable band, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they all have articles someday, but the deleted ones were A1 cases that shouldn't be undeleted. I see no reason not to redirect though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you'd be justified in being bold and just setting them up as redirects. It's not like the possibility of redirecting was raised and dismissed in an AfD. If anyone does object, blame me and point them at this comment. Sockatume 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn all, assertion of "notability" provided, and that's all it needs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Unclear that any of them are truly notable other than by association with The Donnas, and the articles themselves were essentially stubs. Therefore, redirect as appropriate. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, per Seraphimblade. Halo effect is not credible. Feel free to re-create with credible assertions of independent notability in the shape of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion you do not need the decision overturned to make redirects, you just need to press the edit button. I give you permission. Don't wait for this delrev to be over, JUST DO IT. Jerry lavoie 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be so bloody patronising. I would like the articles undeleted because they were incorrectly deleted, the fact they could be redirects is just another reason why the deletion decision is strange and a text-book case of WP:BITE. Catchpole 07:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Temper - Temper - intemperate outbursts are hardly helpful! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 10:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Brookie and Seraphimblade. There is no need to restore a vacuous article to history behind the appropriate redirects. Band members shouldn't have independent articles until they can establish independent notability. Eluchil404 10:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion `'mikka 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Stamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Dennis was actually a fairly notable wrestler in Texas and Florida in the 70's. He held numerous (10) N.W.A. championships and was even featured in Sylvester Stallone's movie Paradise Alley in 1978. Because of his somewhat dubious appearance in Beyond the Mat in the late 90's he has gained a bad rap as fancruft, but I think he is really a valid notable part of wrestling history from the 70's in the South. Jamestrepanier 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, with no prejudice against recreation if you can source your statements. The article that was deleted does not seem to have mentioned them. -Amarkov moo! 05:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and that means unsalt the thing. If you can provide sources. -Amarkov moo! 15:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion None of the attempts at a biography in the article's edit history contain either sources or an assertion of this person's notability. This request also fails to contain both of these essential qualities for a notable biography. (aeropagitica) 06:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• James, if you can provide some reliable sources to back up what you are saying I agree that the article should be restored. (jarbarf) 19:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was a clear concensus to delete. Until the points raised in the AfD are addressed (I suggest using the article's Talk page, and this space here, to coordinate this) there's no reason to undelete. Sockatume 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Clear consensus in AfD, no new evidence offered. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment duplicate nomination created on tomorrow's log page. I've moved the information not already here to the article's talk page, as it was in my opinion too long and too poorly formatted to be included here. GRBerry 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion with no predudice against recreation. If a properly cited NPOV article can be created IAW WP:BIO. Perhaps make it in your userspace, then ask an admin to unsalt it, then move it. Jerry lavoie 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have provided the evidence and sources at Talk:Dennis Stamp Jamestrepanier 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. `'mikka 19:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Jamestrepanier 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice. There was absolutely nothing improper about the closure. Pascal.Tesson 15:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]