GW Patriot ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

SoWhy redirected to GWU the issues presented in the Talk section have been fixed and we would like this redirect removed. The GW Patriot is notable due to its popularity among undergraduates at GWU. It also has received significant coverage as can be seen from the data presented in the new citations added to the page. There was no large consensus in Talk to delete and with the new citations and content added we have fixed the issues presented in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GW_Patriot. GWPatriot ( talk) 22:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Nom's misleading sig fixed. Ikip ( talk · contribs) redirected the article, not SoWhy. Message left for nom re:username policy. Tim Song ( talk) 23:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close. Someone has restored the article already, and I removed the AfD tag since AfD was closed by Ikip. Nothing else DRV can do here. No prejudice to a second AfD at editorial discretion. Tim Song ( talk) 23:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Well, Tim Song, in fact there are quite a few other things DRV can do here. By convention DRV has wide latitude to amend the results of an AfD, and I see two matters of concern in this case.

  The first concern relates to sourcing. I can see a lot of citations, but they do not seem to lead to independent reliable sources that are giving non-trivial coverage of the subject. Blogs are not a reliable source, Wikimedia Commons is not a reliable source, and the other cites are to the subject's website itself. This is a matter that should receive full discussion at AfD, and either better sources should be found, or the article should be deleted.

  The other matter of concern is that an end-run around the AfD process has been performed here. The closure states that by everyone's agreement a redirect was the outcome, but hey presto, we have an article rather than a redirect occupying that namespace. This is not okay.

  I think DRV needs to do three things here:

  1) List the article at AfD on our own motion, stipulating that there should be seven days of discussion;

  2) Revert that article back into a redirect while the AfD is in progress; and

  3) Protect the redirect until the matter is decided.

  This would be fairly vigorous action for a DRV, but I think it might be warranted in this case. It's DRV's role to see that AfDs happen in good faith and the resulting consensus is implemented.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 23:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  • The first AfD was closed when the nom agreed to redirect, with no other comment whatsoever. I would treat this as a withdrawn nomination, and the subsequent redirect an editorial action.

    Since I do not consider the redirect to have been performed in furtherance of an AfD close, I see no end-run. On your specific suggestions:

    1) We can, of course, send this to AfD nostra sponte, but you can simply nominate it yourself and it will be faster.

    2) and 3): Interpreting the first redirect to be an editorial action rather than one performed in accordance with an AfD discussion, I consider the revert to be a normal application of WP:BRD, so I do not think we should either redirect again or protect it.

    Of course, if the first AfD ran its full course, and more than two editors participated, I'd likely support your suggestions. But here I see no reason to go that far. Tim Song ( talk) 00:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

    • I renominated at AfD. WP:Articles for deletion/GW Patriot (2nd nomination). Tim Song ( talk) 17:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close Nothing to do here. Hobit ( talk) 02:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

ERC (IRC client) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

SoWhy closed this as no concensus when the concensus was delete. "linux.com article indeed is more than non-trivial coverage but unfortunately for the keep !votes, this cannot suffice on its own." shows that the concensus was delete. Joe Chill ( talk) 20:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle ( talk) 20:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • My reason is that like 90% of the time, the closing admin doesn't change their mind. Since it's not mandatory, there is no strong need for me to do so. Joe Chill ( talk) 21:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • It's courteous, though, and I think your 90% figure is rather pessimistic. Stifle ( talk) 08:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment: closing admin notified. Tim Song ( talk) 21:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Closing admin's comment: (sorry if I do something wrong, it's my first DRV as the closing admin) The user requesting review has left out the rest of my rationale so it might not sound correct but there really was no consensus. The arguments were evenly split (in strength, not in numbers) between those who argued that the subject is notable (and provided non-trivial sources to establish it) and those who argued that the sources are not enough to establish notability, so there was no consensus on the matter of the article itself but such an AFD result does not bar the possibility to merge/redirect afterwards in case further improvement indeed proves impossible. Once could even argue that as the delete !votes have failed to take into account policies like WP:PRESERVE (i.e. that information should not be deleted if it can be kept anywhere else) so there really never was a valid reason for deletion instead of simple merging/redirect-editing instead anyway. Regards So Why 21:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • You said yourself that only one source showed notability. If you thought that the concensus showed that it could be merged, you could have closed it as merge and I think that someone most likely would do the merging. If the concensus isn't delete, I would think that the concensus was merge per this comment. Joe Chill ( talk) 21:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Please keep in mind that "no consensus" is not the same as "keep". It can still be merged, redirected or anything. That's what editing is all about and as I said, the result does not forbid it. It just says that there is no consensus what to do at that AFD and that is what this was. There was also none to merge for the same reasons. There could be, it needs to be discussed, but that does not mean that the consensus at this particular AFD was merge. There was no consensus, simple as that, for nothing. Regards So Why 21:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• This DRV slightly pains me, because I can see both sides of it.

