Susan Boyle – Snowball close in favour of keeping. While BLP1E may be applicable (and I argued to delete it per this criterion), it is an editorial question whether Boyle passes BLP1E. Personally, I now think that the reaction across the pond may give her notability beyond this event. – Sceptre ^(talk) 01:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Susan Boyle (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) The following is a truism on Wikipedia: The notability guideline is only a presumption; no matter how many reliable secondary sources are shown to exist, an article still has to meet all other applicable policies in order for it to be allowed to exist here. All relevant policies are up for debate in an Afd, in this case the policy regarding when we include articles on people known for one event (BLP1E for short). The major issue I have with Admin Rootology (talk · contribs)'s closing as keep is that in the Afd, many people made good arguments to merge/delete the article, based on the fact that the notability bar had not been passed to justify a BLP1E type article. He rejected these apparently because: the article is not harmful to a living person, therefore BLP1E was not applicable the article is not solely about a single event, therefore BLP1E was not applicable This was not an accurate reading of the Afd consensus or policy: multiple people were of the opinion that 1E was applicable here, irrespective of harm. Furthermore, the wording and intent of the BLP1E policy is just as much about not giving undue weight to 'fame in the moment' as it is about giving undue weight to harmful news reports. I think this departure from such an established policy is well outside the realms of admin discretion for correct closures. consensus on Point 2 in the Afd looks inconclusive at best, wikilawyering to get around 1E at worst. Combined with the error in point 1, it is not reasonable to accept admin discretion here on deciding the issue of whether consensus was that this was one event or not. A major contributing issue leading to this review is Rootology's opinion that Consensus can change somehow gives users the option of reversing this keep decision if the hype surrounding the article dies down, by putting it up for Afd again in a few months. It does not. If the relevant policies don't change, then a nomination for deletion in 6 months or whatever violates the basic principle that Notability is not temporary. (Did he discount any keep votes of this form'?) Other less important but still worrying issues with this closure were: Rootology's raising of other 1E Afd keeps as 'precedent' (how are they a precedent for interpreting 1E if 1E did not apply here?) Rootology's over weighting of pile on opinions from new users Rootology's rejection of merge as an outcome based on the idea that 'it would only be demerged eventually' (based on what?) Rootology's closing of the debate early, even after its early closure had been hotly disputed MickMacNee (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Closer responses. Hello, I've written extensive responses to this AFD close, as can be seen in their entirety here on my talk page. I posted an even longer explanation of the thought process in the close specifically here and then here. As detailed in the links, I broke down paragraph by paragraph what my close meant, how I came to the conclusion, why I didn't think it was BLP1E, and even how I weighted different factors in my thinking, as seen here. I feel the close was in line with current practice, current normal policy interpretations, and in a pure reading of the consensus of the discussion. rootology (C)(T) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment It is true that in the case of BLP1E, the close needs to go beyond the usual !vote counting since many editors continue to conflate notable news coverage with encyclopedic notability and never seem to tire of pointing to google news counts or all the quality RS that exist to substantiate coverage. We struggled mightily to get the BLP1E in place in order to counter this systematic bias and the inevitable pile-on of keeps from editors who succumb (understandably perhaps) to this kind of conflation. This does seem like a classic 1E issue, the individual's prominently absent pulchritude mitigated by her singing talent being the main storyline here, at least in the British media. Eusebeus (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close the notability guideline is not a policy, as it states, it should be "treated with common sense and the occasional exception". At present the exceptional level of press and public interest in this topic more than justify us making such an exception. As to the BLP policy, the idea that Susan Boyle "essentially remains a low-profile individual" and that we should not therefore have an article on her is, in my opinion, completely risible. Although I agree with some of Rootology's arguments and disagree with others, I'm therefore perfectly happy with his final decision. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Clearly no consensus to delete. WP:BLP1E applies only to people who "are not generally well known", which in the case of this singer is patently no longer the case; also, it is evidently she who is at the center of the coverage, not the singing event. Sandstein 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close: I really don't understand the point of this DRV. Consensus was clear, policy and guidelines were explained, and the closing was extensively documented which clearly justified the closing decision. An essay that comes to mind in this case is: WP:STICK. Let's please put this behind us, and move on to building an encyclopedia. — Ched : ? 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Leave this article alone, and get on with your lives already: I completely disagree with re-opening this ridiculous discussion of deleting this article. It is absurd to delete it. If a few people fail to understand that thousands, if not millions, of people are coming to Wikipedia to read what is already shaping up to be an informative and well-written article, then I don't know what else to say to you.Nightmareishere (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure per WP:STICK. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close: This discussion is a silly waste of time. IP75 (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] 'Endorse closure' Root's closure was improper and his weighting of pile-on keeps horrible and against consensus, but even if properly closed and judged it wouldn't have changed the outcome, so there's no point in producing more drama. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close - per WP:COMMONSENSE. This is just a case that is going to keep going round in circles until the deletionists get their way. It is in the best interests of WP not to let this happen. Jenuk1985 \| Talk 20:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. - I think this is a borderline BLP article and therefore we should lean toward keeping it. We can all see why the article should be deleted as per the guidelines, but we also cannot deny the fact that she caused quite a stir in less than 7 days and that alone probably warrants an article. From past experiences we can also use some common sense, it is obvious that she will release an album or two, and, in time, that will make her notable enough, so why remove an article that will almost certainly have to be re-created later? FFMG (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I don't think BLP1E was ever intended to apply to people who actively sought publicity. The reason for the policy to exist is to prevent individuals' privacy from being invaded when there is no good reason for it. In this case, the subject has actively sought publicity, so I do not feel the policy is relevant. Notability is more than demonstrated by the huge number of reliable sources discussing the subject. Besides, even if BLP1E does apply here, it is worth noting that the requirement as stated there is to cover the event not the person, not to delete the article. In this case, this would be achieved simply by renaming the article to Susan Boyle's performance on Britain's Got Talent, an action which does not require deletion of the article. Some minor rephrasing of the article would be required in consequence, but little if any actual content would need to be deleted. JulesH (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep - article should be kept. This person is quite famous today and will eventually become more famous. Many singers are in Wikipedia. Green Squares (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep applying the ten year test, the massive scale of Miss Boyle's notoriety, however