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

This page was deleted at AFD yesterday. After all the delete opinions had been made I posted a keep opinion with two new sources which I believe provide significant coverage in reliable sources thus establishing notability per WP:BIO. Notability and WP:BIO were quoted by those who argued for deletion and in my view this addressed their concerns. However nobody commented after I produced those two sources and the AFD was subsequently closed as Delete. I think this decision should be overturned and the article relisted on AFD to allow the sources I produced to be considered. I think it very unlikely that those who argued for deletion saw the sources I added and the closing admin should have at least relisted the AFD to allow more people to consider those sources. Davewild (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Total no brainer. Overturn and relist per nom. This is so obvious that I almost just went ahead and did it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist per nom _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 23:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. The opportunity should be afforded for fuller consideration of the new sources. I would add that it would it have been better if the closing admin had provided reasoning for the close. Smile a While (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. I'm a little surprised that the closer hasn't done this already. HiDrNick! 12:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. As neither the closer nor anyone else says otherwise. DGG (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Here's another one. Vic's Sports Illustrated biography. Vic's job change is headline news. Another headline for Vic the Brick. JohnABerring27A (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Vic's headlines listed at AfD Job move headline, Vic's career bouncing back. JohnABerring27A (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is clearly notable (as defined by Wikipedia, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable", as it has 16 links to news articles in reliabile, secondary sources that are independent (Kansas City Business Journal, etc.). In the first AfD (even though that article only had 6 sources, here is the link to the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriel_Murphy_1st_nom). On the second AfD, the article was nominated not for deletion, but as a redirect and marge into aplus.net (an article that no longer exists). The discussion on the merge and redirect is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_2. Now that the aplus.net article is gone, and given the fact that the article is clearly notable, it should be created. LakeBoater (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn This article clearly establishes notability and should be included in Wikipedia. The first AfD shows a keep, even though that article had much fewer sources than the present article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.132.152 (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How are users suppose to comment/vote on this without having the ability to read the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LakeBoater (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy deletion, restore the redirect. Rationale R1 no longer valid, since the Aplus.Net article now exists again. (I restored it, since it was deleted for an expired WP:PROD.) Redirect should be restored. —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added a "hangon" to the Gabriel Murphy page today as I was concerned that the speedy tag failed to mention the "Keep" AfD, as had the "delete" AfD (which was linked from the speedy template) - so editors were deprived of the whole story of the article's history at AfD. It is disappointing that an admin decided to proceed with the speedy deletion and then to salt the page without making any apparent effort to address this omission, or to communicate with me, or apparently to communicate with the article's creator (who also was not informed of the speedy tag, until I did so). DuncanHill (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The old "keep" AfD is irrelevant, since it was a prior AfD. The most recent AfD—which is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Murphy (while the old is /Gabriel Murphy 1st nom)—had a result of delete. Instead of deleting the page outright, it was turned into a redirect, which is a reasonable outcome. —C.Fred (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have previously been told by an admin that previous XfD's ARE relevant, as establishing a pre-existing consensus which would have to be overturned. I do think that the latest AfD should have mentioned the previous, just as the Speedy template should have included the link to the earlier one (the template does, I believe, have the ability to do this). A redirect may well be appropriate - deletion and salting was not. DuncanHill (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Request for clarification from the requester. Which deletion is being contested here? There are three:

1. The closure of the most recent AfD as delete (and redirect to Aplus.Net).
2. The speedy deletion (G8) of the redirect to Aplus.Net.
3. The speedy deletion (G4) of the new version of the article.