  From Joe Chill's point of view, the editorially correct outcome is "delete", he pointed that out, and when the debate didn't lead to the editorially correct outcome, he's brought the matter to DRV. Hard to argue with that.

  But from SoWhy's point of view, he's (quite correctly) judged the debate rather than the actual article. There really wasn't a proper consensus at the debate, which means we can't really censure SoWhy for closing as he did.

  This is a problem we get from time to time at DRV: cases where the consensus itself was simply wrong. What we normally do is endorse the closure (because closers shouldn't have to take crap from DRV when they've implemented the consensus), but relist the article at AfD in the hope of a more satisfactory discussion. Let's do that here, so we can have a proper debate and the article can properly be deleted.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 23:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. There was no way to close that discussion as delete, nor should it have been deleted. A merge is, IMO, the right outcome and SoWhy could have closed it that way, but I don't think was such a consensus at the AfD even if I (and I think he) believe it was the right outcome. I'd actually recommend just endorsing this, doing the proposed merge and redirect and calling it good. I really don't see the need for this DrV (or the original AfD). Just merge it and be done. Hobit ( talk) 01:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• endorse- I see no consensus to delete in that AFD. Umbralcorax ( talk) 03:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, as there was indeed no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 08:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I see no clear error in the close. Tim Song ( talk) 11:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. When the !votes split 5/6, it's really hard to fault a finding of "no consensus," and the closer's reasoning, ignored by the editor who raised this DRV, is more than reasonable and takes the applicable policy arguments into account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I was the lone !vote who thought a possible merge might be the best option until more sources were found. I just so happened across such a source in the form of an article from LWN.net that gives coverage to ERC [1] while searching for additional sources for Konversation. Given the LWN.net article in addition to the Linux.com review [2] and Linuxlinks.com article [3] perhaps an overturn to keep is in order? -- Tothwolf ( talk) 09:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist. I am in no way faulting the closing administrator, but at the same time I cannot believe this article was kept despite the glaring lack of non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable publications. JBsupreme ( talk) 23:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Naim (chat program) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

SoWhy closed this as no concensus when the concensus was delete. "Yarcanox and Dream Focus both correctly point out that this subject has been the subject of coverage in multiple references, although they are only passing mentions" which shows that the concensus is that it doesn't pass WP:N. "But they point out that improvement might be possible and the delete !votes are not convincing since they do not address those references at all, only the lack of them, which can be addressed through editing rather deletion." This again shows that the concensus wasn't keep. A delete !voter doesn't have to reply every time that an editor brings up sources that they think is trivial. The lack of them has nothing to do with regular editing. It has to do with finding sources that make the article pass WP:N, which only trivial mentions were found. I didn't contact the closing admin because I think that it doesn't matter. Like 90% of the time, the admin doesn't change his or her opinion Joe Chill ( talk) 20:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle ( talk) 21:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • My reason is that like 90% of the time, the closing admin doesn't change their mind. Since it's not mandatory, there is no strong need for me to do so. Joe Chill ( talk) 21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment: closing admin notified. Tim Song ( talk) 21:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Closing admin's comment: No, consensus was not keep. And I have not closed it as keep. But unfortunately for the user asking for review, the default outcome of AFD is not delete. It's actually keep because it's the burden of those !voting delete to argue that the information needs to be removed from Wikipedia instead of its location or article changed ( WP:PRESERVE) and at least that improvement is not easily possible ( WP:BEFORE). Both the deletion and editing policy favor keeping information if at any way encyclopedic and possible. None of the delete !votes have addressed these requirements but seem to have been cast with almost equal wording on a large number of related AFDs (spawning, I have been told afterwards, from a quite long ANI discussion apparently). Both sides had valid arguments, no doubt about it and in the end it came down to "improvement impossible" against "improvement possible". These two arguments are by their very nature incompatible, so there is no way they can end in consensus acceptable for both sides, so the only correct close in my eyes was "no consensus". The requesting user should keep in mind that per aforementioned policies such a close does not bar a merge/redirect to a better place or a new AFD if improvement is indeed not possible. Regards So Why 21:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It's not unfortunately for me. If that was the default, articles that I helped save like FanFiction.net and Prevx would have been deleted. I have been using the same wording on most AFDs (not just software ones) for a year. Joe Chill ( talk) 21:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I meant unfortunately in terms of making an argument. I am not doubting your ability to save articles from deletion, I applaud you for it even. Regards So Why 21:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but relist exactly per my remark at the very similar DRV immediately above this one.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 23:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and recommend a merge per my comments in the above DrV. Hobit ( talk) 01:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- as with above, I see no delete consensus to delete in the AFD. Umbralcorax ( talk) 03:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as there was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 08:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. No clear error. Tim Song ( talk) 11:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. When the !votes split 3/4, it's really hard to fault a finding of "no consensus," and the closer's reasoning is more than reasonable and takes the applicable policy arguments into account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist per S Marshall, perhaps a consensus can be achieved at a later date. JBsupreme ( talk) 23:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

