Classic City Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Contesting WP:PROD l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 23:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be restored. I think you'd best start looking for sources right away; the old article on a high school foorball rivalry in Georgia was unsourced and would not survive AFD. GRBerry 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakar Bello-Osagie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I request this article to be restored, as the subject of the article, Abubakar Bello-Osagie, now passes WP:ATHLETE, as he has played a fully professional league match (he played on July 20, 2008 the Campeonato Brasileiro Série A match between Vasco and Atlético, check this link). The administrator who closed the deletion discussion doesn't seem to be active anymore. Carioca (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The page doesn't seem to be protected from recreation. Since he now passes WP:Athlete, you can just go ahead and recreate it, no DRV necessary. Just cite your sources and it shouldn't be a problem. Vickser (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User talk archives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

I don't know where the nom got the idea that user talk categories were somehow out of the scope of WP:UCFD, but this certainly was a misplaced discussion. There's no consensus here, because only one user (the nom) supported anything. -- Ned Scott 10:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:CFD defaults to delete in the absence of any contributions to the discussion. However, while the CFD discussion was closed as delete, the category has not actually been deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Only because it isn't emptied yet. I think the presumption was that it was a template-based category and that we were waiting on the job queue, but it seems that it's not. Anyway, what's the problem here? I'm not seeing what Ned Scott's problem with this close is, apart from the appeal to Wikipedia:Quora in deletion discussions, and that's a rather weak reed I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen a lot of out of process deletions, but that alone doesn't drive me to list something on DRV. I do have reasons for wanting the category kept, and believe others would too. See my reply to jc37 below. -- Ned Scott 06:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer. Direct from WP:UCFD: The deletion, merging, or renaming of user categories is discussed on this page. Note the link there is to Category:Wikipedians. UCFD is for categories such as "Foo wikipedians", "Wikipedians who like whatever", etc. Category:User talk archives is not a user category. It even states that This category is used for administration of the Wikipedia project. So when closing, I agreed with the nom that CFD, not UCFD, was the correct venue for the discussion. As for the lack of other participants, it was listed for the required amount of time with no opposition. Finally, it hasn't been deleted yet because while the vast majority of users were using a template, there were a small percentage who had subst'ed it. --Kbdank71 13:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You must not visit WP:UCFD very often. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What's your point? --Kbdank71 19:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• relist There's a difference between someone claiming there was no quorum and having no consensus. If absolutely no one took part in a discussion and then someone else comes along and says that they object to the result that's an indication we don't have a real consensus for the action. Just because process allows us to delete it this way doesn't mean we should. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (as nominator) - I'd like to note that I had no problem with the nom being moved to WP:UCFD, if others decided that that should be the venue. (And I noted that in the nomination.) As noone suggested that, it stayed where it was. And I think it's somewhat difficult to support lack of "quorum", considering that the nomination directly below this one on the page (Categories:Mexicans of Booian descent) had quite a few unique commenters (and there were also several other unique commenters in other discussions on the page). This is another case of where Wikipedians may choose whether they wish to join in a discussion or not. And so, in the absense of opposition, the nomination was endorsed. - All that aside, I'm also curious as to what the nominator here's argument is for wishing to keep this category. If there is none, and this is just a question of procedure (which I think I, and others above, have addressed), then I think we're probably done here. - jc37 21:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "This is another case of where Wikipedians may choose whether they wish to join in a discussion or not." I disagree. This is a case where Wikipedians did want to join the discussion, but because it was placed in the general CFD, they did not think to look there. Even if I'm the only one who feels that way, that still would have resulted in no consensus to delete. Deletion discussion placement is very important, due to the large amount of XfDs the site deals with. On a daily bases I check MfD, RfD, uCfD, and sometimes TfD. Like most people, I don't browse daily listings of AfDs, but use delsort categories and delsort listings to find deletion discussions I'm interested in. I know I'm not the only one who checks some XfD listings and not others.

• I'm not mad at you for taking this category for deletion, or even using CfD (it's not like it was an unreasonable conclusion), but this shouldn't be deleted, and other users should get the chance to make an argument for that.

• As for the category itself, yes, I would have supported keeping it, even if only for being able to use recentchangeslinked and do occasional RC patrolling of archives, (which normally should go unchanged). I'm sure there's other good reasons to keep this category as well, including ones that both you or I haven't considered (one reason why XfD discussions are important). -- Ned Scott 06:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist, and if people are arguing about whether it should be on CFD or UCFD, ferchrissake just put it on one of them and put a note on the other pointing people towards it. "X for discussion" means for discussion, Wikipedia is not an exercise in bureaucracy. --Stormie (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Relist at CFD, there was no opposition so process was followed. With regards to it being in the wrong location in the first place, CFD seems the better choice to me, given it is an administrate category rather than one where thyself is relevant. Ian¹³/t 22:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't fault the closing admin, but deletion review is used for more than just closing errors, it is also used to determine if the discussion represents an accurate consensus. To endorse simply because there were no errors is process wonkery. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I think it was probably in the right place, so there was chance for people to object to it. I guess the fact this is here means there might be some people who would have made a comment, but missed it. I think I'll switch to relist, but I'm not sure what will make it more prominent this time around. Ian¹³/t 10:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "To endorse simply because there were no errors is process wonkery." - Can I have a penny/pence for everytime I have been accused of "process wonkery" for suggesting something be relisted? : ) - jc37 11:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard_Edlington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD AFD 2)

Article significantly changed since last year No reason was given this time for deletion, I assume the quick deletion was based on a comment a year ago that only the only supporting article was from IMDb. Since then newspaper, magazine and research articles have been quoted properly. If needed I can add some recent articles. Nexusb (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Substantially different than the AfD'ed version, which means it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. -- Ned Scott 08:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • remains optional, of course, though I would support making it obligatory if we also made notification of speedy and prod and and obligatory. Same principle. DGG (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree with DGG here. There is not and never has been a requirement to petition the deleting admin before bringing a case here for review. It is courteous to do so and can solve many problems more efficiently and with less rancor than a formal review but it is not mandatory. Proposals to make it mandatory have failed (and, I suspect, will continue to fail because of the chilling effect they have on discussions). If you want to make it policy, let's take it to Talk and stop harassing every new nominator over what is really a fairly minor civility infraction. Rossami (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did try to open a discussion with the admin, I made a mistake (there seemed to be 2 people who deleted it) and was told to directly open discussion here. You can see the conversation in section5 of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nexusb Nexusb (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Second AfD had no !votes other than nom, could be relisted without harm but I don't see notability myself. I note that the same user who requested review, created both deleted versions and has few other contributions to the project, which always raises red flags for me. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The article appears well written and sourced, but it's notability is questionable. It was also previously deleted in 2007, and while the article may have undergone a rewrite since then, it fails WP:BIO as it's notability is still negligible. However, I would support a relist to gain more consensus, as on both AfD's it received little discussion, and it's deletion was perhaps a little hasty. Jезка (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I make no comment on the subject's notability, but the second AfD was closed with indecent haste, no opinions other than the nominator's, and no vague suggestion of consensus. The outcome of an AfD 8 months earlier, with changes since, isn't an excuse. On that basis alone, the article should be restored and the AfD re-opened. If it's notable or not, let's look at that issue and act afterwards, not pre-emptively.
  I have great concerns about this admin's (user:Orangemike's) judgement and their repeated over-hasty actions re: deletion. 8-( This is a regular occurence for this admin (User_talk:Orangemike#Portishead Town Band and User_talk:Orangemike#Lanner and District Silver Band to name but two this week).
  Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked down the last 500 deletions in his log, most are still redlinks and rightly so. Feel free to do the same and consider an RfC if you think the delete finger is a bit trigger happy, but this looks like a fairly routine pattern for someone who works the CSD queues - newpages and RC patrollers are sometimes a bit quick off the mark, and the bluelinks I reviewed in his deletion log look to be at the margins at best. Do please try to assume good faith and believe that he may not be an evil deletionist tyrant after all. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy to AGF, but there are too many articles getting hit through speedy when it's not CSD (an assertion of notability is sufficient) and also (and most importantly) a repeated pattern of WP:BITE when new editors are saving an early incomplete draft of an article and having the whole lot speedied as a result. There are better ways to handle this, particularly around new editors. AGF works both ways. No-one has a problem over chasing trolls out with a mop, but my concern is over the repeated slapping of new editors and the loss of talent this represents. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The assertion has to be at least vaguely credible, mind. One does become slightly cynical over time. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, closed too early. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn closure and relist. I concur with Stifle. The deleted article had been sufficiently changed that the page did not qualify under CSD G4 (reposted content) and a second AfD was required. The premature closure of the second AfD was unjustified. Rossami (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Too different to quality under G4 and second AFD was not given any chance. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I have boldly undeleted this and sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Edlington (2nd nomination). During my Googling I noted that Bernard Edlington's company is called Nexus, and the WP:SPA who has been trying for a year or more to get an article on Edlington is Nexusb, which rather strongly implies a conflict of interest. I have noted this. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Battlefield UAVs (2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Housekeeping request. Content was moved into other articles, then article was deleted, which would make this a WP:Merge and delete, which breaks compliance with GFDL. Requesting that it be undeleted and turned into a redirect to History of unmanned aerial vehicles. Father Goose (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history at History of unmanned aerial vehicles doesn't seem to indicate that it was merged there (edits around September 28, 2006 are about where to look) but elsewhere. So, I'm rather confused about this. Happily will !vote undelete and redirect, however. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and redirect seems pretty straight forward. -- Ned Scott 08:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Done. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]