Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 26 Deletion review archives: 2008 September September 28 >

27 September 2008

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

Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters ( | article | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache | MfD)

I feel the basis of consensus needed in wikipedia is being overridden JJJ999 ( talk) 23:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC) It has been a while since I used this, so I hope somebodymore versed in formatting can clean this up for me. The link is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Dragon_Ball_characters reply

  • This is a slightly unusual review request, because it's not really relating to any one thing that has happened. Basically, the purpose of wikipedia is consensus. The Admin in question, who I will notify in a sec, has so far replied in a way that is entirely unsatisfactory to my queries, and keeps saying "wikipedia is not a democracy". Well, yes, that is true. But that means this isn't a vote, not that wikipedia mods can disregard totally the consensus build on this site. I personally think that without exception neither side in most of these merge discussions has made much in the way of argument.
  • As near as I can tell, this mass merge page is being used to circumvent previous consensus, because most people are less familiar with merge tags than with AfD ones, so very few people are participating in the discussion. This has led to several problems. Firstly, some of the decisions like the one on Cell seem to be completely against the actual consensus on the basis that "there were no good reasons with their keeps". Well, yeh, but neither side provided any reasons really. There was barely any time before it got closed anyway. Secondly, it thwarts the will of pages like Roshi, Krillin, Bulma, etc, who keep getting brought up as merger candidates "we'll relist in a month", but who survived multiple AfDs which were widely participated in. I'm not saying this is a vote, but if we've moved away from a situation that is based on consensus in wikipedia, let's move back to it. A second AfD to an article like Bulma made within 6 months would be closed instantly because of the clear consensus in previous AfDs, yet this page is effectively deleting the content and proposes to review decisions "every month".
  • I really think the mods here have taken too much power in the decision making process for articles which, if they were put to an AfD like Cell would easily be defended en masse with mounds of evidence presented. They should be relisted for consensus when only 5 or so people split the vote with no reasons. The Mod shouldn't just make the decision for people.

JJJ999 ( talk) 00:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

He already knows these were not deleted. There was consensus for all of these merges after plenty of discussion. JJJ999 seems to have an extremely poor understanding of the entire process of merges. This merge discussion was conducted in the same manner as many many other character to list merges, and I can't help noticing that he is not complaining about any of the keep closes. He also did some extreme canvassing of 10 different editors falsely claiming that the merges are "stealth deletions" and begging them to come help him stop the "mass merging." JJJ999's actions are becoming very disruptive in this issue. All editors on the list were aware of the merge discussions as were both the Anime and manga project and the Dragon Ball taskforce. There was nothing "stealth" about it. Someone please educate him about the WP:MERGE process as he is refusing to listen to me. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 00:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • There is no such thing as canvassing in a deletion review, because the Mods decide. I merely feel it would be helpful to have some of the people involved in previous AfDs, many of whom complained last time this was tried, comment on this here so it can be seen how absurd your claim of consensus is. You've closed some votes with 5 people offering 1 line remarks 3-2! You should have relisted them until real consensus was reached, not just inserted your own point of view. Lastly, why should I oppose keeps for characters like Goku? They clearly deserve a page. JJJ999 ( talk) 01:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes, there is such a thing, you can canvas in any discussion, including DR. You are asking people to come here and attempt to sway opinion to your personal point of view. That is WP:CANVAS. You are the one who is claiming that consensus is only reached if it is YOUR personal point of view. You are not opposing any other keeps or even other merges, except where YOU disagree. That discussions closed after eight days of discussion (plenty of time). These are NOT deletions, they were a merge discussion and it was all done properly per WP:MERGE, WP:CONSENSUS, and many other similar merge discussions conducted by the anime and manga project over the last few months. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 01:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
10 people who you believe will support your point of view is mass canvassing. Anyway, I'll let some admins deal with you as I'm tired of arguing with a brick wall. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 01:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Please provide evidence I canvassed anyone. I have not talked with Tintor, and I neutrally asked Sephiroth to review the merge discussion closings because of your continually questioning of them (as opposed to your messages which all basically said "come help stop the merging." Sephiroth is well known for being an admin who is fair and neutral in such issues, and he would not simply agree with me just to agree with me. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 01:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
One also has to really wonder why it is that some of them like Cell are closed so quickly on a 3-2 vote with no discussion, but others (who I suspect he wants to delete) are still going way later despite clear consensus to keep it. JJJ999 ( talk) 02:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a completely procedural oppose. This is not the correct venue, and that is what my oppose is based on. sephiroth bcr ( converse) 02:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply


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

Lawyers' Council on Social Justice (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

We request that the article regarding the Lawyers' Council on Social Justice be undeleted. The deletion reasons do not comport with Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Additionally, there are errors in the stated reasons for the deletion.According to the deletion discussion, there were 1. no references or additional claims of support for the notability of the organization, 2. the article failed to demonstrate that it is anything more than a student organization at a single university, 3. the Lawyers' Council is a very small organization with no reliable coverage outside their school's website and 4. it does not demonstrate that the organization is notable.

