< 2010 June 13
Deletion review archives: 2010 June
2010 June 15 >

14 June 2010

  • Debrahlee Lorenzana – No consensus to overturn deletion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Debrahlee Lorenzana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User:Courcelles closed the afd citing WP:Notnews and WP:BLP1E, yet Debrahlee Lorenzana has received coverage that extends beyond BLP1E. In fact, she has continued to receive coverage even today. As per WP:BASIC: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. As she has been the subject of numerous published material which qualifies for WP:RS, she is presumed notable. Some articles from today from Lorenzana&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1 google news

Smallman12q (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - This woman is known for nothing else than getting fired for having a great rack, so what part of "one event" is confusing? Continued coverage for one event is still WP:BLP1E, as the closer correctly found these arguments to be better than the typical "keepitsnotable" entries. Tarc (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I don't expect this DrV go to anywhere, because there is a bias against articles on tabloid characters like this, notwithstanding huge international coverage, because some editors deem them unseemly. Anyhow, for deletion review, the question is whether the closer properly determined the consensus of those who participated. Here there was no consensus, it was evenly split. Maybe that was a dumb lack of consensus, but so it stands. As I noted in a civil back and forth with the closer, User_talk:Courcelles#Debrahlee_Lorenzana, "I find it interesting how the word 'consensus' gets mangled at times in support of closings. The term simply means 'the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.' Consensus is a form of snout counting, but it is actually more biased against deletion than snout counting. E.g., a vote of 5-4 to delete would require a delete result in an AFD if we were simply vote counting, but that same vote demonstrates a lack of consensus if we are trying to determine consensus as to that article." In my opinion, the proper outcome would have been to either relist or to close as no consensus. When the closer ignores the lack of consensus and picks one side or the other, that's an application of a supervote, not a determination of what the consensus was. I realize this happens in contentious AfDs where the unseemly content make some feel it subjectively unworthy, but I do not agree with that point of view. Certainly, whether the deletion is upheld should be irrelevant to whether the subject has a "great rack." Its whether the rack is notable, as demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources, which it easily met here. WLP1E is a closer call, I admit.--Milowent (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The user who requested the review is the same user who created the article and who was most active in arguing for keeping it. However, he has not yet managed to present anything that would come even close to demonstrate notability beyond WP:BLP1E. His whole argument in the afd-discussion, repeated again here, is that because she has been the subject of published material, she is notable. In doing so, he demonstrates a failure to understand the policy of WP:BLP1E. This WP:HOTTIE briefly made the headlines when she had some juicy pictures taken of herself and sold them to the press alongside an unsubstantiated claim that she had been fired, long ago, for being "too hot". So apart from being the subject of only one (very minor) event, she also looks to be engaged in self-pro motioning here. In short, the story was not notable, she is not notable, and Smallman12q, for all his many posts about this subject, has not succeeded in demonstrating that she is famous for anything else than WP:BLP1E. His continued insistence that you are automatically notable just because you have appeared in the press ("the subject of published secondary source material") makes me question whether he has even read and understood that policy. Last but not least - before the closing administrator made his decision, another administrator had already commented, saying that he had strongly considered closing it, and that he also supported deleting the article.Jeppiz (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Balloonman was right. The keep !votes were weak, pushing into WP:OR. The secondary sources were not about the subject, but the event. BLP1Es should be redirected to the article on the event, and deleted when the event itself is not notable. At worst, relist for more discussion, due to the fairly complex reasoning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I looked at closing this as delete myself yesterday but it appears I can't work out how to get my afd closing script and twinkle to work together so I didn't. Straightforward BLP1E case - I'm pretty sure that a biography needs to have more context then "girl with large norks gets publicity for claiming to have been fired for having said large norks and then makes money by .. er showing off said norks... Spartaz Humbug! 11:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Basically a classic example of a BLP1E case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a defective debate, rather than a defective close, to me. The Telegraph article and the Daily Mail article, which should have been found and discussed at the AfD but weren't, constitute significant cleavage coverage in reliable sources. The coverage makes this a plausible search term. We can expect that there will be end-users who will search for Debrahlee Lorenzana on Wikipedia. However, the BLP1E point was convincingly made and not to be discounted; this lady doesn't merit her own article. What the AfD should have considered, but failed to even mention, was a redirect to Employment discrimination, which is an article that could seriously use some of the reliable sources I've just linked.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-I believe that I do have an understanding of WP:BLP1E. WP:BLP1E states: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Debrahlee Lorenzana continues to get coverage from reliable source 2 weeks after her initial "event". Instead, she now appears to be getting coverage for her hiring of Gloria Allred.

Smallman12q (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn The closer seemed to understand that there was no consensus but still wanted to arrive at a conclusion despite this lack of consensus. In this case, the result should either have been a result of no consensus or an extension of the discussion in the hope that other ideas might emerge such as the merger suggested above. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above is an example of a misunderstanding that we see very often. Since we use the word consensus, some users seem to think that anyone can veto any decision. It is not required that all editors involved in a discussion reach a consensus, on the contrary, that is rather rare. Neither is an AfD-discussion a simple vote. It's the strength of the arguments that matter, so I cannot see any reason in saying that the decision should be overturned just because not everyone involved agreed. Then we could never decide on any article.Jeppiz (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If its only the "strength of the arguments that matter," could an article be kept if a vote is 10-1 to delete? Consensus literally means "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned," and here, there was no consensus because those participating were evenly split about what the outcome should be. The Colonel isn't saying it should be overturned because "not everyone involved agreed," but because there was no consensus (which by definition does not mean all must agree). If only "the strength of the arguments" matter, then the closing admin essentially becomes a judge and the numbers should be ignored. I have to imagine there are long old debates on what consensus vs. strength of arguments means somewhere in archives, maybe someone will point me to them.--Milowent (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall a specific example but there have been lots of cases where one good keep vote has trumped a hatfull of poor deletion votes. Spartaz Humbug! 16:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall a specific example either. The "merits of the arguments" view is traditionally used to justify deletion in despite of the snout-count. A keep against the snout-count is a very, very rare outcome.—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe but it works in favour of keeping articles at times as well Spartaz Humbug! 19:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our system of "rough consensus" does not not require unanimity - outlying or maverick opinions may be overidden for the sake of expedience. But when the balance of opinion is evenly divided, as in this case, we have the very opposite of consensus. In such cases, it is quite improper to declare that a simple majority or narrow advantage constitutes consensus. That seems to have been the sense of the closer's statement - that one side had a marginal advantage - and so the close should be overturned as being non-consensual. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense, a bunch on non-policy based opinions cannot skew consensus away from well argued policy based opinions now matter how even the policy based and non-policy based snouts. Generally what counts in the close is what sources, how good are they and what is the overall opinion of those sources... Spartaz Humbug! 20:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It is a core principle that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and that our policy pages are not laws. Per ignore all rules, the community is sovereign in its pursuit of our overriding objective - construction of the encyclopedia - and so cannot bind itself with rules and regulations which trump community consensus. It is only external constraints of copyright and other real-world laws which can defeat the community and these are reflected in in our criteria for speedy deletion which were not applicable here. There was no decisive policy argument here - it was a toss up between interpretations of notability, not news and the like - largely subjective and discretionary and so best suited to a community verdict. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invoking IAR to get a favored result in an AfD is the epitome of a losing argument, I'm afraid. Let's deal with the actual issue at hand rather than grasping for the 11th hour reprieve. Tarc (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling a 50-50 split a consensus is the epitome of a bad close. This is the actual issue here. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the "actual issue" is that you, once again, labor under the delusion that AfDs are head counts? Tarc (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smallman12q (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn If BLP1E applied, this would be a reasonable close, but it doesn't. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." In no sense is she "low-profile". NOTNEWS might apply here, but we've generally allowed "news" stories when there is large amounts of coverage, and the !votes in the discussion indicated this is the case. Given the discussion I don't see how it can be closed as a delete outcome with BLP1E not obviously applying. Hobit (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I do think we need to drop this "special" treatment of tabloid style stories. Just because, IMO, this is a stupid story there only to get eyeballs, doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on the topic. We aren't suppose to make that call, the breadth and depth of coverage should. There is plenty here. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An appropriately titled article on the court case would be a good addition. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Very notable, ongoing dispute. Claims that this is "tabloidish" are not viable given the serious discrimination issues that the situation brings up. There's no BLP issue given that the individual has gone out of her way to get publicity for her dispute, so the do-no-harm test says we aren't doing harm. The individual has international ongoing coverage in multiple languages, so BLP1E is not a good argument. Based on numbers result should have been no consensus at most, and there's no compelling policy reason to close this as deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you forgetting that there is nothing at all to back up the discrimination claim. Not a single witness, any written evidence or anything of the kind. As you quite rightly point out, this individual is actively seeking media attention for being "hot", the discrimination claim looks like a cheap marketing trick.Jeppiz (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What the evidence actually may be is irrelevant to the depth of coverage. But here the claim appears to be in the early or "complaint" stages well before any witnesses or evidence is called. See [1] (new article from today, good analysis of the legal claims at issue). But I've seen mention[2] of a "friend and former colleague", Tanisha Ritter, who seems a likely witness for her.--Milowent (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Very substantial coverage and of lasting interest as the subject relates to sex discrimination and appropriate dress for the work place. Making the article about the legal dispute instead of the individual, if there is a case name or other title that can be used, would be fine too. Freakshownerd (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what you say is pure speculation. At the moment, we have no idea of knowing whether there has been any sex discrimination or whether the dress at the work place has had anything to do with it. If this turns into a court case, the situation would change, but that doesn't look likely at the moment and speculation about how it may turn out is just crystalballing. Let's look at what we have at the moment instead: a woman who claims, without any evidence, to have been discriminated against for being too hot (long ago, but only discovered it now), then sells some hot pictures of herself to the media. I fail to see how any of that is notable.Jeppiz (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An otherwise non-notable individual may become notable provided that there is sufficient 3rd party coverage on that person from sources that fall qualify for WP:RS. As per WP:BASIC: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Debrahlee Lorenzana has been the subject of hundreds of pieces of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. I would also like to point out that there currently Debrahlee Lorenzana currently cannot sue Citibank due to a mandatory arbitration clause. The policy on Wikipedia is to maintain a WP:NPOV and as such we should speculate as to whether or not she has evidence of her alleged discrimination...that would go against WP:CRYSTAL.Smallman12q (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You made this point about WP:BASIC in more or less every post in the AfD so since it has already been address, I just repeat that your interpretation, that everyone who has been mentioned in published secondary source material automatically is notable, is contrary to how most of us understand the policy.
Your other argument is new, but I don't see it strengthening an overturn. What you're saying is that there will never be a court case. Fine enough, that rules out every possibility that this event will ever have any impact on discrimination at work. All we're left with is a WP:HOTTIE making a claim about herself being too hot. Even though that has been publishedm I don't see it as very relevant or notable and even though there are a certain number of articles, they are all about the same non-notable event so WP:BLP1E still applies.Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E states If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. I'd like clarification as to what exactly constitutes an "event". Debrahlee Lorenzana was in the news for two weeks for what appears to be several related events:
So do the above all constitute one elongated event? Or are they separate and related events?
You also state that Even though that has been publishedm I don't see it as very relevant or notable and even though there are a certain number of articles, they are all about the same non-notable event so WP:BLP1E still applies. Could you please elaborate as to why you consider this/these event(s) to be nonnotable? What are you notability guidelines?Smallman12q (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smallman12q (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yogurtland (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article was deleted in 2008 and is protected from re-creation. This is now a notable fast-growing international franchise [3] with over 100 locations. I have created an initial article which is ready to post. TrbleClef ♮ (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where is the initial draft? I can't see it obviously in your recent edit history, it's often a good idea to post it such as User:TrbleClef/Yogurtland so the references used etc. can be seen. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not restore. The draft is a combination of indiscriminate information, directory type information, and promotion. There is no secondary-source content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow move to userspace without prejudice if nominated at WP:AFD. It may be promotion, but is not blatant promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I request temporary undeletion of the four deleted versions, including the author histories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted draft is really just a menu / product list, and the "sources" are its own website and a brief blurb on a trade website that doesn't look like a RS and isn't substantial in any case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yetRestore. I agree that the current draft is not ready for prime time. However, secondary sources do exist.[4] I've posted some suggestions at User talk:TrbleClef#Yogurtland on how to improve the draft.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2010 Article now has sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Manifestly notable. Once it's up anyone who wants to can help improve the content. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I have removed the indiscriminate information and added several secondary reliable sources to the article. This article from the OC Register is one example of the many sources about Yogurtland. I will work on the userspace draft later in the week, as it can be expanded from those sources. Cunard (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded and sourced the article from more secondary sources. This article from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin is another source that provides significant coverage about Yogurtland. Cunard (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good effort Cunard, but did you read the first comment ("Must be a slow news week, now she's posting commercials, you column is getting lamer and lamer"). The sources with significant coverage of the subject, are they independent? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how a comment from a reader of the column can discredit its reliability/independence. The article clearly states that the author, Erika Engle, "is a reporter with the Star-Bulletin", a reliable newspaper. The article is written neutrally so I consider it an acceptable source to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prominent comment detracts from the reputability of the article, the column, the author and the publisher. I believe that reputability is a necessary quality of a secondary source used to establish notability. It (the comment) is not a king hit, but is does resonate with my suspicion that some sources are non-independent (ie sponsored). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment, which must be reached by clicking on the "Read all 8 comments" link is not "prominent". I don't understand how an unfounded comment can call into question "the reputability of the article, the column, the author and the publisher". If you were not to factor the comment into your decision of whether or not the article is acceptable, do you consider the article to be promotional? Cunard (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The arguable underlying truth of the comment is the real issue. Yes, I think the article looks promotional, but more importantly, I suspect that the published sources may be surrupticious paid or for-favour promotion. I don't see real commentary on the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that you are questioning the journalistic integrity of Erika Engle, a columnist for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. That is a serious charge to make, especially when there is zero evidence of this being the case. I acknowledge that the article does not have negative commentary about Yogurtland but that doesn't mean that it is "surrupticious paid or for-favour promotion". An indicator that the article is not an ad is that Engle writes "Johnston [who established Yogurtland Hawaii Inc.] could not be reached for comment". If she were paid by him to write the article, there would likely be several quotes from him. However there are none. A second indicator is that the article erroneously reported that the price for yogurt would be 30 cents an ounce instead of 39. It appears that Engle had little contact with people from Yogurtland prior to writing the article. Cunard (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are good, valid points. Note that I am supporting the move the mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow creation- The draft as I first saw it wasn't quite ready for prime-time. The version now however, is a perfectly acceptable stub that passes muster from my point of view.Umbralcorax (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation Sources seem fine. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore-The franchise is large enough to be considered notable. There are some articles in Nation's Restaurant News.Smallman12q (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Dieselpunk – AfD closure to delete endorsed, history restored behind redirect. Further discussion about how to create an article on the subject that meets Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines should be held on the article's talk page. – trialsanderrors (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dieselpunk (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Overwhelming keep comments, closing admin recognised deletion would be contentious. Szzuk (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn as Keep An admin's job is to interpret consensus, while leaving the job of determining adherence to policy to those participating in the discussion. In this case, the admin cast a supervote that was in direct conflict with the actual consensus at AfD. Alansohn (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are the words I was looking for. Szzuk (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not votes though. The admin is allowed to go along with the suggestions in the review that are best aligned with the policy. The keep votes were not based on policy.- Wolfkeeper 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a reason the judicial system in the western world uses a jury and not diktat from a judge. Judges despite being clever, well educated and principled get it consistently wrong, a jury gets it consistently right. Admins have to stick to intrepreting consensus, not thinking they know better than consensus. Szzuk (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have a jury system here currently, because our 'juries' are too easy to vote stuff, so we have a judicial system.- Wolfkeeper 18:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in the absence of consensus to delete Although I !voted to Keep this, I'd be pushed to claim that it demonstrated a clear overall consensus to keep it, or that the issues identified by the nom are addressed as yet. However there was certainly no consensus to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dieselpunk" is a word that's in Wiktionary (wikt:Dieselpunk) and as such should not in any circumstances be a redlink. We shouldn't have redlinks where we could more helpfully direct people to sister projects. I think the closest to "delete" that the debate might properly have come is "soft redirect to wiktionary". Since that option was not properly considered, the debate was unsatisfactory and it failed to give the closer all the options he needed to make a proper close.

    Normally with an unsatisfactory debate I would go with "relist", but there's no point sending this back to AfD, because there are no circumstances in which a "delete" outcome would be appropriate. AfD is not the correct venue for further discussion. I'll run with overturn to no consensusstruck, see below with a recommendation that a discussion should take place on the restored talk page about the possibility of replacing the current (poor) material with a soft redirect to Wiktionary.—S Marshall T/C 14:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn as above. Closer's role is to assess consensus, and to the extent the discussion reached consensus it found that the problem with the article were better resolved through the editing process than by deletion. The closer provided no valid policy grounds for overriding that consensus determination. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The closers role is to assess consensus with respect to policy, not count !votes. The keep votes do not seem to have been based on policy.- Wolfkeeper 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse That an AFD is not a vote is the most basic principle there is; it's not simply about consensus, it's about consensus about whether it meets our policies. !Votes are NOT VOTES! The article was deleted for being not being found notable according to any reliable sources; it is not an exaggeration to say that no reliable sources were found, even when they were looked for. The article really is just desperately trying to hide this unfortunate fact. If we allow this kind of article to remain in the Wikipedia, then the Wikipedia really is screwed, it becomes generally unreliable, because you can't rely on anything it says.- Wolfkeeper 16:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this entire encyclopedia was created by consesnsus. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh.. no. c.f. with wikiality. We don't do wikiality. AFDs are about how things agree with the policies, not simply the majority in AFDs.- Wolfkeeper 00:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, MichaelQSchmidt is right. Our customs and rules only continue according to consensus. Policy only has force of argument on the basis of the consensus that the policy enjoys, and subject to interpretation and arguments that more deeply explore the ramifications of past policy. Arguments at AfD should be informed by documented policy, and arguments are weak where they appear ignorant of the communities record of consensus as written, but, AfD is not necessarily bound by policy, per policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As one of the people that originally voted keep, I think that there would be some merit in having a little more discussion in a merge of this article - that which passes "verifiability" - into retrofuturism. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Wolfkeeper. I did not !vote in this AFD but did comment and was aware of the proceedings. Although the "keeps" were clearly in the majority, I don't think the closing admin had any choice other than to close as delete, as there were few keep arguments which addressed policy. I find the reference to votes and judges/juries to be a bit troubling as this is neither an election nor a trial. If we simply tally votes on these things we might as well dispense with AFDs altogether as vote-stacking would become the norm. I suppose the only other option would have been to close as no-consensus, which defaults to keep, and then we can take it to AFD once again with hopefully more clear arguments pro or con. freshacconci talktalk 17:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. AfD is not a vote, but the AfD process is still supposed to matter. This is not an easy case, but multiple established editors made reasonable policy arguments for keeping the article. There was no certainly no consensus to delete, and no other overriding policy reason here to delete the article in the absence of such consensus. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only keep !vote that involves policy reasons seems to have been by Duggy 1138, who wanted to keep the article even though he stated that there were problems with notability. But if the topic can't even be shown to be notable with reliable sources, then the wikipedia should not have that topic. We don't keep articles in the hope that one day notability can be shown. That's not the notability policy.- Wolfkeeper 18:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really trying to claim that Dieselpunk is a neologism within Wikipedia? (Many things at AfD admittedly are) Straight off the top of Google - Molly 'Porkshanks' Friedrich's Dieselpunk Headphone Mod from over 2 years ago. That's by someone who's an internationally recognised artist and sculpture in the genre, well enough known to be invited to contribute to the recent Oxford Museum of the History of Science show. Legwork is still needed, yes, but pretending that Dieselpunk doesn't exist outside this article is farcical. What will you suggest when Claire's Accessories start selling wrenches? (the malls are already doing goggles and cog hairgrips) - Re-write a new article in a hurry and claim that we've always been at war with Eurasia? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep the hyperbole to a minimum? Nowhere does Wolfkeeper that the term is a neologism within Wikipedia nor does he claim it does not exist. That's what you call a straw man argument. What he's saying is that there are no reliable sources at this time to support this a word in wide-usage. Steampunkworkshop.com is hardly reliable source. freshacconci talktalk 20:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No keep !vote made any reference to how the verifiability issues had been dealt with, or even explained why the article should be kept despite them. Stifle (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closer failed to determine the consensus of the discussion and inserted his own opinion instead. This action failed to follow the relevant deletion guidelines for administrators as it did not "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants". Colonel Warden (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except, that's exactly what the closing admin did. From the page you link to: "Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions." The emphasis is mine. Please illustrate how the closing admin "failed to determine the consensus" or did not "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants". By the very link you site, it clearly states that consensus does not trump policy (which is not negotiable). freshacconci talktalk 22:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very familiar with these policies and considered them in my evaluation of the article. I introduced consideration of the similar retro-futurism article into the discussion and recommended merger. The close made no reference to this reasonable compromise nor did it make any reference to any of the other recommendations made by the other editors who participated in the discussion. The closer's method seems to be to ignore what the participants say and to form his own opinion of the matter ab initio. This is quite improper because it treats the idea of finding of consensus with contempt and so will naturally outrage the editors whose good faith opinions have been ignored. In this case, only one editor supported the deletion nomination and so the finding that there was a consensus to delete is absurd and makes a mockery of the process. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If this DRV closes as "endorse" then I shall simply create the soft redirect to wikt:dieselpunk that I mentioned above, unless someone gives me a specific reason why that should not be done. I'm mentioning this now so I don't appear to be doing an end-run around consensus.—S Marshall T/C 23:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the closer, a soft redirect seems reasonable to me. Shimeru 23:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I see Wolfkeeper's just popped over to wiktionary to nominate it for deletion.  :)—S Marshall T/C 00:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep per overwhelming consensus at AFD #3. With respects, the closer had it fully within his ability to tag the article for citations or tone or style, but should not have substituted personal belief for consensus... specially as Wikipedia is a work in progress that itself does not expect to be immediately perfect and so encourages that articles be improved over time and through regular editing. Addressable issues are a reson to fix or tag for fixing... but not for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:V is not a policy that can be overridden by consensus. There may be grounds for an article on the topic, but this article wasn't it. Shimeru 23:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't that beg the question, could it have been fixed? Or am I missing something important?—S Marshall T/C 00:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're missing that this is the third delete of an article at this page, and there's still no reliable sources or verifiable notability established. This isn't deleting it before it could be fixed, this is deleting it because it still isn't fixed, and apparently it can't be fixed right now, even though we tried. Perhaps in months or years this will change. I hope so. In the meantime, we can't have this article.- Wolfkeeper 00:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:S Marshall is aware of it being a third AFD. We all are. The discussions showed that while it was a third article by the same name, the content had so changed that editors commenting at the AFD opined overwhelmingly to keep. And yes... now that its gone, how can it now be "fixed" by those seeing its possibilities at AFD #3? An administrator's acknowledging that others thought it had potential would have been reasonable cause to either keep close as no consensus, with an stern admonishment that the article would likley return to AFD if not improved to meet the potential others saw. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. It has to meet the notability policy or it goes. Anything else is lying to the reader about its relative importance. We've had three attempts at this article and all three have failed.- Wolfkeeper 14:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It might, I suppose, be rewritten. I wouldn't swear that there are no reliable sources out there. The article, however, had none that supported it, so we're talking about a rewrite from scratch in either case. Shimeru 19:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict)Amazingly, I can manage to get my head around the concept that there are no sources. :) I'm not arguing to keep the content, Wolfkeeper, and for the avoidance of doubt my position is that it's probably not possible to write a useful amount of sourced content in that space. What I'm arguing is that it's dumb to leave "dieselpunk" as a redlink that encourages a new user to write an article. It's simply creating a future argument with yet another frustrated new user—plausible search terms shouldn't be redlinks. Find somewhere to redirect it. Since you don't like the wiktionary article, maybe redirect it to steampunk?—S Marshall T/C 00:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep votes don't reference policy, and completely fail to rebut the nominator's rationale. And given the history, the page should probably be salted. If someone wants to work up a draft in userspace, that's great, but in order to avoid wasting the community's at yet another AfD and DRV, s/he have to clear it with an admin before moving to article space. Yilloslime TC 00:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your statement is false. Multiple editors on the Keep side explicitly cited policy. The only editor on the Delete side besides the nominator did not reference policy. Instead his argument rested upon notability - a guideline which turns on the quality and extent of sources provided. Determining whether the sources provided were adequate is a discretionary judgement, not an absolute one, and it is not the closer's job to apply his own personal opinion in this non-policy matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discusions intended to reach consensus are why those discussions take place. Calling such a waste of the community's time is not helpful. And as for woking on it in userspace... why? So that it might be sent to AFD a 4th time as a recreation if returned to mainspace? Why not overturn and then send the thing to WP:INCUBATE? Either it gets fixed and then returns, or it does not. Strange that such a reasonable option was not considered as an alternative to deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep. Closing administrator must work by consensus. Also, Google news search shows plenty of places where this term is used [5], just read through the summaries that appear in the results. The lat two results for a Google book search [6] show it used in "Bestsellers: popular fiction since 1900" and in a book about a game that describes itself as "dieselpunk fantasy roleplaying". Google itself shows 175,000 results, meaning a lot of people do use the term out there, it quite common. Anyway, overturn because of consensus, and because no one who wanted it deleted spent even a few seconds actually searching for sources before declaring they didn't think it existed. Dream Focus 01:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not accuse your fellow editors of acting in bad faith. You've been around long enough to know that deletion review is not the place to argue a subject's notability and that counting hits is not accepted practice. This is the venue for discussing the decision, not the subject. - Eureka Lott 03:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: At about this point in the debate, Wolfkeeper redirected the title to steampunk.—S Marshall T/C 01:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which shows a certain amount of - pardon the term but it's appropriate - ignorance of the topic, as anyone who had read the written article or is involved in the dieselpunk scene knows that it has much more to do with retro-futurism and the lowbrow art scene than it does with steampunk, despite sharing a similar cyberpunk-derived name. Which is exactly the sort of bias I think this page has been running into from the start, regardless of whether it was referenced well enough. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ignorance is seemingly OK, so long as it's verifiable. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A wikipedia with editors more in tune with pop culture than academia would be a bad thing. Wikipedia is an academic project and many of the editors will be academic, as such there is an in built bias which I believe has come to light in the decision to delete and this drv. Something did spring to mind - the dusty old judges in the UK who occasionaly end up in the media saying "Who are The Beatles". Szzuk (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is academic? Have you seen the drivel that's out there? One-episode soap starlets, one-series baseball quarterbacks, every Indian village with a modem, In popular culture sections that start with pokemon and work downwards? Dieselpunk is the least of its worries. Whilst The Times is admittedly still restricting itself to Goth and Steampunk and hasn't really cottoned on to Dieselpunk yet (wait until there's a Tim Burton film though), there's a large and serious coverage of Dieselpunk within its own scene, something that shouldn't be ignored by being too sniffy about what counts as an acceptable source. To have one of those calling most loudly for deletion unilaterally redirect the name to the wrong target is even more bias. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't actually disagreeing with you. Szzuk (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several problems with this. First, it seems odd that Wolfkeeper can simply make a unilateral decision against the consensus. Second, it makes less sense to redirect it to steampunk than to it's original redirection, which was to cyberpunk derivative. At least that was more descriptive than the one sentence in steampunk. Certainly Jonnybgoode44 was right that retro-futurism is a better fit. Larry442010 (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
I didn't see any consensus, and that page does actually mention dieselpunk at the moment in connection with a game. If you want to redirect it somewhere else, that's not a problem for me.- Wolfkeeper 03:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not what you said in the discussion, where your position seemed to be that the topic had been so little noticed that it should be deleted altogether. If you have now changed your opinion, then we have the absurd situation of an article being deleted when no-one really supported the nomination except the closing admin. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This topic fails WP:NOTABLE which is about whether something is verifiable and reliable and is suitable for its own article. Therefore this article topic isn't suitable right now, and the deletion was done perfectly properly. - Wolfkeeper 14:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (keep). There was certainly not consensus to delete. If those advocating "delete" are right, they need to do a much better job of convincing their peers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't work on "consensus" i.e. vote-counting, we work on whether the article meets the policies. The admin is expected to weigh up the arguments and he did so here.- Wolfkeeper 14:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do work on consensus, rough consensus if necessary. The real measure of a killer argument is when it sways other participants. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Much as Orly Taitz is now barred from filing lawsuits in some jurisdictions, we're about at a similar point for those filing frivolous DRVs here. AfDs are not votes, and if the keepers' positions are weak and ignore basic policy about notability and sourcing, then they are discarded. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn If there were no reasonable sources for the term we could delete. But [7] would seem to include a number of reasonable sources. I'd prefer this be a subsection of steampunk and redirect there, but the discussion was pretty clearly to keep and enough reliable sources exist. [8] too. So by the !vote it's a keep and meeting WP:V is easy so we keep. Hobit (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually about the best anyone has come up with, but even then, they're basically one sentence, trivial mentions, and they're all in the context of it as a form of steampunk, which is where we're currently redirecting anyway. The bottom line is that we don't have have any truly substantive reliable sources for this topic.- Wolfkeeper 16:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I don't disagree. I think the sources for a stand-alone article are weak. But _my_ opinion of the sources isn't overly relevant at this point. The question is, is the "keep" !vote consensus utterly outrageous? Given that WP:V is clearly met and WP:N is (barely) debatable we defer to the AfD discussion. Again, I'd prefer an undelete and then redirect/merge to steampunk until such time as better sources show up and will push for that if this gets undeleted. Hobit (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep- The heart of WP:IAR is that, absent pressing reasons to delete, such as a copyvio, local consensus can override policy. What happend in this afd is that those who voted keep felt that in this case, the policy wasn't adequate in this case, and could be ignored for the greater good. The closing admin should have respected this consensus when closing the afd, instead of overriding it. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Light. Some order emerges from the confusion. Sooner or later someone hits the nail on the head. That is the overturn and close. Credit. Szzuk (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR doesn't allow for ignoring policy in this case, because it applies only when the result of ignoring the rules improves the encyclopedia, and ignoring certain basic policies (like WP:V) cannot improve the encyclopedia but can only degrade it. Similarly, if there were for some reason an AfD with an overwhelming consensus to delete, say, Oxygen, the close should be keep as long as the article met applicable policies and guidelines. Shimeru 19:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:IAR page says quite simply If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. It doesn't say "this excludes WP:V". The question is does deletion improve wp? Not does deletion follow policy. Deletion didn't improve wikipedia. Szzuk (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why doesn't IAR say that? It is the extreme case of course. However I've seen negotiation on WP:V and I'm sure you have, there was no negotiation in this case, that was the problem. There were plenty of sources and the closing admin unilaterally decided they weren't up to scratch. I don't doubt the admins good faith, however I do doubt that his one pair of eyes went through those sources more thoroughly than the dozen or so other afd participants. Szzuk (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's something you'd have to take up at the WP:IAR talk page. But WP:IAR is not a core policy, it's not one of the five pillars, which are non-negotiable. I personally don't like WP:IAR being waved about like it somehow invalidates all arguments. It's a common-sense guideline that is useful for cutting through wikilawyering. I don't see that as the issue here. freshacconci talktalk 21:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense said leave the article alone and save us all the convuloted discussion. Szzuk (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Freshacconci, ignore all rules is one of five pillars of Wikipedia (the fifth one listed on the five pillars page). Whether or not it should be applied in this case, it is definitely a core policy of Wikipedia. Calathan (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pillar or not, it is not something to invoke lightly, any more than one will drop a nuke to break up a street fight. People scream "IAR!" to justify pretty much anything these days, especially in policy debates. Tarc (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It applies in this case. You can see this by reading the drv from start to finish. Closing admin also knew deletion would be controversial as evidenced in his deletion comment. He chose not to apply one of the pillars. Szzuk (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, IAR is available per the pillar, but it would likely only apply if there was consensus to employ it in the original AFD, or consensus to employ it in this DRV. Neither seems to have been happening. You can't just unilaterally call IAR, turn around twice and click your heals, it's not magic!- Wolfkeeper 04:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus at the afd was a) keep because the cites are ok or b) this is notable, pop culture is hard to cite so apply IAR. Closing admin should have applied IAR, deletion of the article didn't improve wp, this drv doesn't improve wp. Szzuk (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't ignore verification because "pop culture is hard to cite." Verification is one of the five pillars, too. (It's part of the second, along with NPOV, BLP, and OR.) IAR states that "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here" (emphasis added). Since V is part of one of those five general principles, it is a firm rule, and IAR can't be used to ignore it, consensus or no. Shimeru 07:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're stating your interpretation of the pillars, fair enough. I don't see anything meaningful coming from a discussion of your interpretation. It could only go around in circles. To me it's pretty simple, do whats best for wp. Best regards. Szzuk (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion – I was not convinced by the arguments for retention here one bit. Arguments for deletion OTOH seemed to be more grounded on verifiability and "no original research", and the closing admin's rationale seems valid. –MuZemike 17:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus to delete. The closer should have !voted and tried to help bring about consensus instead of delivering a "supervote". If many of you are convinced this should be deleted, then participate in the AFD process where we're supposed to gather this consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse. I don't mean to pick on one editor, but this keep !vote explains best why the delete decision was correct, "Issues with original research, verifiability, and notability are best handled by editing adding tags, removing uncited/poorly cited material". Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says, "Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." When the argument for keeping it is, "well sure it has original research and isn't verifiable, but let's just slap a tag on it", that is when the rules require the closing admin to step in and disregard that argument. Consensus cannot override core content policies. --B (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not agreed that the topic was unverifable as numerous sources were produced and discussed. AFD is not required to produce an article of GA/FA quality immediately and it is our clear editing policy to retain poor articles in mainspace so that they can be found and worked upon. The core policies could have been observed by reducing the article to a stub or merging its contents into a related topic such as steampunk or retro-futurism. It is our policy to save what we can and deletion should not be used as an easy out when such options are available and actively being suggested. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus-While I don't disagree that many, if not all, of the keep arguments were poor ones, that in and of itself is not enough to delete the article. If we discount each and every keep, we have a nominator and one other editor in favor of deletion. Had this AfD ended in that state, I sincerely doubt the debate would have been closed as delete; it would have either been closed as no consensus or re-listed. Deletion (aside from the purposely narow criteria for speedy deletion) requires consensus, bottom line. Even if an admin vehemently believes an article fails to meet policy, unless it qualifies as a CSD, they should not delete it without consensus. A lack of consensus to keep does NOT equal a consensus to delete.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse- At what point can a flurry of weak votes overwhelm a small number of strong ones? I think the closing admin was acting with their discretion to disregard the spurious keep votes and place more weight on the strong delete ones. Reyk YO! 01:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole debate's essentially moot, and I've stricken my !vote, since the practical upshot of this debate has been the creation of a redirect. The outcome has, de facto, already been overturned from "delete" to "redirect", and since we're not a bureaucracy, I don't think the closer of this DRV need do much else—except perhaps to consider whether it's appropriate to restore the history under the redirect because of our copyright licence provisions. It's not strictly necessary but the closer may feel it's good practice.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. Redirect wasn't seriously discussed at afd or here. If the decision is to overturn anybody that redirects will have their edit reverted as per this discussion. The recreation and redirect was trying to preempt the outcome of the discussion. I'm not sure why you can't see this. Szzuk (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, I think Wolfkeeper's redirection was in absolutely good faith, and I think your jaded view of his edit is unsupported by evidence.—S Marshall T/C 10:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the only one that has mentioned the recreation and redirect were inappropriate. Szzuk (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Before the most recent attempt an article was created, the page was a redirect to cyberpunk derivatives. That's also the target of the current redirect, so we're back to where we started. I see no malicious intent. - Eureka Lott 00:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to either keep or non-consensus. I have no opinion on notability of this sort of subject, but there was not consensus to delete. A redirect without deleting the history is essentially a keep, because the redirection can always be reverted as an editorial decision especially if improvements are made; a redirect without is essentially a delete, because it does not leave material that can be reused. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep Per weight and strength of arguments. A no consensus outcome might have been reasonable, but delete is a novel conclusion that doesn't appear to be based on the discussion that took place. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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