It's becoming less clear what the requester is trying to accomplish. IMHO, the status quo is achieved, since the Aplus.Net article is back. If the requester is trying to create a new article about Murphy, that's another matter entirely, and not what my comments address. —C.Fred (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The requester (not me) is requesting that the most recent version be restored. I think that is clear from his post at the start of this review. DuncanHill (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm coming to realize. Hence I've removed my !vote until I look at deleted versions some more. —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion of article; keep redirect only. Whichever of #1 or #3 off my list applies, I endorse the deletion. (#2 has already been overturned; I recreated the redirect, but that's not really the issue here.) Yes, the previous AfD was omitted in the most recent AfD, but I do not think that's a fatal flaw that would require relisting. I've also reviewed the most recent deleted version of the article, and I do not feel it introduces enough new assertions of notability as to make it different from the old version, so the speedy deletion as recreation of material deleted by XfD still applies. If one of the editors would like that version restored to userspace to work on, I think that's a reasonable accomodation; however, I don't think the article is ready for mainspace yet. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi C.Fred. I was hoping you might withold your vote until the article is re-written. I started re-writing the article from its previous version but it was deleted no sooner than I can start my edits. I just need an opportunity to add to the article and to understand exactly what threashold for inclusion in Wikipedia the article current does not meet.LakeBoater (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution, then, is to restore the most recent version of the article into a user page (i.e., User:LakeBoater/Gabriel Murphy), so you can work on it there until it's finished? —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with that C.Fred. I just want to add to the article (I am assume that is what needs to occur) so that it can/wil be included in Wikipedia. Can you or someone tell me what the criteria for inclusion that the article is not meeting? Thanks for your help. I will have the article completed later and I will message you on your talk page to let you know when it is done.LakeBoater (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As DuncanHill (talk) pointed out, I am trying to restore the article to its previous version. I admit that I am new to Wikipedia, but I am trying to follow the rules of inclusion for the article. As far as I can tell, the only inclusion criteria is notability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N). According to Wikipedia, there are 4 criteria for notabile sources. Without reciting the article, I have a hard time understanding how the previous version of "Gabriel Murphy" does not meet the notability bar for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have asked for clarification on this point without any response. I have additional edits I would like to make to the article with additional sources (The Kansas City Star, BusinessWire, Inc. Magazine) but cannot with the protection in place. I am asking that the article be allowed to be edited/re-written from the most recent version so everyone can then consider whether the article achieves notability (which I think it clearly already does based on its 16 referenced sources). Please let me know if you have any other questions.LakeBoater (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but no, we shouldn't undelete this. The most recent AfD] was clearly delete and was already endorsed on June 2nd. If you'd like to attempt to write a better version, feel free, but I'm afraid that it's been well established that the previous versions shouldn't be here. We can userfy a version for you, if you'd like. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello Lifebaka, the previous version that you refer to as the most recently AfD was actually the first AfD and was a much much different version of the article in question (unfortunately I do not think there is a way to verify this). No one can tell me simply what criteria for inclusion in Wikipeida this article fails to meet. Perhaps you can tell me? And yes, I would appreciate being able to add to the article, but I have no idea how userfy works as I am new to Wikipedia.LakeBoater (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication means that an admin will restore the article to your user space (probably at User:LakeBoater/Gabriel Murphy) in order for you to work on the article to make it comply with WP:BIO. Once you have done that you should bring the userfied version back to Deletion Review for that version to be considered. Depending on how improved the article is it would then either be restored to mainspace, sent back to AFD for another discussion or would stay deleted if people felt it had not improved sufficiently. Davewild (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the text has been userfied, I'm closing the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titans (Crash of the Titans) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The last comment in the discussion this time was further evidence of an effort to revise the article. On a project without a deadline, we cannot just arbitrarily decide enough time was given. Therefore, I request that you relist or close as "no consensus". Based