John B ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

included missing information and independent references Zakkerone ( talk) 03:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Malformed DRV fixed. Nom appears to be requesting unsalting. Userspace draft presented at User:Zakkerone/sandbox. No opinion on the merits (yet). Tim Song ( talk) 04:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted, userspace draft does not appear to contain any reliable sources. Stifle ( talk) 08:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore userspace draft. It doesn't fall under any speedy deletion criteria. While it might get deleted at AFD, it's not true that there are no reliable sources in the draft: [4] is an interview in JIVE Magazine. I admit the sourcing is debatable, but that's what AFD is for. -- Sancho Mandoval ( talk) 14:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Unsalt. This is a wiki. No prejudice against sending the new article to AfD, which is the right place to consider the reliability of the sources.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 15:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• This was protected in 2008 so its rather later to be considering the deletion. I cant see the current draft meets GNG so restoring and afding is simply process for process sake. Suggest editor seeks assistant from an experienced rescuer of music articles. Chubbles comes to mind. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • AMG has a biography and there are other sources. I don't think any reasonable person can say this article is guaranteed to fail at AFD... maybe you think you'd vote delete, but that's not the same as knowing the AFD will result in a delete consensus. There are a lot of sources and "rescue potential" if it even does got to AFD. There's no requirement the draft be shiny and FA-worthy before we undelete... really it only needs to substantially address the previous reasons for deletion (it does). -- Sancho Mandoval ( talk) 16:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • For your information I asked Chubbles to look for sources and my point is that AFDing an old speedy is worthless if the article can be restored with new sources as it entirely evades the retention arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
      • So if it's worthless to AFD it what are we arguing about? I am not going to AFD the article. I was pointing out that even if someone did, it wouldn't be an obvious delete. -- Sancho Mandoval ( talk) 14:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Thats what I was wondering, my comment was a direct response to S Marshall's suggestion that we send it to AFD as either it gets sourced and should stay or its not worth the trouble. Chubbles seems to have helped you do that so I was rather surprised to see that you were coming back at me about it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
          • You said that the draft didn't meet WP:GNG in your opinion, indicating you thought it should remain deleted, or that you'd support deletion in an AFD if it was undeleted. I was pointing out there are sufficient sources that it would have a good chance at AFD... so it needed to be undeleted. We shouldn't keep an article deleted just because someone guesses it would fail an AFD, or worse yet, because the sources exist but aren't all in the article yet. Wikipedia is a work in progress. -- Sancho Mandoval ( talk) 15:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Here are some sources that will be useful: Biography and a 4.5 star review from Allmusic, and a news article from the US. He also has releases on Formation Records and Planet Mu, which should help with WP:MUSIC. Chubbles ( talk) 16:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Undelete and send to AfD. AfD is the proper place to decide whether he meets the GNG or the guidelines for musicians. The article certainly passes the minimal requirements for A7, so it should be discussed at the proper place where it will get the proper notices, and attention from those who work with the subject field. I'm not one of them, so I can;'t comment on the actual notability, but the community should decide this in the usual way, not we few Deletion Review specialists. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Add the sources Chubbles found, unsalt and move to mainspace, without prejudice to AfD at editorial discretion. As far as I can see with the new sources the article can't be speedied and has a decent chance at surviving an AfD, so this would not be process for process' sake. Tim Song ( talk) 22:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• unsalt and allow recreation per Tim Song et al Hobit ( talk) 01:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Added sources and information Chubbles found. Zakkerone ( talk) 04:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Unsalt, restore, and send to AfD per DGG. AfD is the place to discuss the actual merits of the article, not DRV. Glass Cobra 14:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Permit creation - the new draft warrants consideration beyond speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Physics ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

Information was a minor addition, completely informative, providing a link, not opinionative, and gave a short balanced analysis, much needed for this item, which should be included under unexplained phenominon. It is an important item for wiki to include a link for. Any contributor would be likely to write it up the same way. You may edit, reduce, or omit the name from the reference if preferred. Peter Jackson53 ( talk) 17:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply