Jeff Parker (guitarist) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Should be a simple fix; requesting that this be unprotected and redirected to Jeff Parker (musician). Not sure why it was protected. Chubbles (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, because it seems so simple. If I'm missing anything glaringly obvious, feel free to undo, but I cn't see what it might be. For "safety" sake, I re-protected the re-direct. Will ask Have asked OrangeMike who protected in June 2008. StarM 02:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It was previously deleted twice and protected because a chatty, myspacey article which didn't assert notability was there. Everything's fine now; I think this can be closed. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred M. Levin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion not justified based on WP:PROF, discussion was tainted by spite and hostility Mwalla (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

• Endorse closure as delete, it seems to me a reasonable read of the consensus there. It simply doesn't look like there are sufficient sources to make a verifiable article, and any arguments that he passes the WP:PROF criteria seem to be borderline and disputed. Additionally, I have to say that most of the "spite and hostility" in the AfD seemed to be coming from you; considering the canvassing and unwarranted accusations of hounding/stalking. I cannot see much evidence that the close was incorrect or that anything underhanded was going on among those arguing to delete it. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I was accused of canvassing, but that does not mean that I did canvas. If you say that it is borderline for WP:PROF, why would you not err on the side of keeping the page?Mwalla (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]
    • I have no idea if it was borderline for WP:PROF, I did not see the article. All I am gauging here is the statements made by people, and whether or not it meets WP:PROF seems disputed. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – I certainly see evidence of canvassing, but no evidence of spite and hostility (from anyone else but the article's creator; however, that may be expected as admins have the prerogative to know such information when deciding there is a rough consensus to delete) that would have altered the outcome of the deletion discussion. The reasons for deletion seem to be more guideline and policy-based and effectively outweighed the reasons for keeping. MuZemike 23:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse seems that the delete contingent had the better arguments - the primary notability arguments hinged on how many publications this PROF had at google scholar, which may be interesting, but is hardly a proxy for reliable third party sources that tell us about the PROF - his biography, not the card catalog index for him. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I did try to contact the closing admin about the canvassing allegation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hersfold/t but I did not get a reply. I will try again. Please allow me to address some points:

  1. The article was deleted the first time because of a copyright infirngement. This was accurate as I copied some biographical information from the subject's amazon page. The deleting admin suggested that the page could be recreated as long as there was no copyright violation.
  2. I wanted the deletion discussion to focus on the article, so I tried not to bring up allegations of spite. But the initial editor who broght the page up for deletion due to the copyright violation has consistently reverted my edits in the past and has brought me up for other allegations, such as vandalism.
  3. It is unforunate that you can no longer see the page. Since it was only in existence for a couple of weeks, it did not have much of a chance to improve from other editors. What was called canvasing, was my attempt to get other interested parties to contribute to the page or suggest how I could improve it. I only contacted about 5 people and did not try to bias them.
  4. I feel strongly the Fred Levin's page was just as usefull as any other page on psychotherapits. I examined other pages in the category psychotherapists.

  Perhaps he should be judged in that light rather than under the heading of an acedemic. Mwalla (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

  I see. Endorse deletion as a valid reading of the community consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin comment Mwalla, I'm sorry, I only just noticed the message you'd left me the other day. I'm not as active as I once was due to college work, and at times when I receive several messages at once I tend to miss replying to some. Anyway, when reviewing the AfD, there was not only a strong majority in favor of deletion, but also a strong consensus in that direction. Those comments that were in favor of keeping the article were well countered; while the subject does have a fair number of hits on Google Scholar, he is not cited often, nor is there a considerable amount of work about him. The issue of the canvassing also was concerning; Mwalla, I'm not sure how you can say you didn't think you were canvassing after the fact when you stated no less than twice within the AfD that you were; also, your contributions clearly show that you left several uninvolved editors requests to opine at the AfD. You made no requests that I can find to make improvements to the article itself. This is what we call canvassing. I would also echo Mazca's comment that the hostility in this debate was coming from Mwalla, not from the other editors. I would further note that no attempt was made to contact me specifically relating to the deletion of the article until after this DRV had begun. That said, I feel that the consensus here was more than strong enough to support the deletion of the article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hersfold, your response above is mainly about me and not about the article. If you read the definition of canvassing, I am sure you will agree that I did not canvass. I did joke about canvassing in the page, but even you admitted that that was sarcasm. In terms of the worth of a page, why not just rely entirely on google scholar?Mwalla (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

I'm pretty sure I just said earlier that you were canvassing; I usually mean what I say, and this is indeed one of those times. However, the discussion had a strong consensus in favor of deleting the article; a good number of different users all looked at Google Scholar and came to the same conclusion; this person is not notable. For me to insert my own personal opinion (of which I really have none) into this closure against a strong consensus would be highly inappropriate. That's just not how Wikipedia works. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When was the last time you looked at the definition of canvassing? I meet none of those requirements. Could you address the points I raised above? Perhaps google scholar is not the appropriate lens with which to view wikipedia. Instead of trying to defend your own actions, why don't you think about what would benefit wikipedia. Mwalla (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

