Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 5

1000000000000 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was nominated for deletion at about 3 am this morning. Less than 24 hours later, a decision and a redirect made. What was the rush ? Why has insufficient time been given to allow people to even see it was nominated, let alone to comment on it ? Jeesh, not all of us are glued to Wikipedia all day long ! Aren't we meant to have 5 days to comment ? The Yeti 20:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still less than 24 hours ago since it was nominated for deletion, and then redirected. Now its been nominated to delete even the redirect ! PLEASE can we have at least have a decent amount of time to discuss things. What is the goddam rush ?? The Yeti 23:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. This article was rapidly heading towards a "delete" outcome, with the addition of "redirect" as an alternative. The closer was of the opinion that the redirect would satisfy the "delete" !votes and surmised that letting the AfD run for the full 5 days would not result in any other outcome. Forcing it through another 4 days of the same for the sake of procedure is silly. Arkyan 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a reasoned argument to make, and was not given a chance. See the talk pages. The Yeti 20:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could the appellants settle for 999999999999 and spare change? --Tony Sidaway
• Endorse for 1000000000000 reasons. Or something. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist & I'd appreciate a serious discussion on this. The point of AfD is discussion. Almost always, there is no reason why the discussion should not continue the full length of time. SNO is a dangerous clause, which is easy to invoke much too early. There are many discussions where the first two voices say keep (or delete) and then the balance of the discussion is otherwise, after people have a chance tof ind arguments and as people interested in the subject notice the discussion. I am not sure how I would !vote on the article in question, but once something reaches AfD, I expect the chance to argue one way or another and to !vote on it. (The only exceptions are when the nom. withdraws, bad faith noms to AfD, and AfDs which are obvious speedies--but if not everyone agrees, its not obvious). DGG 23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The first AFD closed with consensus to redirect to the place it is currently redirected. The Numbers wikiproject consensus was not to run the scale this far. Both are reasons why there is a presumption in the close that the article wouldn't be kept. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Obviously contentious, no logical reason to endorse. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist This AfD wasnt a clear WP:SNOW, while it was looking like a strong delete/redirect result some(more than one) editors were obviously wanting it to be kept and engaging in meaningful discussions, given the short time frame the afd should be relisted. Gnangarra 01:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. I was the original nominator to have this article deleted/redirected, but I feel process was not followed. The AfD should stay open for five days, or say three if the outcome is perfectly clear. Less than 24 hours is too little. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• List somewhere ... unless content has been merged, this certainly isn't needed as a redirect. Who is ever going to type this into the search box? --BigDT 05:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Furry Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Category was deleted after two explicit keep discussions and several implicit keeps by having users from other categories migrated to it. When the original deleting admin was contacted, she stated it could be re-created, however it was then immediately re-deleted by another admin. Contacting the other admin has failed, gathering only responses stating that his opinion of the category was reason enough to remove it, regardless of any community consensus. While this category may fall under the "all pages deleted by this user" discussion below, it is substantially different than most of the others, and can not be lumped in with them. This deletion was clearly both out-of-proccess and against established consensus, given the prior keep decisions. Most of the other categories being considered in the all-things-deleted deletion review do not have any prior consensus decisions and are of political or polemic nature (such as Category:Wikipedians who support Tibetan independence), and while this is not the proper forum for discussing the merits of the material, it is useful to note that this category does serve an encyclopedic function by helping with the administration of the thousand or so pages about or of substantial interest to wikipedia's furry fans, and should not be considered along with the political statement categories. Bushytails 17:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: could the nominator provide links to the mentioned discussions? I am unsure of what previous discussion are being referenced and am unable to provide an opinion based on the above DRV nomination alone. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure... the most recent deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/November_2006#Category:Furry_Wikipedians, and the initial deletion discussed at User Talk:Shanel and User Talk:Bushytails, the second deleter contacted at User Talk:Dmcdevit. Bushytails 19:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list at WP:UCFD. Doesn't quite seem to fit in any speedy categories, and while I may agree with the deleting admins in their rationale the fact that the deletion has caused some debate is enough to make me think it's a bit too controversial for a unilateral decision like that. Let it run through UCFD again to see what the consensus is on the topic. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy should be construed narrowly, and what doesn't fit, needs AfD. Speedies after two successive AfD keeps are especially difficult to defend, because the criteria for a speedy require that nobody could reasonably disagree. DGG 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. After the prior keeps, I was rather surprised to see it just drop off the screen without a word of warning. I also think it shouldn't have been re-deleted a second time, because it shouldn't have been deleted the first time. GreenReaper 23:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This category is already listed on DRV, follow whatever the current discussion says. (To clarify, I don't believe it's different enough to need its own venue.) --tjstrf talk 23:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that they were included in that batch of deletions at all is concerning. They were originally deleted separately by Shanel, whose only comment was "Does not further the project". Dmcdevit deleted many political categories in a separate burst, and his re-deletion of Furry Wikipedians was lumped in with it. Members of the category are people who share an interest and have knowledge of a particular topic area, not people who have an opinion. GreenReaper 23:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's a misnamed Wikiproject category, then fix it. --tjstrf talk 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't. I'm not an administrator. :-) Though the Wikiproject isn't a bad idea - I was thinking of something similar on the way back to work. Anyway, at the time it was formed, this was a fine name for categorizing the group of Wikipedians interested in a topic. If this is now wrong, then whoever changed that consensus is welcome to change it, but that's a rather different thing to deleting it altogether. GreenReaper 01:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn two previous keep consensuses prove the community wants it. -N 23:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - give me a break--Doc^g 23:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fursecution!!!111 --MichaelLinnear 00:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a vote, please provide some reasoning. Milto LOL pia 07:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. One person's assessment of whether something does or "does not further the project" should not override the consensus of an XfD discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Want it deleted? List it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. No valid reason for deletion. --- RockMFR 01:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Some of Dmcdevit's deletions were valid (and many were more arguably so than this), so trying to apply the consensus on the entire group to here doesn't work. And this is clearly not a valid deletion. -Amarkov moo! 01:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Shanel speedy-deleted it with "Does not further the project", was overturned by Jc37 who listed it at UCfD, and who was again overturned by Dmcdevit stating "disputed deletions go to DRV". The main issue is that the initial deletion was defintily unwarranted (I have yet to spot "Does not further the project" on the CSD list), especially in the light that the category survived two deletion discussions - basically this looks like bypassing a deletion discussion (which would have resulted in a keep) by speedy deleting it - which is both against the spirit and the letter of the wikipedia policies. I see a frightful trend that some admins become more and more triggerhappy and say "FUCK PROCESS" and just delete what they believe needs to be gone, and when we - the people - want it restored they come and say "awww, go through DRV". I begin to feel that some admins think they are above and beyond the policies, and that they need an urgent reminder that being given the Mop&Bucket is not a privilege but a carries a duty. CharonX/talk 02:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: such spurious speedy deletion is dirty pool; circumvention of process serves even less to further the project. I have more censorious words, but I think I'll keep them to myself. >:) (It should also be noted that my user page is listed under the category in question.) ---Bersl2 03:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: The category facilitates collaboration—and anyway, deleting a category and saying go to DRV to restore it is the wrong way to go about things. The category should have been relisted at UCfD first, not gotten rid of first. Blast ^{[improve me]} 06.06.07 0428 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - every user category not related to something helpful to writing an encyclopedia ought to be deleted. --BigDT 05:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't forget that DRV is for discussing the proccess of the deletion, not the content... If you disagree with user categories, you may wish to start by removing most of the ones your own user page is in, and the divisive religious userboxes. Bushytails 05:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, BigDT. However, in this particular case I could see it being of some help in writing the encyclopedia, for example if an admin thinks an article on a furry comic looks speediable but isn't sure, they could always ask somebody in the category to get a second opinion. It shouldn't be used for spamming, votestacking, or other shenanigans, but the same applies to every category.Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. This category doesn't help build the encyclopedia and would be deleted aat WP:UCFD. No need to have that discussion for the sake of it. WjBscribe 05:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been on UCFD before, and always kept. The only reason to not have a discussion is if you're worried you won't like the outcome. Bushytails 05:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the process keeps things that don't help the encyclopedia, then the process is broken. Category space is a pseudo-encyclopedic space and really ought to not have junk in it. I'm all for having userboxes and anything (within reason) in user space, but category space needs to be kept presentable. --BigDT 06:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus does not "break". If the category has survived UCFD before, then the speedy deletion is out of process. "Category:Wikipedians XYZ" is obviously out of the encyclopedia, and nobody mistakes this, because there are no crossings of the category structure. The fact that user categories reside in a technical namespace does not negate that they are functionally in userspace. ··coelacan 08:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - there are countless other categories whose only effect on the project is to give people a way of expressing themselves. Userspace is a way to let editors use the edit button for kicks, whether it be for silliness, self-description, or other harmless things that people really have no business meddling with. Effort at crunching userspace usage would be better spent writing. As such, this category has no reason to have been speedied. Milto LOL pia 07:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, and no need to automatically relist. The category has survived UCFD before. We can have the "what does and does not benefit the encyclopedia" argument again, over and over and over if this bugs people so much, but we are not going to have that discussion in the middle of a DRV for an out of process deletion. DRV is not where you argue "oh but it shouldn't exist anyway", only the procedural facts of the deletion. ··coelacan 08:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong who cares? I suggest we create a new process for reviewing deletions of user categories. >Radiant< 09:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Category:Wikipedians who think Wikipedia is MySpace... Guy (Help!) 11:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• MySpace sucks. Real furries use LiveJournal (see list). GreenReaper 11:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever per Radiant. Stuff like user categories doesn't need space at DRV. Kusma (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We've got "a thousand or so pages" on furry stuff? Talk about WP:UNDUE. Heather 14:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thousands may be a slight exaggeration. I'd say it's more like a hundred on topics that relate in any significant way to the furry fandom, including notable comics, conventions, roleplaying worlds, and artists. WikiFur has over 7000, but about a third of those are about people within the fandom (a few of those are notable enough for Wikipedia, but not many). GreenReaper 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn The category has survived deletion before, users clearly want it and it doesn't meet any speedy deletion criterion. While Wikipedia is not myspace, there is a clear community element to Wikipedia and having a few community related categories reduces stress and makes editors more likely to stick around and help out. Thus, categories like this do in fact help building the encyclopedia. JoshuaZ 15:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per WJBscribe, and an element of who cares per Radiant. As with standard templates, this does not preclude against stating one's preferences in the text of one's user page, so it's hardly censorship. Orderinchaos 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted - This is silly. Categories not related to the encyclopedia should not exist. Grokmoo 23:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This is clearly persecution of a minority group based on their practices Has already survived the deletion process twice, and has clear support from many editors. --MichaelLinnear 23:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Enough. Admin!=God. Consensus trumps one person's opinion. The Evil Spartan 00:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. WJBScribe said it one way, I'll say it another: this isn't myspace. --Tony Sidaway