sudden, tells me that ten years from now, there will be a Wikipedia article on her, regardless of what we do today. Dlabtot (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse keep - topic has achieved significant media coverage. Even if some arguments for keeping were weak, notability has been proven now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I would have wanted to delete per 1E had I known about the AFD, but in reading over the discussion, it was clear that consensus was to keep, so endorse closure. --Kbdank71 21:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure: Listen, let's be realistic: if we were talking about a stub here the merge idea might make sense. However at this point (and at the point the AfD was closed) the Susan Boyle article is easily more than three times the size of the Britain's Got Talent (series 3) article into which it would merge. No sooner would that merge take place than someone would holler that there was enough information on Susan Boyle to warrant her being broken off into her own article. That's just the kind of tail-chasing that occurs around here. cf: US Airways Flight 1549 almost immediately spawned the Chesley Sullenberger article. There are 52 references (to date) at the Boyle article and 13 in Britain's Got Talent. A merge in this case doesn't make sense.J. Van Meter (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - There was clearly no consensus to delete, and no consensus defaults to keep. –Juliancolton \| ^Talk 21:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] endorse closure - adaquate notability for talent, not just the one TV appearance. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep Article What is the point of this debate ? Susan Boyle is famous today, she will be famous 10 years from now and she will be famous 20 years from now. Next week, she will be on the Oprah Winfrey show, later this year she will be bringing out her first album. Hollywood Stars, Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher are lining up to meet her. Patti LuPone phoned her. The number of people who have seen her on You Tube and other file sharing video sites is approaching 40 million. Thousands of people come on Wikipedia just to read her article. She easily satisfies all of Wikipedia's notability requirements. This entire debate is a total waste of time and space. Tovojolo (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Are you psychic? Having watched 6 seasons of American Idol, I know that ~~no one~~ very few really find true success on a reality show (a post-show successful singing career is not a guarantee). But these future predictions are clearly off the point. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Not even Jennifer Hudson ? My word, you're a hard man to satisfy. But then American Idol, etc. are not reality shows. They are talent contests. And talent contests have acted as the springboard for many successful showbiz careers. Even without the benefit of psychic powers, I can confidently predict that this will continue to be true. -- Derek Ross \| Talk 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Firstly, let's not assume everyone here is male. Secondly, Jennifer Hudson is more famous for her acting than she is for her singing (name her biggest hit). Susan Boyle has a nice singing voice but not an amazing one, if she looked like Leona Lewis or Kelly Clarkson, she wouldn't have received this attention. But again, I don't want to continue to debate talent or likelihood for success. So let's keep this out of the DRV.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. No foreseeable likelihood for deletion with two more days and the AfD flag on the page under these circumstances must seem odd to the 180,000 (not counting today) visitors - Why is WP deleting an article that I came specifically here to learn about? -hydnjo (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment, with a consensus this clear, I strongly recommend a WP:SNOW close. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. There is an overwhelming consensus in favor of keeping the article, and rightly so. Boyle is a household name in the United States, Britain, and doubtless many other countries around the globe. The videos of her BGT performance that are on YouTube have been viewed a total of over 25 million times. After she appears on the Oprah Winfrey Show, her album is released, and it goes to No. 1 in the United States (as Simon Cowell has predicted, and quite plausibly), she will be even more famous, and hence more notable. She is probably better-known than 99% of the people in Wikipedia. It is crazy that we are even debating this. Get real. Krakatoa (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Are you being sarcastic? -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. Unreal. Unreal. A classic moment in the history of Wikipedia, this. Are you serious? Moncrief (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I voted delete in the AFD because it seems to be the sensible thing to do when you have a biography for a person whose only claim to fame is a single appearance on a talent contest reality tv show. I didn't know who Susan Boyle is until I came across the AFD. But I guess I didn't understand the magnitude of her sudden popularity until now. I would vote keep. Though these comments on how brilliant Boyle is and how she is one of the most famous people who is going to have decades of success is just a mockery of the process. We are not here to debate whether she is so awesome to deserve an article, stick to arguing policy.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. So WP:BLP1E is broke. How about fixing that rather then have a go at this closure. At least the closure here has good clear reasoning. How many closure are given no reasons? Answer:Too many. Endorse closure irrespective of other broken parts of wiki. SunCreator (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. She is now famous and notable. There really is NO argument here. It is not about what one individual editor believes about a topic or an article. The consensus is to close the debate and keep the article is undeniably clear. As someone stated above she is more famous than 99% of the folks that Wikipedia covers right now. End the debate already.--InaMaka (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure Clearly there was no consensus for deletion. What else is there to be said? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure It's crystal clear that there was no consensus to delete. This review stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT--RadioFan (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I think it's pretty clear that any admin wandering by could close this now. WP:SNOW seems pretty obvious, even if it touches on IAR. Me close it? ... naaaa... not with a 10 foot pole. ;) — Ched : ? 23:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] We have to keep the debate up for at least 5 days to give every one a chance to notice and contribute! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close Proper close. MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close per Root's detailed explanation on the AfD. Good close.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close Both sides of the debate had good arguments backed by policy, but when the keep arguments are as backed in policy as the delete arguments are, I think a keep is a natural end-result. Besides, Rootology's extremely well-thought out closure statement explained the reasoning for the keep closure more thoroughly than many closure statements I've seen, so I see no policy-based reason to overturn the closure. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 01:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close; keep article. Subject is clearly notable, not borderline in any way; and there's nothing contentious about the article. SlimVirgin ^{talk\|contribs} 01:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Susan Boyle – Snowball close in favour of keeping. While BLP1E may be applicable (and I argued to delete it per this criterion), it is an editorial question whether Boyle passes BLP1E. Personally, I now think that the reaction across the pond may give her notability beyond this event. – Sceptre ^(talk) 01:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The following is a truism on Wikipedia: The notability guideline is only a presumption; no matter how many reliable secondary sources are shown to exist, an article still has to meet all other applicable policies in order for it to be allowed to exist here. All relevant policies are up for debate in an Afd, in this case the policy regarding when we include articles on people known for one event (BLP1E for short).

The major issue I have with Admin Rootology (talk · contribs)'s closing as keep is that in the Afd, many people made good arguments to merge/delete the article, based on the fact that the notability bar had not been passed to justify a BLP1E type article. He rejected these apparently because:

the article is not harmful to a living person, therefore BLP1E was not applicable
the article is not solely about a single event, therefore BLP1E was not applicable

This was not an accurate reading of the Afd consensus or policy:

multiple people were of the opinion that 1E was applicable here, irrespective of harm. Furthermore, the wording and intent of the BLP1E policy is just as much about not giving undue weight to 'fame in the moment' as it is about giving undue weight to harmful news reports. I think this departure from such an established policy is well outside the realms of admin discretion for correct closures.
consensus on Point 2 in the Afd looks inconclusive at best, wikilawyering to get around 1E at worst. Combined with the error in point 1, it is not reasonable to accept admin discretion here on deciding the issue of whether consensus was that this was one event or not.

A major contributing issue leading to this review is Rootology's opinion that Consensus can change somehow gives users the option of reversing this keep decision if the hype surrounding the article dies down, by putting it up for Afd again in a few months. It does not. If the relevant policies don't change, then a nomination for deletion in 6 months or whatever violates the basic principle that Notability is not temporary. (Did he discount any keep votes of this form'?)

Other less important but still worrying issues with this closure were:

Rootology's raising of other 1E Afd keeps as 'precedent' (how are they a precedent for interpreting 1E if 1E did not apply here?)
Rootology's over weighting of pile on opinions from new users
Rootology's rejection of merge as an outcome based on the idea that 'it would only be demerged eventually' (based on what?)
Rootology's closing of the debate early, even after its early closure had been hotly disputed

MickMacNee (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closer responses. Hello, I've written extensive responses to this AFD close, as can be seen in their entirety here on my talk page. I posted an even longer explanation of the thought process in the close specifically here and then here. As detailed in the links, I broke down paragraph by paragraph what my close meant, how I came to the conclusion, why I didn't think it was BLP1E, and even how I weighted different factors in my thinking, as seen here. I feel the close was in line with current practice, current normal policy interpretations, and in a pure reading of the consensus of the discussion. rootology (C)(T) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is true that in the case of BLP1E, the close needs to go beyond the usual !vote counting since many editors continue to conflate notable news coverage with encyclopedic notability and never seem to tire of pointing to google news counts or all the quality RS that exist to substantiate coverage. We struggled mightily to get the BLP1E in place in order to counter this systematic bias and the inevitable pile-on of keeps from editors who succumb (understandably perhaps) to this kind of conflation. This does seem like a classic 1E issue, the individual's prominently absent pulchritude mitigated by her singing talent being the main storyline here, at least in the British media. Eusebeus (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close the notability guideline is not a policy, as it states, it should be "treated with common sense and the occasional exception". At present the exceptional level of press and public interest in this topic more than justify us making such an exception. As to the BLP policy, the idea that Susan Boyle "essentially remains a low-profile individual" and that we should not therefore have an article on her is, in my opinion, completely risible. Although I agree with some of Rootology's arguments and disagree with others, I'm therefore perfectly happy with his final decision. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Clearly no consensus to delete. WP:BLP1E applies only to people who "are not generally well known", which in the case of this singer is patently no longer the case; also, it is evidently she who is at the center of the coverage, not the singing event. Sandstein 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close: I really don't understand the point of this DRV. Consensus was clear, policy and guidelines were explained, and the closing was extensively documented which clearly justified the closing decision. An essay that comes to mind in this case is: WP:STICK. Let's please put this behind us, and move on to building an encyclopedia. — Ched : ? 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave this article alone, and get on with your lives already: I completely disagree with re-opening this ridiculous discussion of deleting this article. It is absurd to delete it. If a few people fail to understand that thousands, if not millions, of people are coming to Wikipedia to read what is already shaping up to be an informative and well-written article, then I don't know what else to say to you.Nightmareishere (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per WP:STICK. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close: This discussion is a silly waste of time. IP75 (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Endorse closure' Root's closure was improper and his weighting of pile-on keeps horrible and against consensus, but even if properly closed and judged it wouldn't have changed the outcome, so there's no point in producing more drama. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - per WP:COMMONSENSE. This is just a case that is going to keep going round in circles until the deletionists get their way. It is in the best interests of WP not to let this happen. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. - I think this is a borderline BLP article and therefore we should lean toward keeping it. We can all see why the article should be deleted as per the guidelines, but we also cannot deny the fact that she caused quite a stir in less than 7 days and that alone probably warrants an article. From past experiences we can also use some common sense, it is obvious that she will release an album or two, and, in time, that will make her notable enough, so why remove an article that will almost certainly have to be re-created later? FFMG (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't think BLP1E was ever intended to apply to people who actively sought publicity. The reason for the policy to exist is to prevent individuals' privacy from being invaded when there is no good reason for it. In this case, the subject has actively sought publicity, so I do not feel the policy is relevant. Notability is more than demonstrated by the huge number of reliable sources discussing the subject. Besides, even if BLP1E does apply here, it is worth noting that the requirement as stated there is to cover the event not the person, not to delete the article. In this case, this would be achieved simply by renaming the article to Susan Boyle's performance on Britain's Got Talent, an action which does not require deletion of the article. Some minor rephrasing of the article would be required in consequence, but little if any actual content would need to be deleted. JulesH (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article