This is getting a bit ridiculous at this point, especially since by your own admission the canvassed editors were more in favor of deleting the article than keeping it, but: This is what we call blatant canvassing. I don't know how you can call it anything else. You messaged a good number of people who had nothing to do with that particular article and had a clear bias in doing so. Quit trying to make a point and move on. I don't mind the canvassing a whole lot this time since it had little impact on the outcome, just so long as it stops. As for your other arguments, I don't see how they are particularly relevant here. The community has said delete. They're in the process of doing so again. You need to demonstrate that this person is notable per the established guidelines. The loss of one article about a non-notable psychotherapist is not going to cause undue harm to Wikipedia, so don't even waste your time trying to make that argument. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Canvassing clearly happened and the closing admin properly adjusted for it. MBisanz ^talk 05:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal number (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Improper closing. There was no consensus on a redirect,but Yandman, however, then updated the page saying closed as redirect to Digital AACS encryption key controversy). Oddly, the Digital AACS encryption key controversy does not exist. I do not believe that the proper AFD procedure was followed, or somehow, human error came into play. Smallman12q (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a redirect for Digital AACS encryption key controversy, but I still believe that the Afd was not handled properly.Smallman12q (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist, I would support relisting as no consensus was reached.Smallman12q (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There have been two AfDs for this - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illegal number back in 2007 which was indeed closed as keep by Ryan Postlethwaite, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illegal number (2nd nomination) closed today as redirect by Yandman. I haven't looked at the detail of either close as yet, but your statement seems to imply that someone changed the result of an AfD when no such thing seems to have happened. Could you clarify? ~ mazca ^t|c 20:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I seem to have made a mistake, apparrently Yandman placed the wrong AFD discussion link on the Talk:Illegal number page. However, I still disagree with his redirect closure as no consensus was reached for a redirect.Smallman12q (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to say it, but Yandman's close is very much against the community opinions put forward in the most recent AFD; I saw one suggestion for a merge, and the rest were either "keep" or "delete" opinions; his argument that the "keep" opinions didn't address the (voluminous, leaning towards tl;dr territory) nomination doesn't address that most of them pointed out the article was sourced properly and well written. There was definitely not any consensus for a redirect - matter of fact, I don't see a consensus there at all. Overturn and, optionally, reopen for further discussion to try and find a consensus. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I did not. I forgot. 0.o. I have notified him of this DRV now though. (My apologies on not first asking the closing admin.)Smallman12q (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough; we all make mistakes. Overturn to no consensus, per S Marshall's reasoning. Whether to merge, redirect, or otherwise can be hashed out on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• IMHO, notification of the closer should be a requirement here, but it isn't. That said, I'll await comments from the closing admin to further elucidate his/her rationale, but from the bare record it seems as if an overturn may well be warranted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Based on the comments by the close, the close was reasonably within his/her discretion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn Many additional sources were listed in the AfD. This topic thus meets the primary notability criterion. That notability claim was in no way rebutted. (Also incidentally, this is mentioned in a number of dead tree compilations as well such as some of Paulo Ribenboim's books. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel need to point out this blatant falsehood: "Many additional sources were listed in the AFD." Indeed, I imagine a reason for the closing decision was that I asked for these supposedly "many additional sources" but nobody listed them. By the way, I'm well familiar with Ribenboim's books, and they do not support the topic as you imagine. People in discussion get confused over patenting of numbers and then confuse that with "illegal numbers" or "illegal primes". That's one reason for the long nom: the apparent willingness of people to confuse themselves on the merits of the topic based on vague recollections of "similar" or irrelevant topics and references. This kind of speculation is dear to a certain kind of geek that edits Wikipedia, reads Slashdot, etc....but it is not notable according to Wikipedia standards. --C S (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• No action (which is not quite the same as endorse closure). Rationales: (1) A "redirect" is a de facto keep. The redirect page is not protected, and any user could change its content per WP:BRD. Discussion could then be taken to the article's talk page, so the DRV seems unnecessary to me. (2) I don't feel "overturn to keep" is appropriate or that anything useful would be gained from "relist", but I don't feel able to "endorse closure" because I think the closer disregarded the consensus.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's comments. I am aware that a simple head count would have given a decision to keep, but if you read carefully through the whole discussion, a pattern emerges. The vast majority of keep !votes were, well, votes. I don't think it would have been fair to close as no-consensus just because of a flood of rationales such as: "Keep. Nomination is WP:TLDR", "Strong Keep. What an interesting topic. The subject is encyclopedic", "Keep for same reasons others mentioned", "Strong Keep. The arguments for deletion are very complex. If it takes an essay to explain them then they can't be very sound".
  Yes, I know that some editors try to game the system by spamming replies to every oppose !vote in order to make it look like they're winning the debate, but it would hardly be fair to put CS in this category.
  Only two editors (in my opinion, Colonel Warden and JulesH) took the time to explain their position and discuss the issue. In both cases, CS gave constructive, rational, replies, that weren't rebutted. In the former case, the editor even went on to agree (in part) with the nominator, and proposed a merge. This is what I wanted to achieve with a redirect: the content isn't burnt, it can always be recreated if the Harvard Law Review writes something on "illegal numbers", and in the mean time, any useful content can easily be merged into other articles without difficulty.
  As a (tongue in cheek) recap: I believe the "deletes" trumped the debate by having more coherent arguments and taking the time to discuss them, but then again they were in numerical inferiority, so I decided to go half way and follow the editors asking for merge/redirects. If it can make people feel better, I'm more than willing to modify the page so it says "merge/redirect" instead of redirect (there's so little content that a "classic" merge would have been superfluous). yandman 08:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There wasn't a consensus for a redirect. And the argument of WP:OR is faulty because it is mentioned outside of Wikipedia.Smallman12q (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This will be the last time I point this out to anyone, but "mentioned outside of Wikipedia" does not mean it's not OR. Rather than utilize misleading oversimplifications of WP:NOR, I suggest reading carefully the sections on what kind of sourcing is appropriate to rule out OR. --C S (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you look at Illegal numbers#References you will see there are indeed references. There has also been an article at Columbia. See http://www.columbia.edu/cu/bb/oldstuff/bb0417.19.html .Smallman12q (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Surprisingly, I have looked at them, although now I wonder if you have, and how carefully. As for that "article at Columbia", it's about illegal numbers rackets, which are a completely different topic (although I imagine you can find it easily enough using a Google search).