on the discussion someone other than me was also attempt to revise the article. There is no pressing need to hurry up and delete articles when editors are actively trying to address the nominator's concerns. We should show those editors respect and give them a chance to see what they can do; we aren't so beholden to an AfD deadline, especially when someone new comes along beyond me and is trying to do so. It'd be one thing if I was the only person who argued these articles should be kept or who was trying to improve them. If AfD was a vote and not a discussion, then okay, but if we look at the AfD as a discussion and not a vote, we'll see that while the first few days of the discussion were indeed moving toward a delete consensus, that began to change on June 19th. After I posted indicating that I had revised the article with "Update: Article has been revised during the discussion. Please note nominated version versus current version and that such revisions are still ongoing. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)", two editors in a row argued to keep, the next delete was from an account whom I don't believe I have ever seen argue to keep across scores of AfDs and who was sanctioned by ArbCom for controversial edits regarding trying to delete fictional character articles, then another keep argument, etc. In fact, Stormie, who had argued earlier to delete then said, "The "Creation" paragraph would be a quite reasonable one to merge into Crash of the Titans." A Link to the Past who argued with obvious conviction throughout the discussion to delete then said, "I strongly suggest Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles save the Creation section." And the final comment in the AfD was from someone in effect arguing to keep, who like me was actively working to address the others' concerns. So, if we approach the AfD as a discussion and not a vote, then we see that the discussion did start to see some value in the article or at least aspects of the article and that I was at the end of it not alone in trying to save the article. Even some who argued to delete, started to go in "merge" territory, which if we did that per the GFDL (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete), we would restore the article, merge, and redirect, but not keep it deleted. It's not as if I think all game articles are notable. Please note my stances at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog. But in the case of the Titans, I and at least one other were really trying to address others' concerns and at a certain point, editors did start to see some value in these edits and thus what we had was consensus to delete the nominated version of the article, but a shift in consensus once the improvements, which were still ongoing, started to show some promise. I think it significant to note when more than one who argued to delete starts to think maybe we can at least merge some of it now (plus even before then, you did have at least two editors also suggest merging). Even the second to last delete saying "it easily be summed up within any relevant articles" sounds more a case for redirecting than outright deleting. So, again, please consider the change in course in the discussion and how it concludes as where the consensus was. Yes, consensus was to delete the nominated version, but there was no consensus in the end to delete the revised version that was planned to be revised further, especially when some of those who previously argued to delete started to suggest merging or saving some of the new material. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Endorse my own closure. My talk page already has extensive coverage of this closure. Consensus is judged by strength of argument against sources not head count or assertions of improvement. The article has been tagged for sources for months. The article was nominated on the basis that it was unsourced and thereby failed to demonstrate real world notability and, at the end of this discussion, we were still awaiting multiple sources to demonstrate real world notability. All that Le Gran Roi des Citrouilles needs to do to get the article undeleted is demonstrate the multiple sources that will establish real world notability. Bringing t here instead of providing the sources is just further pointy abuse of the DRV process. by this user. Am I the only one getting tired of this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus shifted once the article started being improved. Even two of those who argued to delete then started to say to merge at least some instead. At the end of the discussion sources were being added by myself and another was also working to improve the article. And at that point the new posts were increasingly arguments to keep or merge. Saying "speedy endorse" is just further pointed abuse of responses of the DRV process by the above user. I am indeed getting tired of unreasonableness in closing AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources??? How do you propose to improve the article without sources without engaging in original research? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, the section on creation was sourced with something other than the game or a strategy guide (I suppose it would be easier for any non-admin if you restored the article and I can point directly to the section) and that section especially influenced others in the discussion to suggest a merge at least, i.e. such comments as [1] and [2] by those who had earlier argued to delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Ok I have restored the last revision and here are the sources provided:

