Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 22: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:31, 24 September 2006 editAaron (talk | contribs)3,411 edits →[], [], [], []: comment← Previous edit Revision as of 22:35, 24 September 2006 edit undoArbustoo (talk | contribs)12,546 edits →[]: deleteNext edit →
Line 301: Line 301:
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Bwithh above. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC) *'''Endorse deletion''' per Bwithh above. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
* '''Overturn'''. No consensus = no consensus. Second sentence of closer's statement indicates strong feeling/bias on subject matter that raises doubts of his/her fitness to close these types of nominations. Whenever those doubts are palpable, result should be overturned. --] 22:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC) * '''Overturn'''. No consensus = no consensus. Second sentence of closer's statement indicates strong feeling/bias on subject matter that raises doubts of his/her fitness to close these types of nominations. Whenever those doubts are palpable, result should be overturned. --] 22:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per JzG. ] 22:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


==== ] ==== ==== ] ====

Revision as of 22:35, 24 September 2006

< September 21 September 23 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

22 September 2006

Kept woman, Dr. E. von Wolf, Kootenai Valley Press, Portal gun

Deleted by JzG. Should they have been deleted without any kind of discussion or vote? I know that some things are speedy deleted, but why were these? The only message I got was this Trevor Saline 00:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion, keep deleted. From the front page of WP:DRV: "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so." That sounds like it fits your situation for all four articles. Also from the front page of WP:DRV: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning." --Aaron 01:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that there was not a deletion debate. My understanding is that you have processes that you follow to ensure that there is a debate, unless they fit into the narrow "speedy" criteria. If there was a debate that would have been fine, I and other could have contributed but there wasn't. That is the reason I have raised this. Is it correct that they were deleted without any debate? Trevor Saline 10:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Admins have the discretion to delete single-line articles on sight. Your best option would be to take the few extra minutes to write actual stubs when creating new articles. Why not write three or four sentences for each of these topics instead of just one, and eliminate the problem entirely? --Aaron 22:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I deleted these as part of a series of extremely short stubs created by the user, and leaft an explanation on his Talk page. Rationale in each case:
  • Is this a valid reason to delete without debate? I can't see anything that says so. 10:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Dr. E von Wolf: One sentence, facts already stated at spinach, title incorrect per WP:MOS and claim to fame is speculative anyway
  • Is this a valid reason to delete without debate? I can't see anything that says so. 10:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • See WP:CSD. Empty article, lacks context. No references, speculative. Have you ever considered writign articles of more thanone sentence in length? You have now expended around ten times the effort arguing over this as you did on the article. Guy 21:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Kootenai Valley Press: One sentence, lacked context or evidence of significance
  • What context was lacking? "One sentence" is not a criteria for deletion without debate and, as far as I can see, "significance" is not a relevant criteria for a newspaper 10:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • See WP:SNOW. Try creating an article with at least a full pararaph, including some references. Also consider putting more effort into your articles than into arguing about them in project space. Guy 21:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Portal gun: Redirect to speculative article on future game, no evidence the term will ever require a redirect
The creator's User page has a "look at all the articles I created" list, pretty much all of them being one-sentence stubs like this. A couple of Foo is a town in Bar style entries, that kind of thing (see Wust). Flat-panel display was a redirect to television which I turned into a dab for TFT and plasma display, but have now redirected to flat panel display after a quick search. So: a slight excess of enthusiasm on this editor's part, and a failure on mine to give adequate explanation due to time pressures. Guy 08:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it a problem that I have a list of articles that I have created on my user page? I have seen other people do that. Many of the articles have been expanded by others. Is there a policy that these articles should be deleted just because they are short? I have looked through the speedy criteria and can't see anything there. Apparently you guys don't even delete hoaxes without a vote, so why a short article. What problem is that solving? Also, even if I do have a list on my page, is that how you judge each article, or do you judge them all on their own merits? Trevor Saline 10:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Like I said on your talk page, with over a million articles already extant, it's a good idea to check before starting that the subject is not already covered, and to make sure that you have enough information for more than a one sentence stub. The debate on these articles is now several tens of times the size of the articles themselves. Guy 15:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Why does that mean that they should have been deleted without a debate? There is nothing in the speedy deletion criteria that says articles should be deleted more readily because we have a lot of them. Is this just your opinion, or are you following a policy/process? Also, please explain the relevance of you mentioning the list on my user page. Trevor Saline 18:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Undelete portal gun as a notable term that should redirect. --NE2 20:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A newspaper is not covered by the "asserting significance" speedy criteria, and the "spinach guy" article did have an assertion of notability (if there is an assertion, it should not be speedy deleted). Trevor Saline 09:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see "Dicdef" is not a valid criteria. If we are talking about intangibles such as the "spirit" of a criteria, wouldn't it be better if others could see the article and debate it (e.g. AFD)? Trevor Saline 09:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A dicdef in itself isn't a reason to speedy delete, but in the normal course of events it would be transwikied to Wiktionary. However in this case there is no point as it does not add anything to the already existing entry. What I mean by the spirit is that it nearly meets the criteria of the criteria listed and it is clearly not an encylopaedia entry so would not stand a chance at WP:AFD (see also WP:SNOW).Thryduulf 10:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • How does it meet A1? Limited content is not a criteria so I assume you mean "little or no context". Could you elaborate on what kind of contextual information was missing, that prevents it from being expanded? Also, regarding A3 - why does it meet any of the criteria? It was more than a rewording, wasn't a communication attempt and was more than a link elsewhere. If it fails to meet an intangible like the "spirit" of the criteria, shouldn't it be seen and debated by others rather than just deleted? Trevor Saline 09:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It meets A1 because there is no context to the article, and although it technically does not just rephrase the title it does not give you any significant information about it. Why do we need an article on it? What sort of newspaper is it? When was it established? Has it got any notable journalists? Has it won any awards? Has it been involved in any controversies? Has it broken any major international news stories? Did any major journalist start their career here? It makes no claims to notability and has no sources - it doesn't even have any statements needing sources. See The Western Star for a good article on what appears to be a similar-sized newspaper. Thryduulf 10:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
If I were to be bold, how would I know that you wouldn't delete it again (before you apparently said so now)? --NE2 08:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Trevor, you're not helping your case by responding to all other editors here to tell them their comments are wrong. Just a thought. >Radiant< 10:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm only trying to debate this - by responding to the input. Is that the wrong thing to do here? Should I be debating it somewhere else? Trevor Saline 11:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Although they technically might not have been speedy deletable, none of the articles would stand a chance at AfD (it would be hard to write a nomination reason that was not longer than the article) so there is no point in wasting everybody's time and effort. Your time would be much better spent collecting information to write at least a decent stub article on the topics - from WP:STUB "A stub is an article that is too short to be genuinely useful, but not so short as to provide no useful information. In general, it must be long enough to at least define the article's title, which generally means 3 to 10 short sentences.". Thryduulf 10:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Who gets to decide that these wouldn't stand a chance at AFD? What criteria do they use for deciding this? Do short articles that are nominated as AFD always get deleted, or is the subject of the article an important consideration? If the correct policy was not followed here, I would like these article to be restored so that they can be reviewed by people who are not administrator and debated properly (my understanding is that, once deleted, only administrators can see the old content). At least, could somebody please give me the content so that I can restore them myself (and not delete them until such deletion has been debated)? Trevor Saline 11:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Knowing what doesn't stand a chance at AfD comes only with experience - I've been on Misplaced Pages since late 2004 and an administrator since mid-2005, in this time I've seen countless AfDs and I've got a good idea of things that just wont survive. Take a look at some old AfD pages and have a look at what gets deleted and what doesn't, and the reasoning behind people's reccomendations. It is extremely rare that very short "sub-stubs" get kept as is. A few get siginificant expansion, but this is not common, and even some that do get expanded still don't get kept. Some will get merged into other articles, but in the case of these articles this wouldn't happen:
          • Kept woman was a dictionary definition and so doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages - anyone who doesn't know what it means can look it up at Wiktionary, where it already exists.
          • Dr. E. von Wolf - all the information in the article is already in the Spinach article so there is nothing extra to merge.
          • Kootenai Valley Press - again all the information in this article is already in the Kootenay disamib aritcle.
        • Regarding the content, any user can request that the content of a deleted article be temporarily undeleted if they want to merge the content elsewhere or check that a deletion was correct. Admins will then look to see if this is apropriate, in this case there is nothing worth undeleting because there is no point - all the content already exists elsewhere and is nothing that cannot be recreated from scratch in less than a minute. Everybody who has commented so far agrees that these deletions were poper, and has explained in great detail why. I cannot see that there is anything to be gained by them spending a few days on AfD just to be deleted again. Thryduulf 12:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
          • None of the reasons given match the speedy criteria, or at least it is debatable that they match the criteria. I don't think that an administrator has the right to decide that items should be deleted/stay deleted just because they believe it won't succeed in an AFD - if there is such a policy please direct me to it. From what I have read about the speedy criteria, they should be applied very narrowly and if there is any doubt an article should be debated at AFD. You have already stated that they may not "technically" meet AFD, so surely there must be some doubt and the articles should at least go to AFD. One of the articles that was deleted has already been recreated as part of this review. I don't want to just recreate these articles when there is strong feeling that they should remain deleted, and would rather convince people that these should go to AFD. But, the only reasons that people are giving me for keeping them deleted are down to things such as "the spirit" of the criteria, saving people's time and IAR (raised by JzG outside of this thread). If these don't match the speedy criteria then doesn't it naturally follow that they should be restored , at least temporarily. Trevor Saline 14:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Regarding existing comments, my understanding of this process is that it decides whether the correct process/policy was followed - not whether the item should be on Misplaced Pages. I can't see a strong argument that the correct process/policy (i.e. speedy deletion) was followed here - rather that it wasn't followed but a small number of administrators think that the articles wouldn't survive an AFD discussion. Surely that it the wrong thing to argue - if the correct process/policy wasn't followed, they should be undeleted. Trevor Saline 14:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