should be kept. This person is quite famous today and will eventually become more famous. Many singers are in Wikipedia. Green Squares (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep applying the ten year test, the massive scale of Miss Boyle's notoriety, however sudden, tells me that ten years from now, there will be a Wikipedia article on her, regardless of what we do today. Dlabtot (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep - topic has achieved significant media coverage. Even if some arguments for keeping were weak, notability has been proven now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have wanted to delete per 1E had I known about the AFD, but in reading over the discussion, it was clear that consensus was to keep, so endorse closure. --Kbdank71 21:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure: Listen, let's be realistic: if we were talking about a stub here the merge idea might make sense. However at this point (and at the point the AfD was closed) the Susan Boyle article is easily more than three times the size of the Britain's Got Talent (series 3) article into which it would merge. No sooner would that merge take place than someone would holler that there was enough information on Susan Boyle to warrant her being broken off into her own article. That's just the kind of tail-chasing that occurs around here. cf: US Airways Flight 1549 almost immediately spawned the Chesley Sullenberger article. There are 52 references (to date) at the Boyle article and 13 in Britain's Got Talent. A merge in this case doesn't make sense.J. Van Meter (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - There was clearly no consensus to delete, and no consensus defaults to keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse closure - adaquate notability for talent, not just the one TV appearance. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article What is the point of this debate ? Susan Boyle is famous today, she will be famous 10 years from now and she will be famous 20 years from now. Next week, she will be on the Oprah Winfrey show, later this year she will be bringing out her first album. Hollywood Stars, Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher are lining up to meet her. Patti LuPone phoned her. The number of people who have seen her on You Tube and other file sharing video sites is approaching 40 million. Thousands of people come on Wikipedia just to read her article. She easily satisfies all of Wikipedia's notability requirements. This entire debate is a total waste of time and space. Tovojolo (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you psychic? Having watched 6 seasons of American Idol, I know that ~~no one~~ very few really find true success on a reality show (a post-show successful singing career is not a guarantee). But these future predictions are clearly off the point. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not even Jennifer Hudson ? My word, you're a hard man to satisfy. But then American Idol, etc. are not reality shows. They are talent contests. And talent contests have acted as the springboard for many successful showbiz careers. Even without the benefit of psychic powers, I can confidently predict that this will continue to be true. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, let's not assume everyone here is male. Secondly, Jennifer Hudson is more famous for her acting than she is for her singing (name her biggest hit). Susan Boyle has a nice singing voice but not an amazing one, if she looked like Leona Lewis or Kelly Clarkson, she wouldn't have received this attention. But again, I don't want to continue to debate talent or likelihood for success. So let's keep this out of the DRV.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. No foreseeable likelihood for deletion with two more days and the AfD flag on the page under these circumstances must seem odd to the 180,000 (not counting today) visitors - Why is WP deleting an article that I came specifically here to learn about? -hydnjo (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, with a consensus this clear, I strongly recommend a WP:SNOW close. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. There is an overwhelming consensus in favor of keeping the article, and rightly so. Boyle is a household name in the United States, Britain, and doubtless many other countries around the globe. The videos of her BGT performance that are on YouTube have been viewed a total of over 25 million times. After she appears on the Oprah Winfrey Show, her album is released, and it goes to No. 1 in the United States (as Simon Cowell has predicted, and quite plausibly), she will be even more famous, and hence more notable. She is probably better-known than 99% of the people in Wikipedia. It is crazy that we are even debating this. Get real. Krakatoa (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being sarcastic? -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. Unreal. Unreal. A classic moment in the history of Wikipedia, this. Are you serious? Moncrief (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I voted delete in the AFD because it seems to be the sensible thing to do when you have a biography for a person whose only claim to fame is a single appearance on a talent contest reality tv show. I didn't know who Susan Boyle is until I came across the AFD. But I guess I didn't understand the magnitude of her sudden popularity until now. I would vote keep. Though these comments on how brilliant Boyle is and how she is one of the most famous people who is going to have decades of success is just a mockery of the process. We are not here to debate whether she is so awesome to deserve an article, stick to arguing policy.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. So WP:BLP1E is broke. How about fixing that rather then have a go at this closure. At least the closure here has good clear reasoning. How many closure are given no reasons? Answer:Too many. Endorse closure irrespective of other broken parts of wiki. SunCreator (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. She is now famous and notable. There really is NO argument here. It is not about what one individual editor believes about a topic or an article. The consensus is to close the debate and keep the article is undeniably clear. As someone stated above she is more famous than 99% of the folks that Wikipedia covers right now. End the debate already.--InaMaka (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Clearly there was no consensus for deletion. What else is there to be said? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure It's crystal clear that there was no consensus to delete. This review stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT--RadioFan (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear that any admin wandering by could close this now. WP:SNOW seems pretty obvious, even if it touches on IAR. Me close it? ... naaaa... not with a 10 foot pole. ;) — Ched : ? 23:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have to keep the debate up for at least 5 days to give every one a chance to notice and contribute! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close Proper close. MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close per Root's detailed explanation on the AfD. Good close.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close Both sides of the debate had good arguments backed by policy, but when the keep arguments are as backed in policy as the delete arguments are, I think a keep is a natural end-result. Besides, Rootology's extremely well-thought out closure statement explained the reasoning for the keep closure more thoroughly than many closure statements I've seen, so I see no policy-based reason to overturn the closure. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 01:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close; keep article. Subject is clearly notable, not borderline in any way; and there's nothing contentious about the article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of unusual personal names and Place names considered unusual – endorse previous closures, but undelete and relist in light of possible change in community consensus on these topics. – Aervanath (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of unusual personal names (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Place names considered unusual (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I'm requesting this review following the outcome of the centralised discussion at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things, the consensus of which was that "lists of unusual things" aren't automatically ineligible for inclusion just by being lists of unusual things. I feel that editors involved in that centralised discussion would like the opportunity to apply the general principles discussed to these two specific pages, which have previously been deleted. Copies of the deleted pages can be found here and here. SP-KP (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted. The central problem with these was that it is arbitrary, POV, and OR to determine that something is "unusual". Lists like this can reasonably be maintained in project space, but that is all. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Undelete pending a new AfD My positions from January etc. regarding such lists in general are fairly clear and remain. The reasons for deletion were, IMHO, deficient at the time and I see no reason not let to others discuss the salient reasons anew. Let the ages get discussed. Collect (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn So long as such lists rely upon other sources that note that something is "unusual", it is not the author's POV. Authors like H.L. Mencken or Mario Pei or Christopher Andersen have written about the subject. Ideally, a person consulting the article would be directed to those other sources. Mandsford (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn List of unusual personal names: restore it. It is frivolous and unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia, arbitrary, POV and OR. All those things. But the sheer size, the number of contributors and the number of page views (22,285 in December 2008) show that people love it. It does no harm (well, the odd entry may have to be removed if offensive) and may do a lot of good in drawing people into Wikipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Place names considered unusual: same argument as above, but it did not get many hits. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, allow a month or two for improvement and expansion of the place names article, and reconsideration of the items and rationales and sourcing of individual items in the personal name article, and then if anyone wants to nominate for afd we will see what the current consensus is. (not that I think the closers of the last AfDs necessarily read that right, even then)DGG (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - good close per our injunction against arbitrary and OR content. Eusebeus (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I'm not at all sure the consensus of that centralised discussion really supports the recreation of these articles, and I certainly can't see anything wrong with the closes.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse what's unusual is dependent on what's usual and in the eye of the beholder (SUBJ & OR & POV). Many of these are unusual in a childhood giggly sort of way like the pictured intersection of "Cumming Street and Seaman Avenue" or mistranslations or pronunciations from foreign language names. Of course, there is no explanation of why each entry is there nor any sources of what constitutes unusualness that are universals - the Book of Lists probably has something of the sort but alas, it's in the opinions of its editors/authors. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. While it may in some circumstances be OR or POV that a name is considered "unusual", in others it is quite clearly true and verifiable. IIRC, these articles were well sourced and attributed the discussion of the names in question to appropriate sources, which does not seem to violate any policy. Yes, the sources themselves were expressing their own research and/or point of view, but that's what we're _supposed_ to do: summarise other people's research and viewpoints. Plus, as I said in the original deletion argument for at least one of these article, most of the perceived problems with the articles could be solved by a rename, e.g. to List of names considered amusing, which is what the article's title is trying to suggest in a less direct fashion anyway. JulesH (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - I see no procedural error on the part of the closing administrators nor do I see anything so compelling about the linked survey/discussion that supposedly resulted in "'lists of unusual things' aren't automatically ineligible for inclusion just by being lists of unusual things." that requires the reconsideration of these AFDs. DRV is not AFD round two and many if not most or even all of those suggesting overturning here are offering AFD-style arguments (and rather poor ones at that). Otto4711 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I see nothing in the deletion review policy that states that only procedural errors should be considered here. Note that consensus can change; it would seem prudent where there is evidence that it may have changed (which has been presented here) to undelete the article and relist it at AFD for discussion there. Does that not sound like a sensible approach? JulesH (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] When to use DRV. Otto4711 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn for the reasons stated by JulesH. Krakatoa (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I wanted to hear a few of the arguments endorsing closure before making my mind up on this. Now that I have, I'm certain that overturning the deletion is the right thing to do. The original deletion decisions were largely made, in my opinion, as a result of counting up drive-by deletion votes, supported by a limited amount of reasoned argument. Now that we've had a good opportunity to examine the issues in more detail, away from the drive-bys, and arrived at a pretty good consensus position, we need to apply that consensus position to the deletion decision. That consensus decision includes a clearly established principle that "unusual" is a shorthand way of saying "considered to be unusual by at least one source", and a clear agreement that sourced lists aren't OR or POV. Those editors in this discussion who are endorsing the original decision aren't engaging with these arguments, and are merely restating assertions which we've already discussed and discounted. SP-KP (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse policy concerns such as WP:OR and WP:V were correctly addressed at the AfDs. Neither of these lists can be made totally objective, which is the letter and the spirit of WP:OR. These articles are inherently subjective and for every source one finds to state that an item should be within the topic, another can be found that states that an item shouldn't be within the topic. What these lists document are nothing more than individual judgement calls. Them From Space 23:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Closing admin It would be nice if someone had dropped me a note that my close was being contested. Oh well, the AFD closed in the normal course of operations. Also, the results of the centralized discussion should be implemented into policy (OR, V, N, etc), before decisions on them at DRV are made. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn both or allow recreation. A clearer consensus was reached in good faith discussions by editors. The articles should be given another chance as the discussion were not finished in the allotted time and the content shouldn't be penalized for the delay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, the AfD was pretty split between keep and delete votes and an article likes that can exist fine with proper sourcing and clearer definitions. No need for deletion, but perhaps for cleanup. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse good close, no procedural problems (and the policy arguments against were the stronger).Bali ultimate (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn this is a thoughtful request after a community discussion. These lists were created by many editors so obviously there is an interest in these subjects and lists can be an acceptable avenue for presenting it. I concur with DGG that a minimum of time be allowed for list improvement. Many lists on the chopping block have been improved and hopefully these will also rise up to a level where all can see there value as well. -- Banjeboi 21:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I don't see any problems with the AfD closure but I also agree that we should put in practice the consensus reached at the centralized discussion that had more community participation than the deletion discussion.--J^mundo 22:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - Both closure decisions were reasonable, but any decision on closure of either AfD would have been controversial. As I see it, lists of "unusual" things are notable (there is a long record of comment on these things) but the list scope is inherently subjective and the lists are inherently difficult to maintain. If the community is now prepared to establish -- and maintain -- clear and defensible definitions for scope of these lists, then it's reasonable to restore these lists. --Orlady (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] As Wikipedia is a source-based and not a faith-based resource, perhaps these 'clear and defensible definitions for scope of these lists' can be first established BEFORE starting the lists rather than hoping that someday someone will get around to it? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Arbitrary and subjective entries do not an objective list make. Concerns were addressed at the discussion. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn These are notable subjects that are the subject of various books, that provided reliable sources to support the claims. There was no clear consensus in either AfD for deletion. What disturbs me most is when an admin starts deciding which arguments are "better", which basically ends up as the admin inserting his own biases and personal views. Once you get into a detailed analysis of better arguments, you have a classic no consensus. Alansohn (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Part of the job of a closing admin is to evaluate the strength of the arguments on each side of the deletion question, and part of a good closing admin's job is to explain that decision, so we don't have every AFD closing with one or two words ("keep" "delete" or "no consensus"). Otto4711 (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I wish that were the case, and I wish that there was some vaguely objective means for an admin to determine which arguments are "better" other than personal bias. I laugh out loud when an admin implies that he is objectively determining that other editor's arguments are subjective and should be worth some arbitrary amount less than other votes. I do agree that a clear set of explanations, applied consistently, would lead to far better conclusions than a bolded word or two marking a decision. That said, if the only way an admin can come to a conclusion is by parsing the meaning and weight of each individual vote and coming up with a result that tilts to one side, the voters are telling you that the answer is "no consensus". The willingness of closing admins to turn themselves into judge, jury and executioner all-wrapped-in-one on very close calls inherently creates problems. A willingness to recognize a lack of consensus to delete and closing as "no consensus" would obviate many DRVs. Alansohn (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Given that there are generally well over 100 AFDs per day and that about three or so a day at most end up at DRV, axe-swinging admins making the occasional close call hardly seems like that great a threat to the system. Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Three per day is three too many. The three per day hide the many more potential DRVs for which decent editors won't bother because the deck is stacked so heavily against resolving the problems. I agree that there are far greater issues in Wikipedia, and Otto, we need to deal with all of these problems, as best as any decent editors can, dealing effectively in eliminating each problem, once and for all. I assume that's an approach we could all agree on. Alansohn (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] A 97% or better success rate is unsatisfactory? If closing admins were androids, maybe. For a bunch of fallible humans, 97% or better is an outstanding result. Otto4711 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Good closure, list contents cannot be arbitrary like that. Any other close would have been contrary to policy. Chillum 15:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] endorse good close Secret ^account 18:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Whether this was a "good close" or not, it is clear that consensus has changed due to wider discussion. Vague arguments about such lists being "contrary to policy", being repeated here by those arguing to endorse, were examined in the centralized discussion, and such arguments do not hold up when examining actual policy (rather than subjective interpretations of policy). There is simply no consensus that these lists violate any policies, and so should they should be restored. Simply endorsing a previous outcome because of "correct process", when there is clear evidence of consensus contrary to that outcome, is itself contrary to policy (WP:CCC, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). DHowell (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Reducing the comments of those endorsing the deletions to "correct process" is far too great of an oversimplification of what is being said here, but in point of fact "correct process" is a reasonable basis for an endorsement, provided that one believes in good faith that the "centralized discussion" does not represent the "clear evidence" of a change in consensus. Given the number of comments at that discussion which can be boiled down to "generally these lists are not good ideas but I really like one of them" the shift in consensus is far from as clear-cut as you make it out