          In any case, perhaps in my earlier response I should have pointed out this is not the place to re-argue your case. This is about whether or not process was followed properly by the closing admin. It was his/her judgment that the references you mention in the article were not sufficient to counter the charge of OR. It is also up to him/her to discount frivolous keep remarks that do not appear to address relevant issues or arguments. The only thing under discussion here is whether somehow the closer, even after discounting such frivolous remarks, saw a consensus based on policy that was not there. --C S (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and possible Merge with Illegal prime. Citations and arugments presented at this articles AfD clearly point to a no consensus not redirect. There are enough non trivial sources showing this is not original research. I revert the redirect until consensus has been reached at DRV. Valoem ^talk 19:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus and perhaps merge per Valoem. There seems to be no consensous on the quality of sources. I find the arguments against the Register to be poor at best (I don't like it) while Slashdot does clearly count as a reasonable source for articles posted by the folks who work there at least for notability. So no clear argument that the keep !votes were bogus. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, to no-consensus. When there is in fact no consensus, it is best to simply say so. The closer doesn't have to choose between just keep and delete,; when the community has no consensus, he shouldn't try to make one for it. If he does have a personal opinion on the matter, he should joint the debate and express it there, instead of closing according to it. DGG (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per the closer's comments. I haven't read the article but I have read the AFD, a lot of the "keep" !votes were frivolous (i.e. the TL;DR), I agree with him regarding Colonel Warden and JulesH. I would however say his "compromise" of a redirect could be construed as unorthodox. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - it seems as if the closing admin imposed their own view when the consensus seems to be to keep the article. And where did that redirect come from, I really don't see that being the consensus - that's just the closing admin's personal opinion. Its really overstepping the boundary - its a pity de-adminship is seen as extreme; we have plenty of admins, so this closing admin should have their adminship revoked, on the grounds that power seems to have gone to their head. Clinkophonist (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since xe didn't exercise that power in this case, as you can see and would have seen if you had looked at the handy "log" link given at the start of this very discussion, your argument falls apart. Uncle G (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as "no consensus". There is certainly OR here, but at heart the article is description of others' speculation (either quoting knowledgeable people directly or reported in viable sources), not our OR about a topic. It can be incredibly easy to mix those up, but only the latter is at all a deletion criterion. I fear the closer has conflated "delete" comments regarding no reliable cite that this idea has any actual validity (lack of legal proof, etc.) with "keep" comments that remind that there are sources that do discuss the idea. El Reg might not be a RS for legal issues themselves (though that itself feels like WP-editors' POV, since it is indeed a mainstream news source?), but regardless, it seems like a mainstream news source's choice to discuss a topic makes the topic notable. DMacks (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A closing administrator has one primary task to perform based upon an AFD discussion: to decide whether to hit the delete button or not. In this case, in case anyone is confused on this issue (and DMacks certainly seems to be from what is written above), the closing administrator here chose not to do so in this case. This article was not deleted. There are zero entries in its deletion log. Whether the article should be a redirect or not is an editorial decision, implemented with ordinary editing tools that everyone has. This editorial decision has been made, and un-made, 1 2 3 4 5 times before, has been discussed on the article's talk page (which I have just reverted Yandman's blanking of), and will no doubt be discussed again. Yandman even went so far as to explicitly point out in the closing rationale that the redirect was editable.

