Kristen McNamara – No action needed. Redirection is an editorial issue, and can be dealt with editorially. – lifebaka++ 20:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kristen McNamara (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Article was redirected because it " doesn't meet with the notability status " which is unreasonable. Facha93 (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Not a DRV issue - the article was never taken to AFD. There's nothing to review. This is a content dispute. I suggest that since there are continued disputes over the notability of this particular person that an editor who believes hat there should be an independent article write one that cites reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the individual and that keeps in mind WP:BLP1E. Otto4711 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Kristen McNamara – No action needed. Redirection is an editorial issue, and can be dealt with editorially. – lifebaka++ 20:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was redirected because it " doesn't meet with the notability status " which is unreasonable. Facha93 (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a DRV issue - the article was never taken to AFD. There's nothing to review. This is a content dispute. I suggest that since there are continued disputes over the notability of this particular person that an editor who believes hat there should be an independent article write one that cites reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the individual and that keeps in mind WP:BLP1E. Otto4711 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeffrey F. Bell – endorse. Only editor asking to restore was a sockpuppet of a banned user. Also, a side note: WP:CSD describes instances where admins can delete articles without discussion. There's not a requirement that an admin tag the article for another admin to evaluate. – Aervanath (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jeffrey F. Bell (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Article was deleted without ANY advanced warning or discussion (see my talk page). Please restore article so it can be listed for discussion. Rterrace (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] The previous version was deleted through AfD for notability concerns, and was more complete than your version. So, endorse as a proper G4 deletion. If you'd like the content userfied for you to work on, however, I'd be happy to oblige. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Just a question: Is it proper procedure for an admin, who was also active in the deletion discussion, to mark the article as a speedy delete himself and then, within two minutes, delete the article himself? I created the article (to fix a redline) in good faith. The way this article was automatically dismissed by an admin, who has an apparent conflict of interest, has left a bad taste in my mouth. Rterrace (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Generally, no, it's better to avoid the possibility of seeming involved. However, like I said, he still did get it right. You're welcome to work on a userfied version, and I'm happy to userfy the content for you, but please be aware that you'll need to satisfy the concerns raised in the AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] ~~Procedural overturn and list at AfD~~. No, it was very far from okay for an admin who'd participated in the deletion debate then to mark the article as a speedy and then delete it himself. The phrase "flagrant disregard" comes to mind. That's so blatantly wrong that I feel we have no alternative but to overturn it. As another consideration, there are good reasons why we show newer users their contributions are deleted on the basis of community consensus, except in extreme cases such as copyvios or BLP issues.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure that there's anything wrong with an admin deleting a page as G4 if he/she was involved in the deletion discussion. Stifle (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] No. But I was under the impression that the deleter had personally tagged the page for speedy deletion prior to deleting it (remembering that I don't have the tools to check, I believed the nominator's account).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 05:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] I wanted to pipe in here real quick. Note that my only connection to this page is that I came across it while You can help!. From what I can see here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeffrey_F._Bell the arguments against having the page were weak by the nominator's own admissions. If the page is simply going to be recreated again, isn't it possible that their notability concerns are misplaced? It seems that this whole deletion process is creatig more work for everyone, at least in this case. Restore the original version if the content is better, and allow Rterrace and the Biography portal folks to work on it. Ω (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ugh, I've just spotted the allegation against the nominator here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz. Even if the allegation is proven, my remark earlier stands. We should hold administrators to high standards of conduct.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] We should also dis-trust disruptive editors' accounts of events a bit. ☺ RoySmith in fact has exactly one deleted edit here, and it is an application of ((POV-check)) dated 2006-09-09. Xe didn't tag this article for speedy deletion at all, contrary to the above claim. Xe speedily deleted it directly, under criterion #G4. Uncle G (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, that puts a different colour on it. I've retracted accordingly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 05:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted as per lifebaka. Except for S Marshall's opinion, I would also recommend closing as a disruptive sock nomination. Stifle (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted there is no point going through the process for the sake of the process. The decision was correct, and although it wasn't the best thing to do, it was right. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] If there's "no point going through the process for the sake of the process" then that begs the question: is there a point to the process? Sorry, I shouldn't say this since I don't particularly care about the subject much, but reading the above this question just struck me. I understand what's being said, I just don't really buy into the reasoning. — Ω (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] There is often a need for procedure. AfDs, RfAs and other pages play their role as performing needed tasks. In those cases, the procedure is done for our benefit, and it serves a purpose. We shouldn't perform procedures for the sake of satisfying our procedure, rather than our needs, for that leads further down the road of bureaucracy. While I don't necessarily agree with deleting an article who's AfD you voted in, but I'd say this is a fairly acceptable IAR situation. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] This leads me to raise two points. First, my own concern is primarily with the allegation that an admin speedy-deleted an article that he'd tagged himself. That's subsequently been shown to be misinformation, but had it been true, then I think there would've been grounds for quite serious concern. I agree with Uninvited Company when he says CSD is becoming Wikipedia's default deletion policy, it being so much easier to speedy something than to bring it to AfD, and I think that's a disturbing trend. One of the few checks and balances that apply to CSD is the idea that two people are involved: one tagger, and one deleting admin. The idea that the tagger and the deleter could be the same person strikes me as clearly wrong. Second, that the purpose of procedure is not to make life inconvenient for we jaded few, who have seen hundreds or thousands of dismal articles being rightly removed and a small number of articles with potential being saved at great effort; its purpose is to show new users that their contributions are valued, and considered carefully, and arbitrarily deleted only in cases where they're causing blatant harm. Other deletions require the backing of consensus. I feel that it's an important WP:BITE issue that AfD, and even more so that DRV, show that a procedure designed to protect and engage new users rather than reject them is closely followed except in the most extreme of cases.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for the above comment; it significantly clarifies your point. As the deleting admin, I've stayed out of this discussion so far, but felt the need to respond to your note. From everything I've read in wp:csd and other admin policy material, I'm convinced I didn't do anything contrary to established policy. For example, wp:csd starts out by saying, The criteria for speedy deletion[1] specify the limited cases in which administrators may, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. That's exactly what I did. I looked at the history of the article, read the original AfD, went back and looked at wp:csd to verify that it hadn't changed since the last time I used it, and went ahead and deleted the article. Then I dropped a note to the re-creating author explaining what I had done, and why, and offering to answer any questions. The point you are making is that the policy should be changed. There is some merit to that point of view, but if you want to argue that, then you should be making your case at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, not here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] I didn't realise that, and I see it as a significant problem with the CSD process. I've begun the discussion you suggest.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse proper G4; when the community has spoken via AFD, any admin - including those involved in such discussion - is empowered to implement the community's consensus - editor's argument to the contrary is just wrong. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse and close as moot – deletion review initiated by a sock of de facto banned user Esasus (talk · contribs). See [1]. MuZemike 15:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jeffrey F. Bell – endorse. Only editor asking to restore was a sockpuppet of a banned user. Also, a side note: WP:CSD describes instances where admins can delete articles without discussion. There's not a requirement that an admin tag the article for another admin to evaluate. – Aervanath (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was deleted without ANY advanced warning or discussion (see my talk page). Please restore article so it can be listed for discussion. Rterrace (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version was deleted through AfD for notability concerns, and was more complete than your version. So, endorse as a proper G4 deletion. If you'd like the content userfied for you to work on, however, I'd be happy to oblige. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question: Is it proper procedure for an admin, who was also active in the deletion discussion, to mark the article as a speedy delete himself and then, within two minutes, delete the article himself? I created the article (to fix a redline) in good faith. The way this article was automatically dismissed by an admin, who has an apparent conflict of interest, has left a bad taste in my mouth. Rterrace (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, no, it's better to avoid the possibility of seeming involved. However, like I said, he still did get it right. You're welcome to work on a userfied version, and I'm happy to userfy the content for you, but please be aware that you'll need to satisfy the concerns raised in the AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural overturn and list at AfD~~. No, it was very far from okay for an admin who'd participated in the deletion debate then to mark the article as a speedy and then delete it himself. The phrase "flagrant disregard" comes to mind. That's so blatantly wrong that I feel we have no alternative but to overturn it.
As another consideration, there are good reasons why we show newer users their contributions are deleted on the basis of community consensus, except in extreme cases such as copyvios or BLP issues.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that there's anything wrong with an admin deleting a page as G4 if he/she was involved in the deletion discussion. Stifle (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. But I was under the impression that the deleter had personally tagged the page for speedy deletion prior to deleting it (remembering that I don't have the tools to check, I believed the nominator's account).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 05:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to pipe in here real quick. Note that my only connection to this page is that I came across it while You can help!. From what I can see here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeffrey_F._Bell the arguments against having the page were weak by the nominator's own admissions. If the page is simply going to be recreated again, isn't it possible that their notability concerns are misplaced? It seems that this whole deletion process is creatig more work for everyone, at least in this case. Restore the original version if the content is better, and allow Rterrace and the Biography portal folks to work on it. Ω (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, I've just spotted the allegation against the nominator here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz.
  Even if the allegation is proven, my remark earlier stands. We should hold administrators to high standards of conduct.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We should also dis-trust disruptive editors' accounts of events a bit. ☺ RoySmith in fact has exactly one deleted edit here, and it is an application of ((POV-check)) dated 2006-09-09. Xe didn't tag this article for speedy deletion at all, contrary to the above claim. Xe speedily deleted it directly, under criterion #G4. Uncle G (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, that puts a different colour on it. I've retracted accordingly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 05:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as per lifebaka. Except for S Marshall's opinion, I would also recommend closing as a disruptive sock nomination. Stifle (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted there is no point going through the process for the sake of the process. The decision was correct, and although it wasn't the best thing to do, it was right. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's "no point going through the process for the sake of the process" then that begs the question: is there a point to the process?

Sorry, I shouldn't say this since I don't particularly care about the subject much, but reading the above this question just struck me. I understand what's being said, I just don't really buy into the reasoning.
— Ω (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is often a need for procedure. AfDs, RfAs and other pages play their role as performing needed tasks. In those cases, the procedure is done for our benefit, and it serves a purpose. We shouldn't perform procedures for the sake of satisfying our procedure, rather than our needs, for that leads further down the road of bureaucracy. While I don't necessarily agree with deleting an article who's AfD you voted in, but I'd say this is a fairly acceptable IAR situation. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This leads me to raise two points.
First, my own concern is primarily with the allegation that an admin speedy-deleted an article that he'd tagged himself. That's subsequently been shown to be misinformation, but had it been true, then I think there would've been grounds for quite serious concern. I agree with Uninvited Company when he says CSD is becoming Wikipedia's default deletion policy, it being so much easier to speedy something than to bring it to AfD, and I think that's a disturbing trend. One of the few checks and balances that apply to CSD is the idea that two people are involved: one tagger, and one deleting admin. The idea that the tagger and the deleter could be the same person strikes me as clearly wrong.
Second, that the purpose of procedure is not to make life inconvenient for we jaded few, who have seen hundreds or thousands of dismal articles being rightly removed and a small number of articles with potential being saved at great effort; its purpose is to show new users that their contributions are valued, and considered carefully, and arbitrarily deleted only in cases where they're causing blatant harm. Other deletions require the backing of consensus.
I feel that it's an important WP:BITE issue that AfD, and even more so that DRV, show that a procedure designed to protect and engage new users rather than reject them is closely followed except in the most extreme of cases.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the above comment; it significantly clarifies your point. As the deleting admin, I've stayed out of this discussion so far, but felt the need to respond to your note. From everything I've read in wp:csd and other admin policy material, I'm convinced I didn't do anything contrary to established policy. For example, wp:csd starts out by saying, The criteria for speedy deletion[1] specify the limited cases in which administrators may, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. That's exactly what I did. I looked at the history of the article, read the original AfD, went back and looked at wp:csd to verify that it hadn't changed since the last time I used it, and went ahead and deleted the article. Then I dropped a note to the re-creating author explaining what I had done, and why, and offering to answer any questions. The point you are making is that the policy should be changed. There is some merit to that point of view, but if you want to argue that, then you should be making your case at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, not here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that, and I see it as a significant problem with the CSD process. I've begun the discussion you suggest.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse proper G4; when the community has spoken via AFD, any admin - including those involved in such discussion - is empowered to implement the community's consensus - editor's argument to the contrary is just wrong. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and close as moot – deletion review initiated by a sock of de facto banned user Esasus (talk · contribs). See [1]. MuZemike 15:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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