So make a better article instead of filling talk pages with arguments. Howdoesthiswo 16:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • What has that got to do with whether these articles should be restored and debated properly? What the correct process/policy followed here, or not? If not, these articles should be undeleted. Isn't the point of this page to debate this? I am not trying to "fill talk pages with arguments" I am trying to debate this properly. Trevor Saline 17:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Misplaced Pages is not a beaurocracy. Yes, process is important but not the detriment of the encyclopaedia, and there is no point going through process just for the sake of it. Of the four pages concerned, people who have chosen to comment here have agreed with you about one of them and it is now a working redirect. Everybody but you agrees that the other pages are not worth undeleting and sending to AfD, primarily because it would be a waste of time. If they had been sent to AfD they would have been deleted, so the outcome is the same. Also, remember that all the time that people spend here, at AfD, etc. is time they are not spending writing or improving articles. **Particularly with regard to the newspaper, if you had invested as much time and energy into researching more information about it as you have this discussion then we could have a decent article on it by now. Thryduulf 21:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion of the first three. No opinion on portal gun. Tom Harrison 21:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn kept woman, overturn and list Kootenai Valley Press, endorse Von Wolf, no opinion on portal gun. Kept woman could easily be expanded, and Kootenai was, at best, a contested A7 (which should go to AfD) and can't possibly qualify for a snowballing if that was even legitimate. Judging by the rest, Von Wolf was probably a valid A7, and portal gun i have no clue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nandini Rajendran

Discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nandini Rajendran

Votes were 2-2. But the consensus, including the comments, was to keep the article not to delete it.

