Silver Screen Classics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There was recently an AfD debate on this article and if you count the votes, there are more in favour to keep the article then to delete it. This is a clear issue, more wanted to keep the article then delete it, but it was still deleted. The article needs to be restored. 99.236.63.51 (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc. as this article was deleted as a result of that on 20 November and then recreated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Background - The page was deleted 11:23, 13 November 2007 per Channel Zero Inc. AfD. That deletion was improper because Silver Screen Classics was listed too late in Channel Zero Inc. AfD. Silver Screen Classics then was recreated by Musimax 20:08, 13 November 2007. The recreation was a proper recreation. The Silver Screen Classics page was nominated for deletion seven days later, on 20 November 2007. The AfD nomination was a proper nomination. The Silver Screen Classics AfD closed 26 November 2007. -- Jreferee t/c 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my own Deletion AFD is not a vote - its a discussion against consensus. I stand by my reasoning on the AFD. Note that the page was recreated shortly after I deleted for the second time. I have salted the page and deleted it under G4. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore: There were more votes to keep and it was found to be notable by the users in the debate. 99.236.63.51 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that Musimax is the same individual as the ip editor as confirmed on my talk page Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Just because channel Zero Inc. was deleted, that should have no effect on Silver Screen Classics. MusiMax (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The phrase "silver screen classic" goes back to at least 1982[1], writing "Novelizations have been a staple of the book world ever since the 1920's, when Publishers Row first joined hands with Hollywood in hiring freelance writers to transform the plots of silver-screen classics into pleasantly readable fiction." The phrase is widely used by a variety of media outlets. That makes it difficult to sort out what info belongs to Silver Screen Classics (Channel Zero) and what silver screen classic info is not relevant. Silver Screen Classics (Channel Zero) launched on September 2, 2003. However, there doesn't seem to be enough info to support an article. There might be some info here (search Silver Screen Classics). Despite Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc., there is more than enough reliable source material for a Channel Zero Inc. article and info on Silver Screen Classics (Channel Zero) should go there (if consensus permits recreation of Channel Zero Inc.). -- Jreferee t/c 01:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm not sure there is more than enough reliable info for an article on Channel Zero, as gets clear in the AfD. And I'm doubtful its channels (see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_22#Maleflixxx_Television) can help a lot with that. Basically, I would like to see some "real world" connection - that channelcanada.com mentions a Canadian channel doesn't really tell a lot. (And I might be mistaken, but when I tried your search above, the articles in the search results would not be about this channel - it seems it simply searched for "silver OR screen OR classics"). --Minimaki (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep. The closure here was against consensus and went significantly out on a limb in interpreting policy, and in dismissing reasonable arguments. I don't see why TV channel that is included in lineups non-trivial numbers of people receive should be treated so skeptically. There were sources: just because they weren't online doesn't mean they don't exist. I see no reason our coverage of TV channels in real lineups shouldn't be comprehensive, but the closer felt this was a principle that shouldn't be up to the community, and in doing so, was overstepping. Mangojuice^talk 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse close Endorse close - The keep arguments centered around the topic being important. However, being important is not enough to satisfy Wikipedia's article standards. There needs to be enough independent reliable source material to support a stand-alone article. The delete arguments focused on the lack of independent reliable source material and that argument was not sufficiently challenged. Since the delete arguments were the stronger arguments, the closer interpreted the discussion correctly. -- Jreferee t/c 18:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I revised my position in view of the bad deletion rationale. Close reasonings are important because they allow the losers to accept the outcome. The closer needs to present an impartiality and a reasoning based on the consensus discussion. Presenting a close reasoning that implies that the close reasoning was based on a personal decision and not consensus doesn't help in maintaining acceptance of process. Please choose your closing words more carefully. Instead of "I don't buy that every channel is notable", a statement such as "Consensus doesn't buy that every channel is notable" may have made a difference. -- Jreferee t/c 19:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be just as bad a closing rationale in this case since first of all consensus does not have to be 'obtained' to keep an article, which is what your suggestion would imply and second one of the deleters was meaningfully challenged on their point and failed to respond to that in any way. Splash - tk 20:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would have been a better closing rationale, but agree that it might not have been a good closing rationale. I'm thinking WP:BEANS could have been invoked as well. -- Jreferee t/c 18:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn for bad deletion rationale There were sources, but the closing admin said "I couldn't verify either source listed without logging in" that is not a reason for deletion. Paid sources are acceptable, as are ones requiring login. They arent for external links, but they are for references. DGG (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If you can't evaluate a situation because you can't or won't login to something, then do not close the debate. Simple as that. Given the impermissible closure rationale, and the clear lack of consensus, overturn and close as no consensus. Splash - tk 20:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, keep arguments were exceedingly weak and based only on WP:OUTCOMES and the existence of articles on other, more notable television channels; one such argument was to keep only because it is a TV channel at all - no guideline states that they are inherently notable. No one bothered to indicate how the subject was notable with reliable sources. AFD is not a vote. --Coredesat 07:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion arguments were based solely on the fact that it was deemed "not notable" by the fact of no reliable and independent notable sources to confirm its notability, which there are! How can you not say that there were no sources, there are two there and still you say there were none. MusiMax (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Both of the sources are trivial. All we can gather from them is that the channel started broadcasting. --Coredesat 21:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There needs to be enough independent reliable source material and the two cited sources don't seem to provide enough independent reliable source material for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Since Silver Screen Classics sends signals out over the public air waves, they probably have government licenses up the wazoo. If this is real important to you, you might want to hoof it to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and see what documents they have produced on Silver Screen Classics. You also might want to check court filings and publications at a local library likely not available on the Internet. -- Jreferee t/c 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion AFD is not a vote count, the DRVer's basis is purely vote count results which is insufficient reason to overturn anything. Even if we thought that it merited consideration, the closer got it right. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you explain why? The closer wasn't arguing from policy, they were simply setting their own opinion above everyone else's. "AFD is not a vote count" doesn't give carte blanche to ignore the majority opinion. Mangojuice^talk 14:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If the closer thinks certain arguments are weak, he or she can say so. --Coredesat 20:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Carte blanche, no; discretion, yes. Majority opinion is embodied first in our policies and guidelines, and only secondarily in the rough concensus of who shows up during the XFD discussion to weigh in. But you know that. I think that the discloser got it right, and sometimes when things aren't a vote, the majority who show up on election day(s) doesn't prevail. Carlossuarez46 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit- I'd like the source copied to my userspace so I can address the problems that led to deletion. Thanks. LiamUK (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable, though it may not have been asserted. Certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion. Along with Black Refuge EP, I'd be glad to try and fix them up if someone put the articles back up. LiamUK (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and expand/cleanup/source. The group was formed by José González and a Google search churns up plenty of hits, including reviews and profiles. Chubbles (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, involvement of José González meets criterion #6 of WP:BAND, that's assertion of notability sufficient for this not to be a CSD A7 speedy. --Stormie (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy - The assertion of importance/significance needs to be in the article to overcome CSD A7. There was nothing in the article to indicate that José González was otherwise notable and the article contained no assertion of importance/significance. -- Jreferee t/c 00:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore- If it was restored, I would fix it up. The problem here is not that the band and their EP are not notable, it's that this fact was not asserted in the article. This would be easily fixed, and if a prod or cleanup/improvement tag had been used instead then I'm sure it would've been. A speedy was unnecessary. LiamUK (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per A7. If someone wants it in their user space there's a place to ask above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh, I didn't know that, thanks. LiamUK (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese citrus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Deleted against consensus, which was clearly "Keep." Add censure (one-week block) against the admin who performed this deletion against well-reasoned consensus. We do have rules at Wikipedia, and flagrant violations of our own rules, again and again, lead the general population of editors to believe that admins are above our community's own rules. Badagnani (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn — besides being a tit-for-tat nomination contrary to Category:Korean fruits, the reasons given for deletion (indeed, which were the only argument made for deletion) were addressed in the negative by the reasons for deletion — namely, the argument was that said citruses were native to Japan, and were properly judged "Japanese citruses", and that the category was underpopulated. However, all of the arguments for keeping argued that three was enough, and there was no compelling reason offered from why it was insufficient; the purpose of categories being to group like objects, and this being a valid and encyclopedic grouping. I don't see a proper interpretation of the debate here — instead, it seems the closing admin substituted their own reasoning, or interpretation of how many is "sufficient" for discussion. --Haemo (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse/speedy close - The closer interpreted the debate correctly; bad faith DRV nomination reasoning. Using "Japanese" citrus, "Korean" citrus, "China" citrus as categories apparently gets into POV contests. There is plenty of reliable source information to improve the Japanese citrus article. Once that is done, I don't see any problem with using Japanese citrus in articles such as Yuzu, which is listed by many sources as being a Japanese citrus fruit. However, country citrus categories seem to give too much POV ownership to a citrus. Using Japanese citrus in prose permits reliable source citation and proper, NPOV characterization of the citrus. -- Jreferee t/c 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. I don't see any inherent problem in classifying fruits and vegetables by their country of origin, and the discussion was not related to this consideration. Instead, it focused on the population of the category under consideration. The nominator here is a bit histrionic, but his argument is valid. --Haemo (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Classifying fruits and vegetables by their country of origin seems like it would be fine since there likely is an ultimate authority that can be cited. If you know of that book, please list it in this discussion. Classifying fruits and vegetables by their country of use is not acceptable, obviously. It does appear that the delete reasoning focused on personal opinions more than what reliable source material says about the categorization. The CfD does not seem to apply to a category such as Category:Citrus originating in Japan. -- Jreferee t/c 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Subcategorizing by country of origin is simply one method; however, if you would take a moment to familiarize yourself with how Asian ingredients are subcategorized, you will see that this category is valid and valuable for our users editing and researching such topics. "Japanese citrus" or "Korean fruits" are both highly important subcategories allowing one to easily find the information one needs, when editing or searching about ingredients used in these East Asian culinary traditions. This has nothing to do with "ownership" of these fruits, but the fact that they are integral to the nation's culture, cuisine, and culinary traditions. Badagnani (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That was the point of the discussion; everyone agreed to remove citruses used in Japan, and include only citrus which are Japanese in origin. That was not being discussed here, as it was settled. The outstanding issue was whether or not the three remaining fruits were sufficient for a category. --Haemo (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have made Category:Fruits originating in Asia and Category:Japanese fruit. They have a bigger scope and could list many more articles than just citruses. There are various dog breeds, cattle breeds, etc. that could be categorized by national/regional origin also. So it should be ok. --Mfugue (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see any need for it; the parent Category:Citrus is far from being overpopulated, and dividing it up is merely over-categorisation. - MPF (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That was not the consensus of the discussion on the page. There was no consensus that the category was overpopulated, which was the reason for deletion. Substituting your personal opinion as closer is not appropriate. --Haemo (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I was NOT the closer; I knew nothing about this until I was asked to take a look in here a few minutes ago - MPF (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Haemo almost certainly simply used "your" to mean "one's". Joe 23:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Editor MPF has great expertise in botany, but clearly hasn't thought out his/her support for this cuisine subcategory's deletion. The category does not regard fruit trees but instead fruits, as used as ingredients in the cuisine of Japan. There is a difference. Badagnani (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - grammatically, 'Japanese citrus' isn't a category (both are adjectives I believe), but more importantly, Mfugue's categories appear to capture any entities that may fall into this category. WLU (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You need to take a wider view. It may be "over-categorization" for your purposes, but for the purposes of properly subcategorizing Japanese ingredients, it is a logical and appropriate subcategorization. Further, the intent of this deletion review is the highly improper close of the discussion by the closing admin, showing flagrant disregard of WP's own rules. Thus, your opinions regarding supposed "over-categorization" are rather immaterial in light of this more important issue. Badagnani (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why is it so critical that this be done with a category instead of an article on Japanese citrus? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - I see no reason to have this category; none of the arguments given above are compelling. Inappropriate action by an administrator is not a reason to have a category. Perhaps an administrator acted incorrectly, but this is not the forum for that discussion. This forum is for the discussion of categories, not administrators. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from CfD closer. CfD is not a vote, it is a discussion: the job of the closer is to weigh consensus, and (per WP:DGFA#Rough_consensus) "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)".
  My first step towards closing was to check the nominator's assertions and to see if they were "based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious" (per WP:DGFA#Rough_consensus, again):

1. "except three species in the category such as Natsumikan, Iyokan, Amanatsu, the rest of the fruits are all from China or other foreign countries and are found throughout East Asia". I read every single of the articles listed, and it did indeed seem to be the case that these fruit were nearly all described as being either indigenous to China or indigenous to East Asia
2. "Wiki has only a few country names tagged onto fruit category like 'Category:Wine grapes of Italy, Category:Wine grapes of Greece." I checked the categories, and that was correct

To check the background to the second point, I compared it with Category:Vegetables: no by-nationality subcats there.

Then to the "keep" arguments:

• Badagnani: "Citrus is a huge category and splitting off citrus fruits that are endemic to Japan is a very logical and valuable subcategory". Maybe, but the nominator was correct: only 3 of the fruit are exclusive to Japan. If the "endemic" was to be read as "native to Japan, but not necessarily exclusive", that might be more appropriate, but the proposal did not suggest categorising the fruit by all the countries to which they are endemic, only Japan. That sounded like a recipe for who-owns-which-fruit category wars.
• Hermeneus: "per Badagnani"
• Haemo: "I don't see any reason why "only" three native plants are not sufficient for a category". (WP:OCAT#SMALL cites several precedents)

So there was no plausible rebuttal of the nominators assertions, and the only other issue introduced (by Haemo) clashed with a guideline. The most pertinent comment was probably the non-voting suggestion by Peterkingiron: "would the solution not be to have a category something like "East Asian Fruits".

Given all that, it seemed to me that the arguments for deletion were by far the strongest, and that Peterkingiron's suggestion seemed to provide an alternative approach which would probably prove workable.

If Badagnani believes that there are grounds for blocking me, that proposal should be made at WP:ANI, not here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Yes, I do feel there are grounds for a one-week block, for your violation of community norms. Further, your comment shows that, again, you have not read the comments that have stated that the categories do not show "ownership" of fruits but instead are subcategories of "Japanese ingredients." This is how Asian cuisine categories are subcategorized, allowing our users to more easily find specific types of ingredients. Thus, these are citrus fruits that are not necessarily "owned" by, or first grown in these nations, but intimately associated with the cuisine of that nation. Again, the closing failed to take this reasoning into account. The fact that you show you apparently haven't even read this reasoning nor taken it into account is disturbing, nearly as much as you closing a delete proposal clearly against consensus. The fact that the categories were actually removed from all the articles without replacing them with a "Japanese ingredients" category (even leaving some of them without any category at all!) shows even further bad faith. Please explain in greater detail how I may go about proposing censure of your behavior. thanks. Badagnani (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One thing I certainly agree with Badagnani here is that when the tag was taken off for Japanese citrus, the category tag for "Japanese ingredients" should have bee added back and this was a poor over site that does happen occasionally and should be properly addressed with the bot that removed the "Japanese citrus" category tags.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Request posted to the deleting bot's discussion page but no action has been taken. Badagnani (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per the above clarification. --Haemo (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - And I appreciated the clarification between country of origin and country of usage by those above (and of course, BHG's clarifications). - jc37 22:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse decision to delete - This is a nomination not only to over turn the decision, but as well punish an admin. whom used proper deduction to delete the category. Addressing the decision to delete, the admin. BrownHairedGirl gives proper reasoning for deleting the category. CFD is not a "hand vote count" it is based upon proper arguments on each side. As consensus is built over proper arguments, I believe the admin. made a proper decision, and even if it is deemed she did not, we are all human, and in making a non-malicious mistake, she should not be punished by being blocked the request for such seems extreme and unwarranted, especially with the fact I believe she made the proper decision. To address the actual category, there is no need to have so many finite categories as they end up confusing users of Wikipedia. Especially when it comes to this topic, if we were to categorize every citrus item into countries, we would find ten+ tags for some citrus, as they exist in so many countires. Origins of citrus are dubious as well, as much of the origins of produce items are argued by scientists and anthropologists, let alone those who do not study those topics. It is better to place the citrus items under an article labeled List of Japanese ingredients and let people see them there.