  This is not an issue for AFD, nor an issue for Deletion Review. No deletion has occurred. There is no administrator tool use to be undone. And there's no need to perform the un-performed administrator action, and delete the article, as even if there were no article here a redirect as an alternative name would be in order. A reversal of the closing administrator's action in regard to xyr administrator tools, which (make no mistake) would be to delete the article where xe did not, isn't even being requested. And there's are existing long-standing discussions on the article's talk page to participate in if people wish to discuss mergers, redirects, bad sources, original research, and other problems.

  There is no deletion to review, and this is not the correct forum for continuing a discussion that has been ongoing on the article's talk page, amongst many of the very same editors who are now here, for 16 months. (Those editors know where Wikipedia:Requests for comments and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics are, should they want to request third-party input.) There is no substantive action to be taken, here. Uncle G (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Closed as redirect" is not the consensus any more than "delete" or "do nothing" is. Therefore, I agree with others who dispute that this was the correct action to take as closing. I'm fine if closer as an editor would boldly redirect and then others dispute and undo it at an editorial level. However, to add the weight of redirect as the result of the AfD (and therefore undoing that would be going against AfD decision) is where my concern lies. The fact that closer simply edited the content to replace with delete isn't philosophically different (as an AfD close result) than using the delete button and then recreating as the redirect. And the article text was explicitly brought back for purposes of this DRV (and therefore one would assume be reverted to the redirect should DRV fail to overturn the "replace with redirect" closure action). "Is anything other than delete--yes or no?" a valid AfD decision? That's a wider debate obviously:) DMacks (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as no consensus as I could not find one if the AFD. If a redirect or merge is the correct action then let a discussion take place on the talk page and reach consensus for that action. Davewild (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African Americans in Davenport, Iowa