1. ^ (2007) Crash of the Titans Inverview http://hpzr.freeweb7.com/interviewtitans.htm (in English).

• Primary source and mostly about the game. Hopeless for establishing real world notability for the titans

1. ^ (2007) Crash of the Titans Interview http://hpzr.freeweb7.com/ (in English).

• Ditto

1. ^ Jon Jordan, "Talking Crash of the Titans DS, PSP and GBA with Radical Entertainment: Six gamemakers spill the beans on next Crash Bandicoot," Pocket Gamer (15/8/2007).

• Appears to be game review. Limited application for establishing real world notability for the characters.

1. ^ Crash of the Titans The information contained within this page comes from the events that happen within the game.

• Self-referential. Hopeless for establishing real world notability.

1. ^ Crash of the Titans "You'd think he was a really fast hedgehog or something." Ratnician.

• This made no sense.

1. ^ Michael Pereira, "Crash of the Titans Review," IGN (October 17, 2007).

• game review so not going to establish real world notability for the characters

1. ^ Kravenous (2007). Crash of the Titans http://kravenous.deviantart.com/art/Crash-Foxfeather-65332639.

• Screen capture or self made image of a character. Hopeless for establishing real world sources.

1. ^ Crash of the Titans Crash: *Babbles* Aku: Oh, him. Yeah. Umm...leave him here, I guess. He seems OK. Yuktopus: *Looks up and grunts* http://youtube.com/watch?v=xPFt6MDFX-w.

• My fave - a copyvio of in game footage. Hopeless for establishing real world notability for the characters.

• This is really tiring and time wasting. I will always restore any article I deleted if there is proper sourcing for an article. But there is nothing secondary here that does not discuss the characters in a non-trivial way that is incidental to the game and we already have an article on the game don't we?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think it is a waste of time, then why continue to comment? In any event, why not compromise with those at the end of the discussion and merge and redirect then? I am never opposed to fair compromises? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - admin took a contentious discussion (made more contentious by the carpet-bombing haranguing strategy of LGRC) and made a proper interpretation. And no, the closing admin is not the only one grown weary of LGRC's tactics. Otto4711 (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really think such comments help? And if that's the route you want to take, then keep in mind that plenty of editors have grown weary of your persistent incivility: [3], [4],[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, you're a scary fellow. How much time did you spend poring through old revisions of my talk page to find all of those? Otto4711 (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Halloween is my favorite holiday... Anyway, though, the thing that gets me with overly defensive "endorse deletion" comments or claims as if starting a deletion review for a discussion that was hardly unanimous are when those making them have no problem challenging admins who closed AfDs as "no consensus" and "keep" and just keep trying to get articles deleted a la Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Mansfield in popular culture (2nd nomination) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Fight Night 12 (2nd nomination). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing Admin: please note that the last revision was undeleted for the deletion review. please redelete if the result is to endorse. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as a list I figured sourcing could be left to parent article. And length then comes into play for daughter articles. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I don;t know how it will go, but another discussion would be appropriate, for the improvements at the end of the discussion were not taken into account in the close. Whether they are enough to change the result this time around, I don't know; we have a good way of finding out, though. I don't think it's clear-cut enough to simply overturn. DGG (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion, Spartaz correctly interpreted the near-unanimous consensus. And I strongly object to LGRdC's suggestion that my statement that one paragraph of the article was useful content which could be used elsewhere is some sort of change of heart away from my initial delete vote. I stand entirely by my opinion that this article was "pure game guide material with no evidence nor even assertion of real-world notability," and I believe that there is strong precedent that such articles are not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Stormie (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • p.s. saving the "Creation" paragraph by no means creates any sort of GFDL entanglement - that entire section was written by you (admins can see it in this deleted edit), it can be (and probably should be) inserted into the Crash of the Titans article and attributed to you. --Stormie (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem there is that I can't do that as I am not an admin and can't see that section. Please note that I had not re-seen the AfD in time after the other editor said I should save it. I only notice that after the AfD was closed and the article deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, closing admin admits to making the decision based on "strength of arguments" rather than assessment of numbers, which in my view invalidates the decision. Everyking (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on Everyking, as such a long-time contributor and former administrator, surely you know that AfD is not a vote, and have read Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." Spartaz did precisely what an administrator is supposed to do in closing an AfD discussion. --Stormie (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am aware of these notions and I have always rejected them completely. You can't evaluate consensus by considering arguments, because consensus reflects the will of a group. Consensus means that people agree. It has nothing to do with who has the better argument per se—weighing arguments is what voters should be doing, not closing admins. Everyking (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What an amazing rational for overturning an AFD close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. AfD was closed in keeping with the spirit and letter of the guidelines. Relisting is not a necessary remedy here, although if an editor would like to take it into his user space to work on it, I would be open to later consideration of whether an improved article is sufficiently different to warrant inclusion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think at a minimum, I would at least request userfication. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. The close clearly reflects the consensus demonstrated in the AfD. There's really very little to discuss here. HiDrNick! 11:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot to discuss, because the actual consensus at the end of the discussion was to keep or merge due to the improvements. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Actual consensus" was not based on policy, nor was it even anything close to "actual consensus" even if it was. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The actual consensus was indeed based on policy and was to keep or merge. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nuh-uh! HiDrNick! 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please take these discussions seriously. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Not even close to controversial, nor do the objections make much sense. And no, I don't need or want an instant rebuttal from LGRDC, thankyouverymuch. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's controversial, because the discussion ended with a different consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Controversial ≠ that you didn't get the outcome you wanted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not about the outcome I wanted, it's about where the discussion ended and it ended with an increasing move toward keeping or merging. I see no reason why it would be a problem to as a fair compromise merge the material that two users suggested be merged and then redirect the article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPod touch Fans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Community members had created versions of article that were incomplete and were deleted. Article was being reworked using external references and highlighting notable contributions of the site members, and some of this information had already been added immediately before deletion. The site has a larger userbase and is more notable for its contributions than site TUAW for example, which has an entry. Thank you for your time in reviewing this request. Cruelio1998 (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest working on the article in User space until it's complete and fully cited. Are you requesting a restore of the deleted version to your user space? —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion No non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. The PCWorld reference doesn't even mention the forum; the ArsTechnica link mentions it once in regards to the location of a hack post. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, utterly non-notable website. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Be careful of using "other stuff exists" as an argument. I have listed TUAW for speedy deletion. swaq 15:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

