Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Closing admin suggested Deltion review if there was a disagreement with his closing. For one, the article was underconstruction and the Afd dialogue was ongoing. This article, an evolving article, was not even given a chance. There are many criticism articles on Wikipedia. To start with, the Speedy delete tag really defied AGF. Wikipedia articles about critism are not uncommon, and we should AGF that they are evolving towards constructive and informative articles. There are many articles about criticisms, this one has not even been given a chance - it was deleted in the middle of construction. Criticisms are not inherently negative, they are critiques from differing perspectives - and many of these perspectives are notable. I would continue to work on the article, edit it, and make it more presentable - but it has been speedy deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also important to note, there is a real bias to be acknowledged here, please see; Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) and Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008 for one example. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes and comments

• Endorse deletion - creation was disruption by User:Stevertigo. The Criticism of Barack Obama article has been deleted five times recently for G10, no reason why the sixth was different (and it wasn't). Sceptre ^(talk) 20:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and reconsider when there's a reasonably complete page to look at. I think there is a place on Wikipedia for "Criticism of" articles but they have to be handled carefully on a case-by-case basis.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Policy doesn't suggest userfication as an option on a page which is created with a disparaging slant, and I'm guessing the reason for~ that is that userpages are indexed, which means the defamatory material would immediately wind up on search engines and mirrors. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk)

  (ec) Well, Dan, that's why I added the "Noindex" magic word to the article the moment I saw it. I'm totally with you that we can't have unsourced defamatory material about a living person on Wikipedia anywhere where it might be indexed. That strikes me as a complete no-brainer.

  Equally, though, it's not unreasonable for established editors to be working on this article in an unindexed space.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I have asked that the article be userfied so that I may edit out POV issues and develop the article in general - which I was in the middle of doing when the article got speedied. To date, there has yet to be any detail of what was POV in the article I was working on - if they do exist, they can be noted (on the talk page) and removed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To quote WP:BLP: "Summary [speedy] deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is disparaging and written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be repaired or replaced to an acceptable standard." To quote WP:Attack page: "An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time." I have speedily deleted this page, and since it's already been speedily deleted under this and another name 6 times now, I have salted it (protected against recreation) for 1 month. I don't make the rules, I just enforce them. This is perhaps the one policy that the Wikimedia Foundation feels the most strongly about, since Wikipedia is subject to the same laws on defamation that everyone else in the U.S. is.
• That's the policy; now a personal note. I know that it's easy to feel "slapped down" when someone comes along and deletes an article you've put some work into. I didn't delete the article because there's anything wrong with your work, and Wikipedia does sometimes divide up biographical articles among separate pages, and some of the pages will slant in one direction while other pages slant in another direction. Keeping everything balanced is hard work, and I wish you the best of luck with making the points you'd like to make. But our policy is to delete pages which exist to disparage their subjects immediately; you can then continue your discussion in the obvious place, the talk page of Barack Obama, and if you can gain consensus to divide up the information among separate pages in the way you like, then you can proceed. Happy editing. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion per Sceptre. Brothejr (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Object to Deletion decision and Userfy. The article wasn't ready for mainspace, but there's no reason to destroy work that can be fixed in the long run, and a neutral article on the subject is overdue. Of course, we don't need a DRV to userfy something: all that takes is a single admin. The cache version provides absolutely no basis for Speedy Deletion. THF (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit restoration and editing in userspace The material as deleted had no obvious BLP violations (though I may have overlooked some); the argument would have to be that a criticism page was inherently a BLP violation, which I think nonsense. I would argue that BLP violations of a major politician can only apply to unsourced gossip or malicious abuse, though nPOV violation can occur due to to lack of balance. It was deleted it apparently on the basis of previous edits, not its own merits. It is appropriate to have such an article for major figures--and is no more a magnet for abuse than the main article. The article as deleted was clearly an outline under construction. DGG (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The point I made in the AFD is that even if we can have a neutral "criticism of..." article, it would be a duplicate of already-existing articles. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would mainly be people's opinions of the president, some might have reliable sources, most would not. Plus, as argued before, it would quickly become a honey pot for any editor who may not like the president and might even become a platform for editors to push their opinions into other articles. Finally, such an article would be hard to keep from violating NPOV and BLP. Brothejr (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion POV fork of Bill Ayers presidential election controversy, Jeremiah Wright controversy, and others. Looking at the deleted material...I can't really see what we are going to get from it that isn't already in those two articles. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I think that's a judgment it's hard to make without seeing more final content.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as a POV fork and NPOV/BLP concerns. Grsz¹¹ 22:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• permit restoration and editing in userspace I have not seen the content of the article. The content itself was probably worthy of removal. However, to say that this subject is unacceptable content for wikipedia yet Criticism of George W. Bush is acceptable is blatant bias. We should work on creating a well sourced and compiled account of common criticisms of Barack Obama. -Drdisque (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Which, if you haven't noticed, is up for merging into Public perception of George W. Bush. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's hard for me to follow the discussion above. The first question is: should the article have been speedily deleted? Mike Godwin (the WMF attorney), Jimbo, the WMF board, and the entire Wikipedian community have weighed in on this question many times, and the relevant policy can be found at WP:Attack page and WP:BLP. The answer, to comply with U.S. defamation laws, is: shoot first, ask questions later. If a page is created to disparage, which means to make people think less of, its subject, it should be deleted on sight per WP:Attack page, unless there's a quick way to improve the page, a way that will last and will work. Does anyone think that "Criticism of Barack Obama" was created to give a neutral and balanced impression of Barack Obama? The key is the word "created"; in just a few cases, biographies have been split into pages that take various positions, after much heated discussion on the talk page. But that's after the discussion, not before. The second question is whether there should eventually be a page called "Criticism of Barack Obama", after discussions at Talk:Barack Obama; I have no position on this. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and bring back here before allowing mainpage creation- A legit NPOV article can be made from this topic, but the article as it was, wasn't it. I'd like to see a draft in userspace before considering allowing it. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• userfy more or less per Umbral. Also note that while there are certainly BLP concerns if the main point of BLP is to do no harm than having draft articles about Obama in userspace are extremely unlikely to do any harm. Let's not forget that Obama is the president of the United States. Harm of that sort might occur to people of marginal notability. Harm is extremely unlikely in this sort of circumstance. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  But it could affect re-election. We need to be careful with BLPs for sitting politicians and candidates, as we've got an obligation to be neutral, especially as we're a top ten site. If people see a negative article on Wikipedia, they may not vote for that candidate. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Everything can effect anything. Reelection is 4 years from now. Wikipedia is influential but if you think Wikipedia will substantially alter who votes for whom that much... Moreover, if we write a neutral, well-sourced article then fine. All our articles can effect people. Criticism in an article could make someone vote against him also. The worry is unjustified harm. Finally, note that userspace is now NOINDEX so the probability of someone finding this article is very small. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Also see Mike Godwin's reply. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh do. And read my retort too; its not long, but it is a fairly complete summary of the deletionist argument. -Stevertigo 02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit restoration and editing in userspace per comments by DGG. His comments are some of the most constructive, practical, and rational in the discussion above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is potentially high-profile stuff. I've never set foot in the US and have no personal political axe to grind, but what concerns me about this is that we could wake up to a newspaper article about "Wikipedia deletes 'Criticisms of Barack Obama' after leaving 'Criticisms of George Bush' active for years." Things like that have happened before.