African Americans in Davenport, Iowa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Administrator mbisanz did not, in my opinion, consider the compromises put forth by more than one participant in the deletion discussion page. Personally, I would be more comfortable with someone other than this administrator making the decision. Having reviewed his contributions -- one of which is an advertising blurb for a bowling alley -- I don't think he is the person to decide notability. That was a central argument in the deletion discussion. Brrryce (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The number of arguments for and against deletion was roughly equal, and in such cases the admin closing the discussion should look to see whether significantly more of the arguments on one side of the debate than those on the other were based in policy. In this case, the arguments for deletion cited the policy Wikipedia:No original research, and none of the arguments to keep successfully refuted that point. Finally, ad hominem attacks against administrators or requests to recall admins who make one decision you don't agree with rarely get you anywhere. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting recall for one insignificant deletion? You have got to be kidding me! MuZemike 23:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, but Brrryce attempted it. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The grounds of appeal appear to be alleged bias of the closer. I have had several dealings with this closer and while we often disagree on things, nothing - nothing - seems to evidence bias. Accusations are cheap and easily made, but exceptional claims require exceptional evidence to back them up and this editor has fallen way short. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Closer was (correctly) influenced by WP:BURDEN which I think has considerable force.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. I am expressly not questioning the closing admin's good faith or competence, and I wish the requester had not raised such issues. However, the discussion was a close enough call that this could have been a "no consensus", and the article did have some legitimate sources, at least by the time it was deleted. I think it would be appropriate to give the article another chance. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Apart from a few links to unreferenced Wikipedia articles, the references appear to be solid and no one made it clear exactly how WP:OR or WP:SYNTH applied. For it to be synthesis it has to promote a point otherwise we can delete all our articles since they're a combined work from different sources which some people take synthesis to mean. Also, the 90000 non-notables argument is faulty. Just because the majority of African Americans in the town are not notable doesn't mean there aren't any notable individuals or that the group as a whole isn't notable. This was clearly a misapplication of policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - while I am confident MBisanz was just being sloppy, the article very clearly cites reliable sources. Applying "weight of argument" when closing a discussion, one should more or less toss out those arguments that rely on demonstratably false assertions. WilyD 14:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin First, I have no connection to any part of the topic, either pro or anti bias. Second, many established editors cited WP:SYN and WP:OR as reasons to delete the article. I did consider the 2 IP comments and weighed them appropriately in determining the final outcome. I also noted the several keep arguments citing Notability, but as of the last Keep comment by Omarcheeseboro, editors still contended there was a lack of Reliable Sources in the article. Their good faith belief of the lack of sources and the presence of OR (which should be insurmountable OR if they are citing it as a deletion reason), is why I closed as such. MBisanz ^talk 20:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that the sourcing appears to have been improved during the AfD period. Some of the editors who noted a lack of sources may have been looking at the article before that improvement occurred. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – First off, no reason, unless anyone considers baseless attacking and undermining the credibility of an admin (and initiating a recall because of one deletion you didn't like), to overturn. Perhaps it could be userfied so that the author can keep working on it, but I see no problem with the closure of the AFD. MuZemike 04:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as there were no adequate arguments that defended the claims of original research. Themfromspace (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Too much original research and synthesis. Seems to be a good faith close based on arguments for deletion citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Completely correct close, article full of WP:OR and unconvincing comments to keep. Black Kite 22:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist as it appears the article was significantly improved during the AfD period and a significant number of the pro-deletion comments were made before the additional sources and such were added to the article. This is not to imply that MBisanz made the wrong call, just that I believe a new discussion based on the current state of the article (which does clearly still need some work) would likely result in a keep or, at worst, no-consensus decision. - Dravecky (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - the keep arguments were extremely weak, offering a supposed compromise of adding a few tags, using a variant of WP:INHERITED, and the generic WP:NOTPAPER rationale. The central problem is there aren't references that show the overall subject is notable. Neither the keep arguments, or the article improvements addressed this problem. PhilKnight (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion: I haven't seen the article only the AFD, I don't feel the synthesis argument was sufficiently countered. Also note Brrryce's attempt at recall as bad faith. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist or Overturn (since I've also made the argument below that there are more sources out there, WP:Deletion review says I should vote "Relist"; my fallback position would be "Overturn") When either notability or reliable sourcing is at issue, you don't take a no-consensus result and delete unless you can overcome this point: There are at leset four recent articles in the Quad City paper on the history of the African American community here. They are referenced in the article now. T L Miles (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC) [1] I haven't seen and now can't read the deleted article, but T L Miles appears to have made a crucial point that no one countered, so there doesn't appear to be a policy-based reason to delete, and there doesn't appear to be a consensus to delete. If there were sources that met the requirements of WP:N and WP:RS, where exactly is the justification for MBisanz to delete? Also note that the sources were apparently added to the article during the deletion discussion, and doing that is supposed to discount prior objections on reliable sourcing and notability. Even if the closing admin were correct in finding for delete, T L Miles' argument should have been addressed in the closing comment with enough detail. The complete closing statement, The result was delete. The arguments over the necessity to produce reliable sources to prevent original research were convincing is inadequate. See WP:DGFA#Rough consensus: A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy. I see no evidence that MBiSanz made this determination. T L Miles' unrefuted point seems to indicate the opposite. -- Noroton (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) ((edited to add "relist" at beginning of this comment -- Noroton (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)))[reply]
  • Comment - three of the Quad City paper articles are still available online: [2] [3] [4]. In my humble opinion, these references don't show the overall subject is notable. PhilKnight (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way I see lack of notability as a reason to delete is by determining that the sources (both the ones you've linked to and others that I quickly found online) fall short of the first criterion at WP:N#General notability guideline: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive The first source you provide only has a sentence or two specific to Davenport, and I'd call that "trivial" in the special, WP:N sense of the term (although the information itself -- on population and on some of the reasons why the black population is growing in the area -- is actually important to the WP article); the second and third QC articles treat the subject directly and in detail, so that we learn important facts about this community's history and about Davenport's historic role in African American history. The local museum's project in gathering resources also indicates that more sourcing can be found in Davenport, offline, right now, and the second source ("... Wrecking Ball" article) mentions:

• Dred Scott as a resident,
• a record existing of Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech in Davenport [elsewhere online I've seen that he was there to accept the "Pacem in Terris" award in '65, also given to Desmond Tutu decades later),
• the poor treatment of African American historic preservation by the overall community (in the 1980s and 1990s in particular) and by African Americans themselves,
• the fact that there was a thriving black entertainment district at 5th St. off of Bradley,
• devastation from urban renewal in the '60s,
• the fact that very many African Americans in Davenport have no long family histories in this very longstanding community (with a history stretching back before the Civil War).

This is from just one source, which should be considered "significant coverage" treating the subject "directly in detail". A similar (perhaps even better) list could be made from the third source, which shows that we have multiple sources providing significant coverage. I've written a number of articles focused on neighborhoods and small communities, articles that can easily withstand AfD challenges, and I consider this kind of information pure gold.

DRV is also a forum for providing new information, according to WP:DRV#Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates (#3). Here are other sources that either directly meet WP:N's General notability guideline for significant sourcing or (as noted) indicate how suitable a topic is for its own article. Please note (from WP:N, emphasis added): it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present. [...] If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources.:

• This source from a book published in the 1920s, full of every racial stereotype imaginable, is a collection of columns from the local newspaper up to the early 1920s. Despite its attitude, the "Old Time Cullud Folks" chapter has plenty of information about African Americans in Davenport in the late 19th/early 20th century: there were many ex-slaves, black-owned businesses (barber shops, janitorial services, a foot doctor) who catered to both whites and blacks, and examples of resilience in the face of racism ("Couldn't make the Busey boys mad by callin' 'em coons. No sah! They'd just laugh at you." And with mock solemnity sing a racist song for you. Jake Busey was identified as the first member of the community to graduate from public schools, and "had a style of his own in jugglin' hard words that made the cullid folks gasp.")
• Many lesser sources are often used to establish WP:N. Here are some: article on the local "Semper Fidelis" organization; a "mass convention" of black soldiers met in Davenport in 1865, petitioning the state for the right to vote, apparently this was one of the initial steps that eventually led to an Iowa referendum granting that right in 1868; young men's cotillion balls were started in this community in the '90s; Davenport was part of the circuit for jazz bands -- with visits from Louis Armstrong (who mentions getting his end-of-season bonus there) [5], perhaps the (white) Davenport native and Jazz great Bix Biederbecke heard him there [6] (some say he did), the Creole Band [7]; the "Mississippi Valley Blues Festival" is held annually in Davenport [8] (in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act was celebrated there [9]), Armstrong played in Davenport both on a riverboat and at the Coloseum Ballroom as did Bix and "the greatest names in jazz and blues", including Duke Ellington [10]; another prominent venue was Jazzland, according to this non-Davenport source; Armstrong was in Davenport again in the 1950s, when he sent a telegram to Eisenhower about the integration fight in Little Rock, Arkansas [11]; a local high school football stadium was named after the first African-American public school teacher in Davenport [12]; Davenport was one of the places where Huckleberry Finn was opposed (by a black student) as a reading requirement [13]; Jackie Robinson, after a minor but stinging racist incident, talked about it with Davenporter Gene Baker, the other black player on the Chicago Cubs team, who told Robinson, "Here I'm born in Davenport, Iowa, and you come from Texas, and you know less about the South than I do." [14] It's not worth including in this article, but it's hard not to think Baker didn't learn something in Davenport.
• It doesn't take any original research to get significant information about the concentration of black businesses around 5th St. in the late 19th century from this section of a book about Davenport's prostitution ("Mattie Burke", starting at page 95).
• An online abstract of a 2006 paper presented to the Law Society Association indicates that further sourcing can be found, and the published abstract itself could even be used for some rudimentary sourcing (boldface added): This paper examines forty years of racial violence, real and threatened, in Davenport, Iowa. [...] from the Civil War to the early 20th century. Despite the relative lack of open violence in Davenport during this period, several high-profile events – including a race riot, waves of hysteria following alleged rapes of white women by black men, a near lynching, and legal harassment of African American activists – show that even the threat of violence was a tool of social control to maintain class and racial privilege. The interaction of southern, Midwestern, foreign-born, wealthy and poor whites with the established middle class black community and more recently arrived southern migrants (especially in the wharfs, bars and illegal enterprises along the waterfront, where interaction between the races was often greatest) [...]

