Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 5

Nipissing University Student Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a perfectly notable organization. Nomination rationale from a now inactive user was faulty. Overturn GreenJoe 00:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close - an entirely reasonable reading of the debate. The final version of the article here was all about internal matters with nothing of external or broader significance. Suitable for the body's website but not for Wikipedia. TerriersFan (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment nominator here has been un-doing the re-direct requiring said re-direct to be protected. Consensus at AfD was to delete or merge, no problem with how it was closed other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Endorse closure _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure Eastman had argued to "keep" Based on coverage from the Northbay Nugget. This is not "significant media coverage." Keep arguments, though several, were based on Eastman's rationale. Student Unions are not inherently notable. Merger is the option supported by the discussion. Dlohcierekim 02:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage is still not significant even though the Nugget is not a student paper. A search through Google news does not reveal any significant media coverage. The Nugget is a local paper this does not suffice. Dlohcierekim 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my closure. I've had another look (the nominator came straight here rather than discussing it with me, after editing warring on the redirect for a bit) and I really don't see how else I could've closed this. The keep arguments were basically WP:ILIKEIT with a dusting of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and brought forth sources that were not much cop. The delete arguments were a bit hollow and didn't carry much weight with me. But the merge arguments had 'pedia policy on their side, offered the best of both worlds (the SU is not notable enough for its own article, but as a section in the parent article it's great) and seemed acceptable to most people on both sides. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 08:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. AFDs end in "delete" or "!delete" and anything that happens after that is editorial activity. This should be hashed out on talk pages. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no problems here. Eusebeus (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. If the user doesn't like what was done afterward, that should be hashed out on the respective article Talk pages. DRV is not the right forum for that discussion. Rossami (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Would have been nice if the close came with a better explanation, as it clearly wasn't obvious. I'd have said delete as the sources were not sufficiently reliable/reputable, and were not sufficiently independent. Basically, a student newspaper can't demonstrate the notability of a student organisation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Eastmain may have a valid point. Referenced material that I looked at was unimpressive, and I guessed wrong that it was a student newspaper. The current state of merge looks good. There is no delete here to overturn. I would not be inclined to separate a separate article, but if a consensus for this decision can be demonstrated at Talk:Nipissing University, allow it to happen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The North Bay Nugget is not a student newspaper, but rather a mainstream daily newspaper. It is a reliable source. --Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dyspraxic Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|uCfD)

No consensus to delete. Was deleted because of a "precedent" created by very weak participation in WP:UCFD. Deleting admin does not address the merits of the discussion, only that if this user category had been nominated with the older ones then it too would have been deleted. It's nice to know that our hands are tied by old discussion by a tiny minority of Wikipedians. Ned Scott 08:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, unuseful category. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The cached version shows only six members of the cat, and one has since removed the userbox from her userpage. I'd personally want a little of their input before !voting one way or another, since they would know whether or not the cat was actually useful. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of these kinds of user categories are "sniped" before they have a chance to grow. Some of the past uCfD deletions included categories with hundreds of users, none of which were ever notified of the discussion (and it's highly unlikely for users to watch-list cats they put themselves in). I would not mind notifying these users at all and getting their input. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, precedent should not be ignored. --Kbdank71 14:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  So if someone makes the same flawed argument to the same group of users, but formats the discussion into several little chunks, that is somehow a precedent? No, it's not. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps if it were flawed, yes, but "flawed" is only your opinion, and obviously is not shared by others. --Kbdank71 14:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (as original nominator) - precedent should be followed in cases like these where a keep result would go directly against the results of 40 or so past discussions. Consensus can change, but the best way to do this, IMO, is to bring up a discussion here at DRV on the group of categories as a whole to see if the community feels we should bring this type of category back. Keeping a single category where all similar categories have been deleted creates a double standard, which I think we should try to avoid. Thus, the closure was sound. VegaDark (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  When those 40 discussions include the same tiny group of editors, then your "precedent" holds no value. Revisiting all of these categories is something that I've long since wanted to do, but would require more time and effort than I can personally give at the moment. The very least I can do is point out a bad uCfD closure that only serves to further establish this illusion of a precedent. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Another way to put this is that what you had was not a precedent, what you had was a steamroller. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Reflects a clear consensus (of those who participate at WP:UCFD) to strip Wikipedia of mechanisms of easy introduction to contributors self-organising. What's the point of cabals if they can be tracked? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]