Camberwell Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

The close was not based on the arguments and conclusions of the numerous editors involved in the AfD, but on the closing administrator's personal research and conclusions. The closing administrator also ignored the substantial number of editors who suggested a merge.ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin comments: Per the Deletion guidelines for administrators, I went through and disregarded all comments/supports/and opposes not based in policy or guideline; for example "delete-The measure of a church's work is not its fame, but rather its success in saving souls" and "keep-A church over 100 years old is notable in my book". This left the nominator's assertion that it was not notable, default per lack of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources as per WP:GNG, versus the claims that such sources existed. Sources were found during the AfD, but these were either trivial mentions or church-published (primary) sources; my conclusion was that it failed the GNG, and no other SNG was claimed to cover the article. ChildofMidnight's claim that I closed based on my own "personal research" is false; I was going to delete, but since I felt there might have been more sources out there, I went on a search myself. In short, I went out of my way to try and save the article. Not finding any new information, I continued with the deletion. Child is essentially taking me to task for actually not treating AfD like a vote and trying to help the article not be deleted. I didn't merge the article because folding in non-notable information to larger articles is not the function of a merge per WP:MERGE. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn & restore Closer didn't go with the consensus but instead used their own research to come to a conclusion. They should have instead participated in the AfD and not closed it. RMHED. 00:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have deleted it without checking for more sources, as it still fails GNG; I simply made an extra effort to make sure this was so. How is that verboten? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In your opinion it fails GNG, that wasn't the consensual opinion of the AfD participants. It's not the closers role to interpret whether or not the GNG has been met, that is the principal purpose of the AfD. GNG is a guideline and it has no hard and fast rules. There wasn't an obvious consensus to delete and those arguing to keep or merge the article were doing so within a reasonable interpretation of the notability guideline, therefore the article should've been kept. RMHED. 01:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read the deletion guide: it is the role of admins to judge arguments at AfD, numbers do not matter. The argument that it fails the GNG "is not notable" was not outweighed by the trivial or primary sources brought up at AfD. You are arguing your interpretation of the notability guideline, not whether it meets the GNG or not. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The arguments for keeping were based on the notability guideline being met, they were reasonable. Your interpretation of the GNG is not relevant beyond being your opinion. You should have expressed this opinion in the AfD and left the closure to someone else. RMHED. 01:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, can you explain how the sources presented in the article meet GNG's requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I doubt, strictly speaking, that the guideline was met, but it is somewhat subjective and hence not set in stone. If credible users believe that sources do meet, or come close to meeting the GNG, then it's reasonable to keep the article or at least merge it. You probably wouldn't have got any complaints if you had created a sub-heading "Places of worship" and merged the more pertinent content into the Camberwell, Victoria article. RMHED. 04:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The closing admin is supposed to implement the consensus. If there isn't a consensus, re-list.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you up to, but not including, the last word. If there isn't a consensus the discussion should be closed as no consensus. Relisting discussions with a dozen or so contributors isn't likely to attract any more light, only heat. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. There was no consensus in that discussion on whether the church was notable or not. the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators specifically says "A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions." In this case no policy violation was brought forward to justify ignoring the opinions made in the AFD. The closing admin should not take it upon themselves to judge whether an article is notable or not but instead if they disagree with the opinions made they should argue in the AFD themsleves. Davewild (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The closing admin substituted his own opinion (which would have been better expressed as a !vote, leaving another admin to close) for an assessment of the arguments. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If the closing admin is right and evaluation in a well-discussed deletion led to the conclusion only the nominator's reasoning is valid, then it should be relisted for discussion with proper arguments rather than deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Closing administrator meant well, but over-reached. Townlake (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Moot After a discussion on my talk page, the closing administrator agreed to a merge instead, which i have accordingly carried out, into Camberwell, Victoria The full history is at the redirect, so further editing can be discussed elsewhere--either on that talk p., or the talk p. of the original article, which has also been undeleted. (my own view of the issue is that there was not enough sourced material to support n independent article.) DGG (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Moot I agree that it is moot as it has been merged which seems a reasonable outcome and was agreed to by the closing Admin. Although this is not the same as a no consensus, let alone a keep. So perhaps a continutation of the review is warranted? I don't know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Chandra Sinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

