< 2007 May 2
Deletion review archives: 2007 May
2007 May 4 >

3 May 2007

  • Category:Jewish figure skaters – Deletion endorsed. (Even if one ignores any allegations of "vote-stacking", and considers all comments, the consensus is still clearly so.) – Xoloz 21:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Jewish figure skaters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Undelete for the reasons stated in the discussion when the category was considered for deletion. Especially because when parallel arguments were presented in the very recent past, with regard to parallel categories (e.g., Jewish sportspeople [1] and Jewish fencers [2], the decision was always made to keep the category -- and the instant decision is contrary to those precedents. It might be noted as well that not only are many of the arguments parallel, but many of those seeking deletion of this category were those who presented arguments, without success, seeking the deletion of the aforementioned categories. Epeefleche 21:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE Epeefleche has been denying that he's been vote stacking this decision. The evidence is here: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. That's one of the biggest and most obvious WP:CANVASSings I've seen this year. >Radiant< 08:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN rather than contacting people on their talk page, Epeefleche has been vote stacking this DRV as well by e-mailing the users involved, as indicated here. The following users are commenting here because of being vote stacked: Osidge, Newport, Holdenhurst, Shamir1, Brownlee, R613vlu. Note that most of their arguments amount to armwaving, proof-by-assertion, or WP:USEFUL. >Radiant< 08:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN What the link actually says is "User:Epeefleche just emailed about his experiences with Radiant doing the same thing: "He made a deletion decision (re category Jewish Figure Skaters) that I objected to. He has just removed my analytical discussion as to why I disagree with his decision from the discussion page, moving it to another page. And then went on to input his own, contrary "arguments" onto the discussion page." Time for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Radiant? This is getting ridiculous... I replied that he comment here, on Radiant's talk page, and we will take further aformentioned action if this persists"--Runcorn 20:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN I was not canvassed to vote on this DRV.--Newport 21:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Is there the slightest evidence that it makes any difference? I knew about the CfD and would have commented without Epeefleche's note, and I'm sure that the same applies to most iif not all of the others. Anyway, it's the quality not the quantity of discussion that matters.--Newport 15:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, per Bulldog's comments below. The following users both received Epeefleche's notice on their talk page and participated in the original cfd: Osidge, R613vlu, Newport, Mwalcoff, Bakasprman, Ansell, Holdenhurst, Shamir1, Brownlee. Many of those are also turning up here to engage in furious arm-waving. >Radiant< 08:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The categories you list can hardly be used as precedent. Both of them were closed as no concensus. - Mgm|(talk) 11:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they are perfect precedent for the action sought.

One is the parent category. One is a sister category. The arguments presented in all 3 discussions were parallel. Many of those who provided comments were the same people, in fact. The time period was close. And the action sought in the instant matter --KEEP-- is precisely the action that was taken in the other 2 instances.

That the basis for the action taken is that there was no consensus is fine. There was certainly no greater consensus here, so the result, to keep the category, should be the same.

Clearly, we are trying to build a Wiki that has a degree of standards, and consistency in the application of those standards. This flies in the face of that effort, which is at the core of all Wiki policies and guidelines.

Epeefleche 17:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flip side of that is that these so-called precedents may simply reveal a strong bloc who leaps up to defend any arbitrary category that includes the magical word "Jewish". I note that there is no Category:Roman Catholic ice skaters, no Category:Lutheran ice skaters, no Category:Mormon ice skaters, no Category:Celtic ice skaters, no Category:Native American ice skaters. (Nor do I think there should be.) We're wandering into CfD territory here, but when you start taking about standards and consistency, I have to point out that our general standards are to not sub-categorize by ethnicity or religion unless the ethnicity or religion can be shown to be relevant to the parent category (which is absolutely not the case here), and that standards and consistency are the strongest reasons for having deleted this category. Unless you believe that "Jewish" is a magic word that deserves special treatment beyond that received by other ethnicities and religions. Anyway, this is why I pointed to some other CfDs below that did not include the word "Jewish"—somehow, those categories managed to get deleted without offensive suggestions like, "once again, a Hindu category is being singled out for deletion...". --Xtifr tälk 19:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think it is helpful that you are surfacing these issues. As to your above comments, while they address only some of my above points, I think it important that we discuss them.

Precedents are simply that -- precedents. There is nothing in what you write above that suggests, unless I am misreading it, that precedents should not be followed because your views differ from yours. What I gather you are doing is, without addressing the importants of consistency in Wikipedia, addressing a core issue (that was raised in the precedents), which was not found to militate that the categories be deleted.

