Fantastico_De_Luxe – no action taken. This discussion isn't really a review of the deletion but a request to create a redirect; the target is not protected and a redirect may be created by any editor – Shereth 16:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fantastico_De_Luxe (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) "Fantastico (web hosting)" already exist separately. Surely it would make sense to redirect from "Fantastico De Luxe", and yet this article has an ugly history. My interest in Fantastico De Luxe derives from cPanel, which is used by Webhostingpad.com. I'd like to figure out whether I should be using CGI, Perl, PHP, Ruby, RVSiteBuilder, or Fantastico De Luxe. So I've been checking each one at Wikipedia. With all due respect, the reason that any modestly, useful information ever has to be deleted escapes me, but this seems to be the protocol. For my part, I have done my best to meet that protocol. This is the result. C-U RPCV (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] The closing admin is on wikibreak until August, so that might be hard, at least short term. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] The AfD was closed 3 years ago, be bold and create the redirect, which seems reasonable. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Though Fantastico (web hosting) itself is possiblty a G4 speedy, I can't see the original deleted article, but this article suffers the same problems which led to the original deletion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Agreed, though that would be at the discression of an admin acting on a db-g4 tag on the main page. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Fantastico_De_Luxe – no action taken. This discussion isn't really a review of the deletion but a request to create a redirect; the target is not protected and a redirect may be created by any editor – Shereth 16:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Fantastico (web hosting)" already exist separately. Surely it would make sense to redirect from "Fantastico De Luxe", and yet this article has an ugly history.

My interest in Fantastico De Luxe derives from cPanel, which is used by Webhostingpad.com. I'd like to figure out whether I should be using CGI, Perl, PHP, Ruby, RVSiteBuilder, or Fantastico De Luxe. So I've been checking each one at Wikipedia.

With all due respect, the reason that any modestly, useful information ever has to be deleted escapes me, but this seems to be the protocol. For my part, I have done my best to meet that protocol. This is the result. C-U RPCV (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing admin is on wikibreak until August, so that might be hard, at least short term. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was closed 3 years ago, be bold and create the redirect, which seems reasonable. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though Fantastico (web hosting) itself is possiblty a G4 speedy, I can't see the original deleted article, but this article suffers the same problems which led to the original deletion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though that would be at the discression of an admin acting on a db-g4 tag on the main page. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jewish_surnames – Moot. The issue can be better decided at Category talk:Surnames. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Jewish_surnames (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Another problematic close from the same admin who brought us the problematic close of Surnames by country. The decision by User:Good Olfactory to upmerge this into Category:Surnames tosses hundreds of surnames with thoroughly-documented Jewish connections into a useless catchall category with more than 14,000 entries. While the closing admin acknowledges that "This category may have to be re-created in some form depending on what scheme is developed", the decision to delete and upmerge was made in the face of clear consensus to keep. The nomination offered rather muddled reasons for deletion, and the only participant supporting deletion voted based it on the claim that "names are not and cannot be bounded by religion or ethnicity in any meaningful sense", which is rebutted by the rather obvious observation that the use of names by different religions is rather easily handled by using multiple categories for each name/religion combination that can be documented by reliable and verifiable sources. Furthermore, a dozen published books on the background and history of Jewish surnames makes it clear that this is a well-defined field of study that constitutes a strong defining characteristic of such names. It appears that the closing administrator has a rather strong bias towards deletion of such categories, even in the face of clear consensus to the contrary. In classic We had to destroy the village to save it style, we are now left with the Sisyphean task of rebuilding a rather clear category and plucking the appropriate names from among the 14,000 in Category:Surnames because one admin decided he doesn't like it. Alansohn (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Opinion (closer). What to do depends largely upon what results from the other DRV and depends on the consensus at Category talk:Surnames, since this was essentially an appended decision to the main one. Could have probably been useful to wait for the result there, but whatever. The names are not lost and you don't have to pick through 14,000 to find them. They are readily available from Cydebot's contribution history and I can provide a list to anyone in fairly short order. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Jewish" is not a country, and appears to have no relation to any other structure other than the inclusion of the word "surnames". The rather clear disruption caused by the needless deletion is not mitigated by the fact that the names are not irrevocably lost, but any wasted time and effort could have been avoided by closing this as no consensus, at worst. The dozen books listed in the CfD should have amply justified that the category is defining, regardless of any of the nominator's preconceived prejudices on the subject. Alansohn (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Speedy close and deal with at Category talk:Surnames (closer). On second thought, this doesn't even require a DRV. The close stated that the could be re-created if agreed to by consensus. All you need to is say you are going to re-create it at User talk:Surnames. If you get agreement by positive responses or silence, then just re-create it. That should have probably been what you should have done, and then if your re-creation proposal was opposed there, then you could have considered coming to DRV here. I'd note that the user didn't approach me at all about this close, which would have provided me the opportunity to give this advice, and even the list of articles that were in the category. DRV is a last resort, not the first stop for those who disagree with a close. (By the way, if getting the list of names from Cydebot's contribution history is a "Sisyphean task", the standards of how that phrase is used is clearly slipping. I could probably do this in 5 minutes ...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] This is simple disruption by the closing admin, perpetuating the disruptive WP:POINT made in the close. "Jewish" is still not a country and has nothing to do with the restructuring of Surnames by country demanded by the closing admin in complete disregard of consensus there. Whether we are treating this as overturning the improper close of this CfD, or recreating it based on the Surnames by country as demanded, this is where the discussion should take place. There has been enough disruption already, and the Wikilawyering demands that this must wait for a discussion of an entirely unrelated category only perpetuates the abuse of process. Alansohn (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Um, thanks for assuming good faith. I treated it as part of the previous nomination because that seemed to be the intent of the nominator. May have been correct; may not have been. Give me a break, though—you didn't even approach me about this! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] You have no idea if it was the nominator's intent, but you deleted the category regardless of consensus? Give Wikipedia a break. "The nominator may have wanted it deleted so I tossed into the delete pile" is a rather poor justification for deletion. You have already been approached about this and other vaguely related categories, and your mind appeared to have been made up, with no evidence that it could have been swayed, cutting down on needlessly wasted time dealing with this improper close. Alansohn (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] No, I have an idea, and I have little doubt about the nominator's intent. ("Missed in yesterday's nomination as it's missing from the regular part of the tree." is relatively clear, IMO.) I was suggesting that maybe my assumption would be "wrong" in the view of a WP consensus, or that even if correct, that it wasn't correct to give credence to the intent. But you can't have it both ways. Either it's parceled with the other CfD and we wait for the result at that DRV; or, if we treat it as separate, you probably should have approached me about it first and not assumed that my response would have treated it as being parceled with the first one. You can't say, "it's separate" and in the same breath say "you already refused to reconsider because it was parceled with the other". Anyway, it's all relatively moot. As usual, your behaviour is tiring in general, Alansohn. All I can say is go ahead and discuss this to your heart's content. But it's a waste of time, because you can just re-create the category and get the list from me, or look up the list yourself. There's no real need for a DRV if you're strongly craving re-creation. You could save yourself a lot of time by just being less confrontational. (Of course, maybe you don't want to, which we must keep in mind.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Recreate and repopulate. I was in favour of upmerging the 'surnames by country' categories but not the non-countries (such as Category:Flemish surnames) which the nom (WAS) tosed recklessly into the mass nom. The cfd for Category:Jewish surnames was separate from the bulk nom and was not a 'delete by consensus' (there are only 2 in the Jewish surnames cfd suggesting 'delete', the nom + Otto, and the others are keep or rename). Alansohn does have a point here, albeit over-stated; I think Good Olfactory should do the recreating and repopulating.Occuli (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Why don't we just re-create it? As I've said above, this was clearly anticipated by the close. Honestly, I can't see the benefits of a discussion here. I probably won't be checking back here so if someone will notify me if this is speedily closed as re-create, then I could assist as needed or wanted. I would just go ahead and re-create it now, but as long as the discussion is ongoing I probably shouldn't. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - a difficult CFD, brought to a correct conclusion through appropriate deliberation by the closing admin. Otto4711 (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Speedy close - This appears to be a definite vendetta between Alansohn and Good Olfactory. Further DRV actions should be taken by an uninvolved party - see ~~WP:COI~~WP:TEA.--WaltCip (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Agree with WaltCip. --Kbdank71 12:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Recreate and repopulate. Countries (whether the user conceives of these as territories or states) rarely produce surnames. Surnames are produced by national or ethnic groups. Thus, there are Flemish surnames and Walloon surnames but no such thing as a Belgian surname because Belgium is political construct cobbled together for the convenience of, variousy, the British, Germans and French - not a nation with a culture, language or ethnicity. Certainly there are Jewish surnames, although it is probably more accurate to write of the jews of Ashkenazi, Kurdish, Romaniot, Sephardic, etc. heritage.Historicist (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Follow-up comment (closer). Re-creation has now been raised (by an editor not yet involved here) at Category talk:Surnames#Jewish surnames. As mentioned above, I see this (combined with perhaps an inquiry on my talk page) as one of the possible steps that could/should have been taken before considering getting a DRV off the ground. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion (nominator) -- Jewish surnames was just added to the nearly empty Category:Surnames by culture by Mayumashu, removing more pertinent categories such as Judaism. As explained by the (insufficiently referenced) article itself, most of the surnames are not unique to Jewish culture, but rather were assigned during the diaspora. ... he showed, from examples taken from all periods, that the Jews had freely adopted the current and popular names of their neighbors in all parts of the globe. As noted in the category description: Please note: even though surnames such as Harris, Lewis, Green, Black, Miller, Brooks, Gordon, and others are common Jewish surnames in some Western countries, they are also quite common amongst non-Jews as well. Also many names that are common in the Jewish community are really just ordinary German or Slavic surnames. Just as Smith, Thompson, Jones, Evans, Jackson, and Washington are common names in the African American community, one would not just assume they are exclusive to that culture. Most people named Schwartz, Klein, Roth, Hoffman, Schneider, Meyer, etc., are non-Jews despite common use of the names in the Jewish community. Just a slippery slope. Over and over we've seen Jewish categories tried as a "nation", resurrected as an "ethnicity", and resurrected again as a "culture". For those of Hebrew (sometimes called "Biblical") origin, a nicely referenced Hebrew-language surnames category would be preferable. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion this was clearcut because no one could OBJECTIVELY state criteria for inclusion or exclusion from this category, which makes the category unsustainable. Any Jew with the surname merits inclusion makes the category useless and only Jews have the surname would be hard to demonstrate and also probably useless as most Jews' surnames won't be in there - any where along that continuum is purely arbitrary and SUBJECTIVE, so useless. Also, there is no accounting for national differences among Jewish communities unless someone can provide some WP:RSes that Jews in Mexico have the same surnames as those in Russia or Iran or China, and they with each other, this is pure WP:OR and WP:ILIKEIT at work. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Recreate No consensus to delete and unfair to those working on category to make them deal with it at broader category. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Follow-up comment (closer). Category has been re-created by a user not involved in this discussion, further rendering this discussion moot. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Not so fast:William Allen Simpson has already tagged the re-created category for speedy deletion, and apparently depopulated it again.[1] And just so we are all clear about the level at which we are dealing here, WAS has also just deleted Cohen (!) from both Category:Hebrew-language surnames and Category:Jewish surnames.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Strongest possible recreate and repopulate - There is an active, vocal minority of extremist WP editors (including some admins) that have been intent for several years on diluting our encyclopedia's coverage of Jewish-related issues, including the elimination of very many categories. Their reasoning in this case is that Jewish surnames cannot be verified as typically Jewish. This is entirely inaccurate and unreasonable as there are numerous sources we rely on for the history and documentation of historically Jewish names. Let's abide by reasonableness rather than extremism and recreate and repopulate the category. The legwork for this should be done by the same editors who insisted on this category's deletion. Badagnani (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Jewish_surnames – Moot. The issue can be better decided at Category talk:Surnames. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another problematic close from the same admin who brought us the problematic close of Surnames by country. The decision by User:Good Olfactory to upmerge this into Category:Surnames tosses hundreds of surnames with thoroughly-documented Jewish connections into a useless catchall category with more than 14,000 entries. While the closing admin acknowledges that "This category may have to be re-created in some form depending on what scheme is developed", the decision to delete and upmerge was made in the face of clear consensus to keep. The nomination offered rather muddled reasons for deletion, and the only participant supporting deletion voted based it on the claim that "names are not and cannot be bounded by religion or ethnicity in any meaningful sense", which is rebutted by the rather obvious observation that the use of names by different religions is rather easily handled by using multiple categories for each name/religion combination that can be documented by reliable and verifiable sources. Furthermore, a dozen published books on the background and history of Jewish surnames makes it clear that this is a well-defined field of study that constitutes a strong defining characteristic of such names. It appears that the closing administrator has a rather strong bias towards deletion of such categories, even in the face of clear consensus to the contrary. In classic We had to destroy the village to save it style, we are now left with the Sisyphean task of rebuilding a rather clear category and plucking the appropriate names from among the 14,000 in Category:Surnames because one admin decided he doesn't like it. Alansohn (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion (closer). What to do depends largely upon what results from the other DRV and depends on the consensus at Category talk:Surnames, since this was essentially an appended decision to the main one. Could have probably been useful to wait for the result there, but whatever. The names are not lost and you don't have to pick through 14,000 to find them. They are readily available from Cydebot's contribution history and I can provide a list to anyone in fairly short order. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Jewish" is not a country, and appears to have no relation to any other structure other than the inclusion of the word "surnames". The rather clear disruption caused by the needless deletion is not mitigated by the fact that the names are not irrevocably lost, but any wasted time and effort could have been avoided by closing this as no consensus, at worst. The dozen books listed in the CfD should have amply justified that the category is defining, regardless of any of the nominator's preconceived prejudices on the subject. Alansohn (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and deal with at Category talk:Surnames (closer). On second thought, this doesn't even require a DRV. The close stated that the could be re-created if agreed to by consensus. All you need to is say you are going to re-create it at User talk:Surnames. If you get agreement by positive responses or silence, then just re-create it. That should have probably been what you should have done, and then if your re-creation proposal was opposed there, then you could have considered coming to DRV here. I'd note that the user didn't approach me at all about this close, which would have provided me the opportunity to give this advice, and even the list of articles that were in the category. DRV is a last resort, not the first stop for those who disagree with a close. (By the way, if getting the list of names from Cydebot's contribution history is a "Sisyphean task", the standards of how that phrase is used is clearly slipping. I could probably do this in 5 minutes ...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is simple disruption by the closing admin, perpetuating the disruptive WP:POINT made in the close. "Jewish" is still not a country and has nothing to do with the restructuring of Surnames by country demanded by the closing admin in complete disregard of consensus there. Whether we are treating this as overturning the improper close of this CfD, or recreating it based on the Surnames by country as demanded, this is where the discussion should take place. There has been enough disruption already, and the Wikilawyering demands that this must wait for a discussion of an entirely unrelated category only perpetuates the abuse of process. Alansohn (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, thanks for assuming good faith. I treated it as part of the previous nomination because that seemed to be the intent of the nominator. May have been correct; may not have been. Give me a break, though—you didn't even approach me about this! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have no idea if it was the nominator's intent, but you deleted the category regardless of consensus? Give Wikipedia a break. "The nominator may have wanted it deleted so I tossed into the delete pile" is a rather poor justification for deletion. You have already been approached about this and other vaguely related categories, and your mind appeared to have been made up, with no evidence that it could have been swayed, cutting down on needlessly wasted time dealing with this improper close. Alansohn (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I have an idea, and I have little doubt about the nominator's intent. ("Missed in yesterday's nomination as it's missing from the regular part of the tree." is relatively clear, IMO.) I was suggesting that maybe my assumption would be "wrong" in the view of a WP consensus, or that even if correct, that it wasn't correct to give credence to the intent. But you can't have it both ways. Either it's parceled with the other CfD and we wait for the result at that DRV; or, if we treat it as separate, you probably should have approached me about it first and not assumed that my response would have treated it as being parceled with the first one. You can't say, "it's separate" and in the same breath say "you already refused to reconsider because it was parceled with the other". Anyway, it's all relatively moot. As usual, your behaviour is tiring in general, Alansohn. All I can say is go ahead and discuss this to your heart's content. But it's a waste of time, because you can just re-create the category and get the list from me, or look up the list yourself. There's no real need for a DRV if you're strongly craving re-creation. You could save yourself a lot of time by just being less confrontational. (Of course, maybe you don't want to, which we must keep in mind.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate and repopulate. I was in favour of upmerging the 'surnames by country' categories but not the non-countries (such as Category:Flemish surnames) which the nom (WAS) tosed recklessly into the mass nom. The cfd for Category:Jewish surnames was separate from the bulk nom and was not a 'delete by consensus' (there are only 2 in the Jewish surnames cfd suggesting 'delete', the nom + Otto, and the others are keep or rename). Alansohn does have a point here, albeit over-stated; I think Good Olfactory should do the recreating and repopulating.Occuli (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't we just re-create it? As I've said above, this was clearly anticipated by the close. Honestly, I can't see the benefits of a discussion here. I probably won't be checking back here so if someone will notify me if this is speedily closed as re-create, then I could assist as needed or wanted. I would just go ahead and re-create it now, but as long as the discussion is ongoing I probably shouldn't. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - a difficult CFD, brought to a correct conclusion through appropriate deliberation by the closing admin. Otto4711 (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - This appears to be a definite vendetta between Alansohn and Good Olfactory. Further DRV actions should be taken by an uninvolved party - see ~~WP:COI~~WP:TEA.--WaltCip (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with WaltCip. --Kbdank71 12:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate and repopulate. Countries (whether the user conceives of these as territories or states) rarely produce surnames. Surnames are produced by national or ethnic groups. Thus, there are Flemish surnames and Walloon surnames but no such thing as a Belgian surname because Belgium is political construct cobbled together for the convenience of, variousy, the British, Germans and French - not a nation with a culture, language or ethnicity. Certainly there are Jewish surnames, although it is probably more accurate to write of the jews of Ashkenazi, Kurdish, Romaniot, Sephardic, etc. heritage.Historicist (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up comment (closer). Re-creation has now been raised (by an editor not yet involved here) at Category talk:Surnames#Jewish surnames. As mentioned above, I see this (combined with perhaps an inquiry on my talk page) as one of the possible steps that could/should have been taken before considering getting a DRV off the ground. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion (nominator) -- Jewish surnames was just added to the nearly empty Category:Surnames by culture by Mayumashu, removing more pertinent categories such as Judaism. As explained by the (insufficiently referenced) article itself, most of the surnames are not unique to Jewish culture, but rather were assigned during the diaspora.
... he showed, from examples taken from all periods, that the Jews had freely adopted the current and popular names of their neighbors in all parts of the globe.
As noted in the category description:
Please note: even though surnames such as Harris, Lewis, Green, Black, Miller, Brooks, Gordon, and others are common Jewish surnames in some Western countries, they are also quite common amongst non-Jews as well. Also many names that are common in the Jewish community are really just ordinary German or Slavic surnames. Just as Smith, Thompson, Jones, Evans, Jackson, and Washington are common names in the African American community, one would not just assume they are exclusive to that culture. Most people named Schwartz, Klein, Roth, Hoffman, Schneider, Meyer, etc., are non-Jews despite common use of the names in the Jewish community.
Just a slippery slope. Over and over we've seen Jewish categories tried as a "nation", resurrected as an "ethnicity", and resurrected again as a "culture". For those of Hebrew (sometimes called "Biblical") origin, a nicely referenced Hebrew-language surnames category would be preferable.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion this was clearcut because no one could OBJECTIVELY state criteria for inclusion or exclusion from this category, which makes the category unsustainable. Any Jew with the surname merits inclusion makes the category useless and only Jews have the surname would be hard to demonstrate and also probably useless as most Jews' surnames won't be in there - any where along that continuum is purely arbitrary and SUBJECTIVE, so useless. Also, there is no accounting for national differences among Jewish communities unless someone can provide some WP:RSes that Jews in Mexico have the same surnames as those in Russia or Iran or China, and they with each other, this is pure WP:OR and WP:ILIKEIT at work. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate No consensus to delete and unfair to those working on category to make them deal with it at broader category. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment (closer). Category has been re-created by a user not involved in this discussion, further rendering this discussion moot. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast:William Allen Simpson has already tagged the re-created category for speedy deletion, and apparently depopulated it again.[1] And just so we are all clear about the level at which we are dealing here, WAS has also just deleted Cohen (!) from both Category:Hebrew-language surnames and Category:Jewish surnames.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible recreate and repopulate - There is an active, vocal minority of extremist WP editors (including some admins) that have been intent for several years on diluting our encyclopedia's coverage of Jewish-related issues, including the elimination of very many categories. Their reasoning in this case is that Jewish surnames cannot be verified as typically Jewish. This is entirely inaccurate and unreasonable as there are numerous sources we rely on for the history and documentation of historically Jewish names. Let's abide by reasonableness rather than extremism and recreate and repopulate the category. The legwork for this should be done by the same editors who insisted on this category's deletion. Badagnani (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arthur Kade – closure endorsed – Shereth 15:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Arthur Kade (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Person is not notable. Seriously, I don't see how this afd was not closed as Delete. Gordonrox24 \| ^Talk 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. While I'd probably have voted delete on the original AfD, neither side of the argument was sufficiently overwhelming in argument or numbers nor any errors of policy to justify overturning a decision of no consensus.--Talain (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] I agree that there was no consensus in that discussion, but I think it blatantly obvious that this should be deleted.--Gordonrox24 \| ^Talk 02:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Uh, ~~endorse~~ overturn and delete – yeah, person is not notable. Consensus for deletion backs that clearly. Rough consensus is not equivalent to unanimity. MuZemike 08:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete. It's a judgment call as to whether the subject's media appearances convey notability, but the overall trend of the discussion was that the subject had not yet achieved notability sufficient to justify an article. The article has plenty of references but hardly any actual content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Weak overturn and delete per Metropolitan90. –Juliancolton \| ^Talk 15:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Closer statement. I don't mind particularly if this stays or not. If it's decided here that the article should have been deleted then fine, let's delete it. I disagree though that any consensus was there to be teased out of the discussion. By the numbers it was 6/3 in favour of deletion, but I feel JorgeMacD and Drawn Some's comments were adequately countered by subsequent comments, so discounted those; the nominator, Met90, and Orange Mike all assert that he's not notable, but seem to be measuring by some arbitrary standard that's stricter than wp:n and none of them explains at what point he would subjectively cross the threshold, and none of them explain why the Philadelphia magazine coverage fails to put him over the bar; and DGG's delete doesn't seem to be grounded in any particular policy, perhaps wp:notwebhost? but I don't see how that's relevant here. The onus is on the deleters to explain why he doesn't meet our standards for inclusion and I don't think they've achieved that here. Flowerparty^☀ 19:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] endorse close No consensus or keeping both seem to be reasonable closes. If we're going to override this close we need a good reason to do so and right now the primary one seems to simply be disagreeing with the result. (Disclaimer, I've argued for keeping in the discussion). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] The only reason I can give is lack of notability. I think the argument for deletion was stronger then that of the argument to keep.--Gordonrox24 \| ^Talk 10:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] I endorse Flowerparty's accurate reading of the consensus, and would remind all concerned that this is not AfD round 2.