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

Has now played in the 3. Liga, a fully professional league [1]. Also applies to Georg Niedermeier, Holger Badstuber and Deniz Yilmaz. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M.I.A. (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

was kept after a weak Afd, based on it allegedly meeting two criteria of WP:Band, however the article in its current state does not establish notability with mostly primary sources used. It has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Simply appearing on a few compillations, and amg does not make a band notable. Even after clean up, external links (not satisfyling WP:RS) provided mention a member, not about the band or their achievements. It fails many criteria for WP:Band and I think a review needs more wide ranging editors' views. ShimShem (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have the wrong forum. If you feel the article should be deleted then feel free to renominate it at AFD as the previous AFD was six months ago. Davewild (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thanks. ShimShem (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A notable wiki listed on Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, also studied by a scholar in comparison to Wikipedia (mainly on POV and OR policies) --RekishiEJ (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 22:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC) fix[reply]

• Overturn and find a way of preventing further nominations. The first AfD closed as an "obvious keep" in 2006, the 2nd as "keep", the 3rd as "no consensus" , the 4th as "keep", the 5th as "keep" in Sept 2007 by Xoloz, whoproperly said also "Further nominations are discouraged, absent new information, or new arguments." (bold face as in original). Sure, consensus can change, but it looks like a poster child for the practice of nominating repeatedly until it happens to get deleted. If AfDs have, say , an 80% accuracy, 5 tries gives a 66% chance of deleting any article. Abusive nomination in the first place. See my comment there, and that by Nhprman, who called it "Trial until guilty". I note no new arguments were presented, only the old ones, with a different group of debaters, and a different evaluation by the closer, who preferred one argument to another. (He had not yet been notified, so I did so just now.) DGG (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, strictly speaking it'd only give an 80% chance, since in order for there to be 5 AfDs the first four would have to be either keep or no consensus (usually, at least), but the point stands that WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED is bad. (take this to be playful hole-poking in your argument :P) lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per DGG and previous AfDs.--ragesoss (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have corrected the AfD link above to the correct 6th nomination. --Bduke (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's Comment - any vote count is fraught with peril, as canvassing took place at Wikinfo. The discussion is pretty clear - Wikinfo fails every notability guideline or policy, as every mention of it is trivial (~1 sentence, in contexts not about Wikinfo) and this wasn't really denied, only "Abusive nomination" which was not evidenced (or really explained). Straightforward delete. Past naval gasing is not really an excuse, and six nominations is not near the historical maximums (GNAA was ~20, for instance, and eventually (and correctly) deleted). WilyD 03:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Checking the votecount anyhow, it's ~28-18 for delete, ignoring the problematic canvassing of keep votes. WilyD 14:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article isn't actually deleted, it was userfied to User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo, with the full history. -- Ned Scott 10:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted we have repeatedly ignored notability guidelines that we enforce rigorously elsewhere for topics that have some relation to Wikipedia. The number of AfDs is high, but for the early ones arguments included "it's a fork of a notable project" which don't pass the current notability guidelines. For several of the discussions people just said "keep per the previous AfDs" without discussing the merits of the article, and one of them wasn't even closed as Keep. Nobody has still addressed the problem that there is no non-trivial coverage in sources. Hut 8.5 12:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted policy was finally applied... no new evidence provided here. With the logic of some people in this thread we'd still be providing free webhosting to people like GNAA. Sometimes it takes multiple AFDs to get past the anti-policy lobbyists. --Rividian (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one could just as well say that "sometimes it takes multiple deletes" to get past the people with reasonable notions of interpreting the notability guidelinesDGG (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying we have reasonable notions of the notability guidelines? I'm flattered but think you probably meant "unreasonable notions". At any rate, it's not really true... an article that is deleted once at AFD for notability/sourcing reasons tends to stay deleted until sources are found. See ED which was undeleted once sources were found (and I argued for that undeletion) verses GNAA which stays deleted because no sources have been found. For WikInfo to be undeleted, better sources will need to be found. --Rividian (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously I do think that my interpretation of everything is the most reasonable one, and everyone ought to agree with it --as presumably everyone else her things about their own opinions. The people who either do not know what they think or do not care are probably not joining in the discussion. But more seriously, of course I recognize there is a disagreement about the notability of most types of things, and that my view is not always representative (that's why I never close disputed AfDs, by the way; I will argue for my views but not try to impose them.) The overall consensus at multiple AfDs is likely to be more correct than at any single one of them. If the 4 keeps had been followed by a non-consensus, followed by this delete, I would be arguing a little differently, because consensus might be changing. But the sequence is keep-keep-no c.-keep-keep before the delete, with the last keep a specific recommendation not to bring it to AfD again on the same evidence.DGG (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It seems this nomination is requesting AfD2, in that their argument is invalid for DRV; there is no argument for improper closure, and it certainly appears (although I grant I cannot read the article) that WilyD (talk · contribs) took all arguments and their weight into due consideration. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, article is avaible here: User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo with only extremely small modifications (mostly, removal of logo as unfree in userspace and delinking of categories). WilyD 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WilyD brought this same notification to my talk page; I saw it above, but neurons misfired and I didn't make that connection. Thanks. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can one talk about "AfD2" in the circumstances. This was AfD 6, and the count was 4 keep to 1 no consensus to 1 delete. The delete happens to be the latest. The system is biased towards deletion. If you dont like AfD2s, support a proposal to require a deletion review before even trying an AfD2 after a keep as well as after a delete. I'll be glad to join. DGG (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, I believe that he means the point of the DRV is to conduct a new argument, not to examine my closure of AfD6 - i.e. this is AfD6.2 not DRV. Of course, if new information has come to light, it makes sense to examine it and see if the closure was based on incomplete information (but I see no evidence of this). WilyD 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I may, in my argument above "AfD2" = "the AfD process again". Sorry for that confusion.

      A DRV is for when procedural or administrative mistakes have been made (iirc), and this nomination reads like a request for an AfD argument again as opposed to an examination of procedure. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • DRVs are also appropriate if you believe new evidence has been uncovered (for instance, if you could dig up nontrivial sources, a DRV would be appropriate here) although its recommended you ask the closing admin first. WilyD 00:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As much as I like reading the site, being a fork or somehow related to/of Wikipedia doesn't give any special homework credit for notability standards. All it needs is a handful of extra sources to be recreated. Shouldn't be hard with some research to track down, but its not ready yet. rootology (T) 14:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Consensus for deletion in AFD6 is clear. Should significant coverage in independent and reliable sources ever be published (i.e. coverage about this subject, not merely mentioning it in passing) it will be time to revisit. GRBerry 14:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure how I feel when it comes to the page being in the mainspace or not, but I should point out that we can still link to Wikinfo (both directly and to the non-article space page). It shouldn't be much of an issue in regards to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets (where I've already corrected the link), or even for an EL link in some articles, should a Wikinfo version be different and evaluated as a good EL. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The interwiki link for Wikinfo is [[Wikinfo:, in case anyone was wondering. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - closure was entirely competent. PhilKnight (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. No procedural issues within the purview of DRV are raised here. Systemic concerns about repeated AfDs resulting in unmerited deletions belong in a proposal to reform AfD, not here. If the AfD outcome was wrong, one can simply recreate the article with better sources. Moreover, the closure correctly assessed consensus, and no serious argument is made here that it did not.  Sandstein  16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, especially per the convincing argument made by Hut 8.5 and Sandstein. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]