Addressing that issue, first, I think -- and I believe this has been discussed before, but will mention it only briefly in this response -- that Jews are indeed a category that is distinguishable from others who are religions but not a people, displaced from its homeland for a great period of time, but a people nevertheless. I will try to put together something longer that develops this point, but mention it here in great brevity as a "placeholder."

Furthermore, a distinguishing factor, which in effect you allude to, is that there is greater interest in this subcategory than there is in, say, Native American ice skaters. An important point for Wiki is whether that interest is reflected in multiple articles, etc., that are published by independent sources. That is what, for Wiki purposes, defines notabity (not your, or my, subjective view -- though many of those who comment on this issue are I fear not sensitive to this very important point). There are, as you know from the prior discussion (which just reflected a few of such articles) a number of articles about Jewish figure skaters. While I don't think that that is necessary for such a subcategory to be created, it emphasises that such a sub-category is appropriate for Wiki. If there are similar articles about Native American figure skaters, great, go ahead and make that a subcategory, if that interests you. In short, however, this distinguishes the two categories, in a highly important substantive way. I will seek to develop this further as well, but also wanted to "placehold" this comment directly below yours.

Thanks. --Epeefleche 20:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To your first point, we have an overcategorization guideline supporting this deletion as well as the several precedents I posted, all of which suggest that sub-categorization by religion or ethnicity is not generally considered appropriate by Wikipedians, no matter what specially-interested parties may have shown up for a particular debate. As for your argument that Jews are above mere guidelines because of special circumstances, well, I don't agree. Nor do I agree that "greater interest" is either a correct assessment nor a valid argument for category creation. If you want to look at this as about ethnicity (which actually makes more sense to me), then the common (but not universal) religion of these people is not relevant, and, in fact, the ethnicity of Native Americans, various African and Asian ethnicities (especially those that have had substantial displacement to the American continents), and oppressed European minorities such as the Celts are all of great interest to people as well. I believe that your argument (and to a lesser extent, these categories, just by existing) violates our WP:NPOV policy. There may be a basis for an article or six here, but I don't believe it's appropriate to support a particular POV through category creation. Xtifr tälk
Comment Looking at the previous Cfd and counting "upmerges" as deletes (since the same outcome comes of it) we get 16 deletes to 15 keeps. At this point it is up the the strength of the arguments that count rather than just the numbers. Especially considering the highly inappropriate vote recruiting which had about four or five users jump in with "keeps" (which is apparently happening here with "undeletes" as the new keyword) Radiant's decision to delete was 100% correct. It is NOT a clear no consensus at all. Bulldog123 14:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion—seems like a perfectly reasonable reading of the debate. Arguments for deletion seemed grounded in policy, guidelines and precedent, while the arguments for keep seemed, if you'll pardon my saying so, a bit on the paranoid side or somewhat contrived, and the suggestions of canvassing are troubling. Jewish sportspeople was closed as no consensus, and it's a much broader category, so I don't consider the precedent there particularly relevant, and Jewish fencers was also closed as no consensus, so that's not really a precedent either, making this the first actual precedent (although I would still tend to support the broader "Jewish sportspeople" category myself, as potentially relevant to the topic of prejudice in professional sport). Xtifr tälk 23:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "suggestions" of canvassing are indeed troubling, but are just that--suggestions. Unfounded, at that. There was no innapropriate canvassing, as I discussed with Radiant! after his decision, on his talk page. It may have some nice graphics, but the suggestion is unfounded. I'll try to put together something addressing this and other points, but want to make this "placeholder comment" directly below yours. Thanks.

I also am not sure whether you are referring to any of my comments as paranoid. If so, please clarify. But in any event, if there are any paranoid comments that have been presented (on either side), I would point to would Menachim Begin said when asked if he didn't think that he was paranoid when he considered the intentions of the surrounding Arab countries. "Even paranoid people have enemies," he responded. If anyone made paranoid comments, that should not distract us from sifting through the discussion for well-founded comments, and should not militate against the result that they seek -- in and of itself.

As to your stating that you would support the broader "Jewish sportspeople" category, but not this subcategory, I would note that there were already, I believe, over 2 dozen people in this sub-category. Jewish sportspeople, without subcategories, is so large that it is appropriate to have subcatgorization. IMHO. --Epeefleche 20:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for canvassing, I haven't investigated in depth, nor do I really care; my position would remain unchanged in any case. As for paranoid, no I absolutely was not referring to any comments you made, but I do think that the deletion of other religious and ethnic categories (I listed some examples below) speaks for itself. The fact that Jews have real enemies does not justify violating our WP:NPOV policy. And as for the broader category, I said I would tend to support, but I haven't considered it in depth, and might reconsider upon further information. Too-large might actually sway my opinion towards delete; it would not sway it towards inappropriate sub-categorization. Xtifr tälk 17:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - closing admin correctly interpreted the discussion along with the appropriate policies and procedures in closing the CFD as delete. Nothing new presented in the DRV that would suggest, let alone mandate, the overturning of that decision. Otto4711 05:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. While I would normally say overturn in a case where consensus is not clear, I think Radiant! gave a very strong and valid reason for deletion when closing the CfD. I don't like the fact, furthermore, that the DRV nom is also accused of votestacking and canvassing. But that's all in the past, and the endorse deletion should stand. Rockstar (T/C) 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of debate. This was credibly argued as overcategorisation, which was not rebutted. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Strong arguments were made for keeping that were not rebutted. The mover, Kolindigo, agreed that some categories for figure skaters are legitimate and failed to explain why the Jewis h one is different. Whether Epeeflech canvassed should not have swayed the closing admin. For the record, I already knew about it before Epeefleche canvassed; also, he did not canvass outside Wikipedia but only approached established editors.--Brownlee 11:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has been canvassed to comment. >Radiant< 08:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Guy evidently didn't see the same debate as I did; the overcategorisation argument was fully rebutted.--Simul8 16:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse self. Basically the requester here is asking that we follow precedent. But first, a "non consensus" on an earlier semi-related debate is hardly a precedent, and second, we don't do binding precedents since Wikipedia is not a system of law. With respect to the actual debate, many of the "keep" arguments boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not an argument. "Jews are an ethnic group" is more a non sequitur than an actual argument. And vote stacking to sway a debate is entirely inappropriate. >Radiant< 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to say endorse but unsalt, but then I looked at the arguments for and against, and this is where I think I'm 'getting' Wikipedia's pragmatic version of 'consensus', in that there will always be someone who's taking it too far or taking it too seriously or just being an obsessive compulsive (I have to raise my hand here). Also, this discussion, I think, is a great place to use IAR in a consensus manner, if possible. However, I'm going back to the same old saw I say here and will keep saying here, which is that if DRV is purely for reviewing process followed properly on XfD, then Radiant shouldn't argue policy while closeing the XfD, but just gauge consensus and state that. In that case, Overturn and undelete. If instead DRV is also for reviewing whether the article at XfD is worthy, then probably Endorse, because the judgement call is good, I think, and I tend to agree that it's in overcategorization-land, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is supposed to be an argument we avoid in this kind of process. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
    • The closer is not only allowed, but strongly pretty much required, to judge the weight of the arguments, rather than simply nosecounting. If he has to cite a policy or guideline to explain how he weighed some of the arguments, that's ok, as long as it looks like a fair assessment of the arguments. So citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is acceptable in the closing if it is a fair assessment of the arguments that were raised (which I think you seem to be agreeing that it was). Xtifr tälk 21:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So why don't we change DRV to mention the other purpose? (i.e. that as part of the process we also tend to review the article for whether we think it would survive a/another round of XfD? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse User:Radiant! had to juggle arguments, guidelines, precedents, and attempted votestacking in analysing this debate. Each of these factors has its effect in judging consensus—as we all know, XfD is not a vote, a simple count is inappropriate. Looking through the debate there seem to have been a lot of discountable contributions; bearing this in mind, Radiant's closure strikes me as being thoroughly reasonable.
Xdamrtalk 22:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT. As is discussed in my comment, which Radiant has taken off this page without my permission, Radiant has actually indicated--contrary to your above suggestion--that he did not consider precedent. Further, as is discussed in my comment which he removed, contrary to your suggestion his ruling--which I quote in my comment--indicates that he considered argument much fewer in number than those that were presented. Nor, as I point out, did he properly follow guidelines. Nor, as I point out with appropriate references to the guideline, was there votestacking.

Furthermore, I have a question. Your comment above seems to me to say, in short, that you agree with him. But you also say that the exercise here is not one of vote counting. My question is, under those circumstances are comments that say "I agree with x," and nothing new of a substantive fashion, of any moment? Such as yours above, and similar comments on both sides.