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - One would think that a long-time and skilled editor specializing in cuisine articles would see the value of subcategorizing ingredients by type. This is a long-standing procedure and citrus fruits (or fruits in general) are not different in any regard from other forms of ingredients. Such subcategorization does not "confuse" any editors; in fct, it has the opposite effect of subcategorizing a profusion of ingredients of all types, in subcategories by type. It would be greatly helpful if editors would visit the various national cusisine categories and take some time to familiarize themselves with how they work before voting "delete." Maybe, however, this is a bad idea, as the "delete page regulars" will show up and begin nominating all ingredients subcategories for deletion, under the justification that nations don't "own" ingredients--without taking the necessary time and thought to see that these ingredients only include ones that are integral to the cuisine being categorized. Badagnani (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what your intention is Badagnani, but I really wouldn't even think that a category called French citrus, Italian citrus, Greek citrus etc., labeling them under one cuisine would give the connotation that the fruit is relegated to that one cuisine. So let's say in Italian cuisine, the Blood orange which is originally from Italy was labeled as such, does that mean that it is from Italy, or that it is only found in Italian cuisine or that one can only get it from Italy. None of which are true actually, because much citrus found around the world originates from the Middle East, which is how the blood orange got to Sicily. In turn, as some of us know the origins of the blood orange, do we label it with Italian citrus, Middle Eastern citrus, and even American citrus because it is popular in America or even to Sicilian citrus because they are grown in Sicily. So hopefully, you see from this example how one can get confused by that sort of labeling. I think the list page which I'm sure you just saw a comment from me on suffices as well as a link from the List of Japanese ingredients page which in turn is linked from the Japanese cuisine article.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As we've discussed before, the same criteria don't apply to all categories. Thus, "Finnish citrus" would not be a useful category but "Japanese citrus" (or Korean fruits) quite useful as a subcategory, assisting our users in breaking down the very long and varied list of ingredients in the "ingredients" subcategory. Badagnani (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure, interpretation well explained by closing admin, and DRV nominator has no counter arguments, just querulous demands that User:BrownHairedGirl be blocked for coming to a conclusion that he disagrees with. --Stormie (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment BHG at the time gave no reasoning whatsoever--an explanation might have made the bad feeling expressed in this review unnecessary. DGG (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - I'm not even sure Category:Japanese fruit is all that useful, and this certainly isn't. I don't have enough information to comment on the censure, but in my experience, admins are often lax in explaining their reasoning, and that ordinarily leads to controversies such as this.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - On the contrary, the review is necessary because the closing admin did so clearly against consensus, and, from his/her comments above, failing to show understanding or take into consideration of the reasoning of the majority of editors commenting in the discussion. Further, the closing admin shows, from his/her actions and comments little or no understanding of the practice of subcategorizing Japanese ingredients (or even the entire idea of subcategorizing cuisine categories). Badagnani (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The nomination on Korean fruits two days earlier was clearly a delete, and this was a logical outgrowth of that. BHG's rationale stated there was good enough, and didn't need to be stated twice (though she may wish she had). Finally, Badagnani, suggesting a discussion closer should be blocked in the DRV nomination is a guarantee that I (and likely some others) won't agree with the nominator.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - We all experience bad feelings. However, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. The lack of a closing statement by BrownHairedGirl (BHG) does not justify assuming bad faith and making Ill-considered accusations of impropriety in this DRV. It was not necessary to act on those bad feelings and continuously act on those bad feelings in this DRV. It is clear by the growing consensus in this DRV that BHG's actions were within a closer's discretion and certainly were not so out of bounds to warrant the disparaging remarks about BHG in this DRV. I think that apologizes to BHG are in order. -- Jreferee t/c 18:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Deletion so far against consensus must be countered, lest our general population of editors come to the belief that admins are not bound by any of WP's own rules whatsoever. This is the issue, not one (the only, here?) editor's assertive pursuit of this crucially important ideal. Don't ignore the root necessity of this DR, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am the person who physically deleted the category. But please, before anyone is blocked, allow me to explain. I was working on cleaning up WP:CFD/Working. Someone else had listed this category under "Empty then delete". I'm not sure who physically depopulated the category (most likely a bot) but this category was at the stage where it was ready to be deleted because it was empty and the deletion discussion was "delete", so I processed the request and deleted the category. I had nothing to do with the CfD discussion, nor was I the one who closed the discussion as delete. I was simply clearing an admin backlog. And if I am at fault for not being more careful, I apologize and I would not consider it wheel warring if someone overturned my deletion. I'll forgo commenting on the merits of the closure or reasons behind the deletion.