• Then bring it up at user categories for discussion, and we can hash out the pros and cons. And maybe it'll be third time lucky, and it'll get deleted. But I think it's wrong to just delete a category that's been in use and which has been judged as keep twice before, and that's what you're endorsing - an administrator making an editorial choice and enforcing it with administrative tools, over prior consensus decisions. That's not how Wikipedia works. You have to change the consensus first. GreenReaper 00:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list on WP:UCFD - The category doesn't seem to quite fit any of the CSD. And per JoshuaZ's reasoning above, it seems to help build WP. It should have been listed on WP:UCFD in the first place if someone felt deletion was necessary, as this seems to go against prior consensus—arf! 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted and delete all similar Delete Category:Feminist Wikipedians, Category:LGBT Wikipedians, etc. all those. Delete all subcategories under Category:Wikipedians by philosophy per Radiant! SakotGrimshine 01:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list This is hardly a clear-cut issue, and discussion is needed. As an aside, I'd like to advise those involved that claiming "persecution" is unlikely to help their cause, and if anything is likely to hurt it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. We have now wasted more time on this furry cat than it will ever deserve. Leave things alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, consensus of two CfDs plus policy (anything that survives an XfD cannot be speedied) trumps personal POV. --Rayc 23:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This should not have been deleted, as it isn't a neologism and it's not a hoax either (it's Midlands slang). It's notable enough for inclusion here, and shouldn't have been deleted. It's been covered in enough LGBT British regional publications, e.g. Out Northwest, so sources are not lacking. This should be undeleted with the {{drv}}; template and relisted for debate. Just because there's no web references doesn't mean it's not encyclopedic, even though people said that in the original debate. It should never have been deleted, and this should be relisted with {{drv}}--Whitfurne333 14:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, proper closure of a dictionary definition of a term of only local importance. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kusma (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - the AfD was unanimous, there is no possible way that it could have been closed any other way. The nomination does not make any claims of procedural problems with the closure either, so this really isn't fit for DRV. If the nominator can come up with a sourced article on the topic it can be re-created, but there is nothing to overturn here. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, no reason to overturn, every reason to support. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice to recreating the article with sources to establish (1) its existence and (2) its notability. If the article cannot go beyond a dictionary definition, then recreation on Wikipedia is not appropriate in any case (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary) ... the appropriate location would be Wiktionary. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per all of the above. Orderinchaos 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - no new evidence presented. AFD was proper - please provide at least some URLs for us to see this new "slang" - as such, it appears to be WP:OR, WP:NFT to a local region. The Evil Spartan 18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia is REALLY not a slang dictionary, and Wikipedia is REALLY REALLY REALLY not a slang dictionary for local words of questionable existence. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The closing admin closed this discussion as "delete", when only four of the nine wikipedian who participated in the discussion said they favored deletion. I believe this discussion should have been closed as "no consensus" -- not "delete". Geo Swan 09:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, seems proper. A Gitmo detainee and.... nothing else. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but, for clarification -- was I correct Wikipedia:Deletion Review says comments there should address "the process" through which the contribution was removed -- not the actual merits of contribution?
  • If I have that right, I shouldn't try to put any comments on the drv that argue for the article's merits, and you shouldn't address the content of the article either. Maybe you didn't mean the second part of your comment look like a comment on the article's comment. But, I am afraid it does.
  • Now maybe the proscription about confining the discussion to process, not content is observed in the breach so often, it is routinely ignored. If so, I would appreciate having someone spell that out to me.
  • Cheers! Geo Swan 13:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry Guy, but you've got your arse and elbow the wrong way round here. One is probably firmly lodged up the other :-) Geo is perfectly correct, this is about procedure, not opinions on the merit of content. And please, don't start suggesting I'm a wonker :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Great idea, baiting the admins when you want your pet article undeleted. Works every time. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't see how I am baiting you.
  • I really need to have confirmed whether comments here really are supposed to only address the process.
  • Cheers! Geo Swan 17:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Guy was suggesting it was me that was baiting him. Hmm, well firstly, it's not my "pet article" Guy, and secondly, admin baiting is not one of my hobbies. Wait ... in fact, I am myself an admin, gosh ... I suggest that you get a sense of humour. As a fellow Brit, I thought you would have understood the "arse and elbow" connotation - clearly not. Never mind, my comments stand. Your posting here is merely your opinion about the article content, as opposed to the application of policy regarding the validity of the deletion, hence the arse and elbow comment. Oh well, never mind. See you around. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, the non-delete voters said "merge", and there wasn't much to merge in this WP:COATRACK. There was clear consensus that there shouldn't be a separate article on this person. Kusma (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Err, no. The non delete "voters" also said Keep. I fail to see your vision of a "clear consensus". --Cactus.man ✍ 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A redirect would probably solve the issue. >Radiant< 13:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close per Kusma. I count only 3 out of 9 comments (10 if you count the nominator) asking for a keep. That's a consensus for me. —Moondyne 13:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not quite a correct enunciation of the numerical tally. If you want numbers, here they are (ignoring the nominators unstated opinion, and adding in your omission of the Merge "votes"):

