Misplaced Pages

List of snowclones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2|AFD3)

no body voted for it to be deleted, his main reason for geting red of it seemd to be that that it was OR becouse he had never herd of it and he did not give his reasoning until he deleted it. Also it survived a AFD just 2 mounth before being renominated Rafff18 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Closer's reason clearly states that he deleted because no one could prove that it was not OR. Unless it can be proven to not be OR (and given the nature of the subject, I have a hard time believing that it wouldn't be). Smashville 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close of AFD3 (alternatively, overturn AFD2 and close it as delete). WP:NOR is non-negotiable. More than 90% of the list was unsourced, of the sources I tested 100% supported only "X said phrase Y" not "Y is a snowclone" - they don't even use the word "snowclone". With almost a year from AFD1 to AFD2, the article should have been deleted in AFD2 for failing to comply with the WP:NOR policy, so any potential flaw from renominating too soon is irrelevant. To show that this isn't inherently OR, we need reliable sources for "Y is a snowclone", preferably at least one containing multiple examples. GRBerry 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Rough consensus was (and always has been) to keep and do our best to improve the sources, not to give up and delete. Neil's closing statement was a rather partial attempt to belittle perfectly reasonable arguments for keeping, hardly an objective summary. — xDanielx /_C 00:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • OR doesn't have sources. That's what makes it OR. Smashville 01:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Our core policies trump "Uh, maybe some day someone might find something that kinda looks like a source" arguments. ~ trialsanderrors 04:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. I wish all closes were this thoughtful. Spartaz 07:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per xDanielx. Closing as delete when there are two deletes among a sea of keeps seems like an end-run around consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please keep in mind that AFD is not a vote. It's the weight of the arguments that counts, not the number of votes. And our policies are non-negotiable, regardless of the discussion in an AFD. Aecis 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, DRV isn't AfD #2 (or rather, #4), either. It would unreasonable to suppose that we've reached a point in policy crafting where consensus can be evaluated objectively without considering !votes on a particular AfD. — xDanielx /_C 00:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse. None of the keep arguments hold water. Even the best: "wait, we can clean this up" doesn't argue against merging, and is growing very thin at the 3rd AfD. Let me point out that although there were 18 or so references, there was really only two entries that were properly sourced - that is - only two that had sources describing them as Snowclones (the one about Eskimos, and "X is hard. Let's go shopping!"). That said, there's no need to have deleted this when it's pretty straightforward to merge the two good entries into Snowclone, so I wouldn't object to an overturn with an immediate merge (and I can do it, if people want.) Mangojuice 13:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• 'Comment My opinion is divided. There was no consensus to delete at the AfD, and the closer simply chose to close on the basis of his own opinion, which is not the role of the closing admin. He should instead, have joined the discussion. But his opinion was in fact in my opinion correct -- and better explained than any of the actual delete arguments. DGG (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse here we are again, Can those who say "improve it" show us some sources here or are we taking it on faith. This has had 3 go-arounds and now DRV and still no sources are found, therefore it is reasonable to assume that they cannot be found per WP:DELETE and this must go - we're an encyclopedia not a repository for everyone's unsupported original ideas and research - take it to a university, get it published, then come back. Carlossuarez46 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - There certainly is not enough reliable source information on the topic Snowclones to support a Misplaced Pages list, so the closing admin interpreted the delete reasoning correctly. Snowclones originated around December 2003 (see The Times, December 3, 2005), so the entries in the Misplaced Pages article before that time appear to be original research. There might be enough information to support a Snowclones article. See, (1) The Times, December 3, 2005; (2) New York Times June 20, 2006; (3) NPR Talk of the Nation June 28, 2006; (4) Columbia Journalism Review July 1, 2006; (5) New Scientist November 18, 2006; (6) The Mercury (Hobart) March 24, 2007, Annie Warburton, "I mean, what's it mean?" (7) Globe and Mail May 31, 2007, "Do you speak kitteh?"' (8) New Scientist August 4, 2007. -- Jreferee t/c 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Why not just merge the content and trim it over time? Seems more appropriate to go through list items individually then to make these generalizations about what should be kept and deleted. I'd be happy to help. — xDanielx /_C 23:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Hit me with a fish if I'm wrong, but I gather that the merits of an article are irrelevant in DRV, just the procedure. And procedurally I'm not comfortable with an