Yes, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I think we still have to be careful of blatant double standards in sensitive political BLP matters; this could actually be very damaging to Wikipedia.

If that's Mike's legal opinion then we can expect to see some office actions. If it's his view as an editor then I respectfully disagree with him.

I suggest a closer who's not from the US should handle this.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A merge has already been suggested for one of the Bush subpages, but even if that doesn't go through: you're suggesting that it's difficult to understand the difference between splitting the content of an article on Bush into two articles vs. creating an article for the purpose of disparaging the subject without any prior consensus, which has always been prohibited by our WP:Attack page and WP:BLP policies quoted above. Maybe I'm not seeing this clearly; I'll watchlist those two policy pages just to see if our policy changes, but I don't think it will. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not from lack of trying that the Dubya article still exists, either. The notability reflex at AfD makes it impossible to enforce NPOV sometimes. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. There's nothing to restore but attacks and vague notes. If the originator wants to write an article in userspace, he should do so.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse restoration It's hypocritical to have a page of criticisms for one controversial politician but not another. Anyone suggesting that fair criticisms of Barack Obama cannot be found are foolish; hundreds of articles can be found by notable, varied news sources. It is editor bias that prevents this point of neutrality. Ejnogarb (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't hypocrisy. This is enforcement of our policies before creation makes it impossible. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore - a few points:

1. "Delete it before it actually gets a chance to develop" is in fact a violation of policy, not an enforcement of.
2. Changing an AFD tag to speedy tag is a violation of policy.
3. Speedy deleting when an AFD is in discussion and is about 50/50 in favor/opposed to deletion is also against policy.
4. Closing a new and ongoing AFD discussion based on a POV claim of "attack page" is a violation of policy.
5. A POV partisan (Sceptre) speedy-closing an ongoing AFD discussion is a violation of policy.

• This one also pissed me off: I was in the middle of writing a detailed point by point refutation of the deletion arguments. I understand how my opponents seriously hate my point-by-points though. I make them look stupid, and sometimes take some enjoyment in it.

