Wikipedia:deletion Review Log 2008 October 24

< October 23	Deletion review archives: 2008 October	October 25 >

24 October 2008

Category:Fictional Americans – Overturned. Consensus has changed so that the category is now necessary. No major issue with original closure. – lifebaka ++ 21:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Category was deleted as part of a mass CFR that was greatly expanded while the CFR was in process. While I remain unconvinced that the mass deletion was correct, for this DRV I am only addressing Category:Fictional Americans. Two currently-running CFDs, for fictional Americans by state and its subcategories and the other for fictional Americans by ethnicity are heading for near-unanimous keep closures along with the strong desire that Fictional Americans be restored as a parent. Given that consensus has clearly changed regarding this category, I ask that the CFD be overturned and the category be restored. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Overturn or list separately (not sure if that is needed considering the current sub-cat noms, but whatever works for everyone). -- Ned Scott 05:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment - If the nominated categories noted above are "kept", Then having this as the parent should be uncontroversial. - jc37 05:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
The CFD was open for over a month, so claims that the addition mid-CFD was improper are a bit poor. I'll have to go with a weak endorse; the other CFDs aren't relevant to this discussion. Stifle ( talk) 12:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

No claim about the propriety of the expansion was made. The current CFDs are certainly relevant as they demonstrate a shift in consensus regarding this category. When practically everyone commenting in the CFD makes a point of stating that this category should be restored, it's hard to see how that isn't relevant. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Overturn or list separately. Inconsistent close with the general consensus on the other categories. There has indeed been a change in consensus during the discussion. DGG ( talk) 23:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Overturn The broad consensus for retention of the fictional Americans by state and its subcategories and fictional Americans by ethnicity categories makes a strong case for the restoration of the parent category. Alansohn ( talk) 06:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Overturn per User:Alansohn. Based on the discussion that took place, User:Good Olfactory's action was not unreasonable. However, had someone taken the trouble to tag all these subcats back in September, the discussion would've gone very differently. Live and learn. - Stepheng3 ( talk) 18:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad – Nominator is welcome to list an AFD – Stifle ( talk) 09:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

I would like to list this article at AfD. The 27 August 2008 non admin close of Paris Hilton energy plan was upheld at DRV on 28 August 2008. That DRV seemed to lean towards a no consensus closure, but the DRV close maintained the AfD Keep close, which give the article an unofficial three-month don't-list-at-AfD card. The article was moved/renamed to Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad, a different topic from Paris Hilton energy plan. In view of the no consensus lean and the topic switch, I would like to list Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad at AfD and not have the listing subject to a "too early after keep" close. What I would post at the AfD nom would be

POV fork (it is designed only to present Hilton's response) that would be better presented in Paris Hilton, Cultural and political image of John McCain, List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements (as a counter point), or in an article about the secondary news events generated by United States presidential election, 2008.

Since the DRV maintained the non admin AfD keep close with a "clear overwhelming consensus is not to delete the article" and the topic was switched, I would like DRV consensus to list the article at AfD and not have the listing subject to a "too early after keep" close. Also, I think it better to get these ancillary issues resolved at DRV rather than having them addressed at AfD. A reply of List at AfD would seem to fix things. If this DRV close is favorable, would the closing admin please post at AfD using my AfD nom language above. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 22:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hmm. This isn't really something DRV is for. Personally I have never believed in the alleged three-month rule, and it's been challenged successfully at DRV more than once. So I would recommend that you start the AfD and if you make a good enough argument I don't think it will be speedily closed. Alternately, you could just pursue a merge, which is (surely?) the likeliest outcome of an AfD at this point (and even likelier two or three weeks from now). Chick Bowen 23:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I rather think Chick is right; I cannot imagine that anyone should object to your renominating now, and I suppose that you might do well to be bold straightaway. Lest anyone should level a procedural objection, though, I suppose it can't hurt to say permit listing at AfD (I am disinclined to say list at AfD, whereby we should be seen as offering our imprimatur to the issue's being AfDed; we mean only to say that listing again should not be disfavored). Joe 05:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
There's no reason why this shouldn't be listed at AFD. Stifle ( talk) 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Just renominate it. It's good that you should have asked, and I wish people did more often, but we';e had a number of discussions on related articles since then, and it would be good to get another consensus. Two months is not too short in the circumstances. DGG ( talk) 23:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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