I only stumbled upon the AfD now. Nobody from the Coimbatore area (including myself) seems to have seen or participated in this AfD. Hence I am listing this article here.

I am from the Coimbatore region and can vouch for the validity of this article. The person discussed here is indeed a social worker known for her work related to women's issues. And she was the Chairperson of the TamilNadu Social Welfare Board. Her work has been well covered in the local media and television (I have seen at least two of her interviews on the Doordarshan - the state-run television network.) In fact she was so well-known that when PepsiCola made its debut in Coimbatore, she and G.K.Moopanar (who was known all over India as one of the most senior Congress leaders - please see G. K. Vasan) were the dignitaries that were asked to inaugurate the release of Pepsi and 7-Up. I don't see any reason to delete this article.

Let me also quote User:Hornplease who commented on the AfD since he/she has come up with some interesting information that I did not know previously:

"It's not as if we totally lack the ability to verify anything. We can at least verify that the body she is supposed to have headed, the Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Board, definitely exists, and in 2003 had a budget of Rs. 5,58,17,90,000, or US$119,946,653.07, which is a non-trivial amount in India. They also are well-known as the progenitors of the wildly successful Mid-day meal scheme that's been discussed ad nauseum in NGO circles. Some notability there, perhaps."

Also, I urge members to be considerate of the differences when in comes to judging pages related to India. For instance, many big Indian institutions (such as the Social Welfare Board under question), in spite of their actual social footprints, may not even have a homepage. That should not be misconstrued as "insignificant" or "unverifiable." Likewise many big Indian personalities cannot be googled. Try, for instance, googling any past Union minister - you typical won't get any hits. If verifiability only means "google-able" then more than half the pages on India would be questionable.

Thanks for all your time. And hope this page is restored.

My vote is to Overturn the original decision and to undelete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TriColor (talk • contribs) 19:41, September 22, 2006 (UTC)

*Endorse closure, keep deleted. As the closing admin said, WP:V is nonnegotiable. And given that this is the English-language Misplaced Pages, it is preferable that those sources be in English. In any case, regardless of the language, WP:V is clear: "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Also, looking at one of the remaining copies of the article , I must say that it was a WP:NPOV-violating mess ("renowned and popular"? "fondly referred to"? Says who?) that arguably wouldn't have survived AfD even if every single sentence had a separate reference. Finally, I will note that being named an honorary chairperson of the Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Board is just that, an honor. It does not mean she heads that board, or controls one single rupee of its budget. --Aaron 01:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Changing vote based on new information; see below. --Aaron 03:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn and Undelete Seems like a fairly innocuous article was deleted without reaching consensus to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallasathena (talk • contribs) 22:51, September 22, 2006 (UTC)
  • overturn and undelete The afd shows 2 votes for keep, 2 votes for delete, all the 3 comments leaning towards keep. Consensus should have been to keep rather than delete. HorseShoe 04:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice against creating a properly sourced article. I will userfy this if anyone wants to work on it. AFD is not a vote, and Sam's closure is precisely correct per policy and therefore per process. Claims like "renowned and popular" are always hard to verify, and individual social workers rarely have sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to be verifiably neutral, so this may well prove challenging. I suspect that if the subject had been of more obvious significance, with sources therefore more likely to be available, Sam may well have closed it differently. Here the fact that none are cited may be taken as a reasonable indication that none exist. Maybe this should be covered at Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Board, which is probably sufficiently verifiable. Guy 08:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I note that sources for her being the head of the Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Board have now been presented. Whoopee-doo. I still think that (a) the article as deleted was not properly sourced, and I will userfy it if anyone wants to work on it to fix that; (b) that the article contained egregious editorialising and (c) her notability seems to be entirely bound to the Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Board, which I note is still redlinked. So, as I say, I am happy to userfy if someone wants to take the few worthwhile bits of the old article, but I suggest that any new article is on the organisation, not the person, in the first instance. Guy 07:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and uphold deletion I'm with JzG- if something is unverifiable, it doesn't matter if there are 100 "votes" to keep it. I would have no problem with recreation, but if and only if proper sourcing exists. -- Kicking222 16:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Undelete. WP:V is non-negotiable, but too many people believe that the internet is the only source of citations. In this case in particular, I think the claims to notability are high enough that the article should be given time to stand while people attempt to locate offline verification. The closure was only doubtfully correct, in my opinion: the question of online verifiability was raised and, in my opinion, insufficiently answered. "More obvious significance" is a little hard to understand - please google "Mid-day meal scheme", ideally in g-scholar. None are cited is not a "reasonable indication" that none exist in all cases. That statement is precisely what WP:Bias discusses. Further, 'honorary chairpersons' have different levels of responsibility in India, depending on the board in question. What is strictly means is that they are not paid for their effort; it is sometimes useful to not be seen to be holding an 'office of profit'. (Google that if you dont believe me.) Hornplease 00:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Undelete per Horseshoe. It should have been closed as NO Consensus. See here for example http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Currier_House The article was closed as No Consensus. Another example of No Consensus was http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cabot_House I agree that Verifiability is an (the most) important issue. See here for making sure that she was the former chairperson of the Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Board