• Scepter said: "This is enforcement of our policies before creation makes it impossible" - how does "creation make[] it [enforcement] impossible?" Ive heard this concept expressed several times, both on Talk:Obama and the AFD page (now, temporarily closed), and its logic essentially says something like: "Wikipedia can't possibly control all the anti-Obama POV trolls to allow such a thing to exist." Its really a baseless and irrational argument. Things get handled: if anything, the criticism page gets protected, and stays that way, and nobody cares, as long as its written neutrally. -Stevertigo 01:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You create an article and put a source in it, people will defend it at AfD because "it's notable". Otherwise, we'd be rid of the Dubya article too. And no, speedy deletion of attack pages isn't violation of any policy. If you keep saying it is just so you can push a POV, I will seek to have you topic banned. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone honestly believe that any criticism article was written without an intent to disparage? It's a criticism page. There certainly isn't anything positive or neutral in such articles, or they wouldn't be "criticisms". Either a criticism page for Obama should be created or every such article should be deleted. This is a double standard. Ejnogarb (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only course of action, therefore, is deletion of other criticism articles, as you can't write an article to disparage something. Also, you're wrong about criticism being inherently negative: what do you say Roger Ebert is when he gives a film a good review? Sceptre ^(talk) 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. What percentage of articles beginning with "criticism of..." are actually positive? Ejnogarb (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the arts articles? I say a single digit percentage. If that. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ejno, that's not accurate. People often make criticism pages because they say "Hey! We've got a lot of well-sourced criticism of this guy. It can't all fit in the article. Let's make a neutral child article discussing the criticism." JoshuaZ (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! We've got a lot of well-sourced criticism of Barack Obama. It can't all fit in his article. Let's make a neutral article discussing the criticism! Ejnogarb (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have a neutral criticism article outside the Arts pages, as they don't allow (or rather, people won't allow) positive opinions in them. The correct method of spinning out opinions is to spin them all out into a child article, not just one side. I don't see how people find that concept so difficult to understand. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree (with Ejnogarb). Does anyone here have a problem dealing with this issue at a policy level? Deletionists here have been quoting this nonexistent anti-criticism articles policy for days now, and that argument really needs to get slapped down once and for all. Whether the people pushing such a specious argument would likewise feel slapped down is their own personal business. And Josh, are you saying that newspaper reports of Senate level criticism is not "well sourced?" Or are you saying that the person who starts such an article must make sure its developed before its actually on the wiki (where other people can maybe edit it)-Stevertigo 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't claiming anything about the level of criticism in this situation. Simply observing that Edjo's claim that people inherently make criticism articles to be negative is inaccurate. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does anti-criticism article policy exist, it's also a fundamental cornerstone of Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sceptre, all that NPOV says on this topic is "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." How you get from there to no criticism articles isn't at all clear to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:UNDUE. Take Putin, for example? He's got an approval rating at around 75-80%. So why do we have a "criticism" article put not a "praise" article? Sceptre ^(talk) 02:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly because he's not a liberal. Ejnogarb (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is Noam Chomsky. Wait... Sceptre ^(talk) 02:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, did Sceptre just quote NPOV as the basis for his criticism of criticism sections? When NPOV in fact says nothing on criticism sections or articles? Did he also just switch from pointing to NPOV to pointing to UNDUE? Way to stand up for NPOV, Sceptre. We now see that your point is not actually based on policy either. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT maybe. -Stevertigo 02:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Undue weight" is a sub-section of NPOV. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't see how that says no criticism articles either. Could you explain this please? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It effectively prohibits criticism articles (outside the arts) because they don't provide a "balanced view of the subject" (the subject being the parent article). What do you think would happen if Praise of Barack Obama was created? Of course, if the criticism itself is notable (for example, Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy), and the criticism isn't simply a synthesis of sources, then that may be acceptable. But that's the only one I can see out of the hundred or so articles. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the argument here. How does undue weight effectively prohibit criticism articles? If the subject of an article is criticism of X then that's balanced. I'd have no problem with article spinoffs of the form "Praise of X" although since humans are naturally critical and praise is generally boring you'll have trouble in general getting enough material for such an article. But if you did there wouldn't be any essential problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of a spun out article is the parent article. The daughter article can limit the content in any way it wishes as long as it affect the balance of its parent article: for example European Theater of World War II can limit its content to the war in Europe, but it can't limit viewpoints of the war itself. If an article has balance problems, it's shaky ground to split articles out before fixing the balance. In non-Criticism articles, however, this is rarely an issue. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple problems. First, the subject of a spun out article is not the parent article. That's simply wrong. The subject of a spun out article is the topic of the child article. Second of all, you confuse balance with neutrality. Neutrality does not mean we make an artificial balance between the positive and negative sources. Finally, note that if you were correct, all child articles would be unacceptable since they focus on one specific aspect of a subject of a larger article. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what summary style is supposed to do: focusing on one aspect of a specific article. And that's fine in most cases, as it doesn't affect the neutrality from its parent article. But criticisma articles rarely do not. Simply using negative viewpoints when positive sources exist is the very antithesis of neutrality as a concept, let alone our policy. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment would have some minimal validity if that's what a criticism article was. A well written criticism article contains the major criticisms and the responses to those critics, as well as relevant postive material. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well written criticism articles don't tend to exist. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite so sure this is actually true. It may in fact just be your opinion, in which case your expression of it here violates WP:NOT. Again, we suggest you take this opinion up higher, so as to make yourself useful to the whole project, as your opinion, if correct, is no doubt something that Wikipedia needs to deal with in every such article, not just this one. Will you do it? It doesn't seem like you want to help the project out this way.-Stevertigo 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a discussion at NPOV to validate something that already exists. And I'd love to get rid of the vast majority of "criticism" articles, but the overidealistic AFD and the (definitely codified against) "verifiability over NPOV" movements are major obstacles. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre's valid point