In regards to the referenced reasons: 1. The Lawyers' Council addressed the speedy deletion by stating the reasons for notability and supplying additional references at the bottom of the article. Said references included all outside sources since the Lawyers' Council is an independent organization with student and attorney chapters. The three references at the end of the article were all from third party sources - St. Thomas University School of Law, an organization that is distinct and separate from the Lawyers' Council; CBS News (WCCO); and the Minnesota Historical Society. 2. As stated in the article, the Lawyers' Council is not a student organization. It is an independent, non-profit organization which is registered as such with the Secretary of State of Minnesota. Administrators can go to the Secretary of State's website - http://da.sos.state.mn.us/minnesota/corp_inquiry-find.asp?:Norder_item_type_id=10&sm=7 and type in the name of the organization under name search and the organization's applicable business ID will appear as yet another verifiable third-party source of the organization as an independent, registered company - not a student organization. 3. The comment about the size of the Lawyers' Council is without merit or foundation and we are unclear how that assessment was made. 4. We believe the Lawyers' Council meets the notability standards and the article should be undeleted.

According to Wikipedia guidelines, notable means "attracting notice." When demonstrating notability, "material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed" The size of the organization should not be a deterent since by Wikipedia standards,"smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." Organizations whose activities are local in scope can be notable if "verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found".

Attached is a link to the CBS interview regarding both the Lawyers' Council and our work on mortgage fraud. Also attached is a link to our rehearing of the Supreme Court case, Dred Scott, which was covered by the Minnesota Historical Society. Please note that a commerical usually airs prior to the CBS interview beginning.The interview begins after the commerical.

http://www.mnhs.org/newsletters/localhistory/2008/February13.htm

http://wcco.com/video/?id=32984@wcco.dayport.com

We understand that administrators must be vigilant in ensuring that organizations meet Wikipedia's notability standards but we agree with Wikipedia's policy that the standards should not be "arbitrary." Deletion should also be based on reasons that are factual. We believe that errors in the assessment of our notability occurred and request that the article be undeleted. Thank you. Lawyerscouncil ( talk) 22:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