There's quite a lot to say about the African American community in Davenport, and certainly enough reliably sourced information online to fill out at least a short article. And there's every reason to believe that someone in Davenport can get much more information offline. Note also that the three Quad Cities newspaper reports available online are all very recent, indicating that access to the newspaper's archive should yield a truckload of well-sourced facts. The case that this subject is inherently flawed has yet to be made. Come to think of it, I've actually done enough research now that, whatever happens with this DRV, I can just create a new article from scratch as soon as this discussion is over -- unless there is enough comment from this point forward showing there's a consensus against doing so. Correct? Consider it fair warning. -- Noroton (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - from reading the AfD it strongly appears as if the actual situation was no consensus. That the closing admin wrote '...were strongly convincing' suggests that they ignored consensus and allowed their own opinion to rule; this is inappropriate behaviour by an admin. Clinkophonist (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the closer wrote that the "arguments over the necessity to produce reliable sources to prevent original research were convincing" (I don't see where he used the word "strongly") suggests nothing of the kind. The role of closers—admin or non-admin—is to evaluate the quality of arguments presented in discussions based on their knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So, to write that a particular argument was "convincing" means nothing more than that the particular argument had a solid grounding in relevant policy and/or guideline. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that it's clear that the WP:OR delete argument had no solid grounding in fact or policy at all, and the closing admin obviously made a mistake in finding it convincing. This is not hard to demonstrate: Look at the fifth paragraph of the text of WP:OR (emphasis added): If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about the topic. (This is the only part of WP:OR that addresses article deletion.) To make a convincing OR deletion argument you need to demonstrate that no reliable sources can be found on the topic of the article -- that doesn't require you to prove a negative, just show that a search was done or otherwise make a convincing argument that it doesn't look like reliable sources will ever be found (I'm actually doing that right now in another AfD). WP:DGFA says it's the closer's job to determine where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy (emphasis added). The decision on whether to delete on policy grounds, in cases like this one, is about the possibility of reliably sourcing the topic, not on whether the article conformed to various policies. This was pointed out in the AfD by T L Miles, at 17:27, 25 Feb" The question, is the _topic_ (not the existing article) something which _can_ be referenced" (boldface added to T L Miles' emphasis). It's clear that WP policy favored the Keep side and the Delete side here didn't have as good a grasp of policy, as shown by the plain words of even the policies cited by the Delete side. A mistake was made. Let's recognize it, correct it, learn from it and move on. -- Noroton (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's one thing to say that a closer made a mistake and another to suggest that he ignored consensus and imposed his preference on the discussion. My comment to Clinkophonist was intended to highlight this distinction.
        As for the quality of the arguments... Once an article is taken to AfD, the burden of proof lies on those who seek to keep it to show that the topic of the article is notable. Moreover, the role of the closer is to evaluate consensus based on information that is provided during the deletion discussion rather than to close the discussion based on his own research. In this case, sufficient proof—in the form of coverage of the topic in reliable sources—was not offered during the deletion discussion or in the article to show that the topic of "African Americans in Davenport, Iowa" is a distinct subject of academic/scientific or popular/cultural interest.
        That being said, I agree with you—in light of the results of the research you carried out—that a mistake was made (not by the closer, but by the discussants) and that it should be corrected (i.e. the article should be undeleted or recreated). Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Our difference of opinion on this is becoming pretty narrow, and I realize I've taken up a lot of space here, so this will be my last comment on this aspect. I agree that there's nothing here to call into question MBisanz' motives. There was no clear consensus here for the closer to either support or contradict, a situation that defaults to Keep unless policy is clearly on the Delete side. But there was no overwhelming, obvious, policy-conforming Delete argument. If MBisanz found one, he needed to explain it clearly. WP:N clearly states the burden of proof is on the Delete side for determining whether the subject of an article is notable. For WP:N, WP:OR, WP:RS, all cited by MBisanz in the close or on this page, objections are clearly removed from consideration once sources are put on the page, as WP:DGFA clearly states. If MBisanz found the sources inadequate, he needed to say so, because they appear to be obviously adequate (PhilKnight, above, disagrees about notability). I think the sources I found were just icing on the cake. DGFA also clearly puts the responsibility for following policy on the shoulders of the closing admin, not the participants in the discussion. The AfD system relies on closing admins to follow policy and to follow consensus only for judgment calls that policy doesn't cover. -- Noroton (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per the arguments of PhilKnight. Chillum 07:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn While I agree that Brrryce didn't seem to be exercising WP:AGF with his recall attempt, I can't see this AfD as being anything other than no consensus. I didn't get to see the article in question before it was deleted, but in reading both the AfD and DRV its pretty clear to me that there are sources to establish and address both WP:N and WP:RS. While the article may have a lack of what some editors would consider reliable sources at the time of the AfD (and the deletion comments aren't convincing IMO), this still does not discount the fact that reliable sources do appear to exist. Put simply, it seems to me the problems raised are editorial issues and are not something that can or should have been "fixed" with an administrative option such as deletion. Tothwolf (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and perhaps move: This Article has problems and needs work. BUT, the original argument for deleting this article was put forward by an editor who remarked that since there was no article on the San Francisco Gay community, this article should not exist. Then several red herrings about size of this community were put forward. Finally, the argument that positing the existence of an African American community in this place was "Original research" given that we only have references for historic African American centered events and demographic data for an African American population, and therefore we are inventing the concept of an African American "Community". Prior to deletion, I had proposed moving this to African American History of Davenport Iowa, (which would exactly match the title of a couple of articles) and at least one supporter of deletion had accepted this as a compromise. A couple of hours later the article was deleted. I hate to say this, but I really believe this whole thing was a political argument brought by folks who don't want articles of African American communities, and in their defense, believe that such articles would be political acts: that all coverage should be subsumed into the race neutral articles on Davenport, Iowa and History of Davenport, Iowa. Problem being, neither of these articles (worked on extensively by a couple of the people proposing deletion) even mention Black folks, let alone the Dred Scott thing, the importance and a destination in the Great Migration, the fact that the schools were only integrated by State and Federal enforcement in 1977, etc. Ignoring this context, while par for Wikipedia, explains the pile on of passionate and ever changing deletion arguments, I believe. Given this, I must question the motivation for deletion of this article, as opposed to a good edit which would cut out unreferenced material: something which would have taken an hour, rather than days of deletion debates. T L Miles (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In these kinds of cases, I try to avoid questioning the motivation of particular editors when evidence isn't clear. There can be a hundred reasons for making a mistake, and it's impossible to sort them out without getting into the head of the other person -- and here on Wikipedia all we have to go on is online conduct. I think it's better to point out that some actions, done even with the best intentions, could make reasonable people concerned. Someone who has good motivations and doesn't want to offend will take that message to heart (or refute it); someone with bad motivations or who doesn't care about offending others will eventually get tripped up, and there will be a WP record of your statement. And in the meantime we can all work together. You've already made a convincing case that WP policies allow for articles on topics that can be reliably sourced, and it's been proven that the reliable sources are available. As far as I can tell, there's nothing, not even DRV, to prevent Wikipedia from having a policy-compliant article on this topic now that we've got new sources. I'm sure all well-motivated Wikipedians will be happy with that. -- Noroton (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, undelete or recreate, relist – In a discussion populated on both sides by many arguments that are irrelevant to the notability of the topic (see e.g. WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:BIGNUMBER, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING on the "keep" side and WP:JNN, WP:NOTBIGENOUGH on the "delete" side), the decision was within the closer's discretion. However, in light of the new information provided by Noroton, the article definitely should have another chance. So, I endorse the closer's evaluation of the consensus in the AfD, but think that the article should be recreated from scratch or undeleted and relisted for discussion. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Personally I am not convinced there was a consensus to delete in the AFD, but regardless considering the evidence produced by Noroton above to me it certainly no longer seems to be the correct closure so think it should be overturned and let the community decide based on the new evidence. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Welcomeunclesam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