-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you for the long explanation; however, simply taking care and replacing/substituting the proper upper-level categories for the deleted ones (and certainly not leaving any article with no category, as you did) is imperative, in this case and in all future cases. Thanks for your attention to this. Badagnani (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm crazy, and I just checked my contribs to be sure, but I clearly did not leave an article with no categories. If I am mistaken about this, please show the diff for where I removed all the categories from an article. People make mistakes, and I apologize if I am mistaken now, but I believe your accusation against me is mistaken. It was someone else who depopulated the category. All I did was delete a category that was empty which was on an admin-only list called "Empty then delete".-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diff. This is only one part of the problem; the essence is that you tried to save time by having a robot make the edits instead of an actual human brain. For example, Shekwasha and several of the others remain in no citrus category at all, days after the category deletion. This sort of unthinking mode of editing should never be allowed to happen, then, now, or in the future. Your attention to this is greatly appreciated; a number of bot-operators do not even bother to answer when they are alerted to such errors. Badagnani (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough. Please consider this a warning: If you (User:Badagnani) uncivilly accuse another Wikipedian in this discussion (here or on some talk page elsewhere) once more, you'll be blocked for at least 24 hours. (please note the accent on "incivilly". This is in no way to suggest that you can't positively contribute to the discussion.) But as it stands now, your remarks have been repeatedly uncivil, and are just becoming rather disruptive to this discussion. - jc37 10:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. Would you now take a moment to kindly inform me of the status of fixing the problem that was outlined above? Many thanks, Badagnani (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very kind of you if you would let me know the status of fixing this problem (outlined above), which has as yet not been addressed. Again, many thanks. Badagnani 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion closer properly interpreted debate. A word to the wise (who don't need it) and the rest who (won't heed it) - when someone comes to DRV wanting to punish someone for closing an XFD not to his or her liking it is an WP:AGF violation on the DRV nom as well as an WP:AAGF violation. It is a prelude to wikidrama, and just not fair. Admins are people too, if you want to pontificate on who is above the rules, DRV is not the forum. If you want punishment, this ain't the complaints department. And were I anywhere near the borderline on whether this was closed correctly, I would have tipped toward defending the actions of a good admin working in good faith against a punishment-seeking DRV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted out of process. Was speedied as an A7 when the group scored a major hit in the 1970s and the article cited sources (All Music Guide and/or Joel Whitburn's books). The group (or perhaps one of the redirects, which were also deleted) was even listed on one of the Missing Encyclopedic Articles list as having a song that deserves its own page. Requesting that the article be restored. Chubbles (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore I was inclined to speedily restore this, but I can't find any evidence for the #10 claim, although it seems to have charted. In any case, a clear assertion of notability that needs to be investigated. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Chart data is available here. (Contingent upon restoration, I will add full US chart data.) Chubbles (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and list - Speedy wasn't so out of process. However it is a group from the 1970s and thirty+ years makes it likely that someone wrote about them and that such information probably is on dead trees not published on the Internet. AfD might help bring out reliable sources. The topic probably could be covered in a Tony Camillo[2] article (and there might be room for both Tony Camillo and Bazuka to have their own article. Comment - The info I found on the topic is (1) The Star-Ledger (May 1, 2004) Retro Legend: Tony Camillo . He put Gladys Knight on that midnight train to Georgia.; Page 31. (2) Management Team at VMG Poised for Industry Shift. -- Jreferee t/c 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pros from Dover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No quorum, should have been relisted or closed as no consensus; deleted with zero Delete comments made. Closing admin has retired hence cannot request undeletion that way. (FWIW I would argue that this is an extant albeit minor American idiom, I wrote the article because I heard the idiom used on a current TV show.) Apparently the article was improperly changed to be about some non-notable magazine or something, and was deleted in that state; but the solution should have been to restore the proper state rather than delete. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Articles with zero reliable sources can't be restored. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But (1) DRv is supposed to be about the AfD, not the article, and anyway (2) the article says the the source of the idiom is the book M*A*S*H, which anyone can confirm by reading the book. Herostratus (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be original research. Corvus cornix_talk 18:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. We don't need a secondary source to confirm that "Pros from Dover" was used in M*A*S*H. The other points have been rebutted below, so I don't need to repeat the arguments. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). We have considered and rejected the requirement to have a quorum for deletion discussions. Others are presumed to have read the debate and consented to the then-current opinion by not expressing a contrary opinion.