An admin wrongly closed the latest afd not even 24 hours after it was started. This is just wrong. Overturn closing of latest AfD. GreenJoe 00:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer - the previous AfD had closed hardly 24 hours before this renomination and hardly hours before related discussion had allowed for the article to be restored and reworked. I fail to see how my closing this rapid renomination is any more "wrong" than the rapid renomination itself. Shereth 00:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Given that the 3rd nomination was within 24 hours of the 2nd closing, given the outcome of the 2nd, and given the minimal rationale given for the nomination—with no expansion from the second—the speedy close is warranted. (If anything, it could be argued that the correct closure of the 3rd AfD should have been speedy keep under criterion 2.iv.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson (2nd nomination), endorse speedy closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson (3rd nomination) as frivolous and disruptive. The merge & redirect to Ottawa municipal election, 2003 is an appropriate course of action for a WP:BLP1E "biography" such as this. --Stormie (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold on - this is only here because someone reverted the merge saying the 2nd afd didn't count in that sense. So the 3rd AFD was entirely justified. I'll be AFDing it, if it's not merged at the end of this process. --Killerofcruft (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother reading the discussion on the talk page? The user in question discussed it with me prior to reverting the merge and I consented to doing so, pursuant to a subsequent discussion. Anyone taking the time to actually read what's going on would have realized this was not an out-of-the-blue action on the part of one editor. Shereth 03:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it is the closing admin's prerogative to revisit a decision. In fact, that's the recommended first line of action (as in, before taking an issue to DRV). What's missing is documentation on the 2nd AfD that it happened. —C.Fred (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, C.Fred. I learned a lot with this AfD. I had been inclined to go to DRV directly, but then read the Deletion Review material and noticed the recommendation. "Why not? No hurry!" I thought, so I dropped a request for reconsideration on Shereth's Talk. He didn't agree at first, but I, again carefully and noting what agreement I could find (which was quite a bit, his decision was a decent one if one did not have all the information and few administrators have the time to do hours of research to become fully informed, I explained the situation in more detail and stated that I wanted to avoid going to Deletion Review, which was true. Big hassle for everyone. I had no idea that GreenJoe would take it so hard. I didn't have any personal attachment to this article, I just happened to be in position at the time. Anyway, it worked. Shereth agreed to a "compromise," which was actually everything I was asking for: essentially considering the AfD to have been No Consensus rather than a binding Merge. Deletion was never really an option for this article, there was too much reliable source. Merge seemed like a good compromise, but was problematic because dumping all the sourced biographical material on Upson on Ottawa municipal election, 2003 was too much for that article, and nobody had consulted the editors of that article, who were not necessarily watching Donna Upson. This process was, for me, a good example of how Wikipedia is supposed to work, by editors seeking consensus.--Abd (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Personally I would have prefered for the 3rd AFD to continue as I think with the new evidence found by Abd it would have ended as a clear keep. However given that the previous AFD only finished 24 hours before I can understand the decision. Lets give the article a bit of time to see how it is improved and then it can be renominated if someone still feels it is required. Davewild (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The 3rd AfD was clearly premature. There was no point in further discussion at this time. I think, ever, but Shereth was correct that those who oppose keeping this article should eventually have their opportunity to continue tilting at windmills. Yes, I, likewise, would have preferred a clear Keep close, but it seems we might have that already, in fact if not technically. --Abd (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, repeated nominations in such close succession strain my assumption that there is a good reason for them. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Renominating an article barely 24 hours after a no-consensus closure of the previous nomination, without expanding on the nomination rationale at all, is never appropriate in the first place — and especially not when people have explicitly indicated on the article's talk page that they're currently researching to see if additional sources can be found. If you want to renominate after a no-consensus result, you need to provide a stronger rationale rather than simply copying and pasting the same deletion rationale you used the previous time, and a cooling-off period is generally a good idea too. WP:POINT pertains here. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment GreenJoe retired in disgust over this, after edit warring with Shereth over the 3rd AfD and notices to the article, with a comment that indicated very strong attachment to deleting the article no matter what. Meanwhile, I did start to improve the article; help will be appreciated. I have a list of sources at User:Abd/Donna Upson; many of them are just a sentence or two from articles that would contain much more information if the whole article could be read: perhaps some of our Canadian users would have access to content or to libraries with full text. (Some of what I have on that user page are not, in themselves, reliable sources, but quote reliable sources, so they have been quite useful in finding such. Lots of links are dead, because once-public content has become pay content.) I think that many earlier Delete voters assumed that there wasn't more RS; in fact, there is plenty of it. --Abd (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please apply WP:AGF here - GreenJoe did not engage in an edit war, he reverted the closure a single time. It is also probably best not to try and characterize his motives for trying to get the article deleted. Cheers, Shereth 21:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd respectfully disagree. I haven't stated his motive here, but it's apparent from his parting comment, [27]. As to edit warring, a single revert, in the context, is arguably edit warring, and is sometimes treated so, particularly when done without discussion. With [28], GreenJoe reverted Shereth's speedy closure of WP:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson (3rd nomination) (the topic of this Deletion Review). The key is that it was done without discussion. And that was generally true of GreenJoe's contentious actions; there was little or no discussion, and the edits were accompanied by cryptic edit summaries, not uncommonly uncivil, see:[29] where he reverts my unblanking of Donna Upson pursuant to agreement found with the closing administrator for WP:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson (2nd nomination) with the edit summary of "rvv." I.e., "reverted vandalism," and then, finally, he does reply in Talk (everything I was doing had been explained in Talk), with [30]. The edit summary for this was "reply to moron," and the edit content was "SHE IS NOT NOTABLE." In fact, the AfD had decided on Merge, and no AfD for this woman ever concluded she was not notable, the only real question was whether or not she was sufficiently notable for her own article ("Keep") or only for mention in Ottawa municipal election, 2003. (To be fair, GreenJoe then reverted his reblanking of the article to restore it and add the new AfD notice to it.)

