23 November 2009

psyBNC

psyBNC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I see 5 keep requests and 4 delete requests, yet the article was still removed. The delete requests were made by JBsupreme, Joe Chill, and Theserialcomma, plus Miami33139 who raised the AfD who are all clearly involved in a case against tothwolf, which is clearly a COI and does not assume good faith to those impartial to this case. If these were ignored, the article would have been kept.

Hm2k (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On reading the discussion I agree with Sandstein that the strength of the arguments was on the "delete" side. However, I am perplexed by Sandstein's refusal to userfy the article, which strikes me as bizarre. I hope he will explain.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment: I didn't participate in the AFD to attack Tothwolf. I have been participating in software AFDs for over a year. Most of my participation is in AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I was checking sources and giving the historical background for this software. There was a mass deletion of IRC related articles going on at that time and I remember that the tone was hostile, to a point where it was pointless to discuss and work on issues together. When one article that I worked on was dragged into AfD (possibly as a sort of revenge [1]), I stopped participating. However, you can see an old article version here with 14 references in online and print media. Cheers! -- 83.254.210.47 (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. One of the keep arguments was to WP:IAR, despite the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Citing a doc file isn't really "non-trivial coverage", either, so the closing administrator was well within his/her bounds to find reason to delete. JBsupreme (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Due to your involvement in the case against tothwolf, I don't think your endorsement should be counted. Further more 12 references is not just "a doc file" and IAR does not give anyone permission to be ignorant. --Hm2k (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD is not a vote. (I am involved in the Arbcom case. I don't see that as important to independently judging this article on its own merits.) Miami33139 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a direct correlation between issues with User:tothwolf and Wikipedia:WikiProject_IRC articles being deleted. Articles should be deleted on their own merit, not to get back at another user. Your point of view on this subject is clearly not neutral. --Hm2k (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are accusing the discussion participants of bad faith. This is not a user conduct RfC. Sandstein judged this article on its merits. Miami33139 (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: only one of the keep votes made any attempt to establish notability, and the closing admin was justified in deciding that the other keep votes could safely be discounted. I don't often agree with closing rationales that say (in a context where "votes" seem equally split) that one side was "stronger" than the other, but in this instance that conclusion seems perfectly reasonable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Rosen

Alison Rosen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The subject is an accomplished and well-cited journalist and tv personality. The article was completely rewritten since the first deletion to include legitimate references, yet I feel it was deleted because such differences were not noted by the deleting party Karpaydm (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Because we are a collaborative encyclopaedia, Wikipedia benefits from providing good faith users with FairProcess on demand. In this case I do not see any reason to deny it, so I will run with restore and relist in order that Karpaydm may see that his rewritten article, which at first glance appeared impressively-sourced, is not deleted without a supporting consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I nominated it for deletion, both times. I used AfD the second time because the second version was indeed rather different from the first, and I was surprised to see it go via G4. Obviously I think it should be deleted (the vast majority of references were to her own writings, not people writing about her) -- and while I'm not keen to see people spend more time on an article I don't think has a future, I'm not averse to having it done via AfD. So: indifferent. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks guys for giving the page another chance. Is there something I do now (like re-create the article)? I couldn't find a cached version... when I looked at page history, my original addition was not available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karpaydm (talk • contribs) 14:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until the DRV is over, please. The administrator who closes this may (if there is a consensus to do so) place a copy of the deleted article in your userspace for you to work on.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Invalid G4 deletion, there appears to be no dispute that the most recent version was substantially different from the version previously deleted after AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]