• Sceptre summed up the deletionist argument quite nicely: "But it could affect re-election!" I love it. -Stevertigo 02:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can Wikipedia simultaneously have an anti-criticism policy and hundreds of criticism pages? Are you suggesting that such pages contain no criticisms? Or that they are balanced with an equal number of "positive criticisms"? Ejnogarb (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply? Because people are too idealistic at AfD. They see only non-notability as a reason to delete an article, and everything else is "fixable". Specifically, NPOV is seen as an editorial problem, rather than a reason for deletion (foolishly, in my opinion), so no-one will delete it for that reason. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy? Oh no! Note that Sceptre has hinted above that he personally will correct that problem too. Let's be encouraging to him; he appears to like quoting NPOV, let's see how he will convince hundreds of Wikipudlians that our common conventional way of handling/encapsulating notable criticism for years is wrong, and people have been less than NPOV (his concept) for doing so. Sceptre, go forth and stand on your principles. We will, in spirit anyway, support your noble efforts. -Stevertigo 02:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, cool down a bit ok? This isn't helpful. Sceptre, that is however what our deletion policy says. Unless there's something fundamentally wrong with an article we do let people edit it and see if the they can fix it. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental NPOV problems still aren't seen as deleteable. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy-- Articles about "criticism" are not uncommon on Wikipedia (Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt). I suggest to start a centralized discussion about policy. Not allowing "Criticism of Barack Obama" to be userfy without deleting others similar articles is bias and gives the wrong impression. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  {sigh} It's not about bias. It's about killing a weed before it roots itself into the ground. How many times must I say this? Sceptre ^(talk) 08:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, subpages aren't allowed in the mainspace. At a first look there seems to be some non-BLP-violating material there, and if someone's prepared to wade through and pick it out, I'd be happy with that being userfied. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, I agree with Sceptre and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an arguement I'm going to take into account. "Criticism of" articles are fundamentally slanted in that they will always only contain a critical view (gives UNDUE weight to the critical view). Since userfication is requested, do so with an index blocker so it doesn't come up in search and a Template:Userpage at the top. However, if the article is to be reinstated, it should be done at Public perception of Barack Obama. And yes, I think that would be a good move for the vast majority of non arts "Criticism of" pages. Usrnme h8er (talk  contribs) 11:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  We already have Public image of Barack Obama, which includes things like the fact people (esp. McCain and Clinton) criticised him for a lack of experience. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. We already have a Public image of George W. Bush as well. Why would we need a "criticism of" page as well? Ejnogarb (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, and Endorse deletion and Endorse salting of any page titled "Criticism of..." particularly when a living person is involved. "Public reception..." is dubious but reasonable. "Controversies involving..." has similar potential problems but also doesn't poison the well. "Criticism of..." is an invitation to soapboxing, content forking, and all sorts of other problems. Editors love these articles because they're an accepted way to force their gripes about a topic into what would otherwise be a respected source of information, but criticism pages violate about 75% of the things that Wikipedia is not (i.e. soapbox, battleground, indiscriminate collection, original thought, webhost, etc...). SDY (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse recreation until such time as the deletion of all "Criticism of..." becomes policy. In the meantime, it seems to me that those users who endorse deletion, such as Sceptre for example, are unable to express their point of view without going OTT or starting an argument in breach of WP:CIVIL. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 12:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also raised the objection (albeit not here) that the proposed criticism page will repeat information that is already adequately covered and is simply a condensation into a page with POV problems. There are all sorts of reasons not to have this page, and I've yet to see an argument for having this page other than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OSE. SDY (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion: Yet another attempt to manufacture controversy for a president who hasn't even had time to generate much genuine controversy. Wikipedia is not the place for disgruntled voters (WP:RECENTISM) to grasp at biographical straws (WP:BLP) in a thinly-veiled attempt at venting their frustration. The Ayers and Wright nonsense was a rhetorical attempt (WP:SOAP) by relatively few individuals (WP:UNDUE), some of whom received some sensationalist press coverage (WP:NOTNEWS), to establish guilt by association, which has had no demonstrable impact on Obama's career as a senator, president, or otherwise notable figure and is therefore not the slightest bit encyclopedic. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No controversy has to be created, and dozens of potential cases exist. Don't you watch the news? There has been plenty of controversy. Obama is just as controversial as any other BLF. Either allow the creation of this page or allow editors to immediately delete every "criticism of" page for BLFs. Ejnogarb (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe caterwauling is not valid criticism. Birthergate, "OMG SOCIALIST", "OMG White Guilt!", etc...are simple points of view of those of opposing ideologies, and minor ones at that. Contrast that to the very wide-spread, years-long, global criticism of the previous president's handling of the Iraq war. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a deal. If I can find 10 different articles from reputable sources about 10 different controversies, you'll endorse the creation of a criticisms page or the deletion of all others. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A better idea would be to refrain from WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS non sequiturs. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An easy way of inserting personal bias into article creation and ignoring others. You assume that valid documentation doesn't exist and you're not willing to entertain such an idea. According to you, how long must a politician be in office before his grace period ends and criticism becomes valid? Your assumption shows a blatant lack of NPOV. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion & salt Trolling BLP subjects, whether 500 people or 5 billion know of them in unacceptable; set consensus is the article is unwanted by how often it's been kicked; just another venue for a minority subset of the population with a minority viewpoint from a minority (by size) party to beat a long-dead horse that is made of fringe swiss cheese. rootology (C)(T) 13:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Even stronger endorse THF is doing a good-faith build up of this by sourcing as seen on User talk:THF/Obama at my suggestion--and even then, for the most "notable"^{[citation needed]} criticism of him to date, which is that Ayers stuff, I've just dismantled here: User_talk:THF/Obama#Ayers_example. I think it's far, far too early for this article. rootology (C)(T) 17:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - This dead horse has been tried and deleted several times over now. Having been rebuffed at the main page, these types of people are simply probing the cracks and fissures to see if they can get their particular minority POV in via other means. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per BLP. --Kbdank71 17:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion echoing much of the above. Eusebeus (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-create and semi-protect indef. Of course it's likely to be a problem, but (at least one) version has decent citations. COI disclosure: I am a supporter of President Obama. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and salt - The primary reason given by those wanting the article to be recreated is that other similar articles exists, therefore this one should be allowed. I believe there is an essay out there about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and one of the arguments to avoid seems to have a similar ring to it. I don't think anyone can deny that there are "criticisms" of Obama out there, but the question I have is why can't those criticisms be worked into either the main article (if it is prominent enough) or into one of the sub-articles (if it isn't prominent enough for the main article, but prominent enough for inclusion in that article)? I have yet to run across a "Criticism of" article about a BLP that doesn't violate NPOV in some way, either by failing to handle the criticism in a neutral manner, and/or by giving undue weight to incredibly trivial criticisms. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the reasons to keeo them separate from the main article are 1/ because the extent and virulence of criticism in this particular instance is a major topic of its own right. and 2/in order to help keep the main article uncontaminated. Both reasons are similarly the case with most other valid uses of the "criticism: article type. DGG (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The desire to keep the main article "uncontaminated" is a perfect explanation as to why "Criticism of" articles are a violation of NPOV and FORK. I really couldn't have put it better myself. Thanks. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, DGG, we already have Public image of Barack Obama, which does a better job at presenting criticism than this article did. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore This is just another way to whitewash this man, as if his crap doesn't stink. He is a polititian plane and simple and as such should be treated as one, ie Bush Bashing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs)

• Comment: This is of course a very valid reason. BTW: Why didn't you sign your !vote? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you seem to be implying that I didn't sign for some sort of ominous reason, you can't be further from the truth. I must have just missed doing it.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore or Userfy I didn't get to see the page and maybe it isn't ready for prime time but to delete this straight out the gate is the worst form of Whitewashing. If there is little confidence in the original creator I volunteer to have the page userfied to my account and would invite others to work on it until it becomes acceptable to the project's standards. - Schrandit (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy of course works, to a limited extent. But in reality few people collaborate on particular user subpages, and deleting an article draft subpage is really just a POV way to destroy the concept altogether, at least for the first 100 days or so. BLP of course needs to be updated to explain this newly-imagined 'honeymoon period' clause in the policy. -Stevertigo 22:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article. Clearly, that was a violation of procedure. AfD was closed in a few hours:[1]. People were not allowed to vote.Biophys (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Recreation of previously deleted material is a valid criteria for speedy deletion. Tarc (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore or allow recreation The POV and BLP issues can be taken care of by means other than a deletion LetsdrinkTea 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  BLP issues are a reason for deletion. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - a neutral administrator has fully protected the article as a redirect citing BLP and NPOV concerns. Right now, this is just a battlefield for either side and everybody should value the opinion of an editor willing to take a look and assess the situation. Grsz¹¹ 05:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an interim measure pending the establishment of a consensus at this DRV. An opinion belongs here, not as an act of admin fiat, so I can'd agree that the closer should take it into account unless the admin concerned actually contributes here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wow, and yet there is an article on Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative suggestion

keep Criticism of Barack Obama deleted, but remove SALTing (Update: SALT has been removed effective end of Bush's AFD debate)

I don't understand why this article was created as a subset of Barack Obama, but the original Criticism of Barack Obama article should be kept deleted, but unsalted (semiprotected) for potential creation of encyclopedic article. I am also a Barack Obama voter. Barack Obama/Criticsm of Barack Obama should remain protected. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've gotten an equitable solution. Maintain delete and protect of this subarticle and wait until March 23rd for end of SALT on Criticism of Barack Obama. JustGettingItRight (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• restore or Userfy There exists a good article on this topic somewhere. It can and should exist so as not to unbalance that BO main article. This is going to be a hard article to get into good shape and I think we'll get it there faster in mainspace. But baring that, userfication is the way to go here. Hobit (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:CFORK: "If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ". If it would disrupt the balance of Barack Obama, it would disrupt the balance of Criticism of Barack Obama. Therefore, the content wouldn't be admissable. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That clearly isn't the case when the policy/guildline is WP:WEIGHT. We have spinout articles on all sorts of topics (say list of characters) because organiationally having a huge section on that topic would be inappropriate given the nature of the rest of the article (same WP:WEIGHT as here). Hobit (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Or it can stay salted and deleted until there's a consensus to recreate it. And note, consensus is not the same handful of users saying there is consensus to create it, no matter how many times they say it. rootology (C)(T) 14:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, consensus isn't a small number of admins repeatedly deleting it, either.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and salt Dead horse, attempt to make a home for disgruntled voters, and what Somedumbyankee said.
• Endorse deletion and salt 6 recreations has more than tried the community's patience. BLP applies in userspace and creating BLP violations or attack pages there will likely earn a block. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like someone's already gone there; User:THF/Obama. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the BLP violation or the attack here (User:THF/Obama)? This is legitimate use of userpace by an established user, we don't know what the outcome is going to be. No need to be paranoid and don't confuse BLP/attack violations to criticism of the actions by the President. Please, we are not in Nineteen Eighty-Four. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THF's use is totally valid and was done at my own suggestion, and I'm working with him on it, with Orangemike, and we're both pretty obviously on squarely the far other side of the political room from THF. rootology (C)(T) 19:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wow, and yet there is an article on Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  And there's one for McCainocrats too. Those two articles should be dealt with in tandem (I'm not objectionable to a "Cross-ideology support in the 2008 presidential election" article). Sceptre ^(talk) 22:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That might be a good idea, yet to only include cross-ideology support would also ignore every notable criticism. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  But cross-party criticism isn't notable at all. Have you ever heard of a political party that didn't slag off the other? Sceptre ^(talk) 22:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Restore until there is a Wikipedia-wide decision on whether to retain or remove all "Criticism of" articles. That's NPOV, not selective deletion. The closing did not allow for adequate time for comment. -- Noroton (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If other stuff exists, we should fix that as well instead of creating more soapboxes. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth just leaves Wikipedia as a partisan battleground. SDY (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible compromise at User:THF/Obama

• Comment The above work seems to be a good route forward. It has my support as a work in progress as there are many editors working in good faith to construct a valuable article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I oppose any criticism article about Obama. We already have Public perception of Barack Obama. This just creates two articles for the same purpose, except that one has a reasonable chance of neutrality. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you have stated that about 15 times, I think people can see that you feel that way. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're creating some sort of straw poll to gauge user opinion on the matter, then you do not get to bellyache about anyone who chooses to weigh in, no matter what their position may be. Clear? Tarc (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Over and over and over and over again - yep, sure is clear. Thanks! Ism schism (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this WP:POVFORK of other articles, such as the main one or the Public Image one. This is a pointless exercise. Tarc (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We shouldn't allow any criticism of Obama anywhere. We've done a good job keeping it out of the Barack Obama article, but now we have to keep it out of the rest of the encyclopedia. Criticism of Obama is inherently POV and can never be notable enough to be included in Wikipeida. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Amen. Ism schism (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The newest idea proposed - User:THF/Obama - is the most practical way forward. This is a very constructive way to proceed, the most productive avenue, and the most rational choice. It has my full support. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like that, wouldn't it be simplest to withdraw this DRV? Nobody's actually deleted User:THF/Obama so this discussion appears moot.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are that this deletion should be reviewed. I support the recreation of the speedy deleted article. I also support ther userfied User:THF/Obama. There are many ideas, options, and comments left to be made - as this is not a quick process. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion on technical grounds (unfinished article in wrong place, being transcluded into talk space) but don't prejudge a recreated version in a sandbox or eventually article space. Wikidemon (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Obviously much of what a president does will be controversial. The point of an article like this should be not what he does and says, but what is said about him. Much of this will have no great relationship to reality, and all of it will be strong POV. But what we should be doing in an article like this is reporting on it, and in particular on what is said about not him, but on the controversy about him. Usually this isn't worth separating, but once things get really partisan on an issue, it is. People comment on the commentators. If we report their views and the comments on them fairly, we are observing NPOV. Obviously such an article will be in large part a history of how people have abuse him. What of it? It happens. People do that. What they do that way is important. People write about how others abuse him. They intend this in some degree to be a defense of him, but it gets beyond that. The careers of the commentators become notable independently, and this article is in a sense of summary of the substance of those careers, not of his actions. It is better to have this separate from the main article because the nature of the sourcing and balance is different. To make an analogy, we're reporting on the coverage of a war, not on the war. We don;t defend him, or attack him. Other people do. We discuss that. THF's outline is a start that way, because its divided to some extent along the separate views. Let's face it: a large part of the role of a politician in a democratic country is to be attacked & they are expected to tolerate it. DGG (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The role of Wikipedia, however, does not include providing a vehicle for the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people (quoted from an Irishman, because it's that day). The criticism can and should be covered in context. If it's criticism about foreign policy, for example, we have a foreign policy article for El Presidente. If it's notable enough to be covered, it should be covered. A dedicated nattering from the nabobs of nefariously nasty noodling nebulous negativism page is what people's blogs are for, not Wikipedia. SDY (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mostly I would like to see a clear policy about whether "Criticism of [a living person]" articles are supposed to be kept or whether they should be merged into another article about the person. There may be arguments for either position but in order to have a neutral point of view, we need to be consistent. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest (and have suggested before) that should be taken to RFC to establish a consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion It seems like many users who endorse deletion do not believe that an article based on "Criticism of..." any subject can be NPOV. However, given that such articles on Wikipedia are encyclopedic records of criticism that has been raised, as opposed to normative statements given by the criticism itself, is the question not compelled how users equate "Criticism of..." articles with POV? One imagines that facts, the not in the least unnotable facts of criticism raised of Obama, can be entertained by a neutral perspective. Furthermore, if the title of an article is "Criticism of Barack Obama", that is to say, if the article were about criticism of Barack Obama, it would include, presumably, not only ennumeration of faults that have been identified in his leadership, but also, information concerning the criticism itself. What comes to mind inevitably are the questions "who, where, when, why, how", in addition to "what", the inclusion of which seems to have not a small number of users so quite concerned. Therefore, I am in favour of keeping the article titled "Criticism of Barack Obama", or whatever the title was. GiovanniCarestini (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GiovanniCarestini (talk • contribs) 08:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bush merge

• The article Criticism of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been merged into Public image of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), following a quick (but attended to) merge discussion where it was unanimous to merge the two articles. Any points made because of the prior existence of this article should be revisited. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The article was merged and not speedy deleted. Those are two different actions. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The former is arguably better than the latter because it involves an element of consensus. In any case, it would be inappropriate to argue for the existence of an Obama criticism article because a Bush criticism article exists because, well, it doesn't any more. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wow, this thing hasn't been closed yet? Anyway, in case the closing admin is unfamiliar with the goings-on lately, I should point out that the same person who nominated the Obama-criticism article for restoration also nominated the Bush-criticism piece for deletion at an AfD that was closed as "pure disruption." Make of that what you will, but I'm surprised that this DRV has dragged on for so much longer than that AfD. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-imposition (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I feel that this article was wrongfully deleted. It contains a legitimate definition from game theory that doesn't seem to exist anywhere else on wikipedia. The definition itself is short, so the article doesn't contain much text, but it still has value for people trying to understand the subject, for example someone reading Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which links to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ostracize (talk • contribs) 12:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G1. If anything above is true, the article does not qualify for CSD, at least not G1. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 14:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn this article, whilst not very clear to a non-specialist reader, was definitely not nonsense and should not have been speedily deleted. Hut 8.5 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Definitely not G1. I also doubt that A1 applies either. Ruslik (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn That it was judged nonsense was apparently to the unfamiliarity of both the editor and the admin involved.DGG (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. G1 does not apply and neither does A1 (though it's perhaps closer). Since this is just a definition, it is likely to be deleted under WP:NOT#DICTIONARY or perhpas merged, but speedy deletion was not appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AFD. Doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn so it can correctly go through the process. Not a speedy candidate. Enigma^msg 02:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn sufficiently poorly written and devoid of context that someone might reasonably believe it G1. Send to Afd, so we can go through process, but since it's basically a WP:DICDEF now and the content seems already covered in the linked article, it may not survive Afd. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. WP:MUSIC says that albums by notable artists may be notable. This article was around for a few years before nominator claimed it was unnotable. The final vote was 4 to keep, 7 to delete, which is not a concensus.SPNic (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's almost 2 to 1 in favour of deletion. How can you say that was no concensus? Furthermore, there is no guidelines which state length of time an article is on wikipedia is a mandatory keep. A-Kartoffel (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's 8 (delete) to 4 (keep), if you count my vote as well. A-Kartoffel (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't count the original nomination; that was a mistake. But I still think this is a case of rampant deletionism and that there should be a statute of limitation.SPNic (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there isn't a statue of limitations. This is only my third AfD nomination over a 2 year period btw. User:Hexachord, for example, nominates more in a week than I've done in my entire time here on wikipedia. So I don't know why this particular article is being single out when there have been far closer and less clear-cut results. No offence SPNic. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably because this is an article that I've actually read.SPNic (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been an easy read then. It was nothing more than a tracklist when nominated. If you've missed the content that was added later, that can be remedied with a visit to Jake Holmes or Dazed and Confused, where most of the content was duplicated from. A-Kartoffel (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should be stated clearly that I NEVER EVER nominated ANYTHING for deletion, besides blatant CSDs when on Huggle and one AfD per request. Oh, wait, some redirects, too. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 13:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, folks, that AfD isn't a vote. Thus, weak arguments are given less weight. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion since there is reliable 3rd party coverage that was not yet worked into the article. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 03:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: 1) There was a clearcut consensus to delete 2) the AfD was on the album in question, not any song or artist 3) the sources used are not neutral and are thus not reliable. A-Kartoffel (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment interesting statement "WP:MUSIC says that albums by notable artists may be notable." isn't really a stunning revelation, something maybe notable. What WP:NALBUMS says is "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." which seems to be the primary reason for deletion. As to having been here for X, imposing a rule of such would be pretty much contrary to the project goals, to write a quality, free, npov encyclopedia. Why would we let stuff stay which is outside of that just because it's been here for too long? (And no I don't want to get into a debate about what quality means, I'll let our current content and inclusion guidelines define that.) --81.104.39.44 (talk) 08:23, 15 March 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) 11:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see that part, I thought the vote was close, and it wasn't clear who you were talking to.SPNic (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. Please note that the instructions are there for several reasons; I encourage you to follow them fully in future. Endorse deletion, clear consensus at the AFD and there is no indication that the deletion process wasn't properly followed. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin - There was a clear consensus at the AfD, and SPNic has provided no evidence to suggest the deletion process was not followed properly. I'm also rather disappointed that there was no attempt to contact me prior to this DRV. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about because WP:MUSIC says that album articles that are just track listings should be merged to a discography article (rather than being deleted outright)? I'd like to see the people who worked on the music notability guidelines see if this is notable.SPNic (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notability of a specific article is not for the closing admin to decide. It should be determined through the consensus of the community, and in this case, the result was clear. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What if consensus is wrong?SPNic (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MUSIC actually says "...they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article" - no should about it and it's quite clear that albums should meet the general notability guideline. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: I'm surprised it's reached review. It was a clear consensus to delete, more clearer than other AfD results I've seen lately. A-Kartoffel (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion as in-process per the AfD. Eusebeus (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The AfD was correctly carried out. Not every album by every "notable" artist should get its own article, there's still other guidelines that have to be dealt with. ThemFromSpace 13:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion proponent of review misunderstands WP:MUSIC (specifically WP:NALBUMS). Let me quote: "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. [¶] In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." (emphasis mine) As was demonstrated at the Afd, this album fails the first prong; and the second prong is phrased in the permissive, the album may be notable, which of course implies it may not, as here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of This World (Black Sabbath Song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Killing Yourself to Live (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After Forever (song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Solitude (song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AfD ended early, song has been covered by several notable artists [2] --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 01:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just mention that in Master of Reality, as is typical for songs that never saw a single release? - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire - past ops) 11:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: it's a rock (or if you want, metal) standard. Generations of younger bands have covered it. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 12:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the article (assuming the cached version is correct) makes absolutely no mention of that. You are essentially stating that this has some sort of standalone notablity because it's "a rock standard", is the covered in reliable sources? --81.104.39.44 (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See link above. Plus, there are several book sources, see [3]. Would be easy to work into the article. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 16:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the link above shows that a few others have covered it, that's not the same as a source stating it as a "rock standard", and indeed you couldn't just make such an assertion on that and that alone. From the snippets of the books I can see (or understand) I can't get enough context to see if they are useful e.g. some appear to be parts of lists and "and a Black Sabbath cover ('Lord of This World')" which seems to be the extent of the coverage. Perhaps the others contain more useful stuff. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not mention this information in Master of Reality, again? Generally, songs are treated as parts of their single or album, and you seem to have a bit of sourced info but nothing that can't fit in the MoR article. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire - past ops) 11:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would of course accept a merge of all those four articles, but therefore they have to be undeleted first. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 18:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is bordering on the perverse. You want these articles undeleted, so you can add info that was never present in these articles to an entirely different article. Why don't you just edit Master of Reality to add the factual claims that you want to add? - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire - past ops) 21:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Several editors worked on the articles until their deletion, what would be a nice base for further development - either as articles in their own right or as sections of the album articles. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 18:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise the lyrics have even been analysed in several Christian theology books, which may be notable enough for an own article - together with lots of covers and some of them being released as singles. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:34, 17 March 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? Also, while the discussion was closed a day early, could you please clarify how you would expect one extra day to change anything in this AFD? Stifle (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion was not even added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs, leading to it dozing off after one day - which may be the reason for the early close. I would accept a relist, because at least a merge seems appropriate. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 12:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be aware that deletion sorting and notifying parties who might be interested in an article are not required. I await your answer to my first question. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am waiting for a lottery win. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 12:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator failing to engage and answer reasonable questions in a non-frivolous manner. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin Deletion sorting is not a requirement of nominating an article for deletion. Was open 4 full days with all comments being to delete or redirect, with an emphasis on deletion. A protected redirect to the album might be a compromise here, but I believe the consensus was firmly that the article should not exist. MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - a valid WP:SNOW delete and early close. Usrnme h8er (talk  contribs) 10:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• We now can add all three articles of