to be. It is just as easy for those on the other side of this discussion to say that it's those on your side who are relying on "subjective interpretations" and our side who are actually "examining policy" so that argument is particularly spurious. Otto4711 (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per DGG. Owen× ☎ 23:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of unusual personal names and Place names considered unusual – endorse previous closures, but undelete and relist in light of possible change in community consensus on these topics. – Aervanath (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I'm requesting this review following the outcome of the centralised discussion at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things, the consensus of which was that "lists of unusual things" aren't automatically ineligible for inclusion just by being lists of unusual things. I feel that editors involved in that centralised discussion would like the opportunity to apply the general principles discussed to these two specific pages, which have previously been deleted. Copies of the deleted pages can be found here and here. SP-KP (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. The central problem with these was that it is arbitrary, POV, and OR to determine that something is "unusual". Lists like this can reasonably be maintained in project space, but that is all. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete pending a new AfD My positions from January etc. regarding such lists in general are fairly clear and remain. The reasons for deletion were, IMHO, deficient at the time and I see no reason not let to others discuss the salient reasons anew. Let the ages get discussed. Collect (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn So long as such lists rely upon other sources that note that something is "unusual", it is not the author's POV. Authors like H.L. Mencken or Mario Pei or Christopher Andersen have written about the subject. Ideally, a person consulting the article would be directed to those other sources. Mandsford (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn List of unusual personal names: restore it. It is frivolous and unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia, arbitrary, POV and OR. All those things. But the sheer size, the number of contributors and the number of page views (22,285 in December 2008) show that people love it. It does no harm (well, the odd entry may have to be removed if offensive) and may do a lot of good in drawing people into Wikipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Place names considered unusual: same argument as above, but it did not get many hits. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, allow a month or two for improvement and expansion of the place names article, and reconsideration of the items and rationales and sourcing of individual items in the personal name article, and then if anyone wants to nominate for afd we will see what the current consensus is. (not that I think the closers of the last AfDs necessarily read that right, even then)DGG (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - good close per our injunction against arbitrary and OR content. Eusebeus (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm not at all sure the consensus of that centralised discussion really supports the recreation of these articles, and I certainly can't see anything wrong with the closes.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse what's unusual is dependent on what's usual and in the eye of the beholder (SUBJ & OR & POV). Many of these are unusual in a childhood giggly sort of way like the pictured intersection of "Cumming Street and Seaman Avenue" or mistranslations or pronunciations from foreign language names. Of course, there is no explanation of why each entry is there nor any sources of what constitutes unusualness that are universals - the Book of Lists probably has something of the sort but alas, it's in the opinions of its editors/authors. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. While it may in some circumstances be OR or POV that a name is considered "unusual", in others it is quite clearly true and verifiable. IIRC, these articles were well sourced and attributed the discussion of the names in question to appropriate sources, which does not seem to violate any policy. Yes, the sources themselves were expressing their own research and/or point of view, but that's what we're _supposed_ to do: summarise other people's research and viewpoints. Plus, as I said in the original deletion argument for at least one of these article, most of the perceived problems with the articles could be solved by a rename, e.g. to List of names considered amusing, which is what the article's title is trying to suggest in a less direct fashion anyway. JulesH (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I see no procedural error on the part of the closing administrators nor do I see anything so compelling about the linked survey/discussion that supposedly resulted in "'lists of unusual things' aren't automatically ineligible for inclusion just by being lists of unusual things." that requires the reconsideration of these AFDs. DRV is not AFD round two and many if not most or even all of those suggesting overturning here are offering AFD-style arguments (and rather poor ones at that). Otto4711 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing in the deletion review policy that states that only procedural errors should be considered here. Note that consensus can change; it would seem prudent where there is evidence that it may have changed (which has been presented here) to undelete the article and relist it at AFD for discussion there. Does that not sound like a sensible approach? JulesH (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When to use DRV. Otto4711 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn for the reasons stated by JulesH. Krakatoa (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I wanted to hear a few of the arguments endorsing closure before making my mind up on this. Now that I have, I'm certain that overturning the deletion is the right thing to do. The original deletion decisions were largely made, in my opinion, as a result of counting up drive-by deletion votes, supported by a limited amount of reasoned argument. Now that we've had a good opportunity to examine the issues in more detail, away from the drive-bys, and arrived at a pretty good consensus position, we need to apply that consensus position to the deletion decision. That consensus decision includes a clearly established principle that "unusual" is a shorthand way of saying "considered to be unusual by at least one source", and a clear agreement that sourced lists aren't OR or POV. Those editors in this discussion who are endorsing the original decision aren't engaging with these arguments, and are merely restating assertions which we've already discussed and discounted. SP-KP (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse policy concerns such as WP:OR and WP:V were correctly addressed at the AfDs. Neither of these lists can be made totally objective, which is the letter and the spirit of WP:OR. These articles are inherently subjective and for every source one finds to state that an item should be within the topic, another can be found that states that an item shouldn't be within the topic. What these lists document are nothing more than individual judgement calls. Them From Space 23:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin It would be nice if someone had dropped me a note that my close was being contested. Oh well, the AFD closed in the normal course of operations. Also, the results of the centralized discussion should be implemented into policy (OR, V, N, etc), before decisions on them at DRV are made. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn both or allow recreation. A clearer consensus was reached in good faith discussions by editors. The articles should be given another chance as the discussion were not finished in the allotted time and the content shouldn't be penalized for the delay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, the AfD was pretty split between keep and delete votes and an article likes that can exist fine with proper sourcing and clearer definitions. No need for deletion, but perhaps for cleanup. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse good close, no procedural problems (and the policy arguments against were the stronger).Bali ultimate (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn this is a thoughtful request after a community discussion. These lists were created by many editors so obviously there is an interest in these subjects and lists can be an acceptable avenue for presenting it. I concur with DGG that a minimum of time be allowed for list improvement. Many lists on the chopping block have been improved and hopefully these will also rise up to a level where all can see there value as well. -- Banjeboi 21:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I don't see any problems with the AfD closure but I also agree that we should put in practice the consensus reached at the centralized discussion that had more community participation than the deletion discussion.--J^mundo 22:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Both closure decisions were reasonable, but any decision on closure of either AfD would have been controversial. As I see it, lists of "unusual" things are notable (there is a long record of comment on these things) but the list scope is inherently subjective and the lists are inherently difficult to maintain. If the community is now prepared to establish -- and maintain -- clear and defensible definitions for scope of these lists, then it's reasonable to restore these lists. --Orlady (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia is a source-based and not a faith-based resource, perhaps these 'clear and defensible definitions for scope of these lists' can be first established BEFORE starting the lists rather than hoping that someday someone will get around to it? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Arbitrary and subjective entries do not an objective list make. Concerns were addressed at the discussion. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn These are notable subjects that are the subject of various books, that provided reliable sources to support the claims. There was no clear consensus in either AfD for deletion. What disturbs me most is when an admin starts deciding which arguments are "better", which basically ends up as the admin inserting his own biases and personal views. Once you get into a detailed analysis of better arguments, you have a classic no consensus. Alansohn (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the job of a closing admin is to evaluate the strength of the arguments on each side of the deletion question, and part of a good closing admin's job is to explain that decision, so we don't have every AFD closing with one or two words ("keep" "delete" or "no consensus"). Otto4711 (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that were the case, and I wish that there was some vaguely objective means for an admin to determine which arguments are "better" other than personal bias. I laugh out loud when an admin implies that he is objectively determining that other editor's arguments are subjective and should be worth some arbitrary amount less than other votes. I do agree that a clear set of explanations, applied consistently, would lead to far better conclusions than a bolded word or two marking a decision. That said, if the only way an admin can come to a conclusion is by parsing the meaning and weight of each individual vote and coming up with a result that tilts to one side, the voters are telling you that the answer is "no consensus". The willingness of closing admins to turn themselves into judge, jury and executioner all-wrapped-in-one on very close calls inherently creates problems. A willingness to recognize a lack of consensus to delete and closing as "no consensus" would obviate many DRVs. Alansohn (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are generally well over 100 AFDs per day and that about three or so a day at most end up at DRV, axe-swinging admins making the occasional close call hardly seems like that great a threat to the system. Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three per day is three too many. The three per day hide the many more potential DRVs for which decent editors won't bother because the deck is stacked so heavily against resolving the problems. I agree that there are far greater issues in Wikipedia, and Otto, we need to deal with all of these problems, as best as any decent editors can, dealing effectively in eliminating each problem, once and for all. I assume that's an approach we could all agree on. Alansohn (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A 97% or better success rate is unsatisfactory? If closing admins were androids, maybe. For a bunch of fallible humans, 97% or better is an outstanding result. Otto4711 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Good closure, list contents cannot be arbitrary like that. Any other close would have been contrary to policy. Chillum 15:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse good close Secret ^account 18:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Whether this was a "good close" or not, it is clear that consensus has changed due to wider discussion. Vague arguments about such lists being "contrary to policy", being repeated here by those arguing to endorse, were examined in the centralized discussion, and such arguments do not hold up when examining actual policy (rather than subjective interpretations of policy). There is simply no consensus that these lists violate any policies, and so should they should be restored. Simply endorsing a previous outcome because of "correct process", when there is clear evidence of consensus contrary to that outcome, is itself contrary to policy (WP:CCC, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). DHowell (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing the comments of those endorsing the deletions to "correct process" is far too great of an oversimplification of what is being said here, but in point of fact "correct process" is a reasonable basis for an endorsement, provided that one believes in good faith that the "centralized discussion" does not represent the "clear evidence" of a change in consensus. Given the number of comments at that discussion which can be boiled down to "generally these lists are not good ideas but I really like one of them" the shift in consensus is far from as clear-cut as you make it out to be. It is just as easy for those on the other side of this discussion to say that it's those on your side who are relying on "subjective interpretations" and our side who are actually "examining policy" so that argument is particularly spurious. Otto4711 (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per DGG. Owen× ☎ 23:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.