I am really curious as to the answer, as your comment is not the only one that falls into this category. Personally, I feel that whether one counts votes or simply looks at the arguments--without noticing how many people voted on each side--the result here is the same, as I think Radiant's deletion decision was innapropriate in either case. But I am interested in yours and others views on this point. Many thanks.

  • Undelete There are precedents either way, but they are not very helpful. The point is that the discussion in this case did not justify deletion.--Runcorn 06:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete On the balance of the CfD discussion, this was established as a worthwhile category.--Newport 21:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has been canvassed to comment. >Radiant< 08:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not true. I was not canvassed to vote on this DRV. As for the CfD, I was well aware of it and would have voted in any case.--Newport 21:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Radiant's interpretation of the CfD was absolutely spot-on, and, reading through these arguments, I have been entirely unconvinced that this category deserves recreation or undeletion. Rockstar (T/C) 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete: I have weighed the original CfD and I think that it too should have been ruled a no consensus. The circumstances of this CfD had been a war that has spanned multiple categories and I don't see the difference here than the other "sportspeople of religion x" types of categories that came into question with the same editors. I feel the CfD should be re-ruled as a no consensus as there really was not any consensus on the discussion. --Valley2city?? 06:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete per nom and Valley2city. It does not appear that there was a consensus to delete, so the closing admin should have ruled "No consensus".--R613vlu 16:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has been canvassed to comment. >Radiant< 08:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC) - irrelevant; I'd have voted anyway.--R613vlu 11:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I can't honestly say I feel very strongly in favour of (or at all against, for that matter) this category, but looking at the original debate, to which I did not contribute, I can't see a consensus for deletion.--Smerus 18:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Very worthwhile indeed. --Shamir1 20:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has been canvassed to comment. >Radiant< 08:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Firstly, the decision to delete was not justified on the basis of the discussion, which was inconclusive, probably edging to keep. Secondly, as the proposer notes, it is inconsistent with recent similar CfDs. Thirdly, per Shamir1; I cannot understand why it is not useful.--Osidge 20:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has been canvassed to comment. >Radiant< 08:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Not just about counting votes. Arguments need to be strong. Sleep On It 21:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note This refers to an earlier discussion so is irrelevant to this DRV.--Newport 09:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note No, it refers to precisely the discusion we're talking about here. >Radiant< 10:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Riddle me this If DRV isn't about voting, then why are you worried about vote stacking? Couldn't Epeefleche just be trying to get the word out and let people who might have new things to say say them so they can be allowed for as part of the consensus decision? If it IS about voting, then why the tag discouraging people from voting? Is that a bit hypocritical? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:CANVASS and WP:DEL. >Radiant< 14:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it, sir. You are glossing my point, which is that in actuality, DRV decisions are often decided by headcount, i.e. vote, which means that canvassing seems more reasonable in this kind of context than it would otherwise in a process that truly was built on consensus-based decision-making. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT to RADIANT--With regard to WP:CANVASS, which you cite above, I not only read it but presented my analysis of its terms as applied to the instant facts. You, however, have moved my comment (without my permission) from this page. And after doing that launched into a written comment on the very same issue, albeit somewhat short in terms of analysis, and failing to respond to my points. I feel compelled once more to point out the innapropriateness of this, and request yet again that you return my comment to this page. It may well be, I suspect, that the best way to reach the best decision (assuming that is your goal) may perhaps not be to delete comments that disagree with your leaning from the discussion page. Epeefleche 17:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - I broadly oppose the hyper-deletionist movement, since after all Wikipedia is not paper. This seems to fit within that, and I believe the category is a useful aid in organization and should be kept, especially since the supercategory for all Jewish athletes exists. --Daniel11 11:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument, and neither is alluding to a deletionist conspiracy. Wikipedia is not toilet paper. >Radiant< 14:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please be civil. There's no need to attack aggressively with comments about "conspiracies" and toilet paper. Additionally, moving people's comments off to the talk page, making false accusations of wrongdoing, and making sarcastic comments toward many participants in this discussion with whom you disagree, are disruptive and discourage users from participating in Wikipedia by creating a negative environment. As for the technical grounds of your comment, first of all (from the policy essay you cite) "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged"; second of all, again as per the policy guideline you cite, that's not the sense of the utility argument that's intended to be avoided when possible; third, it's clear that Jewish figure skaters' Jewishness plays an important role, as covered to a greater extent in previous discussion; and fourth, the category does not fail to meet any other standard for avoiding deletion, such as copyright infringement, unverifiability, notability standards, patent nonsense, etc. Please make an effort to be more civil toward other participants, and if you find yourself feeling angry toward other users then you may wish to spend some time relaxing and thinking over any edits you're about to make before proceeding. --Daniel11 21:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Riiiight. Referring to toilet paper is a personal attack, but stating people are part of a "hyper-deletionist movement" is not. WP:KETTLE. >Radiant< 08:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete This is a helpful category per Daniel11. Radiant's decision to delete did not take account of the fundamental principle that we are building an encyclopaedia.--Holdenhurst 12:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has been canvassed to comment. >Radiant< 08:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL? Can I expect your support when I create category:Buddhist stockbrokers?
--Xdamrtalk 13:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • (excessively long comment by Epeefleche moved to the talk page) >Radiant< 09:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Please read the comments by Epeefleche, which Radiant has twice moved to the talk page: [45] [46] --Holdenhurst 12:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT. First of all, Buddhists are not a nation or a people. So they are distinguishable from the Jews on that ground. This issue is discussed in my comment which Radiant moved from this page (and which I would hope he will return to this page as I have requested, aiding readers' understanding of my point without the effort of flipping back and forth between screens).