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Flowerparty's statement makes a very reasonable explanation at to why the closure was no-consensus. I see no process error here that would require overturning here at DRV.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] The closing admin has already commented on this DRV.--Gordonrox24 \| ^Talk 21:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] That doesn't answer my question, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure of no-consensus. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, close but within admin discretion. I would have preferred if Flowerparty's explanation had been provided at closing. Flatscan (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as per flowerparty.Historicist (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment this is not AFD 2.0; the closer got it wrong but not so horribly wrong as to overturn. A no-consensus close can be renominated later without any pre-conceived outcome expected. Since some people think that this article shows sufficient level of notability, I guess our WP:GNG should be amended to reflect that as this surely doesn't meet it (but that's an AFD not a DRV argument). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I tried to run an AFD round 2 but it was closed with the closer saying to come here if I wanted to delete the article. In the second AFD take note that the only !vote was to delete.--Gordonrox24 \| ^Talk 15:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Arthur Kade – closure endorsed – Shereth 15:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Person is not notable. Seriously, I don't see how this afd was not closed as Delete. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. While I'd probably have voted delete on the original AfD, neither side of the argument was sufficiently overwhelming in argument or numbers nor any errors of policy to justify overturning a decision of no consensus.--Talain (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there was no consensus in that discussion, but I think it blatantly obvious that this should be deleted.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, ~~endorse~~ overturn and delete – yeah, person is not notable. Consensus for deletion backs that clearly. Rough consensus is not equivalent to unanimity. MuZemike 08:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. It's a judgment call as to whether the subject's media appearances convey notability, but the overall trend of the discussion was that the subject had not yet achieved notability sufficient to justify an article. The article has plenty of references but hardly any actual content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn and delete per Metropolitan90. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closer statement. I don't mind particularly if this stays or not. If it's decided here that the article should have been deleted then fine, let's delete it. I disagree though that any consensus was there to be teased out of the discussion. By the numbers it was 6/3 in favour of deletion, but I feel JorgeMacD and Drawn Some's comments were adequately countered by subsequent comments, so discounted those; the nominator, Met90, and Orange Mike all assert that he's not notable, but seem to be measuring by some arbitrary standard that's stricter than wp:n and none of them explains at what point he would subjectively cross the threshold, and none of them explain why the Philadelphia magazine coverage fails to put him over the bar; and DGG's delete doesn't seem to be grounded in any particular policy, perhaps wp:notwebhost? but I don't see how that's relevant here. The onus is on the deleters to explain why he doesn't meet our standards for inclusion and I don't think they've achieved that here. Flowerparty^☀ 19:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close No consensus or keeping both seem to be reasonable closes. If we're going to override this close we need a good reason to do so and right now the primary one seems to simply be disagreeing with the result. (Disclaimer, I've argued for keeping in the discussion). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I can give is lack of notability. I think the argument for deletion was stronger then that of the argument to keep.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 10:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Flowerparty's accurate reading of the consensus, and would remind all concerned that this is not AfD round 2.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Flowerparty's statement makes a very reasonable explanation at to why the closure was no-consensus. I see no process error here that would require overturning here at DRV.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin has already commented on this DRV.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure of no-consensus. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, close but within admin discretion. I would have preferred if Flowerparty's explanation had been provided at closing. Flatscan (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per flowerparty.Historicist (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not AFD 2.0; the closer got it wrong but not so horribly wrong as to overturn. A no-consensus close can be renominated later without any pre-conceived outcome expected. Since some people think that this article shows sufficient level of notability, I guess our WP:GNG should be amended to reflect that as this surely doesn't meet it (but that's an AFD not a DRV argument). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to run an AFD round 2 but it was closed with the closer saying to come here if I wanted to delete the article. In the second AFD take note that the only !vote was to delete.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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