admin deleting an article because of his own opinion, justified as it may be, contrary to the actual discussion. Said discussion here does seem to have enough dissenting voices for the doubt that brings lack of deletion. --Kizor 00:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion though make available if anyone wants to merge some verified examples - Re-examining the sources (which I believe is an appropriate function of DRV, no?), almost none of them use the word "snowclone". It seems like a lot of disputable and not directly verifiable stuff crops up if we attempt to create an original list of formula-based clichés which uses an old idiom in a new context. Very few things have been described by reliable sources as snowclones, so temporarily undelete if anyone wants to scavenge for any verifiable ones, but looking through most of the sources listed, I haven't seen any yet. The consensus seems to have been merge and I would have no issue if it was closed as such, but not too much information should have to/be able to be merged. Wickethewok 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore due to lack of consensus. Problems with the article itself may result in the list being scaled back dramatically, but that's not what we're discussing here. --Dachannien_Contrib 23:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn; DRV is about procedure, not article merits. On the topic of merits, however, I would say that the original article (having seen it before it was deleted) should be at a minimum be massively scaled back. —Dark•Shikari 01:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment All of you who are commenting based on procedure need to read Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, 3rd paragraph. "Misplaced Pages policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' 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, it must be respected above individual opinions." I added here emphasis to the clause in the deletion procedure that made deletion mandatory, not optional. GRBerry 02:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Is it very unlikely that this article can exist without breaching policy? I'd say the opposite is true. — xDanielx /_C 03:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Lists can be tricky in terms of original research. I think they can (and particularly in this case) be edited to comply with the no original research policy. The closing admin failed to take this fact into account in the close. IronGargoyle 03:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse (my) closure. The article was nominated for deletion as being original research, nobody was able to prove otherwise in the deletion discussion. Asserting "no, no, it can be cleaned up" would be great if that hadn't already happened in the first AFD - nothing changed, which is why someone re-nominated it. I will revert my closure and undelete this article if someone can cite just 10 "examples of snowclones". Not ones you have decided are snowclones - ones that are described as being snowclones, in the reliable, non-blog, reference. And if, as you say, DRV is about procedure, I refer you to GBerry above, and Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. WP:OR and WP:V are non-negotiable. Neil ☎ 21:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I wish you would have posted this request sooner neil. this page ] has "In X, no one can hear you Y." "X is the new Y" among others, from here ] we have "If Eskimos have N words for snow, then X have Y words for Z." "Oh my God, they killed X!" "Not your father's X" "The X that can be spoken of is not the true X", and several more. finally in this article ] we have "Once an X, always an X," "My big fat X,""To X or not to X?". you might want to actually look before saying there is nothing out there— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs)

  Note Rafff18 has already argued for overturning the decision as nominator. One of those sources (wisegeeks) is a blog. But there's two references, each with a handful of overlapping examples. Still not ten. Neil ☎ 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• you asked for examples not sources and combined the two you except sight over ten examples —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

AFD snowballed after several hours because of "consensus", where most keeps were basically ILIKEITs or failed to address the nomination's concerns. Will 19:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. 20 keep votes and it was only open for 4 hours is as much of a snowball close as you can get. There was also no valid reason given for deletion given..."Notable for only one thing" means that it is notable. I mean, lots of people, places and things are only notable for one thing. Smashville 20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Well, discounting the IP's and the SPA's (of which there seems to be at least one), yes, most if not all of the Keeps were "I like it"! or "It's really really notable, I read an news story about it today", (but they didn't say where) or "It's really really notable and that's that" or "It's notable within the Bittorrent community". I think that we should Overturn the keep, because it clearly is notable for only one thing, which is not enough for WP:N and violates WP:NEWS anyway. The AfD was a complete mess, with basically all of the Keeps coming straight from WP:ATA and posted by users clearly unfamiliar with WP:N. "It sounds notable" (an argument which was used in several comments), "It's notable to me" (WP:POV, perhaps?), "it's very popular" (WP:BIGNUMBER), and "The person behind the site got arrested and the site got shut down" (wow, how many times has that happened) just aren't enough to be notable. NASCAR Fan24 20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • What part of WP:N says that in order to be notable, you have to be notable for multiple things? Steve Bartman is an example of someone notable for only one thing.Smashville 20:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. I don't know where this "only one thing" is coming from; BLPs have a presumption of privacy, but even if corporations are a legalistic person there's no moral obligation to preserve the dignity of an entity. This was a significant closure with international legal repercussions and this is reflected by the sourcing. The nomination interpreted WP:NOT#NEWS too broadly. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse While the AfD was tainted by a few questionable anon !votes, there are also several longtime editors who also !voted to keep the article. Multiple stories by BBC, the Telegraph, etc. adequately assert notability. Caknuck 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• This is one of those days that makes me really wonder if WP:NOT#NEWS actually is policy, or is just something lacking community support stuck in a larger document that actually does have policy support. I think it is, and that the nomination was completely appropriate. There is no evidence that this thing was notable before the news, nor that it is notable apart from the news - exactly the sort of situation the policy is meant to address. What sourcing? The article cites one media report and one press release by one of the raiding agencies, and simultaneously links (pretty obviously inappropriately) to a number of other contemporaneous media reports, either copies of the wire service article or thinly disguised copies of that wire service article. That is all it had when the AFD was closed, and all it has now. This pretty obviously had no chance of being deleted currently, let's revisit in while after the article either meets standards or by failing to meet standards demonstrates that the subject is not and never was notable due to lack of reliable sourcing. Postpone consideration. GRBerry 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure even though it seems the AfD was infested with SPAs (this will only get worse if it runs the full five days). If the nominator had actually taken the time to read WP:NOT#NEWS it should have been clear that it has no bearing on the article. The Oink case has the potential to become a relevant footnote in the ongoing fight over downloadable music, and as such it is a meaningful, secondary-sourced article on a topic of ongoing relevance. ~ trialsanderrors 21:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Has the potential" is a speculative statement. You might want to read GRBerry's comment, as it's quite thorough and what I'm on about. Will 22:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Since I'm not writing an article here I can make as many speculative statements as I want. What matters here is that the article was sourced and there is no provision in WP:NOT#NEWS that mandates that the article has to be deleted. The nomination therefore failed to make a valid case, as the community (minus SPAs) correctly recognized. ~ trialsanderrors 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:NOT#NEWS is a subsection of WP:NOT, which details content that is unsuitable for Misplaced Pages. Also, CRYSTAL applies everywhere too, if not, then at least AfD. Will 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't think this discussion is worth continuing. ~ trialsanderrors 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
        • WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't apply. This article isn't about a news event. Part of its noteworthiness comes from one. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply at all...if it doesn't exist anymore, why would it be crystal balling? Smashville 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
          • No, all of its noteworthiness has come from one. If not, why was the article only created yesterday? The crystal balling comment applies to trialsanderrors saying "it has the potential to be..." in defense of the article (quite easily, OiNK may wimper and we'll hear nothing of it again). Will 00:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Even if that is the case...you fail to accurately explain why being notable for one thing = no notability. Smashville 01:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
              • Notability for one thing effectively makes it a news article. Will 12:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
                • How? There are so many legitimate articles of people, places and things that are only notable for one thing. I know they are extreme cases, but these just came to mind since I'm reading a book about the Kennedy assassination: John Hinckley, Jr. is only notable for one thing, Lee Harvey Oswald is only notable for one thing. The argument that something is not notable because it's only notable for one thing is just...well...fallacious. Smashville 19:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn non-admin closure, reopen and hold for the 5 days. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The subject of the article is clearly notable. The close was a snowball keep. This is one of those bizarre things that seems to be happening on Misplaced Pages these days. People seem to have a novel, but growing, in terpretation of WP:NOT whereby anything relating to current events, pop culture, or newsworthy events is automatically assumed to be non-notable. That isn't what WP:NOT says, if anyone would care to unerstand it. I can't help but think people are making WP:POINTs about notability and non-administrative closures. If so, the proper place is the policy pages, not contentious AFD and DRV nominations. Wikidemo 13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Non-admin closer comment I closed this debate and I'm going to abstain between overturn and endorse. Please judge based on my judgment, not the fact I'm a non-admin. Computerjoe's talk 15:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Snow close seemed appropriate. The keep consensus seem to think that WP:NOT#NEWS did not applied. It might be too soon to determine whether the topic is of historical notability and there seem to be no showing of the harm our work might cause. Google news seems to bring up a lot of information, but it is from two days ago (October 23, 2007 to now). There seems to be little coverage prior to October 23, 2007. OiNK's Pink Palace (www.oink.me.uk) barely has any news coverage and the only thing I found was Boulder Daily Camera, March 2, 2006, "Don't try this at home" as a one sentence mention of "British site OiNK's Pink Palace." (search Camera archives for BitTorrent). The website (www.oink.co.uk) seems to have little information as well. See
• Endorse keep due to obvious consensus, although the article name should be revisited due to article naming conventions. --Dachannien_Contrib 23:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jamie Chandler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The Jamie Chandler page should be undeleted because he has played for England U19's Jamie Chander plays for England U19's against Romania Sunderland06 19:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dale Hample (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The Dale Hample AfD was closed as keep. Misplaced Pages's policy requiring that articles be verifiable is not negotiable and cannot be superseded by editors' consensus. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators. The delete reasoning brought up early in the discussion that the topic lacked reasonable source material that was independent of Dale Hample for the article to meet Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. The keep reasoning responded by saying that Hample wrote books and journal article, which obviously are not independent of Dale Hample. A Misplaced Pages article is not a reward for producing scholarly works. A Misplaced Pages article about Dale Hample needs to be a compilation of reliable source material that conveys what others write about Dale Hample, not what Dale Hample writes about himself. The delete reasoning that the topic lacked reasonable source material that was independent of Dale Hample for the article to meet Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy was the stronger argument. Looking at strength of argument and Misplaced Pages's underlying verifiability policy, it appears that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly and the close should be overturned to delete. -- Jreferee t/c 14:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Was there a reason why you didn't discuss this with me before opening the DRV? I know it seems to have gone out of fashion but admins at least should try and show some courtesy. Concerning the close, Meh!I couldn't care less. It looked like a clear keep to me and I'm hardly shy about deleting articles if they don't meet policy and I have never counted heads. Then again, I went and helped out with a back log and cleared a half dozen unclosed AFDs at one go so its more than possible I got it wrong. If anyone wants to redo the close as a delete feel free - I'm really not bothered and I'm sure that we have better things to use our time at DRV considering. Spartaz 15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• You're right. Instead of posting a notice on your talk page about the close, I should have attempted to discuss the matter with you first. I apologize. Since it appears that you agree the close should have been delete, it may be appropriate for someone else to speedy close this DRV. -- Jreferee t/c 15:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm saying I couldn't care less not that its definitly wrong but any independent admin is welcome to redo the close if they feel like it. I think DDG's comments on notability in the AFD are persuasive and it may be that stubing the article to the verifiable bits is the best way forward but... whatever... I'm not fussed either way and I'm always open to external review. By the way, I wouldn't normally be this sensitive about the notification but I'm still feeling very bruised by the events at ANI over the weekend. Spartaz 15:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I haven't discovered what the most thankless job is in Misplaced Pages, but I think AfD closer is in the top three and in my personal experience it is number one. Again, I really am sorry for not discussing the matter with you first. I won't repeat my mistake in the future. -- Jreferee t/c 15:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I used to be really big on V but since I got the shiny buttons, I find less and less people seem to take it as seriously so I really only considered notability in my close. You have a good eye for policy in deletion discussions and while I don't always agree with you, I certainly agree with you far more often than not. Lets just leave this for some passing admin to revisit the AFD and let us know what the correct answer was. I think we can close this then. No need to beat yourself up about it. We have plenty of other people to do