Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 6

< April 5	Deletion review archives: 2007 April	April 7 >

6 April 2007

Timeline of the Phantasy Star series (closed)

Turkish settlement

The closing administrator closed it as no-concensus, nevertheless I feel that the AfD was treated as a vote rather than a discussion.

1- No proof whatsoever was brought into the discussion proving the usage of the term "Turkish settlement" in the English usage - (among one of the examples I cited, such a search in the BBC News web-site returned zero hits [1] - whereas the term "Israeli settlement has an established usage in the English language.

2- No sources were brought attesting to the meaning of the term "Turkish settlement"

3- Nearly all impartial editors agreed that it was a WP:FORK of the Cyprus dispute article, and numerous administrators voted for deletion.

4- The article is in a mess, with no clear indication of what it is talking about, what its title means (thus WP:OR) issues and what should be done with it.

5- The article was created by a user who has only six edits, four of them on that article. In my nomination I raised the WP:OR issues, and expressly said that any meaningful content should be merged to Cyprus dispute instead of getting deleted.

6- I believe that the listing of this article in Greece and Turkey related deletion pages was detrimental to the discussion and therefore clouded the evaluation of the closing administrator - I would like an additional review to see if the WP:OR-title and WP:FORK issues have been dealt with, to see if any sources brought that attest to the usage of such a term in English, and whether this article shouldn't be merged to the Cyprus dispute. Baristarim 00:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

endorse but on the basis that there is no reasonable ground to expect that further discussion of the deletion of the article would be productive. If there was ever an AfD which fully justified a non-consensus close it was this one. DGG 04:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Indeed, there was no consensus, since a large part of the commenting users were more committed to one pov than to the npov character of an encyclopedia, and therefore willing to overlook the irreparable defects of the article. I feel that the arguments proffered in favour of "keep" have no substance in relationship to the issue. --Lambiam ^Talk 06:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I can't disagree with the result in this case. Perhaps if it is borne out that it can't be expanded, we may have reason to take a second look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in Harry Potter

Article has been rewritten: meets the demands in original AfD for out-of-universe perspective, citations, removal of original research. Michael Sanders 22:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cache redirects to original version, rather than speedily deleted version of today: [2] rewritten version took this form when reposted today. Michael Sanders 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, it's still original research, see ~~WP:SYNT~~ WP:NOR. --Core desat 02:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Could you please let me know exactly what the original synthesis is? I am probably one of the few remaining people on earth who has not read any of the Harry Potter books so I would appreciate your clarification. Thanks in advance, Black Falcon 06:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, whoops, it's not a synthesis to advance a position (which is what WP:SYNT is). However, it is a synthesis of information from primary sources (the books themselves, and fansites that record raw information from the books themselves), which is still original research. The rewrite did little to resolve those issues. --Core desat 07:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Synthesis from primary sources which does not advance a position is officially encourgaed on wiki. I quote from WP:NOR: Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.. The argument you have presented here is one for reinstating the article, not deleting it. Sandpiper 10:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted original research/cruft - there's nothing to discuss here, this is just a fan list.--Doc^g 08:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRUFT, fancruft as a term expresses a users distaste for something, but it not grounds for deletion. Some reason apart from distaste is needed. It is regrettable that issues like this should be decided on whether some user likes a particular aspect of modern popular culture, or not. This term featured in the original debate as a reason for deletion, and as such should have been discounted when the debate was closed and the vierws of contributors were being considered. Sandpiper 10:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - this one is clearcut: fan synthesis, not an encyclopedic topic. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - could you please clarify how it is a synthesis? Since it is merely the information deriving from the books, and Rowling's statements. Michael Sanders 13:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The synthesis comes when you put that together to create this timetable. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, no. The manner in which the data is used can be supported by external sources (e.g. Harry Potter Lexicon, the timeline on Warner Bros. DVD), which means any synthesis is attributable; moreover, I would contest that it is synthesis to create a timeline based on clear statements in the books: any synthesis is attributable, anything referencing only the books simply derives straight from them. Michael Sanders 13:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Seeing as the Harry Potter Lexicon is fan-created, my guess would be that fails WP:RS, comfortably so. Synthesis referencing the books is still WP:OR synthesis: you need to reference something else to prove that someone got there before you. More importantly, WP:N needs to be satisfied to prove that anyone actually cares beyond Harry Potter fanworld. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The Lexicon, although created by fans, is approved by Rowling. That gives it reliability in this area. Moreover, this debate is not over the original deletion, but the speedy deletion of the recreated article: the original debate summed up that the article was being deleted because it contained OR, was uncited, and too in-universe; I recreated the article after rewriting it to address those flaws, which should at the very least call for a recreation and new deletion debate: since the original objections of those who wished to delete the article have been removed. Michael Sanders 14:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Furthermore, according to Wikipedia:Attribution#What is not original research?: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." Michael Sanders 15:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's still not properly attributed because the sources in question are primary, and thus not reliable according to our standards. The whole of the article is original research; the only way to remove it is to remove the article. --Core desat 19:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Just to clarify: See Rowling's official site for her recommendation of the Lexicon. Someone beat us to it at creating the timeline, which was then followed by a second source, a DVD by Warner Bros. I don't see how that's not sourced properly. But please see my comments below about what we are questioning the deletion to. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - admin correctly interpreted the debate and deleted appropriately. Otto4711 14:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Michael Sanders brought up this point in response to a comment, but it might be lost among the many comments above. It is important to note that this is not in response to the AfD, but in response to a new article that was speedily deleted. This article was heavily sourced and written from an out-of-universe perpsective. If you still feel that this new version of the article is inappropriate, than you should take it once again to AfD for a larger consensus. But this is different now, it was considerably different from the article that was deleted as a result of AfD. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the sources in the new article were primary, therefore it was still original research, and fundamentally the same as the previous article. It should also be noted that Michael Sanders attempted to recreate the article again, but I have deleted it as a G4 recreation. If someone wants the history restored for the review, they need to request it here instead of just recreating the article. --Core desat 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a synthesis of primary sources. First of all, primary sources in this case are Rowling's original writing, not the novels based on that writing. Second, it is questionable whether rules on primary/secondary sources apply to novels. Thirdly, such complaints were not included in the original AfD, and therefore, are not appropriate for Speedy Deletion criteria. Fourthly, the article makes use of secondary sources - e.g. Harry Potter Lexicon, which is recognised as a reputable source by Rowling. Fifthly, according to Wikipedia:Attribution#What is not original research?: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." Michael Sanders 20:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; original research, not an encyclopedic topic. Encyclopedic topics have third party sources, but the most recent revision in the page history doesn't seem to have one. Picaroon 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Michael Sanders. The main argument to endorse the article's deletion is that it constitutes original research. According to WP:OR, an edit is OR if it meets any of 7 criteria. The issue here seems to be point 6:

It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.

Note that point 6 applies specifically to analysis or synthesis that builds a particular case favored by the editor. There is no POV-pushing and no "case" here. I shudder to think that the simple act of ordering of dates chronologically or subtracting numbers could be considered original research. -- Black Falcon 20:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I suppose - if we had an encyclopedic article on dates in Harry Potter, this would be it. (the userspace version, linked.) I learnt stuff I hadn't known, i.e. that Rowling-sanctioned material included traceable dates - I was all set to come here and say "bollocks, there are no dates in the books." This is no more "original research" than really quite a lot of our other stuff on popular fictions, and way less than most. Something DRV needs to keep in mind: you will never decruft en:wp. You may however make the cruft encyclopedically-written cruft - David Gerard 20:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In responses to claims of OR: it is categorically not Original Research. It derives from the books: WP:OR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources says "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." Obviously, this has been published by a reliable source (let's not even bother debating that point); the information has been carefully cited from the novels. Any reader, with or without specialist knowledge, can go to the cited text and read the references to the dates. And there is no 'interpretation' of anything that does not refer to secondary sources, which are heavily used: in particular, Harry Potter Lexicon, (deemed reliable by Rowling, who apparently claims to use it to check details herself), which contains its own date references. So please, demonstrate the OR to me. Michael Sanders 21:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And from the same: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

"Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." Michael Sanders 21:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn/Keep The subject matter is incredibly relevant to Harry Potter, a subject that has been clearly determined to be encyclopedic. Anything that can relate and link the subject to the real world is needed. With something like 75 references and sources, this is one of the better ref'd articles in Wikipedia. John Reaves (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid

No consensus for deletion

Overturn. In the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (second nomination) I count 6 arguments for deletion, 6 arguments to keep. Deletion seems to be based more on personal bias than anything else. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was pretty cruddy, though, wasn't it? Guy (Help!) 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it would help if you were more specific; "pretty cruddy" describes at least 50% of the articles on Wikipedia. It certainly was very well referenced. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Overturn. I Agree with Jay: every section, actually every paragraph is sourced, thus totalling 87 references. For WP standards, the article is not cruddy at all. --tickle me 20:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Per Jayjg, imperfect content is not a good enough reason for deletion. Looks like a case of creative accounting. Sorry I missed the vote. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Its hard for me to believe that the parent to so many other entries is "pretty cruddy," especially when AfD was 6 to 6. Tewfik^Talk 21:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as within admin discretion. AFD decisions are not decided by vote count. Comparing the actual comments, all but one "keep" opinion were at the front of the discussion and were short to the point of being fairly unhelpful in the discussion. Once new arguments were presented in the discussion, the weight of opinion fairly clearly turned toward deletion. (Note: It would have been nice if the earlier participants had returned to the discussion and either changed their minds or explicitly endorsed their prior opinion. Unfortunately, people seem to have fallen out of the habit of returning to deletion discussions.)
The issue of sourcing is not, in my opinion, the definitive issue here. No one is disputing that the word "apartheid" is being used in each of these contexts. The problem is in deciding which uses are appropriate to list in this article. The opening paragraph of the last deleted version even says that "its meaning has been extended to include any wholesale cultural, intellectual, religious, economic, or gender based discrimination." Apartheid has become so widely used as an epithet that we are left to determine for ourselves which uses really qualify and which are mere rhetoric. That's the original research problem. I don't see how that problem could have been solved - and neither, apparently, did the folks participating in the deletion debate. Rossami (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I see arguments both pro and contra, but why this particular case should be made an exception/example/revenge for other cases where count matters? I don't like polls in general, but given the outcome, why should one janitor's... errr, admin's discretion be given preference rather than another admin's? I don't think it is a good idea to brandish mops. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn with prejudice. I'm not sure 6 votes is even a quorum, even if they were unanimous. Not only that, but an admin's job is not to be judge and jury over these cases - this is why consensus is sought. I have every reason to believe the closing admin acted in good faith, but has clearly misunderstood the limits of his/her mandate and authority. --Leifern 22:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as a violation of consensus. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, but rename. The title "allegations of apartheid" is very illogical. First of all, a couple of articles I've read describe real-life facts, not "allegations". The title must correspond to facts the describe, not political labels assigned to tyhese facts. Apartheid is a specific term applied to a specific country. To call apartheid enywhere else is similar to term like Feminazi which is just a slur. A supposedly NPOVing addition "allegations" is a clumsy way to introduce NOPOV: it leaves an impression that these "allegations" are just opinions of disgruntled political opponents. For what is described there is a universal term, segregation. Mukadderat 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per Rossami - an AfDs is not a vote, what matter is the debate. The article is cruddy: it is a mishmash of stuff which belongs to "Human Rights in X" articles under a better encyclopedic format. Baristarim 00:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure although the timing wasn't good. The articles on Israel, Islam and Cuba should also have been simultaneously up for deletion with any salvageable material going to appropriate serious articles. At present there is a whole game going on being played by a handful of opposing editors over this issue, that's been running for over a year, and it is just one massive violation of WP:POINT. Its damaging wikipedia. Deleting this article was the first step towards unravelling this mess and it shouldn't stop there. Basing a series of disparate themes that are merely linked by a perjorative, and nothing else, is not good practice.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 01:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Sounds about right. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry, I generally don't like commenting on other people's votes, but I think that this goes to the heart of this debate: it is "votes" like this that create this confusion, and is the precise reason why this AfD is in deletion review. People: it is not a friggin' vote, please explain your reasons - "sounds about right" doesn't mean anything in itself, right? :) I am sure you have very good reasons why you want it overturned, but can you go the extra mile and explain them please? Baristarim 03:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. I can't really say much more than needs to be said, but it's been made clear that weight-of-argument doesn't factor as highly here as it does at AfD, so an added voice agreeing with what's been said above better helps the closer in this case. Until DRV starts using strength of arguments, I'm forced. Sorry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn due to lack of consensus and because it is inconsistent with the result of the latest attempt to delete Allegations of Israeli apartheid which was going on at the same time but had a different result. I agree with Zleitzen that all articles about accusations of apartheid should be merged/renamed to articles that do not have apartheid in the title (other than the one about South Africa, of course.) However, I think it has to be done as part of a coordinated effort. To delete this one while "IA" remains -- and now seemingly even further immunized against deletion because it supposedly has had 4 unsuccessful nominations -- sends the wrong message, in my opinion. 6SJ7 04:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS] ;) Kla'quot 08:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse we don't count votes, the article is an irredemable mess of unconnected rhetoric - allegations of fascism anyone?--Doc^g 08:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the keep arguements were based on a "me two" response with it needs to be cleaned up not deleted, where as the arguments for deletion were based n WP:SYNT policy which states that joined together in an article in order to advance [a] position becomes original research. Gnan garra 13:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Without prejudice. I think there was still much discussion to be had on the subject; I'm sorry I didn't see it until after it closed. IronDuke 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Doc Glasgow. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of allegations. Such articles should be deleted without prejudice. The day Britannica and other print encyclopedias carry this junk (in other words, when pigs fly), then bring them back to Wikipedia. Khorshid 21:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When do you imagine "Britannica and other print encyclopedias" will carry multiple and voluminous articles on things like List of Pokémon characters, List of Pokémon items, Pokémon regions (including multiple sub-articles), Poké Ball, Pokédex, and particularly List of Pokémon, which includes sub-articles on over 400 of your favorite Pokémon creatures? I'm particularly looking forward to Britannica's Registeel article, I think Wikipedia's has significant deficiencies. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pokemon argument is not a valid argument - in any case Pokemon is not an "allegation" - most people might consider it childish but there are those who like it: but there are no disputes as to what constitutes "Pokemon". You will never see an article titled "Allegations of Pokemon", even in Wikipedia. The "Pokemon argument" is a notability one, not a OR, fork or a POV one. :)) Baristarim 06:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you're pointing out that the Britannica argument is not a valid one, as did I. As for the Pokemon articles, there's barely a footnote to be found in any of them, quite the opposite of the Allegations of apartheid article, which had dozens. Almost all of them are original research, as are tens of thousands of other articles on Wikipedia. Let me know when you find a 9/11 conspiracy theories or Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center or AIDS conspiracy theories or AIDS reappraisal article on Britannica. For that matter, tell me when you'll find an Allegations of Israeli apartheid article on Britannica; yet that article has survived 4 AfDs (admittedly the first two were straw-man nominations, and the 3rd ended prematurely). Jayjg ^(talk) 08:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, that was a well documented article. --Shamir1 05:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. The policy of no original research is non-negotiable, and there was a consensus that this article either had lots of OR or was entirely OR. Perhaps this article can be retitled and rewritten in a way that addresses the concerns raised in the AfD. Kla'quot 08:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per jayjg and humus sapiens. I find the Pokemon analogy refreshing and also the fact that the article was well sourced.Baka man 15:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per jayjg and humus sapiens.--Urthogie 18:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per jayjg and humus sapiens and as the article was obviously well-sourced. I would like to address two comments above. (1) if the content belongs in "Human rights in X" articles, that's an argument to merge and not to delete. (2) Khorshid wrote, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of allegations". Politics, in large part, consists of series of allegations and counterallegations; hard facts are often difficult to come by. Also, allegations may be encyclopedic if they have received sufficient coverage to render them notable. -- Black Falcon 18:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Mud may be slung in other places, but this is not a credible academic topic, and articles about mudslinging are likely to be far more trouble to keep neutral than the miniscule importance of the article can ever justify. Nathanian 00:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this article was deleted based on the belief that it violated WP:SYNT, I would like to see "overturn" arguments that explain why it did not violate WP:SYNT. Pointing out the copious references doesn't help when the problem is novel synthesis. Kla'quot 08:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Banks of mainland China and Category: Companies of mainland China

To restore older edit history prior to re-creation. Both look like speedied after emptied. Neither went through CFD. See

for related discussions. - Privacy 17:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither of these has been deleted. The "older edit history" seems to be at the pre-existing Category:Banks of the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Category:Companies of the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). There looks to be nothing to do here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Deletion log of Category: Banks of mainland China indicates it has been deleted once, and Category: Companies of mainland China has been deleted twice. The two categories you mentioned were never deleted. - Privacy 09:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as many times as necessary lather rinse repeat. POV fork. SchmuckyTheCat 15:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not forks. "Mainland China" ≠ "People's Republic of China". - Privacy 18:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The whole PRC/mainland China naming controversy is not settled, and Privacy (talk · contribs) has no consensus behind his mass re-categorization. --Ideogram 18:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- This is DRV, not CFD. - Privacy 18:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - If they haven't been deleted why are you wasting everyone's time here? --Ideogram 18:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - To restore earlier edit history. - Privacy 18:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore history per nom. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ChoChoPK was prompted by Privacy to offer his brief comment. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This vote canvassing (and potential puppetry) on all the discussions around creating/deleting "mainland China" anything is extremely disturbing. SchmuckyTheCat 01:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Turney

Subject is notable within Wikipedia's meaning of notability and the AfD discussion had not reached a consensus when it was closed. Greenshed 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not notable at all. Maurauth 16:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. By checking the last version of the article before it was redirected, we can see that there are multiple reliable sources that address her (and not just the capture incident) non-trivially. Ergo, she meets our notability guidelines. Also, if I'm not mistaken, a "15 minutes of fame" test has been repeatedly proposed as an indicator of notability and repeatedly rejected. In any case, AFD is not the place to change policy. A merge may be appropriate to improve content organisation, but the AFD close was clearly inappropriate. -- Black Falcon 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should properly be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages, not here. AFDs that close as "redirect" are no more binding than any other discussion with equivalent participation. But since the question has been put before us, I will endorse closure (keep as redirect). I also checked the sources in that last version of the article but do not reach Black Falcon's conclusion that they establish notability independent of the one incident. Had she been killed in the incident, we would have unambiguously rejected an independent article because Wikipedia is not a memorial. I find it very strange that we would reach a different decision just because she and the others lived. Wikipedia is not WikiNews. Not everything in the newspaper belongs in an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse perfectly reasonable close. Come back if she becomes notable for something else independent of the seizure, in the mean time a redirect is the logical answer. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am more than happy to discuss the notability question here in detail. However, my main point is procedural, namely that the AfD discussion had not reached a consensus when it was closed (if anything I thought that it was heading in the direction of "Keep"). I submit that the article should be reinstated and if someone wants nominate it for merging or deletion then they can do and we'll debate notability then. Greenshed 19:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. While I agree with the nominator that a consensus hadn't really been established, closing a debate as no consensus is fairly unsatisfactory and relisting the debate would not likely help with the lack of consensus issue. Reaching a compromise in the form of a redirect is a bold move on the part of the closing admin and is an admirable thing to do. A redirect is not a delete and it can be reverted by any user - a better forum for discussion on whether this ought to be a merge/redirect or a standalone article is better suited to the talk page. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Would you agree that if I were to revert the redirect and add to the article, this would also be bold and admirable? Greenshed 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a little inappropriate without some constructive debate on the matter. The problem is that in XFD matters the closing admin is often forced to make some pointedly difficult choices, particularly in matters where consensus isn't clear, knowing full well how likely it is someone is going to either complain about the income or call the decision in to question. So, often a judgement call has to be made as to which decision will be the least contentious outcome. If the consensus here in the DRV is to endorse the closure, a unilateral decision on your part (or anyone elses) to revert the redirect would be bold yes, but flagrantly disrespectful toward both process and the editors involved. If, afterward, you can get a constructive debate on the topic going on in the talk page and the consensus is then to restore the article, that is perfectly fine, yes. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason why I have nominated this article is because I intend to respect both process and consensus. I agree that closing the article as no consensus is somewhat unsatisfactory but in this case it would have been accurate. My understanding is that if a consensus cannot be reached then the article should stay. Assuming that my understanding is correct, then by upholding the actioning admin's flawed judgement (no doubt made in good faith) the principle that no consensus means no removal of the content is turned on its head. Greenshed 19:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, there is no deletion to review - reverting a redirect is an editorial decision that can be discussed on relevant article talk pages. --Core desat 19:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did ask about this here Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Protected_redirects first. Perhaps the deletion policy article could include some guidance on this question. Greenshed 20:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - By article talk pages, I mean Talk:2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel or Talk:Faye Turney. Nothing was actually deleted (otherwise the history of Faye Turney would not be there), so there is no scope for a deletion review. --Core desat 20:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article has been through the AfD process which has (wrongly in my view - as there was no consensus for keeping, merging or deleting) placed the onus onto me and other like-minded editors to establish consensus for the article's re-establishment. If I were to just revert the redirect then as has been stated above this would be "flagrantly disrespectful". Given the (very brief) discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy it would be most helpful if the policy could define whether the scope of deletion reviews is restricted to all AfD outcomes or just to actual deletions. If it is the latter then this needs to be clear as I fear that if I start a discussion on one of the talk pages, some will say that the AfD outcome takes precedence over a talk page discussion. Greenshed 21:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Not notable outside of the Incident. Leave it deleted! Nooie 00:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I advocating keeping the article without the redirect. However, this was a reasonable close.DGG 04:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - whatever one's views on this, procedure has not been followed. Far too many debates get closed with a "the decision is X" just because a particular admin supports one case. SteveRwanda 06:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel seems sensible. If she becomes famous for something else, then the redirect should be undone and it should become a separate article. Really this is one case where listing for deletion was a waste of time (wasn't going to happen) and a redirect makes Wikipedia a more informative encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]