At the least, this is no consensus; if vote counting (yes, I know, evil, but for discussion...) there were 5 keeps to 3 opposes. I don't think that is a consensus to delete. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I feel that JPG-GR made the correct call here. One of those keep votes does not even provide a rationale and so can be summarily dismissed. After looking at the discussion, it is clear that no one could respond to Black Falcon's argument of "What if it were a Hamas recruitment picture?" Perhaps this could be modified for something for WP:USA though. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template was aimed at anons in particular which is not exactly the best group to recruit into a project. The image still survives, so if the project wants to make a template aimed at the general public who show interest in their project, it's fine with me. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as deleting admin None of the arguments for "keep" are convincing. And, as NW said, Black Falcon's Hamas argument was damning. JPG-GR (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Relist - Yes, I know that the keep !votes were unconvincing to some or most, but there is still the issue of consensus, which, at least from my point of view, was not reached. For the sake of an uncontroversial deletion, let's just relist it so that we can reach consensus.--Res2216firestar 04:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-close. Out of respect to the participants, and to help the casual and future observers, close again with a decent rationale, explaining why the keep votes are to be discounted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse though the template was not intended as an expression of American militarism, the image certainly was, and its original significance is still widely known. Correct decision, but needs to be replaced. DGG (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as delete, though I do agree with SmokeyJoe that a closing statement should have been provided. This does, on first glance, look like a close-run discussion due to the large number of keep votes; but the fact is not a single compelling or policy-based argument was provided to support keeping this template, and several very good reasons to delete it were. Hence, the outcome definitely looks to me like the correct one, but as with any discussion that could be interpreted as a different outcome I think it would have been best to elaborate on the reasons behind the close. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse only because I probably would have leaned towards "no consensus" myself. However, the arguments to delete the template were highly convincing, and the arguments to keep were, in order: valid argument, WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL/too much work, and WP:NOHARM. Four of the arguments were invalid per WP:ATA, and the one remaining was well contested by the delete arguments. It's a valid closure. Add a rationale if you really care, but I think a link to this discussion would serve as sufficient explanation. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as per above argument.Smallman12q (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment certainly less offensive that various userboxes that have been kept around here; I think that people were just upset about how this template was being used - if it were used as a userbox, which it could be, I'd assume that everyone advocating deletion would maintain their position (WP:AGF), and we now have a new stake in the ground as to what should or should not be allowed in user expressions of opinion. When this deletion review closes as endorse, as it will, we should re-evaluate all potentially offensive or militaristic expressions of opinion and delete them - one about the death penalty being used more often being tops on the list. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a massive difference between a userbox (which is an expression of the opinion of the user, viewable only to those who choose to look up that user) and this, which was a Welcome template; intended specifically to be sent to other, new users. I'm not sure how you can expect to form a precedent about userboxes from this DRV. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, you don't seem to object to this content only on how it's used; is that a valid reason to delete something? That's a surprising expansion of WP:DELETE, that ought to be documented somewhere. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is not that the template has a picture of Uncle Sam (with its implicit endorsement of the United States) but rather that the picture was coupled with a message welcoming a new user to Wikipedia. It was not a userbox and couldn't have been used as such. Eluchil404 (talk)

• Endorse At TFD I would have said keep, but DRV isn't XFD_2 and the closing admin followed proper process. MBisanz ^talk 05:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]