that for us. Spartaz 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Verifiability does not require independence of the reliable source, see the WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB sections of WP:V. Notability normally requires independence. However, for academics as academics, the most significant indicator of importance is the publishing of papers in independent and peer-reviewed journals, not independent publishers of biographies. (See the WP:PROF guideline.) We thus sometimes end up, quite appropriately, with highly important and Wiki-notable academics where all that we can talk about is their work, not their life. The article could be better cited, but the discussion was reasonable and the close was correct. Endorse closure. GRBerry 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't thing we should be in the business of judging value of someone's intellectual contribution. To say that some academic's work is important but some rapper and cartoonist work is not important may cause discontent in those who contribute to Misplaced Pages and may eventually will lead us down the path to censorship. It is the discord and censorship that I am concerned about. Judging a topic only by the amount of reliable source material available seems the best way to have everyone feel that they are being treated fairly. However, I can appreciate this issue being a fundamental disagreement on how to implement Misplaced Pages's polices. -- Jreferee t/c 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• How did you arrive at censorship? I'm not following... :O — xDanielx /_C 00:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Jreferee is deliberately confusing WP:V and WP:N. It is incorrect and misleading to say that WP:V is not met when clearly we can verify that so-and-so has published x, y and z. Even if the publications are non-independent, if they can be verified through independent means, which journal articles certainly can be, policy is sufficiently covered. WP:N is a guideline, however, and consensus on interpreting guidelines is more flexible. Personally, I considered a !vote of delete here but ultimately chose not to participate. But if consensus is, for now, that WP:PROF is satisfied, I see no procedural issue with the close. Feel free to revisit the article in a few months, but the urgency of using DRV to get last-ditch shots at deletion is something I just don't see for this article. Perhaps if there had been a serious misunderstanding about the sources, but that does not appear to be the case. --Dhartung | Talk 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Dhartung, its not necessary to accuse Jreferee of bad faith because that's clearly not the case and its bordering on a personal attack. Spartaz 07:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure It can easily be verified that Hample has published numerous articles in scientific journals. The consensus was at AfD that Hample did in fact meet the notability guidelines set forth in WP:PROF a such the closing admin was correct. TonyBallioni 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete based on strength of argument. Nominator's reason seems straightforward unless someone can prove the subject meets WP:N. This could have been closed early, but it can't be now. --Coredesat 22:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment At the very least there was no consensus at the article, and as Spartaz noted DGG's argument for keep had some extremely good points; either way the article would have stayed. As such the close as keep was fine procedurally, and we should not overturn to delete when that was not the consensus reached in the AfD discussion. TonyBallioni 00:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• I would have closed as no consensus reflecting the strength of argument, but as keep has more or less the same effect, endorse closure. However I fully expect this to show up on AFD again in the near future. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The majority of the delete arguments were on the unrevised version of the article, which as submitted to AfD did not show notability because most of the content had been removed--not in bad faith, the original content was absurdly excessive, but the removal also removed the part that would show notability . After I restored the relevant portion, the other people there--almost all supported the article. The exception was one ed. who insisted on arguing that the editorships and journal publications were not significant despite explanations to him by several eds. that the comparisons he was using were not valid. I improved the article enough to pass, and can probably improve it further. As Dhartung says, the notability of an academic is proved by their accomplishments, and the publications are a matter of record and thus V is satisfied. Frankly, I am a little puzzled at the degree of vehemence shown at AfD and here about this particular article. DGG (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete one claim in his article was apparently overstated: he is not the editor of Argumentation and Advocacy, Randall A. Lake is according to the publication's website ], he's just one of numerous editorial board. I won't go through the rest of his bio to ferret out other misclaims, but that's the problem with unsourced BLP's - a reasonable reader may (perhaps reasonably) think that the professor had inflated his position - academic fraud has been known to occur and we'd be making it seem as though this guy was party to some. Bleh. Better to delete it and get it right rather than this unsourced problem. Carlossuarez46 17:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • According to the journal's website, he's the Editor-in-Chief Elect and seems to be currently acting as the Editor-in-Chief -- see ,. The Editorial Board page states that it is "to be updated soon": Espresso Addict 10:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure -- While Misplaced Pages:Verifiability does state in relevant part that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it", this does not imply that any article which lacks such sources at the time of an AFD closure must be deleted. Rather, where it is reasonably believed that such sources exist, the article may be retained, unless deletion would be warranted on other grounds. John254 03:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Those participating in the original AfD seem in agreement that he meets WP:PROF. He is verifiably Editor-in-Chief Elect of a major journal (see my note regarding this above), which seems to meet the requirement for 3rd party sources. Espresso Addict 10:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ramona Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This AFD was non-admin closed without (and some would say against) consensus by John254. This closure was the subject of substantial discussion here. I request that, at a minimum, the AFD be relisted and allowed to run its course. (See also WP:DRV#Jennifer_Moore.) shoy 13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Right end state, wrong close The proper close for this was no consensus, as the participants did not agree on whether she is notable by our standards. The closer should have offered their thinking in debate, especially as it is partially correct and partially not. In particular, the closer doesn't understand WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. It is not a summary of the notability guideline, it is policy with higher standing and addressing different issues. (It was also forged, if I understand the history correctly, as part of deciding what to do about otherwise articles on non-notable victims of the 9/11 terrorism attacks, a notable event if there ever was one.) However, with DGGs argument unresponded to, the right close was no consensus. The difference between keep and no consensus is immaterial for DRV's purposes. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL appears to require further editing of the article to conform with the policy. GRBerry 14:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, close as no consensus, and hand a WP:TROUT to John254. There obviously isn't a consensus whether WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL beat WP:N#General notability guideline. Personally, I think they do, but I appreciate that some other people think they don't. However, the closer allowed his personal opinion to supersede the apparent mixed bag of the community's opinions; the closure, as stated, clearly favors one side of the debate. Mind you, the difference between no consensus and keep can turn crucial in the potential future AfDs see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 3 and WP:NOTAGAIN. Duja► 14:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - The AfD ran for six days, so the only remaining question is whether the closer interpreted the debate correctly. The news has run from April 2003 (the kidnapping date) to at least October 2006, so WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't support the deletion argument. Stories about kidnappings/crime victims eventually include biographical information to gain sympathy for the victim. Given the significant coverage about this topic, WP:BLP seems misapplied in the discussion and does not provide support to the deletion reasoning. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL applies to attempts to fondly remember a person by summarizing in Misplaced Pages their obituary, which this topic does not. The deletion reasoning lacked strength. The keep reasoning was clear and focused on the availability of sufficient reliable source material for the topic. The closer was correct in the interpretation of the discussion and even provided cogent summary of the closing thoughts. Trout whack to the non-admin for closing a mixed view AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and mark as no consensus a non-admin closure of an AfD discussion that was not an obvious keep. No consensus was reached one way or the other the editor should not have closed this as Keep. TonyBallioni 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and mark as no consensus. There was plenty of time for one to develop, so a relist would accomplish little, and renomination in a month would be unsurprising, so there's time to improve the article as well as incentive. But John254 is again overreaching with his non-admin closures, teasing a consensus out of none and adding a dollop of his own interpretation. I've got one, too, but I wouldn't presume to base a false consensus on it. --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and mark as no consensus. While this has the same effect, non-admins simply shouldn't close controversial AFDs such as this. If there is no consensus (which looks to be the case to me), it isn't non-controversial, and it should only be considered by an admin at that point. --Coredesat 22:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure: A thoughtful and well reasoned closing argument in my opinion. But opinions do differ. Personally, I have no problems with experienced non-admins closing difficult AfD's provided they are knowledgeable of policy and the result does not require the deletion button -- Samir 23:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my closure per Jreferee and Samir. John254 01:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Just don't do it again :) WP:DPR#NAC clearly states that you shouldn't be closing controversial AFDs, and any closure which goes completely against the weight of "votes" is necessarily controversial. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Six deletes, two keeps, one of which was without a reason - I can't draw any other conclusion. Agree with Coredesat insofar as he suggests that it is not non-controversial. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Mark as non-consensus which I think would have been the right closure. I do not think NOT MEMORIAL applies to articles like these, but I recognize that there is probably not consensus about how to handle them one way or another. I support the closers view about the article, but he should not have been the one to close it. DGG (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete crime victims and crime perps get the usual headlines demonstrated here, that doesn't make them notable - of the thousands of homicides in the US (and multiply that round the world) - this isn't a notable one. This article is a memorial. If you think otherwise, then you'd be glad to keep articles on her murderers, because they were party to the same notable events, and further ones such as trial, an apparent escape attempt and other things making them certainly more notable than she is. WP is not wiki policeblotter. This ought to be deleted and that was the consensus at afd, improperly overrided by the closer. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I think most such cases are appropriately handled by a single article, and when there are more, which way the merge should go is an editing decision depending on how the matter is commonly known. A few such cases will justify more than one article--I don't think this is one of them & anyway the problem doesnt arise here, since this is the single article. I really dont think we're on a slippery slope to multiple articles for each murder--that's a straw man entirely, no one would defend that. DGG (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Close, edit, and keep. In the continuing discussion of which criminal victims get media coverage, Moore's name is still cited. I believe that makes her notable (think of Kitty Genovese). However, this notability has been edited out of the article, so it needs to be re-edited. Oh, and complete agreement with DGG's point that the multiple-aticles argument is strawman. --Kayobee 15:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

DLM AG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page was deleted without allowing time for discussion and despite a Hold On request. Page was under construction and was marked as Stub. There was no need for such hasty action because page was not libellous or copyvio. Biscuittin 11:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh boy, what a laundry list of offered CSD criteria by the deleting admin. They cited WP:CSD#A1, WP:CSD#A3, WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. I note first that it is impossible for all of them to be true - if there is no context, it can't be spam, because the spam would provide sufficient context to allow expansion. Looking at the deleted article, it is reasonably certain that WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A3 didn't apply. WP:CSD#G11 also doesn't apply in my judgment. WP:CSD#A7 does apply, but if someone wants to continue working on the article, as was stated on the talk page and in the nomination, they should be allowed to as they might produce the required assertion of significance. Tagging for speedy deletion doesn't require immediate action, it is OK for an admin to leave the page tagged for a while to see what the expanded state of the article is. Userfy or overturn. WP:CORP is the standard the article will eventually need to meet. GRBerry 13:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and userfy, that was really hasty deletion; it wasn't either of the cited CSD criteria. It's difficult to tell whether the article would survive an AfD -- there's even a Google Scholar hit, (except that it's written by the company's CEO). Plenty of GHits, but it's difficult to tell the reliable sources from fan pages and business listings, and many are in German. It should be given a chance though. Duja► 15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion - DLM AG, Dampflokomotiv- und Maschinenfabrik, is a Swiss manufacturer of modern steam engines for railway and marine service. For a company to manufacture engines, the need a lot of money and important clients. Even so, WP:CSD#A7 does apply since the article itself lacked an assertion of importance/significance. Recreation of the article using reliable source material would be acceptable. -- Jreferee t/c 16:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Joey Shabadoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have asked the admin who closed the page already, long story short this AfD was not a speedy, nor did anyone, including the closing admin, suggest as much, so it should be given 5 days (not less than 24 hours), especially after the submarine nomination I got, with no notice. Regardless of the merits, this is a matter of principle. It may or may not lose the AfD vote, but this premature closure, after no notice being given, smacks of something quite wrong, and I would like it to get the same 5 days everything else gets. JJJ999 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Relist Five hours and only six discussion participants is hardly enough to build up a case for WP:SNOW. And while I