POLICE MEDAL IS AWARDED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AFTER CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS OF THE OFFICERS. IT IS NOT AWARDED TO EVERYBODY. IT IS NOTIFIED OFFICIALLY IN PIB PRESS RELEASE DATED 15TH AUGUST 2003. SEE THE LINK http://pib.nic.in/archieve/lreleng/lyr2003/raug2003/15082003/r150820031.html 59.94.40.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Comment/question This is a surprisingly old PROD. Is there anything preventing simple re-creation of a properly referenced article? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it as a prod. My practice is to recreate contested prods and if I feel like, send it to AfD. I believe this article can be recreated if some more content is added. --Tone 19:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict)I can't see that anyone could object to that. We could opt for that and this review could be closed without further bother. Up to your judgement about AfD or not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy restore as contested PROD. Joe 19:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Their remix of Kid Cudi's Day 'n' Nite has reached #2 on UK Singles Chart. --Felyx (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. [1]. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy allow recreation, with nothing against the previous deletions. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• allow recreation fine with me, before the article had nothing of substance to say. —EncMstr (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was speedied shortly after I created it on 11 Feb 09. The admin and I discussed it over the last few days on the article talk page, my talk page, and the deleting admin's talk page, but were unable to reach a consensus. Basically his speedy argument is that the person is non-notable and the second paragraph about his criminal charges is a WP:BLP violation. I counter that (1) he made a "widely recognized contribution" to the field with the best-selling EKG textbook for three decades running (satisfying WP:BIO and/or criteria #4 of WP:ACADEMIC) and (2) his criminal history is well-cited and the main reason why he is (in)famous within the medical profession. If the deletion is upheld, I'm willing to Userfy and work on this article more. Draeco (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't know that DRV is necessary here; DGG, the deleting admin, has, AFAICT, acceded to recreation ("If you want to try an article on him based only on his actual notability as the writer of a widely used textbook, I will not speedy it"), accepting that the submission of notability is sufficient to overcome WP:CSD#A7 (or any other speedy criterion), and I imagine that on that basis he or any other admin should provide you with the deleted text in order that you might re-create the page in its deleted form (we might, I guess, undertake to determine whether the speedy should be formally overturned, from a resolution of which in the affirmative would follow automatic restoration, but it seems that we needn't bother with that). The question of the inclusion of the criminal charges is one of content that is not to be taken up at DRV; should DGG, as he suggests he will, remove certain content that he claims is violative of BLP, the dispute may be addressed on the article's talk page or BLP/N. Joe 19:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Jahiegel. Stifle (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, having looked at the deleted page, the only content there is "Dale Dublin is a plastic surgeon and author of [book]. [Details about a competition in the book.] [A BLP vio.]" Stifle (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I have a few more words and citations to add to the article, but in truth it will remain a stub. - Draeco (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The BLP part was the part I did not restore. Stifle, you can see it, you're an admin. It concerns a felony conviction for a tax crime. Myself, I thought it is a clear example of donoharm for a matter unrelated to any possible notability. The author of the article said he could provide material showing the notability of the book & if it is a very widely used textbook, he'd meet WP:PROF on that basis. I think the CRV is moot,as the article has been restored. DGG (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with the deletion, for what it's worth. It doesn't seem to me that the article has been restored, though. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's all the same to you two, could we please restore the entire article and its talk page, then delete out the objectionable parts? I can't see the non-restored text since I'm not an admin, and I'd really rather not lose my citations and start again from scratch. - Draeco (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  And by the way, the crimes were child pornography and cocaine possession, not tax crimes. I think you may be confusing this with another article. - Draeco (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion this is (at best) a marginally notable personage that any biography of will have to contain the conviction - anyone who is notable enough to have a bio here but omits a conviction with a 5-year sentence is POV and is better left unwritten. By the way, it's not a BLP violation if the conviction is true, or should we go ahead and delete all articles in Category:People by criminal conviction and its subcategories? Since a nice bio cannot be written on this (maybe or marginally) notable person, we shouldn't have one at all. Good call, DGG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am interested in fixing any notability issues if there is any as this rider is notable as he have been being invited to compete in well known interantional events such as Red Bulls X-Fighters and X-Games. Also googling "Taka Higashino" turns out more results. Donnie Park (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support userfication on the understanding that recreation is subject to a further listing here. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support userfication per Stifle. If userfied now the job could be done by the completion of this discussion and we can just extend the discussion to allow re-creation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been bold and userfied to User:Donnie Park/Takahiro Higashino. Seems to me that if this can be referenced, it would be an acceptable little stub as the X-Games are the extreme game equivalent to the Olympics. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was improperly deleted less than 24 hours after being listed for AFD. It had not been nominated for speedy deletion. There was intensive, ongoing discussion on the AFD page and no consensus had been reached. Full disclosure: I voted for deletion, but the discussion was still active. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 06:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The result was Speedy delete (CSD#A7) by User:Werdna. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:38, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) because he is a hothead This should be illegal and against everything Wikipedia stands for He was bias from the start I kept notes he was NOT Neutral at all. 68.167.66.114 (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) The result was Speedy delete (CSD#A7) by User:Werdna. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:38, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just want to clarify that I didn't delete the article. I couldn't, because I'm not an admin. The deletion was performed by User:Werdna. I merely added the closing template to the discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:12, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • It would be both enlightening and amusing to see any of this comment substantiated. — Werdna • talk 07:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse First off, you (the IP user above) are confusing Werdna with Equazcion, who are two separate editors. Equazcion simply added the message in the debate noting that Werdna deleted the article as A7. As far as whether A7 was an appropriate rationale given the size of that debate, I would personally invoke WP:IAR on that one. This concept was not an article. It was an original research side project that had no displayed notability and no likelihood of being verifiable, self referential citations, was a neologism, and violated probably a half dozen sections of WP:NOT. This page did not have a snowballs chance in hell of being kept. Resolute 07:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The article was deletable under more than one CSD criteria. Granted, the "controversy" demonstrated in the AfD may have been reason to allow the discussion to run its course. However, I'm going to agree with Resolute, that WP:IAR should apply here. Part of the intention of the article creator seems to have been experimentation with the violation of Wikipedia's rules and the creation of controversy. Its authors seem to delight in the resulting lengthy and emotional discussion. We would only be aiding that goal by allowing the AfD to continue, and encouraging similar attempts in the future. IMO. Besides which, as Resolute also pointed out, WP:SNOW also applies. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:23, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
• The article was egregiously stupid, and the only people voting to keep it seemed to be new editors who were undoubtedly involved with the article's creation. There is no discussion necessary on silly little experiments like this. We delete them unless there is some indication that they meet our criteria for inclusion – that is, substantial coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. There is no evidence that this was anything other than something made up in school one day. — Werdna • talk 07:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - does not meet any inclusion criteria, and prompt deletion was appropriate particularly in light of the intended effects that are contrary to the purpose of the encyclopedia. Risker (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Resolute said what I was going to - this was not an article and did not stand a snowball's chance in hell at being kept. Mr.Z-man 07:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Absolute mess of an article, running completely against Wikipedia's stated purpose and many of its rules while definitely satisfying speedy criteria. Should be salted too for good measure. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already salted. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:21, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW - the balance of the AfD arguments on policy was clear: "this is not what WP is for" versus WP:ILIKEIT. JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The article should have been speedily deleted in the first place. It was my mistake to send it to AfD in the first place and I apologise for allowing it the oportunity to get out of hand. The AfD may have been shorter than normal but it was very active. The deletion got more discussion than average. There is no reason to suspect that keeping it open longer would have lead to a different result. It had already explored all the relevant issues, become repetitive and wandered into general discussion. This is not censorship. They can have their content back and host it somewhere else if they want to. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, with caveats. I feel like I should say "Overturn and Relist" because A7 is clearly not applicable -- the article did, to my recollection, contain an assertion of notability. But the end result is absolutely appropriate; just because there is no CSD that would apply is no reason to restart the morass of ridiculous arguments found in the AfD. (I boggle at how quickly the authors were able to construct a following for their little project; how could something created only yesterday already be famous enough to attract so much attention?) My only remaining reservation is that allowing this to speedied improperly sets a bad precedent, and DanielRigal's inappropriate call for quick closure in the AfD -- both actions have the appearance (even though not the reality) of "quick, let's sweep this under the rug before the 'keep' voters can make their case". How much harm would it have been to let the AfD run its course? Powers ^T 14:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I know. I should have handled it differently. I can only apologise and try not to make the same mistake again. There is no way I would want this to set a precedent. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per WP:SNOW. Right result, even if not strictly the right process. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the result, open minded on the method. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. If the AfD was going to be closed early, it should have been a snowball delete rather than via an invalid speedy deletion criterion -- actions like this one do harm to the reputation of the A7 tag. That said, it's futile to re-list a discussion that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of resulting in any other decision than deletion. Therefore, overturn is not warranted. All's well that ends well; the discussion (and the non-encyclopedic art edits in the article space) went on long enough to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that deletion was necessary; an earlier speedy delete might not have produced such clarity. Baileypalblue (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WP:SNOW. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]