(3rd Link is subscription site) The problem was very simple. THe search on her name had been conducted with "Nandini" Rajendran, where as she has been covered by the media as Nandhini Rajendran. This is the problem in Indian Language names. Please note that Google (or Web) does not in any way ascertain notability. This should be undeleted for the simple reason (the reason it was deleted) that the article has been now verified  Doctor Bruno Talk 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Relist. The DRV instructions above are quite clear: The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. As Hornplease and Doctorbruno have presented us with new information, the only logical thing to do at this point is to temporarily restore the article (under her properly spelled name) and rerun the AfD. If, during the AfD, the article is properly cleaned up (e.g. the WP:NPOV issues would still remain), then it will survive the AfD and that will be the end of it. --Aaron 03:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: To Doctorbruno: While I realize that English is not your native language, I must say that I found your note on my user talk page to be somewhat offensive. First, it is clear from my first vote above that WP:V was not my only contention about this article. Second, you do not have the right to "expect" any particular vote from any Misplaced Pages editor on any matter whatsoever. I will consider the evidence and I will vote as my conscience guides me to vote. --Aaron 03:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
My remarks above were interpreting the original information that I provided at AfD, not new information. Please do not misrepresent my comments. I merely suggested that when citations are thin on the ground (a) people should understand why they might be and (b) make a little effort to check up on other things, such as the definition of honorary., (Which, essentially, means without payment), and the importance of the schemes undertaken by the Board in question.
Finally, while I didnt make the point here, anyone who reads AfDs on a regular basis must know that Arabic, Persian, and Sanskrit names are rendered into the roman script with little or no consistency. About Aaron's vote above, he pointed to Wp:V, NPOV - which, as has been established a million times, should not affect a subject's notability - and the definition of 'honorary', addressed above.
And, since we're doing dictionaries, someone look up 'expects', please - it can be to "look forward to the probable occurrence of", "to consider reasonable", or "to require". Isnt it a violation of WP:AGF to choose the worst of those options? Hornplease 04:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:I'll be more than happy to change my vote back to Endorse closure, keep deleted if my explanation does not meet with your approval, Hornplase. --Aaron 17:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The AFD was closed properly; people voting Afd have no obligation to hunt for obscure sources. The burden of sourcing lies with those who created the article- and no sources were provided at the close of the Afd. Now we have sources, and so the main objection of the original AFd has been met. As for the script asserion, it is not unreasonable for an AFD voter to expect that at least one source, if sources exist spells the name in English the way is it spelled in the article. As it is, the article was simply mispelled- so I see no negligence in the part of the original opposers of the AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisblue (talk • contribs) 09:43, September 24, 2006 (UTC)

Antoinette Nora Claypoole

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Antoinette Nora Claypoole

Formatting a nomination for user:Riversinhereyes who left the original request in the Content Review section by accident. No reasons yet given but some of the comment left here might apply. I abstain. Rossami (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Acting as her Advocate I had posted the following at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Contested_prod and Antoinette saw fit to try and contribute with her limited knowledge of Misplaced Pages tools:
Antoinette Nora Claypoole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Mistaken as a non-notable vanity article and summarily deleted. The subject has valid verifiable credentials and intial draft was not written by her. When the article was deleted, Antoinette requested Advocacy. She would have taken part in the deletion discussion and pursue proper measures under Misplaced Pages policy to get the article re-instated, but is not as technically apt as she would like to be and has found the task intimidating. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 05:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, her Advocacy request listing is posted at Misplaced Pages:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/September_2006/antoinettenora for those who wish for more context. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 02:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, As suggested by Steve C. Thadman in AMA assistance, I am requesting a review of the deletion of a biography posted in my name many months ago. I have shared my concerns with Thadman/Steve C. and will now post a rebuttal to your deicsion. Were the deletion simply based on a belief that I wrote an autobio--I understand. My used name/account was in fact used. Thus, here is the information I shared with Thadman: As I am rookie to all this, I am not certain of the protocal in this forum, but here are the original posts when I requested assistance in this "dispute":

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

  • Answer: mis information: my biography has been deleted based on false information. the decision to pull my article, a bio re; antoinette nora claypoole, was based on incorrect, slanderous information. this type of attack has happened to me before, at which time i received advice from an attorney.

following that advice, i am attempting to clear up the erroneous information which seems to be circulating about me.

Here are a few:

1. the bio was NOT an autobio. my login was used by a member of the a literary press for which i work

2. i am NOT a vanity press writer. my work has been published by MANY various sources, my first book published by a small press in Vermont (now no longer in business). A second book considered for publication by Univ. of Az. Press (the contract was later cancelled) Here is a list of my credentials:

  • 1.
    • 1. i am listed in the directory of Poets & Writers of NY, NY. this is an organization which does EXTENSIVE research into the publishing credits of authors before we are listed. they are probably the most presitigious publication in the literary "industry. their policies are quite strict and even so, they recently chose to include me in their directory
    • 2. my literary/freelance work has been published/presented in the following places (NONE of which are "vanity presses"):
      • 1. Salt River Review
      • 2. West Wind Review
      • 3. Raven Chronicles (upcoming this Fall)
      • 4. Sentient Times (regional monthly)
      • 5. Clear Actions (Peace newsletter)
      • 6. IMDiversity (online Native American Journal...due to political reasons--ie i was working w/American Indian Movement(AIM) leaders--my work was pulled from all archives on that site. I have hard copies to "prove" that i was writer for them for over 3 years before the attack on me
      • 7. Ojibwe News...interview w/Vernon Bellecourt AIM leader
      • 8. PACIFICA Radio, KPFK Los Angeles

the list continues onward. the reason for deletion was suggested as my not being a "legitimate" author/writer. as you can see from the partial list above, this is NOT the case. further the bio written for wiki was written with ONLY outside sources quoted per my writings. ie reviews of my first book etc etc.

i trust that as you research my credentials further, you can see that your deletion was a case of misinformation.

you may view my C.V. (curriculum vitae) if you would like, as well. to assure you of my literary and political contributions to writing. visit: www.antoinettecv.blogspot.com. for viewing only.

further, my first book, about Anna Mae Pictou Aquash literally BROKE OPEN the case for searching for her murderers. It was the first publication to mention the names of now accused killers. etc etc.

i am hoping perhaps your advocacy team can review with fairness all the materials.