support relisting the AfD out of procedure's sake, I doubt the article can stand on its own merit. Caknuck 06:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Relist SNOW closures are almost never appropriate in less than 24 hours. In a case like this, where the issue is whether reliable sources exist, they are never appropriate before sources are demonstrated to exist. One of the basic reasons AFD is a process that takes time is because, even when sources exist, they are not necessarilly online or right at hand, and the AFD time allows real research to be done. The early closing of this, or any comparable, AFD is a massive flaw that makes the close completely invalid. Award the closer a WP:TROUT for getting this so wrong. (The issue of notice is irrelevant; there is no requirement for notice.) GRBerry 13:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Relist WP:SNOW is for plowing through unneeded process because no one objects excepts on process grounds, it's not something with which to steamroll objections to ensure you get your way. At any rate, redirecting to The Last Temptation of Homer as a plausible search term seems in order here, as much fun as it is to delete anything related to pop culture. --W.marsh 14:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - Obviously and per above posts. JJJ999, your behavior towards others is causing them to react negatively, and that is impacting Misplaced Pages, such as by us having to spend time addressing this matter at DRV. Please reconsider my post on your talk page. Comment - There are few reliable sources that even mention Joey Shabadoo. Toronto Star May 20, 2004 writes "Joey Jojo Shabadoo The Friends star hangs out with his new ... friends? Betrayer!" The Memphis Flyer April 21, 2005 writes, "That disc doesn't have its official release party until Shabadoo's mastermind Joey Pegram (Hot Monkey, 611, Joint Chiefs) takes the stage at the Buccaneer on Friday, April 22nd." That's about it. -- Jreferee t/c 17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Despite trying to politely engage with him on his talk page, DF has refused to reply to me, which shows bad faith right there. Can someone more senior please have a word to him? Given I've never even spoken to DF before, nor has he to me, I don't see how this has anything to do with past behaviour. As for searching reliable sources Jeferee, you have to remember, the name is a variant, so it might be "Joe Shabadoo" or "Joey Joe Joe" etc. At any rate, I am glad for the support for relisting.JJJ999 22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Why do you keep assuming bad faith? Smashville 23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I went to his userpage, posted over a day ago, then posted again. He has since been posting other stuff, but has been unwilling to reply to my repeated query in any way, shape or form. That's not bad faith on my part, just the application of common sense to facts. He is obviously not interested in discussing it, and is being rude.JJJ999 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Don't say you didn't assume bad faith because you straight up said, "DF has refused to reply to me, which shows bad faith right there." Perhaps he just didn't feel the need to respond, Smashville 01:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, what else do you call a 5 hour closure which doesn't even invoke SNOW or speedy, and which he won't reply to. If that isn't bad faith, what is it? Laziness? Contempt? Whatever you want to characterise it as, it all falls under the heading of poor form, which was the gist of my above point.JJJ999 01:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
          • For the record, I meant to reply to him earlier but didn't get around to it. I have since fixed that. DS 17:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • To JJJ999: There is nobody "more senior" as admins go, we are all on an equal level and answerable to the community (and, nominally, Jimbo Wales. Indeed, we admins are just regular users with a couple of extra buttons. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, six hours isn't enough for a consensus to form. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. I haven't put my vote in, but I have no problem with relisting. I do have a problem with the continuous bad faith assumptions. Smashville 16:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Relist JJJ is right--there was not sufficient time allowed., considering the nature of the arguments presented in the short period. It was being asserted, and denied, that the article could be adequately sourced, and there should have been a full chance to do so. That's one of the functions of AfD--it doesn't always happen by a long shot, but it sometimes does. I'm a little skeptical about this article, but I want an opportunity to see what is proposed in the way of further sources. DGG (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Relist it wasn't a straight speedy if I recall correctly. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per W.marsh. Sarah 09:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Relist As the original nominator of the article, I'd be fine with a relist for procedural purposes. I'm extremely dubious that this article will actually pass an AFD even given 5 days on strict policy grounds as it totally fails WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NEO, WP:RS and every other applicable policy/guideline. but we can at least afford it a few more days to exist. I will say though that the originator has a bit more to learn about WP:AGF.--Isotope23 17:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)