  Note: My opinion is influenced by the content of the deleted page which was clearly not encyclopedic in that it was a mere definition and origin of a phrase. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That content belongs at our sister project, Wiktionary. I have no objection to a temporary undeletion for the purposes of transwiking. Rossami (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no quorum at AFD so the deletion seems okay. I would suggest a redirect to the M*A*S*H novel... the idiom might not be notable enough for an article, but that a book coined a popular phrase is a notable thing to mention in the article on that book. --W.marsh 17:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close/permit redirect to MASH: A Novel About Three Army Doctors. - The nominator's position was delete and that was not rebutted. The AfD lasted at least five days, so everyone who wanted to comment did so. The closer interpreted the debate correctly. Comment: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has a nice write up on the topic. "Pros from Dover" has made its way into being used by a variety of sources. Also, it is the name of a business and an acting troupe. Add new "Pros from Dover" material to the MASH: A Novel About Three Army Doctors and spinout with consensus. -- Jreferee t/c 19:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse — incorrect; the original nomination was an argument for deletion. No one contested it, or rebutted it during the discussion, so the closure was proper. --Haemo (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but hopefully the closing admin will relist next time there is no discussion. —ScouterSig 20:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I second that - hopefully the closing admin will relist next time there is little discussion. -- Jreferee t/c 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse with 150+ articles on AFD daily, we can expect many of these - someone made an argument for deletion, the article was neither improved nor defended in the afd debate - deletion seems proper. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donor Offspring Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe this page should not have been deleted. It parallels the page Donor Sibling Registry which is currently listed in wikipedia. Could you please tell me how the two are portrayed differently? I am happy to make modifications DCHealth (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I deleted this article... it seemed to be copied from various pages on their official site (see Google cache [3]). I consider copies of official material to be blatant advertising. If this describes another page that hasn't been deleted yet, I'd probably support deletion of that page too. --W.marsh 17:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While there is plenty of independent reliable source material for Donor Sibling Registry, I didn't find any for either Donor Offspring Health or Donoroffspringhealth.com. It is inappropriate to copy postings outside of Wikipedia and post them within Wikipedia since such actions likely violate Wikipedia's copyright policy. -- Jreferee t/c 18:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I see, so if I recreated it without copying the verbiage from the original site, that would be okay? It seems that the donor sibling registry did the same? or even wait until the company is more established so there are more independent citings? --DCHealth (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The way to do it is to summarize in the Wikipedia article in your own words the information presented by independent reliable source material and provide a footnote at the end of each sentence to that reliable source. The Donor Sibling Registry article is not a copyright violation of any website that I could find. -- Jreferee t/c 18:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, a recreation which addresses the problems that led to the speedy deletion of the original article would certainly be OK. You might wish to create it in userspace, e.g. at User:DCHealth/Donor Offspring Health and invite comment before moving it to article space. --Stormie (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion the admin's action was proper. If another version shows up that doesn't suffer from what ailed the deleted version, G4 doesn't apply, and whether this organization meets WP:CORP or WP:N is for another day and another forum. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice to the creation of a clean version. However, the creator needs to find some WP:RSs to establish notability. BlueValour (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image talk:Arrivavoyager.png (edit | [[Talk:Image talk:Arrivavoyager.png|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted as the talk page of a deleted "fair use" image. However, it contained the debate as to whether the image was fair use or not, and is the continuation of the discussion at Talk:CrossCountry#Photographs, effectively the deletion discussion. May also be needed for a sockpuppetry investigation. RFBailey (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as per CSD G8. The image itself was deleted by Carnildo (talk · contribs) because a replacement image (freely-licensed) was found. Note that the talk page contained claims that a replacement image could not be reasonably obtained. Of course, if the page is needed for a sockpuppetry investigation, I would support undeleting it. I am unaware of any sockpuppetry investigation; had I known, I would not have deleted it. --Yamla (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I was only requesting the talk page to be restored, not the image. The trouble with the replacement image is that it turns out to be a copyvio. I suspect the uploader of the replacement to be a sock of the uploader of the original, but wanted to wait for a response from him before listing the case at WP:SSP. --RFBailey (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]