Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23

23 May 2007

Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker

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

Gavin Clinton-Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This subject is notable. The story of these two boys has been covered internationally, continuously, for 18 years. It was recently the subject of a 60 Minutes segment. It was covered in magazines in the early 1990s. There's an existing article on Kimberly Mays, another child who was switched at birth. The topic itself is of encyclopedic interest because it is so rare. It will likely continue to be of enduring interest. I particularly object to it being speedily deleted without giving me an opportunity to post a hold-on request. --Bookworm857158367 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close, assertion of notability on the DRV nom is not a valid DRV nomination. Give us evidence of why the deletion was not proper. Corvus cornix 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Urm The article was deleted under A7, which requires "no assertion of notability". Both articles made the following claim of notability "Their story attracted international news coverage.", and one had an additional claim about being one of the better junior players of a particular sport in his country of residence. On the other hand, I'd like someone to look at it from a WP:BLP light, as I can't make up my mind. GRBerry 19:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (tweaked to reflect the merge GRBerry 00:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC))
• Overturn On a procedural basis, I am not happy with taking unilateral action twice. If an admin action is challenged in good faith, someone else should be involved in the follow up. As for BLP concerns regarding the articles, there is nothing detrimental being said about either boy, and their names are already widely known. The parents are also not accused of anything. Trying to keeep names out of WP after they've been broadcast on 60 minutes is a little absurd.DGG 19:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep deleted per BLP and ethical considerations. A 60 min programmes will not Google on this child's name later in life - we will. Totally encyclopaedic - plus there are no sources from which to write any biography. So we'd have a biography on a living person's life, that ONLY mentioned an unfortunate birth incident - unacceptable. This is a minor people - get a grip.--Doc^g 20:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, the 60min programme is currently the first Google hit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• I've been bold and added these together - the arguments will be identical for both--Doc^g 21:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list. If they were kids anymore, this might hold some water, but not with what we know. 18 years of press coverage asserted needs a better hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep deleted. Absolutely not. DRV is not an appropriate venue for BLP deletions. The correct action is to undergo dispute resolution, starting with convincing the deleting admin.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Dispute resolution should never be a matter of course. AFD is the place to discuss controversial deletions, not begging and pleading with the admin who speedied the article out of process. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How so? When did this occur? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This wasn't a BLP deletion when the discussion started; it was a garden variety A7 (see the deletion logs), which would have been a garden variety overturn as clearly incorrect due to explicit claims of notability in the article. BLP was first mentioned by myself after the discussion was here. GRBerry 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. You have to think about the effect that this will have on these kids later in life. If you're going to have an article on the person, you need to write a biography; not a chronicle of some accident at birth. Sean William 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, take to AFD The article made a claim of notability. Cases where that's questionable belong at AFD, not speedied and argued here. We have other articles on similar topics, such as Kimberly Mays. That's not just an Othercrapexists, it's an example of why the consideration of a full afd is necessary and speedy is improper. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, as if it were not blindingly obvious. This is a hospital fuck-up and will be forgotten next time a hospital fucks up. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Come back when mainstream sources have proper substantial biographical articles on these individuals, until then it might (at a pinch) merit a short sentence in the article on the hospital. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion' per Doc, Guy and SwatJester. ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Doc and Guy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is a very trollish nomination, or a very stupid one, and I don't care which. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• From what I've seen, endorse deletion. I may change my opinion if presented with examples of this 18 years of media coverage. -Amarkov moo! 00:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unless the articles can be verifiably expanded beyond "This boy was switched at birth." FCYTravis 01:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Based on the one source linked in the article, they can verifiably be expanded beyond that. I don't yet think they can be encyclopedically expanded beyond that. And given their young age (though they are now 18), I don't think they have any great significance. I think there is an encyclopedic article to be written on the general phenomenon of switched babys and precautions that hospitals take to prevent it... but this content isn't helpful, and it hasn't been started so far as I can see. So I come down to keep deleted (without endorsing the original deletion reasoning) with noplace useful to even redirect. GRBerry 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Doc glasgow's, and JzG's arguments are convincing. I cannot see how they are encyclopedic, but I may change my mind if there are more reliable sources available, as Amarkov has said. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper.

This is a speedy A7, "where the article does not assert the notability of the subject. --SunStar Net ^talk 08:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, valid A7 plus BLP concerns. Kusma (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from deletin' admin - the first time these articles were posted, there was no assertion of notability. The re-post included the line about attracting international attention, which I admit I didn't see when I zapped it again. The author of the articles left comments on my userpage (not my talk page), which I didn't see in between deletions. Adding that line does make a claim of notability (a decidedly weak one, but a claim nonetheless), and thus it should have gone to AFD, strictly speaking. I'm happy to have this overturned and listed there, but I think it would be a waste of time given the BLP concerns addressed. -- Merope 14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Apparently asserts notability, and please don't even mention WP:BLP here, because that is not even a factor. Abeg92contribs 17:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact that these are biographies of living people is THE factor in the need to keep them deleted.--Doc^g 22:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "Living person" is not a reason for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are no BLP concerns. BLP applies only no poorly sourced negative material; there is nothing here which is in any way negative, and all the material is well-sourced. The attempted deletion is an attempt to extend BLP to include all material that the eds. think to be potentially embarrassing, or that they would prefer not to talk about. Calling any of this BLP is an attempt to greatly extend the accepted meaning, and the reasonable meaning.

There are no notability concerns. The material has been the focus of numerous stories which are cited. This is the basic criterion for N, and the article meets it. Removing this as NN is judging on the basis of IDONTTLIKEIT. Removing it is a total denial of our standards for objective criteria. DGG 00:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn "International news coverage" was mentioned in the final revision of both articels, adn is a clear claim of significace, so an A7 deletion is clearly improper. BLP was not cited in the deltion log, and so arguably is not at issue at the moment, but in any cas it is a non-issue. None of the information included in either articel (in the last revision before deletion) is "negative" or "contentious", and it appears that all of it is well-sourced. There is no reason to list at AfD, but if someone wants to nominate for AfD any editor is of course free to do so. DES ^(talk) 16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "BLP was not cited in the deletion log, and so arguably is not at issue at the moment" - WTF? Process wonking at it worst. The content and nature of the article are more relevant to proper consideration that whatever is in a log. These are articles about living people - they are about what happened to children. They affect real people with real lives - and we are not going to have Google for ever list them with long=-forgotton newstories of childhood trauma. These articles and all like them must die whatever heartless process obsessives and irresponsible inclusionists think. We are an encyclopedia. Now stop it.--Doc^g 17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right, we are an encyclopedia. That's why we gotta use our heads and not submit to our own personal feelings on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Sod off.--Doc^g 17:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • That's clearly helpful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You will note that having said that, i proceeded to respond substantively to the (IMO clearly incorrect) claim that BLP issues do mandate deletion here. Note also that the purpose section of this page says "This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." An encyclopedia is supposed to include significant contetn about what actually happend, whether that distresses living people or not. Now an argumetn can be made that this incident is to minor to be notable, but that sort of argument ought to be made durign an AfD discussion, where everyione can see and work on the articel, can add or challange sources, etc. I am tempted to say "This must live" but I won't -- what I will say is that emotional appeals to avoid harm -- about articles that are not in any obvious way harmful to anyone, and that are well sourced and apparently factually accurate -- are in my view harmful to the project of creating an encyclopedia. And just as DRV is not suppsoed to be a re-run of AfD, neither is it supposed to be a preveiw of AfD. These were delted as makign no claim of notability, which is not true, neither are they unsourced or weakly sourced negative or controversial biographies. therefore they shouldn't ahve been speedy deleted. debate the more general question of notability and inclusion in an AfD, as is or normal method for dealing with such matters. DES ^(talk) 18:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted And stop wasting our time on these. -Pilotguy hold short 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - serious BLP concerns, quite aside from the fact A7 was an issue anyway. Orderinchaos 19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Which BLP issues were problematic? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment My major objection here was and continues to be the way that the administrator immediately deleted it without putting it up for debate. I don't think that either of these articles meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Having read the Biography of Living Persons and notability guidelines, I also don't see any clear reason why these articles deserved to be deleted under those criteria. Nothing derogatory or untrue is said. Both young men have been the subject of news articles by a reputable news organization, which was cited. A claim of notability was made -- arguably in the FIRST version. I think the statement that the boys were switched at birth IS a claim of notability. Certainly, the fact that I added a sentence in the second version saying it had been a subject of international news coverage and that one of the boys is a top-ranked junior badminton player takes away the assertion that no claim of notability was made. Contrary to the comment made by one of the administrators, I am neither stupid nor a troll. I think this topic is of interest and will likely continue to be of interest. Both boys have freely given interviews to the national news media. They're public figures. If the articles are put up for deletion and a majority of people think they should be deleted, fine. However, I continue to think the administrator's actions by speedily deleting them without putting it up for debate were incorrect. --Bookworm857158367 19:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No-one has asserted, as far as I can see, that you are stupid or a troll. Even in the hypothetical case that that could be true, we don't decide debates by article creators, but by article subjects and contents. The debate here is whether the original decision to delete is valid. Orderinchaos 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See Tony Sidaway's comment above: "This is either a very trollish nomination or a very stupid one." It certainly makes that implication. As for whether the decision to delete the articles was incorrect, I see that Merope above has acknowledged that she deleted both articles without seeing the claim to notability in the second article. Apparently she didn't read the article closely before she speedily deleted it, which I also find troubling. I decided to nominate these articles for a review because I was troubled by those actions. I think the decision should be overturned and the articles should be listed for deletion, which would give people a chance to debate deletion or to improve upon it. Maybe an all-encompassing article on the subject of past switched at birth cases would be best, with a mention of these boys. The AFD process would give someone a chance to make that determination. In my opinion, as someone who has nominated a number of articles for speedy deletion and has read the notability guidelines pretty closely, this was NOT an appropriate use of speedy deletion. --Bookworm857158367 20:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - No opinion on the article, but the original deletion was invalid. Take it to AfD. The way, the truth, and the light 20:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as the right thing to do, and well within the spirit of A7. Jkelly 22:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I might support a delete at AfD, but I cannot support unilaterals like this. See Crystal Gail Mangum and Little Fatty, both submitted the same day as this, as examples. Horologium talk - contrib 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn WP:BLP is NOT a speedy deletion reason. It's only a speedy deletion reason if the article is an unsourced attack piece, which this was not. -N 23:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  Of course it's a speedy reason. That's why admins are selected how they are - for judgement - David Gerard 23:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  Please tell me where in WP:CSD it supports your view. -N 00:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  If admins deleted nothing but articles that unquestionably met the CSD guidelines, we could have adminbots doing all our work for us, and backlogs at AFD. Sean William 00:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  In this case, I find the administrator's judgment questionable. I have read the guidelines and I do not see clear notability or BLP concerns here. --Bookworm857158367 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  It's a deletion criteria called basic human dignity. Sean William 00:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  WP:DIGNITY says "While Wikipedia articles may contain negative information about notable persons, no Wikipedia article should exist solely to mock or disparage any person or entity, or to document such mocking or disparagement - unless these actions in and of themselves have become highly notable, and sourced in multiple reputable locations". Again, this article was sourced and there was an assertion of notability, plus this non-policy essay says that only clear A10's can be speedied, which was my original point. Again, defend your actions using OUR POLICIES. My rfa was rejected because I think our free content policies are a bit too strict. That's the standard we hold admins to. OUR POLICIES. Defend yourself using OUR POLICIES and nothing more. -N 00:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  Okay, then. Use common sense. Sean William 00:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  I imagine a large number of other articles included in this encyclopedia would also qualify for deletion using those criteria, as "basic human dignity" is offended by their inclusion. I reiterate: no negative information is included in this article, nothing untrue is included in this article, the young men and their parents gave interviews to a national news organization on multiple occasions, making them public figures, and it's a topic that is of interest, which seems to make it encyclopedic. Why, again, does the truth violate "human dignity"? In any event, it was originally deleted because the editor stated "no notability was asserted." BLP concerns were not the original reason. If it is taken to AFD, I am sure that any BLP concerns can be taken into consideration there. That would be the proper procedure for considering deletion. That was what I wanted in the first place. Unilateral deletion of articles -- twice -- where notability was asserted and improper use of the speedy deletion policy is my chief concern here. That is only "common sense." --Bookworm857158367 00:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and explain to the whoever did the deletion that "no assertion of notability" means what it says, & that you cannot do a speedy under A7 if there is an anything that suports possible notability. DGG 23:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - obviously unacceptable under WP:BLP, and that the right result was achieved through a speedy does not mean it was the wrong answer. "Overturn on procedural grounds" is a meaningless opinion in this context and demonstrates a lack of understanding well deserving of being ignored - David Gerard 23:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn BLP overrides consensus when an article is negative AND unsourced AND about a living person. Without all three, or a valid CSD, it takes consensus to get rid of an article. Vadder 00:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and list at afd CSD A7 states "assertion of notability" this article clearly does that and thus is not speedyable. It is also not deletable under BLP, it is sourced, there is no negative coverage. When will you people relise that unilateral action like this simply pisses off the community and causes a shitstorm of complaints. Take it through the proper deletion process and you will get none of the above. Viridae^Talk 00:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Might I also add that those who are using DRV as an impromptu afd, ie arguing about the conetent of the article not about the policy of the deletion are entirely missing the point of DRV. DRV is not here to argue content - apart from anything, most people can't view it. DRV is here to challenge whether the deletion was correct under policy. CSD A7 (the criteria under which the article was deleted) quite clearly doesn't apply here, there certainly WAS an assertion of notability. CSD A7 does NOT cover "I don't think this warrants an article" or "There is not enough information to warrant an article" it is limited simply to "No assertion of notability". That is quite clearly not the case and for this reason alone the article should have gone through a deletion discussion before being deleted (if that was the consensus of the discussion). The other reason given in this discussion (but not at the time of deletion) is BLP issues, but this quite clearly is not the case under WP:BLP: 1. This article does not give undue weight to negative coverage - hell there is no negative coverage at all in either of the articles as far as I can see. 2. The articles are properly sourced to a reputable news source. In other words, this is a complete miss-application of deletion policy. So to all those that insist on seeing this article deleted - should it be restored (rightfully under deletion policy as I have pointed out), then you have as much opportunity as everyone else to open an afd on the subject and argue your point there. Viridae^Talk 01:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • In fairness, I think A7 can also cover cases where the assertion of notablility is clearly bogus. That isn't the case here, since it is base of genuine news coverage (or so I assume, I can't view the article). Whether that connotes notability is a matter for consensus to decide. The way, the truth, and the light 01:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Depending on your definition of "clearly bogus" then yes, sometimes. However I strongly agree with the second part. Viridae^Talk 02:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse although I don't like the road we're going down here where this is being called a BLP deletion. A7 ... ok ... but not BLP. We don't want to get to the point where deletion of any article about a living person can be justified in the name of BLP. Being switched at birth is an interesting piece of trivia. It's a news item. It's a daytime TV talk show item. But it's not an encyclopedia article. Our mission is NOT one of cataloging every bit of news that has happened in the history of the English-speaking world. For that reason and that reason alone, I endorse this deletion. I am uncomfortable with calling this a BLP deletion because I feel that is a slippery slope that we are moving towards. --BigDT 01:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If you endorse the deletion but not the process you essentially are arguing for an overturn and list at afd. DRV is about deletion policy not the content of the article - if you don't like the slipery slope, then throw some sand on it by forcing those who are oiling this slipery slope to go about deletions like this the correct way. Viridae^Talk 01:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Process is important, but it isn't worth spending a disproportionate amount of one's life over. --BigDT 02:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Not an A7, but delete is the right result. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • So argue that at Afd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I was about to say the same thing. Viridae^Talk 01:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If there's an AfD, I'll "vote" delete, but I'd rather see less process for process' sake. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
      • So it's process for process's sake to possibly keep an article? It doesn't appear to have much justification for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
      • There is obvious disagreement with the deletion - everyone should have a chance to air their views at afd shoudl they wish. Arguing that this is the right result gone about by the wrong methods circumvents that. Viridae^Talk 02:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
        • People are airing their views here, and I bet they would say pretty much the same exact thing at AfD. Can't really see the point of repeating this exercise. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
          • It's the role of DRV more than anything, but I'll play along - why was it the "right result?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Because these people aren't notable; the incidents they were involuntarily involved in were (maybe). (Bear in mind that newsworthiness isn't the same thing as notability.) Some of the material in those articles might belong in Wikipedia, but not as a biographical (or really, "biographical") article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Well, we judge notability, in this instance, by WP:BIO. They appear to meet that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
                • See, this is exactly like an AfD. They don't meet WP:BIO because the sources are about the incident, not the people. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • Well, it's supposed to be about the process, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt for now. But no, the sources are just as much about them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • Fuck process. These are living people. --Tony Sidaway 03:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Royal Family

Canadian Royal Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

New DRV to discuss solely the issue of whether the redirection was correct. I closed the earlier DRV (below) because undeletion had occurred. Subsequent to that time, disputes over the redirect have continued. See the ANI discussion, which has resulted in the redirect being protected and a call for the discussion of the redirect to come back here. Was redirection correct? GRBerry 17:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is virtually an orphan; the only link to it is in the article Monarchy in Canada. I suggest that an administrator protect redirect to that article in order to prevent it becoming a point-of-view fork of the latter article. --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't the case before all the links to it were removed from other articles. About 12 or more used to link to it. --G2bambino 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• And since this title is currently redirected there, that is a round trip redirect. I've eliminated it for now, per the MOS. Obviously, if this does not remain a redirect, the link can go back. GRBerry 17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete I think Sam Blanning redircted it to protect the history under GFDL after a merge but I can't see that any merge has actually taken place. In which case I think we should go with his first conclusion and delete. If I'm mistaken about the merge I endorse but suggest that we protect the redirect to prevent edit warring. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A merge took place last year. --G2bambino 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case endorse redirect Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as closing admin. There was unbelievable consensus in the AfD to redirect the page to Monarchy in Canada, as all on AN/I stated. Unless people wish to argue that the consensus was wrong, I'm not sure what else there is to say. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The AfD seems to have been perfectly in order. Mackensen (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse redirect, no evidence it's a separate concept, a single user asserting that consensus is wrong is not a good reason to have a fork. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse redirect the article was a total redundancy, redirect was the right choice. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Guy. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 12:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse redirect as merged content that does not merit a separate article per consensus. Nothing obviously out of process here. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

List of people by name

The debate was closed as "no consensus" despite a clear consensus to delete. Apart from the sheer amount of delete comments, most keep comments are not particularly well-founded: "it has been kept before" is not grounds for a procedural keep, especially not after half a year; "it can be maintained" and "it works better than the search function" are proven wrong by precedent; and "it helps people find things if they don't know how to spell them" simply isn't true, because you can't find people on a list if you don't know if e.g. their name starts with "Ar", "Aer", "Er" or "Ier", or some variation thereof.

This page and its subpages purport to be a list of all people with articles in Wikipedia. In that, they're hopelessly outdated since, unlike categories, they need manual upkeep. Clearly many people find these lists problematic, outdated and/or unmaintainable. It is therefore not a productive approach to say that "not everybody agrees so let's not do anything". The closing admin declined to respond on his talk page, so I'm listing it here to request overturn and delete. >Radiant< 09:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. The case for deletion was clearly persuasive enough to get a clear consensus, and the arguments on the keep side for maintaining this hopelessly unmaintainable list are not strong enough to justify calling it any other way. The misspelling argument is pointless for an even better reason than the nominator points out: you can use Google to search Wikipedia (which often works far better than the inbuilt engine) and Google is very good at allowing for misspellings. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. There was clearly consensus to abolish the present system; the only non-clear point was how to delete it (i.e. what info should be saved). Kusma (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete but hold on. I think the consensus was clear for the deletion, but there were various concerns expressed, either in form "Keep for now" or "Reform". There should be an additional discussion on how an "exit strategy" should be performed and the information moved & reorganized; some proposals were present at the AfD, but a centralized discussion should be held somewhere WPP:BIO? WP:VP? I'm not sure. Duja► 10:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Do not overturn. I disagree that the consensus was clear, and agree with the closing administrator. --Alvestrand 11:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus - it was "suspended" when I went to look - I wanted to add my opinion, but I couldn't, so if nothing else this deserves another AFD. Throwing in my opinion, I think this should be moved to userspace for now pending an overhaul - I actually agree with the /theory/ of improving navigation and being an annotated contents page of people auto-generated by a bot, because the search is a disaster, but editing by hand obvious isn't working. I believe it's close which makes for a "no consensus", I also don't believe that the delete argument is compelling enough if a technical solution could be sought, which I believe it can, and most of the delete arguments are "per nom" which consist of saying it's impossible to maintain (which could be worked around via a bot for example), an "indiscriminate list" (if turned into a navigational aide and put into Wikipedia space is moot), and beside those two there was no real compelling argument to delete and this deletion is likely to prevent the creation of future, similar, useful maintainable lists (which is my experience of AFD/DRV in these sorts of situations) -Halo 12:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The debate was suspended out of process by an involved user (indeed, I've never seen such suspensions before, I suspect he made that up) but this was quickly undone and the debate ran for the regular amount of time. That seems hardly grounds for a "procedural relist". Note that in theory this list page is a nice idea, but in practice it really doesn't work at all. >Radiant< 12:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm just adding my point of view and it stopped me voting, which it did, and forgot about it until my watchlist said it was on DRV. My point was expressly that it's a good idea in theory, while agreeing that the current situation doesn't work and a technical solution should be sought as it could be an extremely useful navigational aide, and the deletion of the page will inevitably prevent a technical replacement from ever happening. I agree with the /page/ and the theory behind it, which few of the people voting delete have actually covered dismissing it as unmaintainable, while not agreeing with the current /technical solution/ behind it's generation. Perhaps some of the people voting delete, particularly those who said "delete per nom" or "delete as unmaintainable" in the original AFD, should address whether they'd be against a similar proposed technical solution? -Halo 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this. Arguments for delete are: hopelessly, irredeemably incomplete, useless for all practical purposes. Arguments for keep are: WP:ILIKEIT. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Consensus on the AfD seemed pretty clearly in favor of deletion, and I'm having a hard time finding any ambiguity to it. As stated by the nom, even on a straight up and down headcount the tally is heavily in favor of deleting the article, and when you factor in the weight of the arguments it tilts even further in that direction. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 15:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete As said before, there was a fairly clear consensus. Saving my opinion about the article itself for when/if a new AfD is opened in this DRV fails to get the desired result. JuJube 17:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. I agree with Radiant's reading of the debate. WP:USEFUL is not a dismissively bad argument, but it's also not very strong, and there's nothing I can see that would reasonably lead to dismissing of delete arguments. In this case, I would count the keep arguments as legitimate arguments, they were just in the (clear) minority here. Mangojuice^talk 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Clear consensus to delete, weight or number of arguments apparently was not taken into account when closing. ^(H) 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus First, it was a reasonable read of the discussion given that many of the arguments on both sides boil down to like it/don't like it. If that test is to be applied, it needs to be applied to both sides of the debate. WP:NOT USEFUL is no more valid than WP:USEFUL. A lot of the more valid discussion is not so much about page deletion, but about policies, tools, and means for indexing and vandal fighting. An XfD is not the appropriate forum for such a discussion. Open a centralized discussion on that issue. If consensus forms, then we can readdress these lists in light of that discussion. GRBerry 17:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Radiant makes a strong argument (I once contributed heavily to this list but his argument makes great sense to me), but then, I'm reluctant to make DRV "round 2" of AFD. What do people think about a compromise: moving this to the Wikipedia namespace? --W.marsh 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - Delete arguments strong, keep arguments poor, consensus to delete apparent. Otto4711 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus. Xfd is not a vote. There was no consensus on any points raised by either sides. The discussion mostly consisted of useful vs. not useful, along with a few "waste of resources" and "indiscrimate/incomplete" - I don't see any merit in these arguments. User:Carcharoth had some great ideas, and I think this probably played a large part in the decision to not close the discussion based on a straight vote count. --- RockMFR 20:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus. The arguments on both sides are valid. Consensus is not about majorities or supermajorities or even about who has the stronger arguments. It is about finding a reasonable solution that tries to address the points made by all sides, and that every reasonable person can accept, even if it is not the perfect solution. Yes, an alphabetical index of names of people is a useful navigation aid that belongs in Wikipedia. Yes, this list as currently implemented is largely unmaintainable. But deletion solves nothing. The solution is to come up with a way of making such a list maintainable, whether it is done with the current software through bots, categories and/or templates, or by proposing and implementing changes to the MediaWiki software itself. DHowell 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Question: is it intended that these pages be replaced with an appropriate set of categories, as proposed during the deletion discussions? If not, then what is the point of deleting them which would result in a net loss of information? If so, where is the planning for the replacement categories? —Phil | Talk 06:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. The consensus to delete in the AfD was clear and overwhelming: 10 keep arguments vs. 26 delete arguments, and the deletion arguments were all quite strong, pointing out glaring flaws in a huge, manually-updated, mostly unknown index such as this. Krimpet (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Agree completely with all the comments above. I always found the "no consensus" conclusion to be false in nature as every discussion has SOME consensus. Step up the deletions. Bulldog123 15:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus - There's no procedural erro - the conclusion of no consensus is viable, especially given the completel lack of merited arguments on the delete side (though keep may not be much better). Well within closing Admin's discretion. WilyD 16:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Inherently unmaintainable due to size. - Merzbow 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus. There was no consensus to delete. Many people people find it useful and expressed their opinions. A tremendous amount of effort has gone into building and maintaining the list. The mere fact that a large number of people argue that they have no use for it does not trump the fact that other people find it a useful list. That looks like no consensus to me. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Clear consensus to delete. WarpstarRider 23:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus - (Disclosure: I am a sometime contributor to LoPbN, so may have a bias.) However, I think I am being fairly objective in maintaining that the closing admin's decision was not a procedural error; it is plausible that he/she, taking into consideration all of the following: a) the recommendations and arguments of the editors requesting keep b) the unique nature of LoPbN compared to the usual types of articles, categories, etc, nominated for deletion c) its past history, including the records of discussion from the previous deletion attempts, and d) the comments by those editors who wished to replace LoPbN with something having equivalent function, but more easily maintainable, requesting to keep LoPbN available as an information source until a replacement could be engineered - all taken together were enough to determine that in this case there was not consensus for a simple and straightforward deletion at this time. -- Lini 03:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus - because there was no consensus. Jheald 08:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus - The fact that there are a significant number of people who have stated that they found this list useful, and that numerous people have vouched for the list in the most recent and in previous deletion attempts, disproves the notion of a consensus when it comes to deleting this list. --Slyguy (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, delete, and kill it with fire. This is practically the very definition of an indiscriminate collection of information. The fact that it is absolutely and completely unmaintainable to boot just makes it worse. Nandesuka 16:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - this seems to be precisely what categories are meant for (and they don't fall out of date). WP:NOT#IINFO issues. Orderinchaos 19:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as no consensus If there ever was an article with a confused debate justifying a conclusion of no consensus, it was this one. DGG 23:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - talk about an unmaintainable mess. I looked at the MFD and it looks like a pretty good consensus to delete. Then I took a look at the list and looked for a few well-known football coaches - Frank Beamer and Bobby Bowden. Neither was listed. That's not exactly a spectacular sample, but it tells me that the list isn't well-maintained. If a bot could auto-populate the list from categories ... ok ... it might be useful ... but if it isn't going to be maintained, it's a nightmare. It's a potential vanity target and I'm sure nobody has all of the kazillions of pages on their watchlist. --BigDT 01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - and add this as an example to what Wikipedia is not. AKRadecki 01:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per consenus to do so in the discussion. Viridae^Talk 02:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Enchanted Forest Water Safari

Enchanted Forest Water Safari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unnecessary deletion I created this page and found it deleted; I did not enter enough information initially, so I went back and found non-partisan sources and generated detailed information about the topic. I found that the page had been repeatedly deleted by user Mhking, who stated that I did not cite third-party sources. Although my page did cite third-party sources, I cited to Mhking other pages (such as Six Flags Theme Park) that do not cite sources, but were warned rather than deleted. I am from central new york and have no vested interest in Enchanted Forest, but wish to participate in Wikipedia in a meaningful manner. I would like the opportunity to finish the page and provide useful information about this and other topics. Thank you for your time. Jjm10 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment why not just re-create the article? -N 01:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Response He has tried to re-create and it sources. It was suggested that he come to request deletion review. Discussion here. Uncle uncle uncle 04:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: on a purely-procedural note, Mhking (talk · contribs) tagged this with {{db-repost}} here: I see no sign of any deletion discussion. Oops much? —Phil | Talk 06:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  Not much of an oops. The deletion reason, rather than the tagging reason, is what we judge. That version was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, for not having an assertion of notability. You are correct, however, that WP:CSD#G4, which {{db-repost}} is for, does not apply to this article since it hasn't ever had an AFD. GRBerry 13:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete, as this is not a re-creation of the original article and hence is not subject to speedy under G4. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• I just wanted to add the comment that I did not fully understand the deletion discussion procedure, so after I found it speedily deleted (the first time), I went back and generated a complete article, with cited references. I believe this was misunderstood as an attempt to subvert the regular procedures; I was instead trying to answer what I thought was a concern about sources. I understand the importance of citing sources and my first attempt at the page was more of a "placeholder" (which I won't do without sources in the future) since I saw the subject did not exist and wanted to create it. Sorry for the confusion about this. Jjm10 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• I was the last person to delete this page (it was completely blank when I did so), and I'm also the one who suggested that Jjm10 bring his case here. Looking back through the history, I was actually impressed with the article...he did a good job writing it, it just lacked sourcing, which could have easily been taken care of with ref or fact tags. I support either restoring the article to it's "long" condition, or restoring the text to a draft page on Jjm10's user page where he can work on it and bring it up to speed; I'd be willing to coach him along in this, if he so desired. Once it was ready, I'd suggest a quick review by a couple of the original deleting admins, and then a launch back into the encyclopedia. I believe that this is a good-faith effort by a new editor who simply has got caught up in the "process" that this place can become. AKRadecki 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Radecki, which version do you say was good? Guy (Help!) 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  I'd say this one would probably be the best starting point. It does need some work, no doubt, needs a good lead, and reorganization, and needs the tone to be adjusted to be more encyclopedic, but it's certainly a start. AKRadecki 20:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)