View source for Wiki143:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 6

<noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude>
===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 6|6 December 2007]]===
<!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.

ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: 
   
{{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~      -->

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
* '''[[:Charles K Herman MD]]''' – Deletion overturned with the consent of original deleting admin; listing at AfD at editorial discretion. – [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] ([[User talk:Xoloz|talk]]) 15:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Charles K Herman MD}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Charles K Herman MD|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Charles K Herman MD}} cache]</span><kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles K Herman MD|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

notability and significance clearly established by numerous peer-reviewed scientific publications and book chapters, academic and clinical position of authority, national research and clinical awards, media references, some of which were removed to maintain npov (could be added if assisted significance [[User:Afjl|Afjl]] ([[User talk:Afjl|talk]]) 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC) afjl
*'''Overturn and restore'''. The bar to survive an A7 is deliberately set low and simply requires that the page "indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Here the article states that the subject is  "internationally-published", has "published several important chapters in medical textbooks", and has "won a national research prize from the American College of Physicians in 1998 for work in the field of photodynamic cancer therapy", and that he "he spearheaded a joint effort to provide plastic surgery services to injured American soldiers returning from Iraq". This to me indicates his significance and thus hurdles A7. The bar is raised for an AfD and whether the page is able to cross that is a different matter and time will tell. [[User:BlueValour|BlueValour]] ([[User talk:BlueValour|talk]]) 03:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and restore'''   Asserting the publication of multiple scientific articles is an assertion of notability. Deleted for not having sources proving notability, but that just wrong--it doesn't need to do this to pass speedy. I've notified the admin who deleted it, and declined to restore it--I would be interested to hear his explanation.'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 09:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. Like DGG said.  If it turns out the notability isn't there, it can go through AFD, but notability is clearly indicated (did you all notice?  it's not "assert" anymore in [[WP:CSD#A7]].  I am so happy about that change, it seems too many people just don't know what that word means) --[[User:UsaSatsui|UsaSatsui]] ([[User talk:UsaSatsui|talk]]) 09:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. I had seen this one in New Pages Patrol, and it definitely wasn't speedyable. Clear, believable claims to notability. Misapplication of speedy, which is not about sourcing. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 12:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' No objection because the second message from this editor lists some new sources that can be added that were not present before. When it was deleted none of the publications listed appeared to have subject title's name, four of the external links were from the same site, one was a list of physcians [http://www.aecom.yu.edu/home/faculty/academic.asp?id=251&ShowFac=1#start], one concerned a sports event [http://www.charleshermanmd.com/uploads/Our_House_Editorial.pdf ], and I did google [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22charles+herman+plastic+surgery%22&btnG=Search "charles herman plastic surgery"] --[[User talk:Sandahl|<span style="color:#000000">'''Sandahl'''</span>]] 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
* '''[[:Moneybomb]]''' – Overturned to "no consensus" after being contacted on my user talk page; [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 7|new DRV here]] as this DRV does not apply to that closure – [[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<span style="color:#457541;">desat</span>]] 21:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|moneybomb}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/moneybomb|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Moneybomb}} cache]</span><kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/moneybomb|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>


This article should not have been deleted. I know the deletion decision is not based on votes, but I would like to point out that there were 6 editors in favor of keeping, and only 3 for deleting/merging.

The reason the article was brought up for deletion was because an editor misunderstood [[WP:NEO|Wikipedia's policy on neologisms]]. In the discussion, it was demonstrated that this particular neologism was widely used in the media, and therefore worthy of it's own article. Furthermore, accusations of the article being baised for Ron Paul could have been corrected with editing. There was no sound reson for deletion. Please overturn [[Special:Contributions/155.247.166.31|155.247.166.31]] ([[User talk:155.247.166.31|talk]]) 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC) [[User:byates5637|byates5637]]

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
* '''[[:Mushroom (Mario)]]''' – "No consensus" closure endorsed; merging can be proposed at any time as it is an editorial decision – [[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<span style="color:#457541;">desat</span>]] 02:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Mushroom (Mario)}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Mushroom (Mario)|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Mushroom (Mario)}} cache]</span><kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mushroom (Mario)|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

[[WP:N|Standards of notability]] require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This article was closed as a "no consensus" due to a number of editors who claimed the independent notability of the topic despite the fact that the article only has a single trivial source. An unsourced topic ''is not'' notable by the very definition of notability. Thus the keep !votes are meaningless.<br/> As there is no evidence that this is culturally notable (and I've tried, too), '''overturn and redirect''' to [[Mario (series)]] merging relevant information. [[User:Chardish|Chardish]] ([[User talk:Chardish|talk]]) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
* That does not need discussion here.  [[Wikipedia:Be bold|Be bold]] and do it.  "Merge and redirect" is a flavor of "keep".  Just because there has been an AfD discussion does not mean that the article must forever after be kept as-is.  Normal editing resumes.  If there is dispute about the merger/redirect, sort it out on the article's Talk page.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 22:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' article as it definitely meets all of our standards and there is certainly no consensus for a redirect.  Best, --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</span><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
**1) You understand this is a referendum on the deletion decision and not the article itself, right? 2) How can you possibly say that it "meets all of our standards" when it doesn't have ''multiple sources'', which is one of our standards? That's not even a matter of opinion - it is a '''fact''' that this article is not up to standards. - [[User:Chardish|Chardish]] ([[User talk:Chardish|talk]]) 21:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' keep closure.  Deletion is appropriate where sources do not exist, however, many users comments at the AfD imply that sources do exist but just haven't been added to the article.  If after a reasonable time (4-6 weeks) they still haven't been found and added you can renominate.  [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. The closure seems to have been within the admin's discretion (if that is a sensible English expression...?), especially with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chardish#AfD_on_Mushroom_.28Mario.29 his reasoning]. The standards of notability are tools for producing a better encyclopedia, and come with the requirement to make an exception when they don't; a reasonable case has been made for that. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] ([[User talk:Kizor|talk]]) 06:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' Admin followed consensus, tied nobody's hands and left it open for another AFD to be started if the article remained unmerged and did not improve. If the sources don't turn up then it can be brought back to AFD in a few months, without messy back-and-forth merges etc. and nobody can say they didn't receive enough warning. To have done anything else would have caused needless problems. [[User:Someone another|Someone another]] ([[User talk:Someone another|talk]]) 20:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - no consensus at AFD defaults to keep; you can propose a merge using the {{tl|mergeto}} tag. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
* '''[[:Carl Oehling]]''' – Deletion endorsed – [[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<span style="color:#457541;">desat</span>]] 02:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Carl Oehling}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Carl Oehling|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Carl Oehling}} cache]</span><kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Oehling|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

The Stub “Carl Oehling” should be restored (or an article with the same title should be permitted in the future), and should not have been deleted to begin with:

* '''IT WAS A STUB'''.  All of the reasons given for deletion would be appropriate if this was the best that could be done for an article.  This was a stub about a Michigan politician that was available to compliment the more general article, “[[Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006]].”  To exclude this participant in that election, and not all, appears to violate the NPOV policy in spirit if not in word. 

* Upon viewing the deletion log, I noticed a recreation and G4 had taken place on the same day.  So I was not going to bother wasting my time like another editor apparently had.  A stub on this Michigan activist should be permitted to  be given a chance rather than being deleted before an article can be written.
--[[User:Redandready|Redandready]] ([[User talk:Redandready|talk]]) 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*The sources in the best version of the deleted article seem to be:
**Official site several times
**Short resume-ish bios on a TV-station website [http://www.clickondetroit.com/decision2006/10113579/detail.html], probably campaign-provided
**Sites about Michigan election law
**2 directory listings (no prose) that identify him as a contact for a pro-life group
**4 blog interviews
**A page that simply links to his website [http://www.compustuff.org/constitutionparty/links.htm]
**A donor page that identifies his past claimed occupations [http://www.city-data.com/elec/elec-COLOMA-MI.html]
:This just isn't enough. There would need to be prose articles about him in newspapers or other similar sources... all I'm seeing here is either candidate/campaign-written or directory listings. '''Keep deleted'''. He can be mentioned as a candidate in that election and this pagename can redirect to the election article... but I don't see the sources for a standalone article. --[[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*<s>'''Restore''' it.</s> the article was a stub.  It was there to be improved.  With this deletion in place, it is likely that any future creation of an article in which “new sources have been provided”  will be instantly deleted using G4 as a criteria.  A quick look at the deletion log shows a G4 deletion took place today.<br> The community would not have the opportunity to view any future sources to find that they were sufficient.  This is a de facto block on creating an article with this name, even though it meets all the criteria that were questioned. <br> The point of a “Stub” is to create a starting point not a full and complete article.  --[[User:Redandready|Redandready]] ([[User talk:Redandready|talk]]) 01:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
** Comment:  Your opinion that the deletion should be overturned is already clear from your nomination.  You are welcome to add new evidence or respond to comments but please do not use the bolded synopsis at the front of the comment.  It gives the appearance that you are inappropriately trying to get your opinion double-counted.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small>
* '''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted).  I concur with W.marsh's analysis.  This article sat essentially unimproved between its creation on 5 Aug 2007 and the conclusion of the AFD discussion on 3 Dec.  The references were reviewed by the community and determined to be insufficient.  The article was properly tagged and discussed for the full 5 days.  No new sources have been provided here to suggest that the AFD discussion missed anything.  I find no process problems with the discussion.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
* '''Restore''' the stub I just created.  I log in and find a message that the stub I created this morning was already deleted.  I never had a chance to post a "hang-on" or make improvements to appease the prod.  I guess that’s why it’s “speedy.”   Anyway, I get the impression that it was ONLY deleted because of a previous deletion discussion… Not based on the text I had placed with that title. <br> I know this because comments include, “There would need to be prose articles about him in newspapers or other similar sources... all I'm seeing here is either candidate/campaign-written or directory listings.”  The following such articles were referenced in the article that was deleted today (I mean December 6, it’s past midnight here).  They include: <br>  ''Cm-Life'' [http://www.cm-life.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=c97c23df-80bd-44d2-8560-8bca8249e39e], ''Harbor light news paper'' [http://www.harborlightnews.com/printatf.php?sid=65], ''The News Herald'' [http://www.thenewsherald.com/stories/102906/loc_20061029006.shtml], ''News & Views'' [http://www.aipca.org/newsarchive/october2006.html] <br> Furthermore, Oehling was the subject of interview [http://personhoodamendment.blogspot.com], and the author of commentary in the ''Daily Democrat''[http://www.dailydem.com/articles/2007/09/24/opinion/opinion3.txt] and ''The Hawkeye'' (author)[http://www.thehawkeye.com/Story/Carl_Oehling_101707] <br> I did not dig much deeper because I was only creating a stub.  My understanding is that I only needed to give leads from which other editors could build a complete article, but since the other editors ask for more source, I dug up a couple more: <br> ''Iowa State Daily'' [http://www.iowastatedaily.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=d8bb8002-dde6-486f-9740-3189a597b3e5&refsource=collegeheadlines],  ''voice news'' [http://www.voicenews.com/stories/110106/loc_20061101002.shtml],  ''Constitution News'' [http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=132],  ''Third Party Watch'' [http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/08/15/american-heritage-party-mocked/],  ''News and Views'' [http://www.aipca.org/newsarchive/november2004.html] <br> I am sure there is much more out there, but this stub was just supposed to get the article started.  But why even compose an excellent article (with lots of prose article references).  If it will just get a speedy deletion based on a prior work?  --[[User:Libertyguy|Libertyguy]] ([[User talk:Libertyguy|talk]]) 05:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
** I have reviewed all the links you provided here.  I'm sorry but they do not demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted [[WP:BIO|inclusion criteria]].  Of the 12 links you provided above, 7 only mention his name in passing as one candidate among many.  4 are things he's written himself (blog comments by the look of it).  Only the [http://personhoodamendment.blogspot.com/ Michigan Personhood] article represents an interview ''of'' him.  That one article actually traces back to [http://michiganprolifers.blogspot.com/ this blog] of unknown provenance.  Blogs rarely rise to the required level of [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing]]. <br> Please do keep looking.  This has already been discussed by the community and deleted once.  The normal rules about "create a stub and see what happens" no longer apply.  You have to show that the concerns raised in the deletion discussion can be overcome before recreation is accepted.  If you can find independent, reliable sources demonstrating that he meets the inclusion criteria, the decision can be overturned.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 06:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
::That is what I have done.  The Stub I created yesterday was not subject to the Afd debate.  It was written after that and referenced "independent, reliable sources"--[[User:Libertyguy|Libertyguy]] ([[User talk:Libertyguy|talk]]) 12:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' (uphold deletion) per W.marsh's analysis of the sources. There is no substantial coverage of this marginal candidate, and the closer interpreted the debate correctly. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 12:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
* '''[[:Eva Morris]]''' – Keep closure endorsed. Operating under the maxim "when in doubt, don't delete", DRVs require strong consensus decisions to overturn a keep closure and delete outright.  It is very unlikely this will be achieved.  Additionally, some of the arguments made in favor of deletion below are flawed: "oldest living person" is a "temporary" designation only in the sense that [[Chief Justice of the United States]] is a "temporary" one: it expires upon death, whereupon it succeeds to another.  Many, many "temporary" designations (including offices of fixed term) confer "permanent" notability.  BrownHairGirl's argument for lack of sources is more compelling, but it is not clear that all commenters below followed in applying it.  Since the crux of the issue here is whether the subject's noteworthiness is lasting, another AfD in six months is a logical result of this discussion. – [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] ([[User talk:Xoloz|talk]]) 15:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Eva Morris}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Eva Morris|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Eva Morris}} cache]</span><kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Morris|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