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

  • Answer:i contacted and had a discussion with a wikipedia advocate, David Monniaux. he explained why the article was deleted and sent me a copy of the debate. it was full of erroneous information about me. which ended in your pulling my article/bio. the ticket # re; that discussion is: Ticket#2006090410001811. i have an email copy of the debate if you'd like me to send it to you.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • 'Answer:reinstatement of article.. a bio of myself as american author and poet. alloutside sources were provided on your page per your rules, the page was up on wiki for nearly a year and suddenly in august 06 someone insisted on deletiion. i challenge that deletion and suggest the cause is based on false/mis information. the contents of the debate were shared with me by david m (see above) and i was able to read first hand a list of false statements made about me. those lies convinced others who are less informed that i did not "deserve" to be in wikipedia. i am requesting a reconsideration of that arbitrary decision.

PLEASE NOTE: I would like to point out, for those who seem to be looking solely at my first book, the nature of distribution of that first title was extensive (see notes below). For authors, having a distributor is huge. It is not so much the press which publishes the book, per se, rather, who distributes the book. In this case, INGRAM and Clear Light Books, Sante Fe. Both quite well known in the publishing world. Amazon.com, by the way, is NOT considered a "legitimate" distribution zone.

Also, it is important, as noted above, to realize that my work stretches beyond research/work surrounding the murder of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash. Though that certainly continues to be a personal concern of mine (many friends/family still involved/effected by the controversy), my work extends far beyond my first book. Which is the entire point of my requesting the deletion be reversed. There is a long history of publishing, there are other books AND again, for those with the narrow focus of my first book (and relying soley on GOOGLE for information about me--which is not where alot of us writers necessarily publish), my writing credits are extensive.

Now, for those who have the need to consider my first book, (I have a second published, with 2 more circulating, one being considered for Oregon Literary Arts fellowship funding), it might help to know that one the press which published Who Would Unbraid Her Hair; the legend of annie mae (Anam Cara Press, 1999. distributed by INGRAM books and Clear Light Books, Santa Fe, N.M.) was a small press in Vermont, begun by an activist, poet and editor of IMDiversity, Native American Village. The editor, Jordan S. Dill, was an established writer in his own right. Whether or not he continues to publish books really should not be the debate here, I imagine. He began the press with my first book as his first title. The important thing is that the book was NOT self promoted, nor self published.

Perhaps this will help those considering the review. BTW Who ARE you considering the deletion? Is it anyone who can come and vote? I am just curious about how all this works. Thanks for your time. :~)

antoinette.


  • Overturn and Undelete Seems like an authentic writer's bio. Vanity is a subjective and arbitrary topic to prove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallasathena (talk • contribs) 23:02, September 22, 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, unanimous valid AfD, her only book was published by a website operator, not a publishing company, total self promotion, this article had nothing valid going for it. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Just to bring to your attention that some of what you state is factually incorrect: The decision was both too brief for Antoinette to respond or even defend herself, the vote consisted of only 4 people and the tally, itself, was not unanimous. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 02:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, AfD was valid per process, there is no evidence that this author's books have ever been published by a reputable publisher, the publisher of her supposed main work is Anam Cara Press, which Google seems to think does not exist. No sales rank from Amazon, and available only from external parties; all sources appear to be blogs or self-promotion. Vanity may be subjective and hard to prove, but evidence of the significance of this subject is elusive and the involvement of single purpose account Antoinettenora (talk · contribs) does seem to make a very compelling circumstantial case. Note that this account has spent most of her energies on Anna Mae Aquash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in which there is evidence of vanity spamming as well, makes this an unambiguous delete for my money. Guy 08:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and Relist AFD ran for five days, the standard length of time. The delete opiner Ardith010 should have been discounted as a single purpose account, as all three of the user's undeleted contributions are to this AFD. The last opiner has WP:VAIN as a basis for deletion, however that page says "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of notability is. That leaves two delete opiners and a neutral among the established opiners making legitimate arguments, which is weak enough for me to be unsure what the right answer is. Discussions about the merit of the article subject belong at AfD, so I recommend relisting, albeit not strongly. GRBerry 20:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Zoe above. Tom Harrison 21:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Finger Lakes Christian School

Discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Finger Lakes Christian School

Votes were approximately 12-12. The closer's argument that it is "absurb" to believe that wikipedia should attempt to cover all established secondary-level schools is itself unreasonable. Kappa 17:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn. This school is interesting because it represents another rejection of the public school system by evangelical Christians who are willing to accept the disadvantages of a smaller school in exchange for its perceived superiority overall. I do not think that creating articles on high schools should be a priority for Misplaced Pages, but I support keeping articles on high school that happen to be created. I wonder if the school offers advanced placement courses in evolutionary biology. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn as an invalid closure lacking consensus to delete; closing administrator ignored discussion and has a known bias against school articles on Misplaced Pages. Silensor 17:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Nothing is automatically notable simply for existing, Cyde is correct to give less weight to kneejerking and armwaving. --Sam Blanning 17:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. In addition to the points that Sam Blanning makes, it is worth noting that AFDs are not votes, and that other than saying "This school, like all schools, is decidedly notable", this article had no claim of notability nor anything that made it worthy of having an article outside of one for the district. Finally, administrators are not only encouraged but required to exercise personal discretion when closing an AFD. --Kuzaar 17:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Kuzaar. "All schools are notable" isn't an argument, and it's perfectly valid to discount opinions along those lines. Guettarda 17:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The same can be said for those who hold the opinion that schools are not notable. The purpose of this discussion is to review process, not notability. Silensor 17:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • How was the process invalid? As far as I can tell your only argument has been that 'didn't count the votes right', but since it's not a vote anyway, that objection is invalid. --Cyde Weys 17:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
        • We're not just "tallying votes" here. My concerns are clearly addressed in my opening comments, thank you Cyde. Silensor 17:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
        • The burden of proof is on the person who asserts. When someone says that they do not think a subject is notable, they are not making a positive claim, merely stating that they are not convinced by the provided evidence. I think Cyde acted correctly in this situation. --Kuzaar 18:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "The same can be said for those who hold the opinion that schools are not notable" - I quite agree (with the caveat that I was not addressing the opinion, just the argument; I'm presuming that's what you mean?) A bad argument is a bad argument, and I think it's within process to put less weight on such an argument, from whichever side. Guettarda 18:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Without addressing my thoughts on whether it should have been deleted or not (my comments in the AfD are clear enough) it certainly does seem that the closing Admin used their own judgement and essentially ignored the debate, which is a pretty obvious no concensus. The schools are unnotable argument is not really stronger than This is sourced, encyclopaedic content which no policy or guideline advocates deleting as an argument. In some cases where the editors don't have concensus, but one side presents a much stronger argument, Admins should be exercising thier own judgement. But here that's clearly not the case. WilyD 17:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. An obvious no consensus close. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment AfDs that have "no consensus" or a difficult to determine consensus is precisely an area where admins are given some leeway to decide what to do. Saying that you would have closed it as no consensus does not make Cyde's closure invalid nor does it make his closure somehow out of process. JoshuaZ 17:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • "no consensus" is entirely different than "difficult to determine consensus." In this case, there was no consensus, there were no incredibly good or bad arguments tossed out there, and the close, as phrased, almost comes across as if it was designed to make a point when the closer starts things off by saying "the boundary of notability on schools has to be drawn somewhere." --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Process was followed, this is well within admin discretion. JoshuaZ 17:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) (full disclosure I was arguing strongly for deletion in the AfD). JoshuaZ 18:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Within the admin discretion as AfD is not a vote. Whispering 18:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted per Kuzaar and Whispering. --Aaron 19:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. No good argument was made for deletion, nor was there a consensus to delete. --Myles Long 19:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn "Small" is not a deletion criterion. ~ trialsanderrors 20:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. This is a private lower school with only 75 students, the contents of the article and certainly its neutrality cannot be verified from reliable secondary sources, because there is no evident non-trivial neutral coverage of the enterprise. Substitute "school" for "society" and it would have been speedily deleted. Cyde is right: nothing is encyclopaedically notable by virtue of simply existing, and a diary date plus a quote fomr the principal simply is not a reliable or sufficient source for an encycloapedia article. What, precisely, is the claim to notability supposedly established in the AfD? Other than having the S-word in the name? Guy 20:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted per Guy &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Per Misplaced Pages:Consensus: "Misplaced Pages's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith." I can't speak for Clyde, but I believe "all schools are notable" is such a position that should be discounted in determining consensus. -AED 21:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Can a position held by (apparently) a large number of people really be considered eccentric? That seems rather unlikely. WilyD 22:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not think those who respond to school-related AfDs are representative of the general population. -AED 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any reason to believe that Schools suck are mainstream opinions while schools r0x0rz is an ecentricty selected opinion? WilyD 07:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any reason to believe that "schools suck" has ever been invoked as an argument for deletion? Here, the argument is that this is a private institution of such insignificance that no non-trivial independent sources exist. Rather than invoking the quasi-religious dogma "all schools are notable" (which is widely disputed), how about fixing the substantive problem with this article, which is that no non-trivial external coverage could be found? Any argument which makes reference solely to the word "school" being in the title is a null argument per policy and guidelines. Guy 09:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
That was (essentially) the only argument invoked for deletion - I do not like this and the like. Oh, I know it should be kept under any and every relevent guideline or policy, but I'll still argue for deletion because I don't like articles on schools. True, the only real keep argument is Hey, this is sourced, encyclopaedic content that has absolutely no rational for deletion, which could be stronger, but hey, to claim there's any concensus in the AfD is just daft. WilyD 17:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to believe that "schools suck" is a mainstream opinion in AfD; however, there is reason to believe that those who respond to school-related AfDs are not representative of the general population. Efforts such as School watch certainly appear to attract those who are biased on this issue. -AED 23:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't doubt it attracts people who have strong opinions on the issue, but (as far as I can tell) those who are strongly biased to delete are just as prevalent as those who are strongly biased to keep, so the net bias is very small. I could be wrong, but whenever I see schools at AfD, there are certainly POV warriors on both sides. I've never noticed a discrepency. WilyD 20:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I would normally be on the delete side as articles with too few independent interested parties are at risk of losing NPOV. In this case, we have an offer to fix up the article. Stephen B Streater 20:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. None of the arguments to delete this article were particularly convincing, and there appeared to be a number of people in favor of retaining this article for reasons expressed in the deletion discussion. Yamaguchi先生 22:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. I'ld be opposed to any closing admin pretending a consensus exists, when none does. However, its particularly bad, when the closing admin clearly had a pre-established decision, and simply imposed his own views on the matter. If we're going to let admins do this, lets abolish AFD, and hand the keys over to admins entirely. Cyde has very strong opinions on schools, which he's entitled to. He should have expressed them as a regular participant, and allowed a neutral admin do the close. If he had good reasoning, he'ld be able to pursuade others to his perspective, and acheiv consensus. Misplaced Pages is rather unique in letting at open community make editorial decisions. Now, I don't suggest that means admins should always follow whatever participants ask. If somebody wants to keep something that's plainly unverifiable, an attack, a copyvio, or otherwise clearly violates policy, or the partipants, are otherwise acting in bad faith, then the admin has to stop that. We give admins descretion, to stop abuse of the system, by people persuing their own personal interests. We don't give them discretion, so they can abuse the system to person their personal wishes. --Rob 23:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete. Subject is notable and significant enough. Ashanthalas 23:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Really? Where's the objective evidence of that? The usual reasoning advanced is that schools have influence on the many people who pass through them; in this case it has 75 students total, so the number of poeple influenced over its fifteen-year history is well under a thousand. Substitute "company" for "school", would it still be "notable and significant"? That's what it is, after all - a company. The school in this town is something else entirely, this is a private church institution for those who feel that mainstream education is too educating. Guy 09:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD is not a vote. "All schools are notable" is an assertion, not a policy or an argument from policy. The balance of arguments from policy was solidly for delete, because no verifiable non-trivial information could be found in reliable sources. Feel free to remedy that. Guy 15:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and uphold deletion (FYI, I prefer the word "uphnold".) While I am admittedly not a fan of keeping all schools (and, especially for primary schools, I've never heard a valid reason for keeping one during the course of an AfD discussion), I don't believe Cyde did anything wrong in closing the AfD the way he did. In particular, I think AED makes an extremely valid point above. -- Kicking222 16:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion: this place is evidently too insignificant to warrant independent press coverage or other independent third part sources of information, making any article intrinsically unreliable. When such material is available, the article can be re-introduced. I think the closing Admin correctly assessed the situtation here. Stephen B Streater 17:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn the continued assurtion of notability as a standard rather than mearly some people's opinion is exemplified in the Administrator action. WP:SCHOOLS and WP:N have only ever been discussions never a concensus. The "All Schools are Notable" is a spureous argument. The inclusion of Education and Educational programs are encylopedic, the content is verifiable, and NPOV --Wakemp 17:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't follwo your logic above. Could you explain what you meant? (And please bear in mind that the primary issue is whether process was followed and this doesn't seem to be a process claim)JoshuaZ 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The administrator in closeing the AfD stated that "the boundary of notability on schools has to be drawn somewhere" and anyone using the "All schools are notable" argument could expect to have their opinions discounted. Again the decision was hung on a false premise and the decision was entirely arbirary and unsupported by policy or guidelines. In closing the debate the administrators comments sounded more like he was participating in the argument rather than attempting provide a reasoned adjudication of the debate. When I was reading background for this I also came accross a recent case where the same administrator apparently continued to hold a grudge against a user becuase of an arbitration. As a participant, I can't help but feel that there is some agenda here which I don't believe an administrator should be using to decide to delete content, ban users, or anything else. --Wakemp 02:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and restore - There are roughly 124,000 schools in the US , with roughly 48 million students , each of whom has usually 2 interested parents (though there will be somewhat less than 2x the above, as most parents have multiple children), and with about 3.4 million educators . The category of schools is of great interest to teachers, educators, and students. Categorical inclusion of up to 124,000 school articles will not strain Misplaced Pages servers (access load, diskspace), does not put Misplaced Pages into disrepute in any manner. As a category, schools have one of the largest sets of potential readers of any topic of general interest. Categorical inclusionism is perfectly reasonable, and as such this one should be restored. Georgewilliamherbert 17:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This is a general policy comment. I'm puzzled as to what it has to do with this AfD in particular or for that matter how it is relevant to the primary matter whether process was followed. JoshuaZ 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - per discussion on wikien-l, I am willing to perform necessary cleanup to remove unsourced information on the school (if necessary, leaving this a verifyable stub) should the article be restored. Georgewilliamherbert 20:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment, well hell, if the 124K schools are all notable, let's get started on the articles for the 3.4 million educators -- after all, if the school is notable, then so must be those who make the schools run. >:( &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I know this issue is frustrating people and a point of contention, but please don't be ridiculous. Keep this civil. Georgewilliamherbert 23:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
A) Jim's comment above is civil as far as I can tell and B) he does bring up an issue which has been asked on AfDs before and not answered, if someone thinks that all schools are notable why would that be an acceptable position but all educators somehow becomes ridiculous? The answer is simple- they both are ridiculous claims. JoshuaZ 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, that's Reductio Ad Absurdum. All teachers at schools aren't notable any more than all professors and staff at colleges are, all employees of Fortune 500 companies are, etc. The notability of a category does not extend to automatic notability of every category immediately associated with it. Please tell me this hasn't been seriously used as an arguing point over this issue before? Georgewilliamherbert 01:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Er, yes it is Reductio ad absurdum which is a valid form of logical argument. Just because something has a latin name doesn't mean it is a fallacy. We are in agreement that such notability doesn't necessarily extend to the associated category however, the Reductio in this case is that the primary arguments for keeping schools also apply to the teachers and principals. That's precisely when a reductio is used - when accepting a premise leads to an untenable position and thus the initial premise must be rejected. JoshuaZ 02:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you see the actual point of reductio ad absurdum is to prove just how flawed ther original premise is. In fact r.a.a. is the basis for satire and parody, is it not?
Now then, we treat every sports team (correctly) as notable, and by extension every player on the team is notable as well. Obviously, with schools this becomes problematic as, for example, the Walter O'Reilly Elementary School in South Succotash, Iowa can hardly be said to have any notoriety in the real world, and yet in the wiki-world it would merit an article, and by extension, so should its faculty (even if no one outside of South Succotash never heard of the school or any of its teachers). Obviously, the real world and Wiki definitions of notoriety are somewhat different.
Finally, GWH, it seems to me that the wiki definition of "civil" needs to be addressed as well. Seems to me that any form of diagreement not adorned with flowers and perfumed with the attar of faux humility is considered an example of severe incivility. This is, of course, rather absurd as well as rather stifling, as in wiki world argumenta ad rem are wrongly treated as ad hominem attacks. A ratio, cur de Vicipædia abisti, excessisti, evasisti, erupisti?&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Two comments on civility here: One, you launched with "Well, hell" up a ways. Two, This line of argument about teacher notability is such a ridiculous line of reasoning that I am having an extremely hard time taking you or JoshuaZ seriously as positive WP contributors at the moment, despite the last roughly years' positive experiences with the both of you. The logic is ludicrous, the line of reasoning has zero merit and zero applicability as to whether schools as a category are notable or not. It's not right. It's not even wrong.
Is this particular topic so toxic that you feel you have to resort to such insanely ridiculous arguments as to drive people who respect and like you into holding you in disrepute? I respect disagreement, honest disagreement, on the point of school categorical notability, without hesitation. This particular line of argument... is not worthy of any serious debate, and you two should be ashamed. Georgewilliamherbert 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and restore - a 12-12 vote does not constitute sufficient consensus to delete. That in itself should decide the issue. -- BRG 18:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and restore. Not only has the general WP community demonstrated time and again that it believes that schools deserve articles, but the closer's apparent bias on the issue means that his decision to overturn the Keep verdict is inherently flawed Cynical 20:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Excuse me? What bias? How many school articles has Cyde voted in ever? Have you ever seen him comment on the issue? What evidence do you have for your claimed bias? JoshuaZ 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. per Sam Blanning. FeloniousMonk 21:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. per Sam Blanning. >Radiant< 22:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted per Guy, Sam Blanning, and Misplaced Pages:Consensus. Its not whether "schools deserve articles" its whether this school has any sources, and is notable enough to merit an article. The answers are no, and no. And Drv is not whether we should have this article, it is whether this Afd was closed properly. It was. Drv is not "Afd, take two - be sure to repeat the arguments that didn't follow policy and didn't work which you used in the actual Afd!". KillerChihuahua 03:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You are the one who is repeating arguemtns that don't follow policy and didn't work in the actual AFD. The AFD discussion resulted in no consensus that this school was not notable or verifiable enough to merit coverage, the closing admin merely overruled the lack of consensus on the basis of his own judgement that other wikipedian's beliefs were "absurd". Kappa 03:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - There are extensive sources available (weren't in the article, but in existence) which document the existence of the school and its basic statistics such as student body count, location, who the principal is, etc. It is referencable, and if it's restored will be referenced. Extensively. Notability remains a legitimate debate, of course. Georgewilliamherbert 17:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I don't think that the word "absurd" should be used to charactarize the arguments when closing an AfD (I don't take well to characterizing good-faith AfD commentors as engaging in "kneejerking and armwaving" - we don't comment on AfD's in order to be insulted by our esteemed colleagues - but that's not the closer's fault. Basically, the close is marginally valid (although both the "votes" and the relative strengths of argument come out about even, I think) but the closing admin should not use language which might give the impression that he has not addressed all points of view with careful and neutral consideration, and overturning would be called for it it'd help remind all admins of that. Herostratus 06:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn; there was no consensus. --NE2 07:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted not notable, ignore the brainless keep everything trolls. — Dunc|☺ 13:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete, no sound basis for deletion provided by any of the participants in the AFD, nor the participants here. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted, per JzG's arguments and rebuttals. No sound basis for creating, maintaining, or verifying an article provided. --Calton | Talk 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, no consensus. The "votes" were even and there appears to be no evidence that the arguments of the delete side were qualitatively superior to those of the keep side. JYolkowski // talk 16:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Bwithh above. Tom Harrison 22:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. No consensus = no consensus. Second sentence of closer's statement indicates strong feeling/bias on subject matter that raises doubts of his/her fitness to close these types of nominations. Whenever those doubts are palpable, result should be overturned. --JJay 22:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per JzG. Arbusto 22:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Transgender and transsexual scientists and engineers

CFD: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_13#Category:Transgender_and_transsexual_scientists_and_engineers

This is just one of the subcategories of Category:Transgender and transsexual people, which includes Category:Transgender and transsexual actors, Category:Transgender and transsexual musicians, Category:Transgender and transsexual sportspeople, Category:Transgender and transsexual politicians, and Category:Transgender and transsexual writers, which have not been nominated for deletion similarly. It is not correct to single out one profession and not others. It is true that being TG/TS generally doesn't have much influence on one's scientific or engineering work, but it does have a tremendous influence on one's life. Also note that TG/TS writers, musicians, etc., listed aren't just those that have written or sung about being TG/TS, but rather all of them, including those whose work hasn't been directly influenced by it. AnonEMouse 14:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is if someone nominated the other TG/TS cats, you'd be ok with their deletion? --Kbdank71 14:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would vote against that on CFD, because I do think they are useful categories, giving interesting and encyclopedic information ... but if the consensus came up to delete the whole lot, I wouldn't bring that up on deletion review. :-). The deletion review page says it is for process, rather than content. While I do think the category is useful content-wise, that's not my main objection to this deletion here, this is more of a process objection - we have only one of several clearly parallel cats that have been deleted. Side note, I don't think I've ever added a page to any of these. AnonEMouse 15:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you for the response. I don't have an opinion on this drv. I'll stand by my closing decision at CFD, but only because consensus seemed to indicate the deletion. It wouldn't bother me if it was overturned. --Kbdank71 16:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure, I too would have closed that as a delete. Several people commenting said that some professions were more relevant to categorisation, so I don't think that they would have been happy with a group nomination for all of them. Thryduulf 17:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)