That being said, if Buddhist stockbrokers were to have the same level of notability as Jewish figure skaters (see, again, my comment which Radiant moved from this page for a discussion of this point and examples of same), I for one would be up for considering them. Do they have a series of articles (as is the case with Jewish figure skaters), or Halls of Fame (as is the case with Jewish sportspeople), or- as with Jewish baseball players, a set of baseball cards; or, as with Jewish chess players, stamps representing them as a group; or, as with Jewish boxers, even books devoted to their category? If so, exploration as to the appropriateness of their inclusion as a category would seem more than reasonable under Wiki policy.

I am not aware of this being the case, however, and so to my knowledge they are distinguishable both because they are not a people or a nation, as well as because the indicated category lacks the indicia of notablilty that the aforementioned cats have. Epeefleche 16:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Epeefleche's vote recruiting is entirely inappropriate and pretty much amateur meatpuppetry. Admin made best judgement by taking in all the arguments without paying attention to the quantity of "keeps" or "deletes." The quality counts people, not the quantity. Bulldog123 13:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Bulldog that it would be helpful for much focus to be put on the substantive arguments. To that end, I think it important for Radiant to return my substantive comments, which he removed from this page.

Moreover, I am not sure that Bulldog's above name-calling constitutes a substantive comment. But if not, perhaps it is--under his suggested approach to consideration of the instant comments--of little moment. From what I can see, his comment is simply a piling-on of an additional delete vote that adds nothing of substance to the prior comments of others, and which should therefore--pursuant to his suggested approach--be ignored.

Of course, if the admin believes that contrary to my volleague's assertion, in the interest of determining whether a consensus exists the fact that Bulldog has a view that mirrors that of others is important, it would seem appropriate to consider the redundant aspects of Bulldog's comments. Epeefleche 16:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for the unusually omnipotent speech, Epeefleche, but I don't even need to point out the irony in your sentence about 'piling-on' additional delete votes. First this isn't a cfd, you already had your hand at manipulating that, so there are no "delete" votes. I see absolutely no convincing arguments for the return of this category. Sorry to say that comments such as Shamir1's "very worthwhile indeed" (which pretty much reflect the majority of the undeletes on here) I don't see as stronger than ones that rely on precedent and policy. Bulldog123 07:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, the following users both received Epeefleche's notice on their talk page and participated in the original cfd: Osidge, R613vlu, Newport, Mwalcoff, Bakasprman, Ansell, Holdenhurst, Shamir1, Brownlee. Daniel11 also received a notice but didn't comment on the cfd but did comment here. Even though these users may have found the cfd and voted the same way without ever getting a notice, we can never know that, and since several of the users receiving messages have been inactive for months, it is obvious Epeefleche was tracking down users who had a history of voting keep on such articles. This wouldn't matter if the reasons for reversing the deletion were good, but all of them just seem to be there was an obvious no consensus, undelete Of course had someone recruited deletionists to participate in an xfd that was close to being kept that would push it into a "no consensus" zone too. Bulldog123 07:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Given the votestacking that occurred in the CfD (and, subsequently, in this DRV), I think the CfD close was proper. Canvassing for votes is no better than soliciting meatpuppets or SPAs. The user doing the canvassing should be warned strongly against this sort of behavior in the future. --Coredesat 08:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
More