Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 24

24 August 2010

Yeshiyah Amariel – deletion endorsed – Courcelles 21:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yeshiyah Amariel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Nomination on behalf of another user I believe that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yeshiyah_Amariel discussion was closed much too early by an editor who did not provide a reason for the decision. The discussion has gone on for over 2 weeks and more significant information was found... I asked the deleting editor to unto his delete, but instead he restricted my ability to undo it myself and ignored my post to his page. I'm asking that either the discuss be reopened and the page be un-deleted until a real decision without bias and with true consensus be made clear.Yeshiyah (talk) 10:57 pm, Today (UTC+1) Fences&Windows 22:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Endorse clear consensus to delete in the AfD. ThemFromSpace 22:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Endorse There was a strong consensus here. The discussion could not have been closed any other way. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Strong endorse Article was written in a conflict of interest from Yeshiyah Amariel's (aka Yamariel) part. And per Themfromspace. Diego Grez (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Comment from closing admin I believe that I was in the right, and I did in fact reply to his post on my talk page, a full 5 minutes before this malformed DRV was first submitted. I still stand by my text then, provided below for ease of access: Extended content Patar why did you delete this page? The perceived views of those stating delete in the last few lines were motivated by Diego Grez to do so and violated meat puppetry.... I'm current starting harassment claims against each... including Grez. You have offered no reason for the decision and there was much more to debate... I ask that you undo your deletion as soon as possible of this page so that the discussion can continue...--Yeshiyah (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Because there was a clear consensus to do so. There is absolutely no evidence of a WP:CANVASS violation as far as I can tell (from a quick lookover of his user-talk contributions, and certainly no violation of WP:MEAT. Yes, they supported the same idea, but that's not what meatpuppetry is. They were not random users brought in by canvassing (debunked), nor were they brought in from other sites. They were all well established, with respectively 30k+ edits, 19k+ edits, 24k+ edits, 12k+edits, and nearly 1k edits. So it's been established that they're not coming from offsite. I see no evidence of wrongdoing, and in fact the only thing even mildly suspicious in this is that User:Prestonpayne supported your side of the AfD with his first edit. I would strong suggest not filing harassment claims against each and every one of them. That would come off as very sour grapes and on your part, and would be of no help to yourself. Also, using such forceful language as "I suggest that you undo..." doesn't help you out either.Struck, user immediately reworded.--Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC) The reason for my deletion should be self-evident: that I found the arguments for deletion (i.e. no independent reliable coverage) stronger than the arguments for keeping the article. If you want to protest, the correct venue is WP:DRV, where there are instructions for filing a deletion review. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC) --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC) I found no evidence of inappropriate behaviour by those who !voted "delete", and found a clear, strong consensus to do so, so I deleted the article, which I still hold to be the right course of action--Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Endorse Clear consensus to delete. This DRV was started simply because he doesn't like the end result. —fetch·comms 01:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Endorse per the clear consensus to delete. No secondary reliable sources that provided nontrivial coverage of Yeshiyah Amariel were unearthed in the discussion; therefore, the article was deleted per Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. As I advised in the AfD: "[The sources provided] demonstrate that Israel for Obama is notable, not Yeshiyah Amariel, so I encourage you to create an article about the group instead if you have more information than that already present in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#"Israel for Obama" Campaign." Cunard (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Endorse. There are more deletes, and their policy-based reasoning is stronger. I agree with Cunard that Israel for Obama is a better prospect. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Endorse, clearly within closer's discretion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Endorse, the closure appears to be based on the strength and consensus of the arguments to delete. --Kinu t/c 17:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of guitarists considered the greatest – Decision endorsed – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of guitarists considered the greatest (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I believe that this page meets the criteria for list notability (as it is established in the first AFD). This article was well written with full of sources. The main argument which lead to the article's deletion is that the article's title is a POV one but it can be easy addressed by changing the title not redirect the whole article to its parent topic. I think the closing admin has decided by counting votes, not by arguments. Lastly, Wikipedia already has the lists such as List of films considered the worst. I think this is an other reason to have a list of guitarists which are considered the greatest by reliable sources. Please restore this artilce. Sorry for my English, it's not so good.AM (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Nominator withdrew.--AM (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Endorse closure, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry, but I don't know where I can request an deletion review or appeal the second AFD's outcome rather than this place. I'm not familiar with English Wikipedia's administrative system.--AM (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC) The phrase "DRV is not AFD round 2" refers to the fact that AFD is normally considered final, and there is no appeal. In exceptional cases, where an administrator has made a decision when closing an AFD that violates deletion policy, or has come to a conclusion that no reasonable administrator could make, i.e. one which is "so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it", deletion review is available for a second opinion. As it says on top of this page, deletion review is not to be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC) So if an article got deleted, I could not do anything to bring it back, in other words, re-create it?--AM (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Barring the above-mentioned level of unreasonableness or some event happening after the closure which changes matters, the deletion of an article is not open to appeal. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC) I still can not understand. The first AFD's outcome is keep but it was overrunned by the second AFD's outcome. But nothing can overrun the second one because its outcome is deletion which is not open to appeal.--AM (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Unless you can present some event that happened after the closure which changes matters, then that is correct. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC) OK, I withdraw this nomination due to the lack of policy understanding and language skills to make argument. Sorry all for all inconvenience I have caused.--AM (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Weak endorse My only issue is that merge !votes were really weak (two just said to merge with no explanation) and the nom is factually in error. I'd likely have closed as no consensus. But merge is a reasonable reading of the debate. As always consensus at the Guitarists page can undo this merge, AfD merge closures are nothing more than a consensus to merge, a stronger consensus to spin it back out would override it. Hobit (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Reasonable rough consensus close of the debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Endorse No argument given besides mere disagreement. No problem with the AFD that I can see. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Endorse - "I disagree" is not DRV criteria. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.