Killing Yourself to Live (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• Discussion still ongoing, five days not yet over, articles much improved the past two days, consensus IMHO at least pointing to a merge to the respective album articles but now deleted and recreated as redirects. If only everything here would be as thorough... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restored and yet again deleted, this time speedy. April 1 is still far away... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 06:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be a redirect to the album per WP:MUSIC. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion nothing amiss at the Afd, this isn't round 2. As for a redirect, I'm ambivalent about redirects from formulations that require the band's name in it - which is not specifically spelled out at WP:MUSIC. I think the link at Lord of This World to Master of Reality serves the purpose, why do we need to redirect other formulations of the song title with various capitalizations of "Song" perhaps as well? Redirects are cheap, but the only reason we'd be redirecting improper capitalizations here is because of its prior creation. Seems like perpetuating error rather - as I highly any user would type in Lord of This World (Black Sabbath Song) without first trying Lord of This World, and if such a user existed, the search function would no doubt guide him/her to the proper place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point on the redirect. I thought of that, but figured it couldn't hurt. But it probably won't help either. The only reason it might be useful is for folks to generate a link to the song (rather than the album) from other articles. Eh. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion: AfD was a snowball delete and followed correct protocol. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion No matter your personal opinion of the notability of the song, I don't see how you can take issue with the closing of the AfD in question. Enigma^msg 02:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the funny thing is that I don't even know the song ("Lord...") and have absolutely no Sabbath record in my collection. ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 06:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that "After Forever" has been userfied to User:Lykantrop/After Forever (song). --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]