The AfD was closed as "keep", and there was indeed a clear majority of editors who !voted to "keep". However, AfD is not a vote, and the only way which I can see of counting that AfD as a "keep" consensus is by counting heads, which runs counter to [[Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus]]: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted".  This article fails [[WP:BIO]], and despite a number of [[WP:ILIKEIT]] !votes, there is no likelihood of further substantive references to establish notability.  --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 13:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment as closer''' - "Being the oldest living person in the world, however temporarily, is grounds for notability.", "(Being) the oldest person in the world is as notable as the tallest person in the world or the heaviest person in the world, or even the strongest person in the world in an achievement.", "A good many of the supercentenarian articles deleted lately very much deserved to be deleted, but some should remain--such as this one." - I think trivialising these as [[WP:ILIKEIT]] arguments is unfair.  I note of the two non-nominator arguements in favour of not retaining the article, one gave no reason whatsoever, and the other said "it is destined to be a stub forever".  Those are not strong arguments for deletion.  The consensus to "keep" was obvious.  It is not the closer's role to evaluate an article and close it as they see fit (if that was the case, why bother with a deletion debate?) - it is the closer's role to evaluate the discussion.  The discussion as a whole was easily in favour of retention. [[User:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; font-family: cursive ;color: #006600">Neil</span>]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; color: #006600">☎</span>]] 14:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
**We agree that it is "the closer's role to evaluate the discussion", but diverge thereafter: I don't think that the closer was sufficiently rigorous in evaluating this discussion. Of the comments which Neil quotes, the third offers no reason for distinguishing this article from others, and such is clearly an ILIKEIT comment. The first two seek define one attribute as grounds for a presumption of notability, but if if this proposition was more widely accepted, the notability guidelines are clear that such a presumption may be disproven: in the end, notability is always a matter of the availability of substantive coverage in reliable sources. In this case, all we have is a small number of sources saying briefly that she is old, has a great-grandson and eats eggs. Since her claim to noteworthiness arises only through her old age, there is no reason to expect that there is more substantive coverage out there in old library files, or that there will ever be enough material to expand the article beyond a few factoids in a stub.  I think that it was therefore wrong to dismiss the "destined to be a stub forever" argument: if an article can never grow beyond a stub not incorporate material not manageable in a list, why have a standalone article? --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 14:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
***I didn't dismiss the "destined to be a stub forever" deletion argument - I lent it the same weight as any of the "keep" arguments.  It was, however, grossly outnumbered by equally valid "keep"s. [[User:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; font-family: cursive ;color: #006600">Neil</span>]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; color: #006600">☎</span>]] 15:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete'''. Here's my reasoning: if [[WP:N#TEMP|notability is not temporary]], then it seems to make no sense to say that a person (or anything else) is notable based on possession of a title which is almost certainly temporary. Not every person who was at one point the world's oldest person is notable, so why should the current world's oldest person be notable? <small>On a side note, I was the world's youngest person at one point, though I didn't hold the title for very long ;)</small> - [[User:Chardish|Chardish]] ([[User talk:Chardish|talk]]) 21:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete''', good call by Brownhairedlady. Being the alleged oldest in the world barely gets you a mention in the back of a newspaper these days, not even the Guinness. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#0000DD;">&gt;<span style="color:#0066FF;">R<span style="color:#0099FF;">a<span style="color:#00CCFF;">d<span style="color:#00EEFF;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' I disagree, but since you didn't specify any premise behind your conclusion, I probably won't either, unless I'm destined to convince you I'm right. While I may not collect newspapers, I certainly Google search the full name of the oldest person in the world in quotes.. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] ([[User talk:NealIRC|talk]]) 20:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
*'''Endorse closure'''. There was a clear consensus for ''Keep''. For the closer to override this there needed to be a balance of argument that weighed against the majority or a breach of policy. The key policy here, [[WP:V]], is met. Whether [[WP:BIO]] is complied with is a judgement. That guideline states that meeting [[WP:BIO]] requires "published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". I have started to expand the page adding additional sources to meet this guideline. 'The world's oldest person' is a concept that most readers are, in my POV, likely to find encyclopaedic. This is a clean, informative page and I see no advantage to the Project in trying to use narrow interpretations of [[WP:BIO]] to delete it. [[User:BlueValour|BlueValour]] ([[User talk:BlueValour|talk]]) 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
**'''Thanks''' Thanks BlueValour for cleaning up the Eva Morris article now, after the AfD. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] ([[User talk:NealIRC|talk]]) 01:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
* '''Overturn and delete''' or, failing that, relist to AFD.  I concur that the "keep" opinions ignored the established Wikipedia standards and attempted to create a new standard out of whole cloth.  In addition to failing [[WP:BIO]], the article falls afoul of [[WP:NOTNEWS]].  This is a minor human interest story appropriate for a newspaper.  There is no basis on which an encyclopedia article could be created.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 06:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' Many of the similar articles nominated for similar reasons were deleted--the consensus was clearly that this one was different and had notability. Almost nobody except the nominator spoke for deletion. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 09:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
**'''Reply'''. Unfortunately, the assertion that "that this one was different and had notability" was about as far as it went. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Annie_Jennings&diff=174574982&oldid=174266228 DGG's own justification] for keeping was that ''"A good many of the supercentenarian articles deleted lately very much deserved to be deleted, but some should remain--such as this one"'', which omits any reason to keep and just amounts to [[WP:ILIKEIT]]. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 11:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' I see no grounds on which the closer should have overriden the consensus opinion. The article contains a claim to notability and the sources to establish it. The editors agreed that both were sufficient, and the article has no policy-violating deficiencies that could have caused the closer to ignore the consensus. To claim that [[WP:BIO]] can be used to override the consensus is a grave misunderstanding of our policies. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] ([[User talk:Trialsanderrors|talk]]) 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' per trialsanderrors above.  There is no consensus to delete present in the AfD.  [[WP:BIO]] is a guideline and can be suspended by a consensus , thus there is no procedural reason to delete.  [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 19:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Okay, let's do this mathematically (or possibly logically) and add up the values of the argument people made, where keep is positive and delete is negative. Therefore, someone who made 3 valid reasons for keeps get +3 points, etc. And those that voted "keep" but specified no reason, gets +0, and those that voted "delete," but also specified no reason, gets -0. Notice that +0 and -0 are the same. So let's add up the arguments on both sides. If the result was positive or negative will we decide whether to endorse deletion or not. And I guess 0 defaults to no consensus, so keep. So I'd vote endorse deletion if the result was -1 or below. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] ([[User talk:NealIRC|talk]]) 20:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
*'''Overturn and Delete''' this article is only ever going to be a stub, all the relevant information is already at [[List of British supercentenarians]]. A seperate article is not needed. [[User:RMHED|RMHED]] ([[User talk:RMHED|talk]]) 20:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*Note: that article is currentluy for deletion. Besides, the article has tons of valid souces to establish notability (+3) [[User:Kitia|&#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Kitia&#124;Kitia&#93;&#93;&#39;&#39;]] ([[User talk:Kitia|talk]]) 23:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
* '''[[:Annie Jennings]]''' – Keep closure endorsed, under the same rationale as the [[Eva Morris]] DRV. – [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] ([[User talk:Xoloz|talk]]) 15:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Annie Jennings}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Annie Jennings|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Annie Jennings}} cache]</span><kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Jennings|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

The AfD was closed as "keep", and there was indeed a clear majority of editors who !voted to "keep". However, AfD is not a vote, and the only way which I can see of counting that AfD as a "keep" consensus is by counting heads, which runs counter to [[Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus]]: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted".

This article is an unreferenced stub which has remained unreferenced for four months; it clearly fails [[WP:BIO]], and despite a number of [[WP:ILIKEIT]] !votes, there is no likelihood of substantive references to establish notability.  --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 13:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment as closer'''. Per above (although this was a little closer, due to a lack of referencing); consensus to keep was crystal-clear. [[User:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; font-family: cursive ;color: #006600">Neil</span>]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; color: #006600">☎</span>]] 14:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse keep''' The keep-voters dropped the ball here, but Neil seems to have cut them a break. They never seemed to find the sources, of which there are several. [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Annie+Jennings%22++oldest&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8] Several seem to be just about her. So verifiability (and the verifiability-based requirement of WP:BIO) isn't a problem here... the question is whether being oldest person in a large country is a claim of importance. I think it's weak myself but consensus seems to be that it's a reasonable claim. Pointing out sources (or better yet, adding them to the article) is one of the most powerful arguments you can make at AFD, people. --[[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 16:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
**'''Reply'''. I have checked the results of that search, and I can't find anything more than trivial mentions of her in articles on other subjects. If there are non-trivial sources, please could you identify them rather than just pointing to a google search? --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 12:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
***[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-60945599.html], [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-60613538.html] seem to be written just about this person. GN Archive is incomplete, but the existence of 2 sources with non-trivial coverage suggests more exist. --[[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 14:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
****Non-trivial?  You gotta be joking. [http://www.highbeam.com/Search.aspx?q=%22Annie+Jennings%22++oldest This page] shows that those articles have word counts of 17 and 41 words respectively, which is about as trivial as it gets. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 11:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC) 
*'''Overturn and delete:''' most of the keep !votes didn't provide a sound rationale for keeping. Just because someone is old does not mean they are notable; notability is determined by multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Also, see rationale above. - [[User:Chardish|Chardish]] ([[User talk:Chardish|talk]]) 21:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I have asked everyone who voted keep to make some effort to add reliable sources to the article. If they haven't done so in a couple of days I'll be calling for the decision to be overturned and the article deleted. --[[User:Stormie|Stormie]] ([[User talk:Stormie|talk]]) 23:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' - sources now added. [[User:BlueValour|BlueValour]] ([[User talk:BlueValour|talk]]) 00:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
** The sources have been shown to exist... while improvement is nice, it's not required. Sources just need to be shown to exist. We shouldn't delete verifiable articles just as punishment. --[[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 02:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
***As above, no sources have actually been identified; all we have is a link to a google search. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 12:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
****Which shows many news articles about this person. --[[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 14:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*****But the only coverage in sources readable without subscription is trivial.  It seems that we being asked to presume that the highbeam.com articles in tabloid newspapers are non-trivial, which looks unlikely: [http://www.highbeam.com/Search.aspx?q=%22Annie+Jennings%22++oldest this page] notes that the Daily Record article cited amounts to only 41 words, and quotes: "A Guinness Book of Records spokeswoman said: Annie doesn't like being in the book so we don't know much about her." --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 11:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC) 
*'''Comment''' Same comment on the above for Eva Morris. However, this person probably fails on their own article. I note this person is probably forever a stub. It may take years before I can get the old folks at the GRG and Max Plank Institute on setting up their off-line sources and make them appear on the Internet. But there doesn't seem to be an immediate need for an article now. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] ([[User talk:NealIRC|talk]]) 20:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
*:Here's something that's irrelevant: we actually have a photo of this person. But I don't think that means much. [[User:NealIRC|Neal]] ([[User talk:NealIRC|talk]]) 20:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
*'''Overturn and Delete''' as per my comments in the above DRV. [[User:RMHED|RMHED]] ([[User talk:RMHED|talk]]) 20:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' - now that references have been added to meet [[WP:V]] there are no policy reason to override the AfD consensus. Compliance with [[WP:BIO]] is a judgement call, a matter for a possible second AfD, but not for DRV. [[User:BlueValour|BlueValour]] ([[User talk:BlueValour|talk]]) 00:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
* '''[[:Matilda Hunter]]''' – Deletion endorsed – [[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<span style="color:#457541;">desat</span>]] 02:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Matilda Hunter}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Matilda Hunter|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Matilda Hunter}} cache]</span><kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matilda Hunter (2nd nomination)|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

The result of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matilda Hunter (2nd nomination)|this]] AfD was apparently 'delete' except that the discussion turned out equal - 5-5 keep/delete. I am not passionate about this article and only am requesting a DR because I thought that not enough 'votes' (I know we don't use voting, etc. but I will call it that for my fingers' sake) were in either camp to turn the discussion either way. I 'voted' in the debate but can't remember doing it, unfortuantely. There was another first AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Vale|here]] which included this article, now deleted. Thus, I would like a deletion review. <span style="font-family:lucida calligraphy;">[[User talk:Auroranorth|Auroranorth]]</span> ([[User:Auroranorth/Autograph Collection|!]]) 13:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*<s>'''Overturn and redirect to [[List of current Home and Away characters]]'''.  This article should not have been deleted, since the result of the closure was to "'''REDIRECT ALL''' to ''[[Current Home and Away characters]]''" (which redirects to the list). --[[User:Lifebaka|<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>]] <small>([[User talk:Lifebaka|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Lifebaka|Contribs]])</small></s>
** '''Comment''': the result of the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matilda Hunter (2nd nomination)|AfD being reviewed]] was delete, not redirect. --[[User:Pak21|Pak21]] ([[User talk:Pak21|talk]]) 07:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
::*'''Relist''' - Article appears to have been an copyvio of [http://www.backtothebay.net/cast/bio/hunter_matilda.shtml this page].  Needless to say, I doubt that it will survive a new AfD. --[[User:Lifebaka|<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>]] <small>([[User talk:Lifebaka|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Lifebaka|Contribs]])</small> 19:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
* '''Endorse''': none of the keep !votes made any argument with any reference to policy, mostly just being [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]. While it is definitely possible to write [[Pauline Fowler|good articles on soap characters]], not a single secondary source has actually been shown to exist for this character, although noting Bláthnaid's memory. --[[User:Pak21|Pak21]] ([[User talk:Pak21|talk]]) 07:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
* '''Overturn''' I would prefer a keep, failing that a redirect '''and merge''' to a bigger article would be in order. Just deleting it, when as a major character, people will search for her, is pure vandalism. --[[User:UpDown|UpDown]] ([[User talk:UpDown|talk]]) 08:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
** This is not AfD II. Which policies were not intepreted correctly by the closing admin? --[[User:Pak21|Pak21]] ([[User talk:Pak21|talk]]) 14:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*<s>'''Overturn'''</s> All articles about major soap opera characters can be sourced, but it is difficult to do so over the space of an AfD because the magazines and newspapers that write about soap operas are generally not available online. That is part of the internet's systemic bias, and it is a pity for that bias to be reflected in Wikipedia. Now that I've had time to do some research, [http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv--radio/bulimias-primetime-treatment/2006/07/26/1153816235656.html here] is an article from ''[[The Age]]'' about one of the character's storylines. There is a couple of paragraphs in [http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/too-much-tv-sex/2006/07/28/1153816381162.html this] article also. [[User:Blathnaid|<b style="color:#3CBAEF; font-family:Tahoma;">Bláthnaid</b>]] 09:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
:I am withdrawing my overturn because the article appears to be a copyvio. [[User:Blathnaid|<b style="color:#3CBAEF; font-family:Tahoma;">Bláthnaid</b>]] 11:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
:*'''Comment (Endorse):''' The [[WP:RS]] does not have to be online … see [[User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/Mensa|this essay]] about researching memberships in an organization with the help of a librarian and back issues of a monthly newsletter … give us an issue and page number from ''[[Soap Opera Digest]]'' or any other periodical notable enough to have a Wikipedia article (or an [[ISSN]], for that matter) and you can make a <code>{{tl|cite news}}</code> reference that will satisfy [[WP:V]] for [[WP:N]] … also note that this DRV may set precedent for articles listed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away)]] and ''beau coup'' other ''[[Home and Away]]'' related deletions … Happy Editing! &mdash;{{User|72.75.89.38}} 20:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion''': Most of the keep votes boiled down to either [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] or "I bet that there are sources, I just can't find any!".  AfD is not a vote, so the 5/5 split is irrelevant.  [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] ([[User talk:Lankiveil|talk]]) 02:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
*'''Endorse Closure''' - Closure matched consensus unless you nosecount. - [[User:Peripitus |Peripitus]] [[User talk:Peripitus|(Talk)]] 09:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - OK, this article has been identified as a [[WP:COPYVIO|copyvio]] that should have been a [[WP:CSD#G12|G12 speedy deletion]], like several others identified in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away)|this open AfD]] of fictional ''Home and Away'' characters ... can we please close this and MOVE ON? &mdash;{{User|72.75.72.199}} 15:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
* '''[[:Intellect books and journals]]''' – Deletion endorsed – [[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<span style="color:#457541;">desat</span>]] 02:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Intellect books and journals }} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Intellect books and journals |restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Intellect books and journals }} cache]</span><kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellect books and journals |AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

UNDELETE_REASON [[User:Melaniesharrison|Melaniesharrison]] ([[User talk:Melaniesharrison|talk]]) 10:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I want to add a page about Intellect publishing. It has been deleted as it said I was advertising the company. How have the company Future Publishing added a page very similar to the one I tried to create and it still exists?

*'''Endorse deletion'''.  The article made little or no attempt to wikify and had no justification of notability. I added wikify and advert tags which the author removed with no comment.  I found that the creator had previously been banned for link spam to Intellect Publishing's web site, and recommended speedy deletion, which took place.  I would support the creation of an article that was [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] and showed [[WP:Notability|notability]].[[User:TrulyBlue|TrulyBlue]] ([[User talk:TrulyBlue|talk]]) 12:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
::Further, [[User:Melaniesharrison|Melaniesharrison]] has confirmed that she is a publishing assistant at the company in question in [[Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Trouble_adding_to_the_.27Further_reading.27_sections|a request for Editor Assistance]]. [[User:TrulyBlue|TrulyBlue]] ([[User talk:TrulyBlue|talk]]) 14:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''.  And consider blacklisting the website, since {{userlinks|Melaniesharrison}} has been spamming it all over the 'pedia. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 13:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand that I have done wrong. I am a new user of Wikipedia and I don't feel like I have been given any help or advice, just punishment. I have no intention of doing anything similar again, so please don't blacklist me.
I thought that people are 'blacklisted' or 'banned' or whatever to protect the site, but Guy and True blue you seem to be enjoying being horrible to me about this. Genuine mistake although may not have looked as such. I was following an almost identical format to what Future Publishing have done. Someone needs to take a long hard look at their page because all I can see is advertising and links to their website where you can BUY THEIR MAGAZINES. I never tried to deny I worked for the company. What second source material could I provide. Intellect exists (as does Future) and therefore to appear on Wiki does someone completely unconnected to the company have to supply facts about it? I am positive that that is not what has happened with Future, or Oxford Uni Press, or Bloomsbury or any other publishing companies on here. I need advice, PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T IGNORE ME!! :( [[User:Melaniesharrison|Melaniesharrison]] ([[User talk:Melaniesharrison|talk]]) 15:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
:: I have responded on [[User_talk:Melaniesharrison|your talk page]].  [[User:TrulyBlue|TrulyBlue]] ([[User talk:TrulyBlue|talk]]) 15:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' and agree with JzG above that this should be blacklisted (see [[Special:Contributions/Melaniesharrison]]). [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><span style="color:#FF0000;">St</span><span style="color:#FF5500;">ar</span><span style="color:#FF8000;">bli</span><span style="color:#FFC000;">nd</span></b> 15:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse (my own) deletion with comment''' - I've tried to explain to Melanie what the situation is.  She seems willing to discuss, learn, understand and comply with the policies which, I suppose,  she had no idea existed.  I'm applying a little [[WP:AGF]] and restoring the article to her userspace so she can work on it and get to grips with the policies I've pointed her towards.  In the meantime I'd appreciate it if we don't attempt to blacklist the company's website.  If my faith isn't repaid by Melanie, I'll lead the charge to get it (and her) blocked.  Cheers.  [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 17:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
::Just a word of appreciation for the time you've taken over this, Rambler.  Excellent work here and on Melanie's talk page.  [[User:TrulyBlue|TrulyBlue]] ([[User talk:TrulyBlue|talk]]) 22:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Thanks.  I appreciate the support.  It's difficult to "keep the faith" but I'd rather be transparent about it, talk to you guys about it and then apologise should it all go horribly wrong!  [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 22:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''.  It is clear that the article was justifiably deleted through [[WP:CSD#G11]].  --[[User:Lifebaka|<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>]] <small>([[User talk:Lifebaka|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Lifebaka|Contribs]])</small> 17:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion, with comment:'''  I support The Rambling Man's efforts to mentor the article's creator.  Let me remind some editors of [[WP:BITE]] and [[WP:AGF]].  I'm working (currently in userspace) on improving an article on the topic of my employer's area of business, and I stayed away from the topic until I was familiar with WP policies, and I'll put my contributions through at least one neutral admin to avoid [[WP:COI]] problems... but a new user, faced with you're-welcome-to-edit messages and seeing counter-to-policy articles about competitors, could quite reasonably assume they could create similar articles. [[User:Barno|Barno]] ([[User talk:Barno|talk]]) 20:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' An article about a publisher that includes a short list  listing the journals and books published is not unfixable spam. Given that its books are distributed by The University of Chicago Press, a good case could be made for notability. That is a sufficient show of notability to avoid blacklisting as well. Restore and edit. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 09:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
* '''[[:User:Prester_John]]''' – Deletion endorsed.  There is no prejudice against the recreation of the page with appropriate content (i.e. not a recreation of what was deleted) if/when the user in question returns. – [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 05:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{lu|Prester_John}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/User:Prester_John|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:User:Prester_John}} cache]</span><kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John (2nd nomination)|MfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

No consensus for delete [[User:Law Lord|Law Lord]] ([[User talk:Law Lord|talk]]) 09:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
:There actually a clear consensus to delete at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John (2nd nomination)]] that I can see.—[[User:Ryulong|<span style="color:blue;">Ryūlóng</span>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<span style="color:gold;">竜龍</span>]]) 10:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - Consensus has been found for deletion. --[[User:DarkFalls|<span style="font-family:Harlow Solid Italic; color:black;">D<sub>ark</sub>F<sub>alls</sub></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:DarkFalls|talk]]</sup> 10:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - consensus wasn't too clear, but I think we should not be keeping such pages anyway. Thanks. '''[[User:Redrocketboy|<span style="color:red;">Red</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Redrocketboy|<span style="color:black;">rocket</span>]][[User talk:Redrocketboy|<span style="color:blue;">boy</span>]]''' 11:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', clear consensus to delete. --[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<span style="color:#457541;">desat</span>]] 11:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Restore''': Clearly, no consensus to delete. --[[User:Matt57|Matt57]] <sup>([[User_talk:Matt57|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Matt57|contribs]])</sup> 12:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. It's a close call, and I know these aren't votes, but I don't think we can describe something less than 2/3rds as a [[Wikipedia:Rough_consensus#Rough_consensus|rough consensus]]. Prester's page had been changed to remove the offensive material by the end of the MFD. Therefore, I count the conditional keeps/conditional deletes as keeps. The tally then stands as follows:
**Keep: Law Lord, <s>Phoenix-wiki</s><small>now endorse deletion--[[User:Phoenix-wiki|Phoenix-wiki]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Phoenix-wiki|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Phoenix-wiki|contribs]])</sup> 20:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)</small>, Cygnis Insignis, Prester John, Sarsaparilla, Ned Scott, Matt57, Master of Puppets, jonny-mt, Ilywrch, Kurt Weber
**Delete: Web Hamster, Aminz, Agha Nader, Hu, Itaqallah, Coredesat, Viriditas, Redrocketboy, Aninum, Rlevse, Brendan, P4k, Christopher Parham, gadfium, Lester, Lawrence Cohen, Rodhullandemu, Fin, krimpet, Moondyne, Cheeser1, CharonX, Tarc, Devs Ex Macina, Shot info, Jeffpw
**Other: FisherQueen ("delete if necessary"), PrestonH ("Delete/Conditional Keep"), GlassCobra ("delete if..."), Walton ("Conditional keep"), Sarah ("comment (sort of a delete, I guess)")
So, we have 11 keeps, 26 deletes, and 5 others. As mentioned, I count those 5 as keeps, which brings it to 16 keeps, 27 deletes. If my math is wrong, please let me know. That just seems too close to count as consensus, especially after the changes that were made. [[User:Sarsaparilla|Sarsaparilla]] ([[User talk:Sarsaparilla|talk]]) 13:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
***The fact that MFD is not a vote is one of the reasons why the page was deleted in the first place. --[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<span style="color:#457541;">desat</span>]] 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
**I most certainly was not a "keep". I preferred Prester to remove the offensive material himself, but failing that, and with his refusal to cooperate, I argued quite strongly for deletion. He refused to cooperate with removal of the material and edit warred with admins, myself and Fisher Queen, and reverted it back in. The only reason it is out right now is he is blocked and unable to restore it. Also, what you are doing here is not how deletion discussions work. You are essentially counting votes when the discussion and comments must be weighed. You can't just say "keep" and expect it to be weighed equally against someone who makes an argument based in policy. This is what I tried to explain to you lot during the MfD but you refused to listen and rudely and dismissively told me I don't understanding Wikipedia. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 07:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - it's not a headcount. [[User:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; font-family: cursive ;color: #006600">Neil</span>]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; color: #006600">☎</span>]] 13:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' per [[User:Sarsaparilla|Sarsaparilla]]. --[[User:Law Lord|Law Lord]] ([[User talk:Law Lord|talk]]) 14:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - The vast majority of the straight "keep" votes were not based on [[WP:ILIKEIT|any real policy]], which is contrary to the point of XfD as noted in the [[Wikipedia:Rough_consensus#Rough_consensus|guidelines pointed to above]].  In addition, a number of the votes listed in "keep" on [[User:Sarsaparilla|Sarsaparilla]]'s count (mine included) asked for a cleanup of the material as a condition of the keep.  I think the closing admin read the consensus just fine. --'''[[User:jonny-mt|jonny-mt]]'''<sup>('''[[User_talk:jonny-mt|t]]''')</sup><sub>('''[[Special:Contributions/jonny-mt|c]]''')</sub><small>[[Wikipedia:Editor_review/jonny-mt|I'm on editor review!]]</small> 15:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per jonny-mt.  He's right.  After reading through the MfD, the users in favor of deletion cited policies, where as those who were in favor of keep didn't cite policy.  --[[User:Son|Son]] ([[User talk:Son|talk]]) 15:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion, but allow recreation'''.  The deletion implies that the user is not entitled to a userpage, which was not the intention of the MfD.  Assuming the user does not again violate [[WP:USERPAGE]], he should be allowed a userpage. --[[User:Lifebaka|<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>]] <small>([[User talk:Lifebaka|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Lifebaka|Contribs]])</small> 17:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' with no prejudice against recreation with content that doesn't violate [[WP:USERPAGE]].  I agree with jonny-mt's comments after rereading the MfD.  As Lifebaka noted, just because the material transcluded from subpages was (by most readings) counter to policy doesn't mean that the user cannot have a userpage.  If future use of userpage presents a problem, it should be taken to RfC (or AN:I if extreme) to remove the user rather than let him contribute as a user-without-userpage. [[User:Barno|Barno]] ([[User talk:Barno|talk]]) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' was offensive--[[User:Phoenix-wiki|Phoenix-wiki]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Phoenix-wiki|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Phoenix-wiki|contribs]])</sup> 20:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
* '''Suggestion''' If there are a few dead branches on a tree, you don't bulldoze the entire thing. However, given that the user has been warned and has still taken no action, I '''Suggest''' giving him an ultimatum; if he does not remove content generally perceived as offensive, his userpage will be deleted, or modified to remove aforementioned content. [[User:Master of Puppets|Master of Puppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:;"><sup>Care to share?</sup></span>]] 02:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
** '''Wake up please''' The userpage has already been deleted! This is not a discussion as to whether it shall be deleted or not. --[[User:Law Lord|Law Lord]] ([[User talk:Law Lord|talk]]) 10:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' The "keeps" were told during the MfD that this was a discussion not a vote and that both keep and delete comments which were essentially votes without any policy/guideline grounded reasoning would be weighted accordingly by the closing admin. That this is exactly what has happened, resulting in a closure of deletion is of absolutely no surprise. Endorse deletion. The closure was proper. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 07:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*I received an email asking me to contribute here, did everyone get one of those? ;-)  A clear consensus to delete '''was''' the result of the discussion. This was not an unexpected or unwelcome outcome, some of the stuff should have been deleted on sight, but the page gave a very good indication of that editor's ''other'' contributions. However, the scope of that discussion was too limited to address the problem of the user's long campaign, [[WP:GAME|gaming the system]], and this particular response by the community will only serve that user. This was [a] just [a] blow, a broader discussion is still required. I had hoped to avoid any suggestion that I was voting or arguing for anything ... no such luck. Deletion was proper, yet will be ultimately ineffectual if further discussions do not take place. <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">[[User:Cygnis insignis|cygnis]] [[User talk:Cygnis insignis|insignis]]</span> 10:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
**May I ask who sent it, and which side was it implied you should contribute to? I perfectly understand if you can't/would prefer not to, for privacy reasons - just wondering :) '''[[User:Daniel|<span style="color:#2E82F4">Daniel</span>]]''' 10:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
***''Of course'' you can ask, and the answer is [[User_talk:Law_Lord|here]]. I'm not sure I understand the next part of your comment - privacy?. <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">[[User:Cygnis insignis|cygnis]] [[User talk:Cygnis insignis|insignis]]</span> 11:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
****''Privacy:'' I think what Daniel meant was that ''in general'' if somebody sends you an email message then the sender will expect that you keep the contents of the message and the name of the sender private. --[[User:Law Lord|Law Lord]] ([[User talk:Law Lord|talk]]) 21:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. In ref to policies overriding the tally of keeps and deletes, does that apply in the case of something like [[WP:UP]] which is not a policy but a guideline? [[User:Sarsaparilla|Sarsaparilla]] ([[User talk:Sarsaparilla|talk]]) 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
:The [[Wikipedia:Rough_consensus#Rough_consensus|deletion guidelines you cited above]] states that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted."  In an XfD discussion, the question of whether an editor's argument is based on a guideline or a policy is largely a question of semantics (the exception being when a policy overrides a guideline, which is exceedingly rare and something that we actively seek to avoid) due to the fact that both are based on [[WP:CON|consensus]] and thus serve to support their argument.

:Of course, [[WP:SOAPBOX]] is part of [[WP:NOT]], but my point stands regardless. --[[User:jonny-mt|<span style="color:#297AA3">'''jonny'''</span>]]-[[Special:Contributions/jonny-mt|<span style="color:#A3293D">'''m'''</span>]][[User talk:jonny-mt|<span style="color:#3DA329">'''t'''</span>]] 03:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

* I endorse the deletion. From what I can see at the MfD was a clear consensus to delete the page, and counting who "voted" for what and counting the "other votes" as "keep"s is not how we operate in any deletion discussion. '''[[User:Spebi|<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #002bb8;">Spebi</span>]]''' 09:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' without prejudice to the user recreating a more friendly version, when he comes off his block next year. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 17:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
* '''[[:Raccoon Police Department]]''' – {{{2|Deletion endorsed}}} – [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 05:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Raccoon Police Department}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Raccoon Police Department|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Raccoon Police Department}} cache]</span><kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raccoon Police Department|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

Possibly flawed closing and deletion by admin against consensus. I'm actually bringing this against my own closing because I'm wondering if I did the right thing. I'm confident that I evaluated the discussion fairly but because [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raccoon Police Department]] includes a number of strong '''keeps''', I'm now wondering if I should have gone for a '''no consensus''' decision. I'm still new enough to closing AfDs that I'm worrying about poor judgment in cases like this. [[User:Pigman|'''Pigman''']][[User_Talk:Pigman|<span style="color:red;">☿</span>]] 07:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion''' The article was tagged for references since September, and nobody offered any during the discussion, so it fails [[WP:V]] as well as [[WP:N]]. If someone wants to add the refs, the article can always be userfied and brought back here. So don't fret, you did the right thing. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] ([[User talk:Dhaluza|talk]]) 10:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', with the proviso that of course if someone comes up with references, the article could be recreated (G4 speedy wouldn't be applicable since references would "address the reasons for which the material was deleted"). --[[User:Stormie|Stormie]] ([[User talk:Stormie|talk]]) 12:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''', [[WP:V]] is non-negotiable and closure was correct. [[User:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; font-family: cursive ;color: #006600">Neil</span>]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; color: #006600">☎</span>]] 13:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''.  With the article failing [[WP:V]] and [[WP:N]], I believe that was the right decision to make.  --[[User:Son|Son]] ([[User talk:Son|talk]])  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 15:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Endorse''' deletion.  The delete arguements were clearly stronger.  --[[User:Lifebaka|<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>]] <small>([[User talk:Lifebaka|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Lifebaka|Contribs]])</small> 17:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Whew! Glad people think my judgment was sound. Since I received [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APigman&diff=176110995&oldid=175918703|a complaint] (my first on an AfD closing) I decided I preferred other opinions to remaining in doubt. If I was more confident, I wouldn't have brought it here. Question: If an AfD decision has the possibility of being contested/challenged, is it better to provide a rationale for the decision or just leave such things to DRV to decide? Is it helpful to provide such a summary or is it just a waste of time? Just curious. Cheers, [[User:Pigman|'''Pigman''']][[User_Talk:Pigman|<span style="color:red;">☿</span>]] 19:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
***'''Comment:''' I believe that a rationale for ''any'' AfD closing is appropriate, and if the closer sees it as likely to be contested, almost mandatory.  It definitely helps an individual understand the close (and makes it more likely to be resolved by a simple talkpage exchange); and if the matter is brought to DRV, it helps reviewers determine whether process was followed in evaluating the arguments (as compared to simple headcount or imposing one's own opinion). [[User:Barno|Barno]] ([[User talk:Barno|talk]]) 20:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
****Also, I don't think that a childish rant, rejecting core WP policy, is very much reason for much worry about closing an AfD where no evidence of [[WP:V|verifiability]] (other than "you can verify it from the game itself") was offered.  If you close AfDs, especially in the videogaming area, you'll get these complaints all the time.  Thank you for trying to be sure that you hadn't overstepped. [[User:Barno|Barno]] ([[User talk:Barno|talk]]) 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
****'''Comment:''' The use of closing "statements" was one I had observed and thought an excellent idea if there was the ''slightest'' question of the resulting decision or the policies/reasoning behind the outcome decision of the closing admin. I figure it's not so necessary if the outcome is clear and unambiguous from the discussion and opinions. However in this particular case, I think my saying "Technically, the consensus leaned toward keep but..." was a mistake to articulate in the closing; it's practically an open invitation to second-guess the closer. While I've been getting used to process of closing AfDs, I've attempted to steer clear of those AfDs calling for more detailed policy knowledge than I have at the moment. Or maybe I have it but I'm not comfortable exercising it. And, yeah, I know I can't please everyone in any charged or mixed opinion closing. I'll be better able to put complaints into perspective once I have some confidence in my skills in the area. Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it. Cheers, [[User:Pigman|'''Pigman''']][[User_Talk:Pigman|<span style="color:red;">☿</span>]] 01:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*****No, I think it is important to note that the number of comments lean one way, but the weight of the arguments lean the other. It shows that you did consider all the evidence in reaching your decision. As the closing admin, you are the arbiter of policy, and you must respect the broad consensus reflected in policy over any narrow consensus formed in a particular AfD. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] ([[User talk:Dhaluza|talk]]) 13:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure'''.  Good call that you explained clearly.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 23:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' and it's a positive thing that you've sought further discussion and that you offered your reasons for closing as delete. The article did not pass [[WP:FICT]] and none of the keep arguments made any inroads in that department. The five keep arguments were 'notability is inherited'x2 (<s>it ain't</s> it ''can'' be in some circumstances, but not this one), 'it's notable'x3/'there's primary sources, they're good enough for character articles' (notability is a standard not just a word we like bandying around and it wasn't demonstrated, character articles are given much more leeway with regards to notability, though that's been changing too). If sources are found there's nothing stopping the article being reinstated and brought up to standard - it's not like deletion is a scorched earth process. [[User:Someone another|Someone another]] ([[User talk:Someone another|talk]]) 02:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' - the guidelines are quite clear - game-guide material needs real-world context and this page has none and no RSs either.[[User:BlueValour|BlueValour]] ([[User talk:BlueValour|talk]]) 03:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', and Pigman, good on you for reading and evaluating the unbolded words instead of just counting the bolded ones. Keep it up. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 09:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

*'''Overturn''' As the closer said, "consensus leaned to "keep", and then he gave his own judgment on this issue, & closed on that basis. He should  rather have joined the discussion, and I'm glad he realised it and brought it here. I did not comment on the afd. My personal view on the issues is opposite to the closer's. I could have closed, saying "slight consensus to keep" giving my own opinion as support. That would have been wrong for me to do, & I would never close an article on a topic where i had views about one side of a relatively equally disputed debate. Closing is not a casting vote.  He should have let someone else close. That the views on the article  of the people here so far agree with the closer is irrelevant. They should instead say to relist it, and join the debate, not debate it here.  I have notified ''all'' those who joined in the discussion--''both sides''--who have not already participated here. Personally, I think that should be required--seems elementary politeness.'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 09:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''.  From [[WP:PRACTICAL]]: ''...wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting ("[[m:Voting is evil|Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy]]"). '''This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se.''' Polling is generally discouraged, except in specialized processes such as AFD....'' <small>(Emphasis added is mine except for "not a binding vote".)</small> But that's not to say that only polling and votes can apply to AfD; it's saying that for article space, polling should be avoided, in ''x''fD it's recommended.  --[[User:Son|Son]] ([[User talk:Son|talk]]) 14:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. <span style="font-family:Times;">[[User:DJ Creamity|<span style="color:#003">DJ Creamity</span>]]</span><small><sup>''[[User Talk:DJ_Creamity|Oh Yeah!]]''</sup></small> 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' as there was obviously no consensus to delete and there still is not.  If we operate by consensus, then situations like this one in which a good deal of good faith editors believe the article has merit, we should not delete it.  Sincerely, --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</span><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' although at the same time I see no reason whatsoever that a redirect can't point to the [[Resident Evil]] series article. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><span style="color:#FF0000;">St</span><span style="color:#FF5500;">ar</span><span style="color:#FF8000;">bli</span><span style="color:#FFC000;">nd</span></b> 17:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Relist at AFD'''.  I think relisting, instead of closing as a no consensus, would have been the right call...I think there was still some discussion to be had. And isn't it supposed to be "Raccoon ''City'' Police Department"?  --[[User:UsaSatsui|UsaSatsui]] ([[User talk:UsaSatsui|talk]]) 18:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*: No need to relist. Find references, and it can stay; no references, and it must go (at least for now). Anybody can make a redirect as needed. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] ([[User talk:Dhaluza|talk]]) 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''  though a redirect won't do any harm [[Special:Contributions/132.205.99.122|132.205.99.122]] ([[User talk:132.205.99.122|talk]]) 19:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''' to [[Resident Evil]], on the whole a Redirect makes a lot of sense. [[User:RMHED|RMHED]] ([[User talk:RMHED|talk]]) 20:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', valid closure. Go on and replace it with a redirect. --[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<span style="color:#457541;">desat</span>]] 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
* '''[[:Tokyo in pop culture]]''' – Closure endorsed, but redirect placed as an outcome to keep an article does not make it immune to editorial decisions such as merging – [[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<span style="color:#457541;">desat</span>]] 02:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Tokyo in pop culture}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Tokyo in pop culture|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Tokyo in pop culture}} cache]</span><kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tokyo in pop culture|AfD]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tokyo in pop culture (2nd nomination)|AfD2]]<kbd>)</kbd>

This was kept because the "the article is now more than a list". However, the entire text of this article is duplicated near-verbatim in the ''[[Tokyo#Tokyo_in_popular_media|Tokyo in popular media]]'' section of the [[Tokyo]] article. Needless to say, the 2nd nomination for deletion was shouted down. This pointless fork should not have been kept. / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 05:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

:'''Endorse closure''' as it was obviously too soon to relist it for AfD. This should be a merge discussion, not at DRV. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<span style="color:green;">日本穣</span>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small></sup> 05:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::The merge [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tokyo&diff=175950274&oldid=175856909 has already been performed]. The article remains a fork. I don't believe the first closure was a good one. I took this to Deletion review on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edgarde&diff=176087170&oldid=175524261 advice] of the editor who performed the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tokyo_in_pop_culture_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=176086969&oldid=176063111 2nd closure]. Now I'm hearing this is the wrong venue, and I should have started a Merge discussion before copying one sentence to [[Tokyo]]. Is Wikipedia a bureaucracy or what? / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 06:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

:::What I'm saying is that there is no need to bring this here if all you ultimately want is to have the information merged to another article. If that merge has already happened, simply redirect the article to where you merged the information. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<span style="color:green;">日本穣</span>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small></sup> 06:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::::That's all I have to do? And this won't be promptly reverted? / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 06:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::See [[WP:BOLD]].  If someone objects, they'd have to object to my removal of the actual list; after all, there is no other content.  If we end up back at ''that'' version, things can be challenged.  You might have avoided a lot of pointless debates if you had just talked to me about my original closure.  [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 06:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::This merge has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tokyo_in_pop_culture&diff=176544109&oldid=176103668 reverted], and my performing this merge has been called "an attempt ... to singlehandedly reverse the clear consensus", by an Admin no less, who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATokyo_in_pop_culture&diff=176544285&oldid=164658987 cites this DRV] as part of the consensus to keep the article, and explains the fork must be kept per [[WP:CONSENSUS]].

::::::My request in this DRV was that the original Keep decision be overturned for reasons given above. We have since received two (2) votes in this DRV (which I was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edgarde&diff=176087170&oldid=175524261 advised to make] by yet another Admin) toward keeping this article, which exactly duplicates a section of [[Tokyo]], and serves no purpose but to have trivia items appended. / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 11:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' article as a large number of good faith contributors find it encyclopedic and are willing to continue developing and improving it.  Sincerely, --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</span><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. How about reading about deletion review, instead of just writing keep? This isn't the same as an AFD debate. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] ([[User talk:RobJ1981|talk]]) 20:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
* '''[[:LED circuit]]''' – Discussion misplaced.  A decision to redirect at XfD is a species of keep -- it is an editorial action undertaken by a closer after deciding not to delete a given article.  While the decision may have more weight than a unilateral decision to redirect (based on the strength of the consensus at the AfD supporting such action), the redirect is still editorial.  When under dispute, anyone may revert it, subject to talk page consensus.  As this redirect is clearly under dispute, I will revert it, and any interested parties may discuss the best options at the talk page. '''Redirect editorially reverted'''. – [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] ([[User talk:Xoloz|talk]]) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|LED circuit}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/LED circuit|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:LED circuit}} cache]</span><kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LED circuit|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

I believe the closer went completely off the reservation on this one. Other than the nom, there were no straight delete comments--there was one "trainwreck", one delete or merge, and the rest were merge or keep which preserves the content. Nobody suggested a redirect, which effectively deletes the content. Even after discounting the questionable nom portion of the comments, the result is the same. The closing comments go into great detail about the closer's non policy related opinions on the article itself, and speculation on commenters' intent, rather than impartial evaluation of the actual AfD discussion taken at face value. If an admin has an opinion on an article, they should comment in the AfD as an editor, not as the closing admin. Also closing the same AfD twice is probably a bad idea. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] ([[User talk:Dhaluza|talk]]) 01:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

*'''Overturn as no consensus''' There was no consensus for deleting the content as the closer did. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] ([[User talk:Dhaluza|talk]]) 01:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse own closure''' - I have made an "impartial evaluation of the actual AfD discussion taken at face value" - and it is written in the close comments, i.e: ''Keeps all conflate notability of LEDs with the circuit that happens to have one'', so don't you say I made no such evaluation. The sources all point to notability - not of LED circuit but of LED. Would we envision having a "light bulb circuit" article? I dare say no! In cases where all keep comments are blindly conflating things or simply disregarding the nominator's rationale, it is up to the closing admin to sort things out and apply some comon sense. I further noted that there is nothing to merge to LED in this article, the content totally duplicating [[Ohm's law]]. In this case a merge comment is equivalent to a redirect comment; this is standard operating procedure. [[User:Pegasus|Pegasus]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Pegasus|&laquo;C]]¦[[User talk:Pegasus|T&raquo;]] 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
**The commenters explicitly addressed "LED Circuit" in their comments, so your assumption that they were conflating LED with LED Circuit is not taking what they actually said at face value, it is making a value judgement. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] ([[User talk:Dhaluza|talk]]) 02:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn as no consensus'''.  There does not appear to have been any consensus in the original AfD.  It should probably be relisted.  --[[User:Lifebaka|<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>]] <small>([[User talk:Lifebaka|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Lifebaka|Contribs]])</small> 03:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' - I understand, and have sympathy with, the reasoning of the closing admin. However, it is so far off the consensus that it must be overturned. I think that ''merge'' would have been a better close. The problem with the simple redirect is that some useful content is lost; for example the ''Typical voltage drops'' section contains mergeable material. I suggest the closing admin starts a merge discussion as a separate editorial action. [[User:BlueValour|BlueValour]] ([[User talk:BlueValour|talk]]) 04:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
**A number of uninformed keeps is not consensus. The table in [[LED circuit#Typical voltage drops]] is already present in [[light-emitting diode#Considerations in use]] (towards the end) where voltage is labeled as potential difference instead. [[User:Pegasus|Pegasus]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Pegasus|&laquo;C]]¦[[User talk:Pegasus|T&raquo;]] 08:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
***{{rpa}} Whether your argument is correct or not, it was not supported by consensus. And by making it in the close, rather than in the discussion, you denied the contributors the opportunity to rebut it. For example, your assertion that there is no mergeable material is demonstrably false. The essence of the article, the circuit diagram itself, does not appear in the LED article, but it does appear in the references, so it is relevant. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] ([[User talk:Dhaluza|talk]]) 10:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
****I am too dumbfounded to respond to your claims except the first one, that "you are judging the contributors to the discussion, not their contribution". That is plainly untrue and I have no idea what magic hat you pulled that rabbit from. The closure was not dependent on who commented; if any other editors had expressed the same rationales for keeping the article I would have closed the AfD the same way. [[User:Pegasus|Pegasus]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Pegasus|&laquo;C]]¦[[User talk:Pegasus|T&raquo;]] 15:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*****No magic needed, just reading your comments at the close and here. We give the closing admin discretion to evaluate comments in relation to policy, because a narrow consensus at AfD cannot override a wider consensus in a policy. But we do not give the closer discretion to dismiss comments to substitute their own judgment, especially based on the closer's own "expert" opinion of the subject. This is what you have done--you did not impartially evaluate the AfD ''discussion'' to try to divine rough consensus, you rendered you own judgment on the ''article'', and dismissed dissenting views, effectively casting a super-vote. As you just said, you would have closed the same way, regardless of how many editors expressed opinions contrary to your judgment. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] ([[User talk:Dhaluza|talk]]) 00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
******Look, I can take it when you say I cast a super vote; I blatantly overruled consensus - fine. But when you say I judged the contributors instead of the substance of their contribution, that is untrue and a grievous slander on your part. I cannot take your injurious insinuation lying down - I did not make remarks about any editor(s) themselves. Period. [[User:Pegasus|Pegasus]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Pegasus|&laquo;C]]¦[[User talk:Pegasus|T&raquo;]] 10:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*******It is not intended as a slander, and I apologize if I expressed my observation in a way that you find offensive. But after reconsidering this, I still think the observation is consistent with the evidence. I find your comment that "...a lot of people have wrongly conflated the notability of LEDs themselves..." as judgmental. You are saying that they are wrong and you are right. If this were a policy interpretation, that would be within your purview as a closing admin. But you are saying they don't understand the subject as well as you do, and for a closer, that is going off the reservation. You should have made those types of comments as a contributor, and left it to someone more impartial to close. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] ([[User talk:Dhaluza|talk]]) 13:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
**(outdent) "Judging the contributor" requires one to name or identify specific editor(s) in the remark. I did no such thing in the closure. Please, strike that blatantly untrue statement. ''I did not make remarks about any specific editor or editors, which the phrase "judging the contributor" implies to most people.'' [[User:Pegasus|Pegasus]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Pegasus|&laquo;C]]¦[[User talk:Pegasus|T&raquo;]] 14:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
***There is no such implication. Other than that clarification, I will let you have the last word. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] ([[User talk:Dhaluza|talk]]) 02:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' Countering the claim in the nomination, the edit history is still available for anyone to merge any content anywhere they please. There are essentially two meaningful contributions in the discussion, one by Edison, one by Dhaluza. Closer performed due diligence on the references and concluded that Edison's position has more merit. That's a perfectly valid thing to do. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] ([[User talk:Trialsanderrors|talk]]) 09:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' Closer was not impartial.  [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 11:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - "consensus rooted in policy" is the phrase, not just "consensus".  Information is duplicated elsewhere, and content is retained in the redirect's history in case anything has slipped through the gaps. [[User:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; font-family: cursive ;color: #006600">Neil</span>]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; color: #006600">☎</span>]] 14:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn as no consensus''', as clearly there was none.  I also note that the closing admin was a contributor to the AfD.  It was therefore not appropriate for him to close it, regardless of the outcome. &mdash;[[User:Gorgan almighty|gorgan_almighty]] ([[User talk:Gorgan almighty|talk]]) 14:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
**I have to point out his comment in the midst of the AFD was procedural (''I closed this as a "speedy keep" earlier but after objections on my talk page, I've reverted my closure''), not about deleting or keeping the article. [[User:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; font-family: cursive ;color: #006600">Neil</span>]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; color: #006600">☎</span>]] 15:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
***Yes, but his other comment applied more or less specifically to the argument. --[[User:Smashville|'''Smashville''']][[User Talk:Smashville|<sup style="color:#03F">BONK!</sup>]] 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn as no consensus'''.  Looking at the AfD, there just wasn't any consensus.  I agree with gorgan_almighty that it was inappropriate for a user involved in the discussion to close it.  --[[User:Son|Son]] ([[User talk:Son|talk]]) 15:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. I have an issue with an admin who participated in the discussion making a close against consensus. IMO, anyone - admin or not - who participates in the discussion should not close it. --[[User:Smashville|'''Smashville''']][[User Talk:Smashville|<sup style="color:#03F">BONK!</sup>]] 16:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' (which was only to not delete).  The pagehistory has not been deleted.  This is consistent with the closure decision and the community opinion.  The decision to merge/redirect is then a normal editorial decision since it can be reversed by any editor without the need for special admin powers.  The argument that a redirect "deletes content" is without merit and is untrue given the Wikipedia process.  Normal editing (including turning some pages into redirects) is not [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]] as we use that term here. <br> All that said, I agree with the closer that there is no independent material here.  None of the sources describe this topic ''as a topic''.  An LED circuit is a circuit with an LED is self-evident.  Until a more substantial article can be successfully written and sourced, our readers are better off with a redirect.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 00:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
**I was careful to characterize the outcome as ''effectively'' deleted, because if an editor were to restore the article, another editor would be likely to point to the AfD and revert. So absent an overturn here, the article is effectively deleted. I don't disagree that the article could be better, but we generally do not turn articles needing improvement into redirects, especially when there are ample references. Also, as I pointed out above, it is plainly obvious that the actual "LED circuit" diagram from the article was lost, so there was independent info, making that a false assumption. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] ([[User talk:Dhaluza|talk]]) 00:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
*** And if they did unredirect and then have it reverted, that would be completely consistent with the [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]].  That sort of content dispute gets settled on the respective article Talk pages.  It does not require discussion here.  The image is not lost - it can be moved to another article if useful.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 01:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
**** Not true, as the Talk page of a redirect is seldom if ever used.  There was clearly no consensus to redirect, so the article should have been left as it was. &mdash;[[User:Gorgan almighty|gorgan_almighty]] ([[User talk:Gorgan almighty|talk]]) 11:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' as no consensus. Looking at the AfD, there was not consensus. I agree  that it was inappropriate for a user involved in the discussion to close it. There are over a thousand uninvolved administrators who could have done it. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 09:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}