My interest in this is primarily how a long-time editor like GreenJoe could end up being so ... what would you call it? What leads an editor to essentially flame out like that? I'd say he was isolated, he didn't have a community aware of what he was doing, people he trusted, who would have been able to counsel him that he was losing it, and perhaps encourage him to relax. I wrote a review of what had happened with him that I put on his Talk page after his "retirement," he reverted it (which is certainly his right) with the summary "Violated rules" which is iffy but still not a big problem in itself. I put it on my own Talk if anyone is interested: [31]. He was burning out, he'd acknowledged the stress at one point.

Shereth, I know you are attempting to be as even-handed as possible with this, which is noble particularly considering how GreenJoe responded to you, but you did warn him that if he repeated his action (that is, reverted you again), it would be considered "a disruptive edit," and the difference between this and "edit warring" is academic. All this has only a little to do with this Deletion Review, and it would have even less to do with it if continued, so I don't plan to reply again here. If someone thinks my behavior improper, by all means, warn me on my Talk page. I take warnings seriously, always. Doesn't mean that I always comply, but I don't lightly disregard the opinions of other editors. Meanwhile, is that snow I notice falling here? Is there a reason to keep this open? The nominator retired, never did give a good reason to overturn, and nobody else has !voted to overturn a clearly decent decision that doesn't prejudice future AfDs. --Abd (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]