Delete - 4

Merge - 2

Keep - 3

However, we operate on consensus decision making, not numerical "voting". Please read the discussion again. There is no consensus to delete, merely a small numerical majority for such. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn closure This is a fundamentally flawed deletion. See my comments above to various parties (Guy, Kusma and Moondyne) --Cactus.man ✍ 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: of the three keep !votes (or should I say votes?), only Cactus.man gave anything even approaching a valid reason for his opinion, and even he has to concede that there is little information about this person to make a meaningful article about. Corvus cornix 15:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first DRV was Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006 December 28#Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism, a much more clearcut case.
  • This being only my second DRV, I tried to fully comply with the letter of Wikipedia:Deletion Review, which, I believe, states this discussion should be confined to the process. So, are all the !votes open for criticism, or only the ones you disagree with. One of the deletes was merely a "me too". Does it count as "valid"?
  • I really need to have confirmed whether comments here really are supposed to only address the process.
  • Cheers! Geo Swan 17:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as closing/Deleting Admin my thoughts -- its complex issue here as I understand it this DRV has been brought not because you take the position that the consensus was keep but because the you think the result should have been no consensus. This is what I looked at how I came to the conclusion that consensus was delete.

reviewing the "votes/opinions/comments"

• Nomination -- notable but no content available
• Delete -- not notable, bulk of article content wasnt about the subject
• keep(weak) - asked for more sources, noted error in article.
• Keep -- due possible confusion over name by keeping it'll prevent this. Dab pages are for this type of problem, the confusion is with other detainees, the "list of" should cover address that it does.
• merge -- due to no WP:V from independant sources.

• responded to with it wont work, I've tried but lets talk at Talk:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees at this point it indicates that a merge option isnt viable, from this opinion lack WP:V sources hasnt been addressed as such I considered it delete until it can be sourced independantly
• at this stage is was relisted for more discussion

• delete - not notable no independant information
• delete - same as above

• wikilawyer response to relist vs unclosed AfD, no contribution to discussion so ignored

• Delete - not notable due no information being available.
• merge - to "list of" until more information is avaiable.

• response - already on the list

• Keep (strong) is notable, but no information avaiable due to supression, ignore WP:NOTE, WP:BIO or a WP:IAR recommendation.

What I read was, including the nomination there were 9 comments that clearly stated not enough WP:V information, vs 3 keeps, 1 because he has a confusing name, 1 IAR and 1 more sources required. What is also present is an acknowledgement that the Detainees are notable providing there is sufficient information then they should have an article. A normal AfD has 5-6 days to address any concerns this one had 12 days there was no new soucres offered either here or on the article to address the lack of WP:V. The consensus here is clearly that the detainee is notable but until there is sufficient information about the person from verifable/independant sources this person should be in the list but not have a stand alone article. Gnangarra 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for the detailed explanation Gnangarra. It's not the conclusion that I would have come to (but I would say that, wouldn't I :-). However, it's a reasoning worthy of respect. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 06:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks -- Okay, thanks for the explanation. I am satisfied now.
  • I would still really appreciate it if someone could confirm or dispute my understanding that this fora is for discussion of the processs, not the merits of the articles. Gnangarra's comments were about process. But some of the other comments here did seem to cross well over into discussion of the article's merit, not the process. I would really like to know whether stretching the proscription of discussions of content was something I should prepare to see if I participate in other deletion review discussions. Geo Swan 04:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse deletion per Gnangarra's excellent explanation of closing logic. JoshuaZ 18:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion because while another admin may have closed it differently (perhaps with a redirect), I don't view Gnangarra's closure as 'out of process'. When appropriate sources materialize, a proper article can be written. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Inexplicable deletion - restore then redirect to list. If information about this person already exists in Wikipedia then we should make it easier to find. Catchpole 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as within Gnangarra's reasonable discretion. I think there might be a better solution overall, though. Per DGG's reasoning in the AFD that more verifiable sources are honestly to be expected in the future, it might be best to go ahead and open up the history now so that the article needn't be rewritten by a inexperienced user in the future. As Radiant suggests, a redirect would be good now. And I would not be opposed to protecting that redirect until sufficient sources show up for WP:V. ··coelacan 08:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as within Gnangarra's reasonable discretion. AfD is not a vote, and the consensus was clearly far more strongly Delete than Keep. I would have closed it the same way in the same circumstances. I don't think a (protected) redirect would be an unreasonable solution to the situation per Coelacan. Orderinchaos 17:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse without prejudice to recreation - arguments were valid that there might be more information coming out on him in the future - which is exactly what the closer properly argued - that nothing is really known about him. The Evil Spartan 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, closure was good, but allow recreation if notability asserted--Rayc 23:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]