As I was involved as closer of the AfD, deferring to other admins on that part of the issue and reported to WP:UAA. Cirt ( talk) 23:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Okay, I think there's a slight misunderstanding here. DRV is for raising process issues (mostly) with deletions, where there aren't any of here. You can see how that AfD could not, under any reasonable determination of consensus, have resulted in anything other than deletion. So, there's nothing to do here besides endorse that outcome.
    However, there are other ways to deal with this than just straight undeletion. What I suggest you do is create another article about the Council in your userspace (probably at User:Lawyerscouncil/Lawyers' Council on Social Justice) which does clearly meet the general notability guideline and/or the notability guideline for organizations, and make sure that reliable sources are provided to verify all the information in that article. Then, you can bring that article back here and, if no longer would meet the issues laid out at the AfD, it can be moved back into the mainspace.
    I also share Cirt's concern that the account above may be a role account, meaning that it is used by multiple persons. These types of accounts are not allowed, as it disguises which contributions should be attributed to each individual, so please have each person who would like to contribute here create his or her own account (if you're having issues with creating a lot of accounts, just let me know and I can help). Cheers. lifebaka ++ 23:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I endorse the deletion as procedurally correct. That said, I think Lifebaka has the correct remedy suggested above: create a new account, then create a new article in userspace. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Thank you for the conversation but it still leaves matters unclear. First, the account name can be change to reflect that it is an individual account not an account used by more than one person. That is not a problem. However, it is unclear how the "process" was followed correctly if it does not comport with Wikipedia's stated guidelines for notability. One administrator said this is not the correct place for this issue, yet Cirt, the administrator who deleted the article, said to place the issue in this forum. It is also unclear how the process was followed correctly when unsupported statements like "it's a very small organization," "it's only coverage is on the school's website" and other such errors were used as reasons for the article's deletion. In the multiple comments regarding the matter, not one administrator commented on any errors in reasoning or facts made by other administrators regarding the deletion. The concept of Wikipedia, a public source with public editors and administrators, is good but only as good as those who are making the decisions are holding themselves accountable for both the stated guidelines and the understandable errors that are made. This reads like, "we can't be wrong, so we must be right." If that's the "process" that was followed, it is not one to which anyone should proudly attach their identity. Also notable, was that Cirt's issue regarding role accounts only surfaced when the deletion was contested. Yet, another part of the "process?" In this reply, the article isn't the issue as another article can be submitted as suggested. However, if the Wikipedia's guidelines are arbitrary and challenges yield other complaints from administrators who can't admit their errors, the entire premise of public accountability fails by those who are not accountable to the very guidelines they are suppose to be administering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawyerscouncil ( talk • contribs) 01:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The issues with the possibility of this being a role account only surfaced due to the use of "we" in the nomination statement. It, quite clearly, implies that a group is behind the account, even if just a single individual actually uses it.
I don't believe you understand the position administrators are supposed to hold. Ideally, we shouldn't be anything more than janitors who do what the community tells us. And the community, in this case, fairly obviously stated it would like the article deleted. This is why I've suggested the above, creating a new version. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 02:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion. I don't perceive any flaws in the deletion process, and the sources that were in the article weren't enough to show notability in my opinion. No objection to userfying the article if the account is renamed. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion - The AfD closer interpreted the debate correctly. Wikipedia only is an encyclopedia and it only produces text. That's it. Text. As a result, the only thing essentially that matters is whether there is sufficient source material from third parties to maintain an article on Wikipedia. Rather than get distracted by raising other issues at DRV, sufficient source material is the area you should focus on. You mentioned three references in the article. mnhs.org newsletter says the Lawyers’ Council on Social Justice will present a mock rehearing of arguments presented in the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford case. That one sentence is not enough to maintain a Wikipedia article on a topic. stthomas.edu/LCSJ.html is not a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and is not a source that is independent of the Lawyers' Council on Social Justice since LCSJ is an organization at StThomas.edu. StThomas.edu/Inthenews.html does not appear to make any mention of Lawyers' Council on Social Justice. Google news shows no information that can be used in the article, Google books shows no information that can be used in the article, and Google scholar shows no information that can be used in the article. If you think that you can put together enough material about Lawyers' Council on Social Justice from wcco.com, please feel free to prepare a draft article in user space and present it to DRV for review. -- Suntag ☼ 06:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
that sort of mention is pretty much the definition of trivial coverage. DGG ( talk) 17:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Julius_Pitzman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

On 25 September 2008 I closed this nomination as Keep (non admin closure). I feel that my close was the correct one but today while reviewing my contributions, I noticed that I had earlier removed a speedy deletion tag (A7) from the same article and I had forgotten that I had done so. Therefore, I should not have closed this AFD. Since there was one Delete !vote I think it's only fair to him and the nominator that I request a deletion review of my own close. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 03:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse. Ron, I have to say, I admire your thoroughness and fairness here. This article has been expanded by a couple of people, including me, since the original deletion tag. I believe it's now in good shape and belongs in wikipedia. -- Lockley ( talk) 06:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Was the right closure regardless of who did it and I agree with the other two comments above. Davewild ( talk) 07:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Arbiteroftruth listed the article for A7 speedy deletion two minutes after a new user created it and eleven hours after the block of Arbiteroftruth expired. When listed for A7 (Article that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant), the article's first sentence was "Julius Pitzman was best known for his work as a designer of private, gated neighborhoods in St. Louis, MO." The "hangon" explaination essentially repeated what already was in the article. The new user has not made any more edits to Wikipedia. -- Suntag ☼ 13:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Since you are here ... Ron, you declined the speedy delete request saying "Speedy declined, notability asserted." A7 is about importantce/significants, not notability. Give the only delete position (besides the nom) was a clarity issue, your close of the AfD could not have gone any other way. However, you did not indicate above why you close an AfD debate for an article where you also declined to speedy delete the article. -- Suntag ☼ 13:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for responding here. In summary of your post (and so that it appears in this discussion), "WP:CSD says to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. Therefore, I was using "notability asserted" as a convenient shorthand for edit summaries. ... I had completely forgotten that I had earlier removed a speedy tag from the article and didn't realize it until last night when I was reviewing my past edits." And thanks for heading off the Pitzman/Ritzman connection. -- Suntag ☼ 16:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Next time this happens, hopefully never, what I'll do is simply inform the nominator and anybody arguing for deletion of my screwup and let them file a DRV if they wish. When doing NPP you end up doing something to a lot of articles, speedy noms, maintenance tags, etc., and it's hard to remember them all. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply


The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_27&oldid=1138434502"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE