Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mathsci (talk | contribs) at 23:18, 4 August 2008 (→Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Elonka). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

4 August 2008

Richard Sukuta-Pasu

Richard Sukuta-Pasu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

As noted in the AfD, this young soccer player meets WP:N, having received a lot of media coverage hundreds of articles this summer, including a feature article in Bild, "'the best-selling newspaper in Europe". During the AfD no one challenged his notablity under WP:N however the closing Admin noted discounted that he met WP:N because he failed to meet WP:ATHLETE. I feel that an article for an athlete should exist if they meet WP:N even if they don't necessarily meet WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as closer of the debate. Football players generate large amounts of coverage due to the media saturation of the sport. It is therefore a totally unrealistic barometer of notability. For example, a part-time footballer in the Conference will have more media coverage than the King of Tonga, when it's quite clear that one is more notable than the other. Here we have a young footballer who has never played for a professional club, but has played in a final in a youth tournament (and whilst he scored, it was not the winner, and he was not top scorer). Obviously he will get mentioned in the press a lot during the week of the tournament, but when he returns to his club and sits in the reserves, that coverage will dry up. Like Tim McLean (who has 1,675 news hits at the moment) this is a WP:ONEEVENT situation; details about him should be included in the tournament article (which they are), but he is not yet deserving of an article. If he never plays for a professional club (being a youth international is no guarantee - football magazines run regular features on players who won youth caps but never actually played professionally), will he be notable in 20 years time just for playing in a youth tournament? I suspect the answer is no. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand the point of the comment that a footballer gets more coverage than the King of Tonga. Not only do I not see the logic of comparing the amount of media hits of a British footballer in Britain to a Tongan monarch on a British news site using a British search engine, in the example given the King of Tonga got 134 hits compared to less than that for the footballer. Also Bild is not a football magazine - it's one of the biggest newspapers in Europe. Nfitz (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The footballer example I used is not a British footballer - he's French
2. Tonga is a former British protectorate, and therefore is covered well in the British media
3. In the example given the King of Tonga gets 95 hits compared to 119 for the semi-pro footballer.
4. You've misunderstood the magazine reference. I wasn't referring to this player; I was referring to the fact that the likes of Four Four Two occasionally run "whatever happened to..." features on Englands U-18 team from ten years ago, and what happened to them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Deolis Guerra (closed)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Elonka

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Elonka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

It strikes me that the only way anything can legitimately happen here without Thebainer's presence is to have a formal discussion in the proper venue. Procedural nomination. Anyone not already aware of the issue should look at the page's talk for context. --Random832 (contribs) 17:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. To remain open, User Conduct RfCs must be certified by at least two editors who tried to resolve the same dispute. But this RfC was not properly certified, as no one besides ChrisO (who filed the RfC) had attempted to resolve the dispute. --Elonka 18:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Elonka keeps misrepresenting the dispute as being about her most recent action against me. It's not; it's about the general issue of her interpretation and implementation of ArbCom sanctions, an issue which has been raised across multiple articles. The same issue was certified by myself and Ned Scott, who had previously disputed the same issue with the same article. See Ryan Postlethwaite's summary here. It's disappointing that Elonka is trying to avoid this RfC by wikilawyering and lobbying rather than actually dealing with the issues raised in the RfC by multiple editors and admins. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. Thebainer acted against consensus. The RFC was properly certified by Ryan Postelthwaite. Thebainer did not discuss the matter with Ryan, nor did he seek community input on this subjective decisions. Furthermore, it appears that Elonka made an off wiki request to Thebainer to get this done. She immediately thanked him and asked for the talk page to be deleted as well. Jehochman 18:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Jehochman is just making things up at this point. I categorically deny that I made an off-wiki request to Thebainer. I have no line of communication to him. When I saw that he had deleted the page, I did point out to him that he had deleted the page, but not the associated talkpage. That's it. --Elonka 19:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Why then did you thank him for deleting the page if you had not asked for it to be deleted? Diff. I have added emphasis to a particular word above, the word "appears" makes clear that this is an appearance, not actual knowledge. He just came in out of the blue and deleted the page with no discussion whatsoever. You didn't just "point out" that he failed to delete the talkpage, either. You asked him to delete the talk page. Same diff Please, this is most unseemly the way you attack those who question your actions. If you say you didn't contact Thebainer, I will believe you, but please show a little comprehension for how your actions can be viewed by others. Perceptions matter. Jehochman 19:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Full quote, lest we descend into arguing about nothing: "Thanks Thebainer. :) BTW, you might want to delete the talkpage, too?" See diff above.--chaser - t 22:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per talk page discussion.. Elonka should be bending over backwards to not give the appearance of trying to sweep this under the rug. We don't need to be ruleslawyers here. The RFC was in use and being actively edited. There was no reason for deletion. Friday (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn I am just an outside editor but I think the RFC should continue. From my outside view, the RFC has more editors talking about multiple articles that need to be talked about. I really think that the discussions need to continue. I don't understand why anyone would stop or delay hearing from the community about concerns it has. Please consider this when considering whether this should be deleted or not. And for openess, I have spoken with Elonka about the rules set and a ban imposed at Quackwatch --CrohnieGal 18:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. "Same" vs "Different" case is very subjective in this instance. The disputes were the "same" in that they involved similar actions from Elonka. They were "different" in that they involved different articles. A reasonable person could interpret this either way; as such, the RfC should be reinstated. On a non-policy-related note, it will be better for both Elonka and the community as a whole to get this done with now, as opposed to dragging it out again in a few weeks. Antelan 18:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. The RfC was pretty active until it was deleted, and 9 people signing the "Other users who endorse this summary" section indicates that there is something that's worth discussing, and I don't see what we gain from stopping the discussion. The deletion reason seems like wikilawyering to me. --Conti|✉ 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn as out of process deletion, as per Jehochman. Deletion once the dispute was certified and without consensus could also be construed as wheel-warring.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn RFCs are non-binding and an established part of the DR process. Amerique 18:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral per first half of Antelan's comment. Coppertwig (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn -- An admin had already certified it and others completely agreed with it; a single solitary admin can't just come along (after being prompted by the person the RFC is about) and uncertify it and delete it without discussion. That's a complete violation of policy, civility, and common sense. DreamGuy (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • after being prompted by the person the RFC is about see above, where this is "categorically" denied.--chaser - t 22:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per Jehochman. I had not participated in this RfC, but if the deletion is overturned I am willing to file Form 4308(b) in triplicate at the local galactic office or whatever needs to be done to ensure that the RfC procedure is followed to the letter. Raymond Arritt, now editing as Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, everyone above has already explained why; request closure. Wizardman 19:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• I second the request for closure as per WP:SNOW.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be unwise to close this too fast; it's only been a few hours since it opened. Leaving it open for a day, to allow everyone involved to comment, won't hurt anyone too much, I don't think. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn, snow. Thebainer may have had a good reason, but the community is going to comment anyway, and channeling comment to the more deliberative environment of an RfC will minimize disruption, and there are other remedies that can be applied if disruption takes place at the RfC. --Abd (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The overturning of a speedy deletion does not overturn the requirement for a Request for Comment to be certified by another editor who has tried, and failed to solve the same dispute with the user. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• While I venture no opinion on this particular RFC or the decision to delete or undelete it, I must point out that essentially what you are saying here Sam is that RFC is not an appropriate process to examine patterns of behaviour over several areas (i.e., without a discrete locus of dispute) with either users or administrators. If that is the case, then what straightforward dispute resolution methods are available to the community to address and discuss such patterns, short of requesting an Arbitration Committee hearing? And is that really the message you want to send out? Risker (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Most people think that the requirement has been satisfied, while other people (a minority to be sure) think not. So here we are, having a meta discussion instead of working on the underlying problem, which will not go away by fiat of deleting the discussion. Perhaps this situation is more obvious to me than others because I'm a marketing consultant. I am constantly advising clients to be open about problems instead of trying to sweep them under the rug (which only produces a worse backlash). Jehochman 19:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Either Sam has not read the page in question and just assumes Elonka is right or he has read it and is ignoring the fact that all the necessary editors have certified it and admins have agreed that it was for the same dispute. Either way his hope that another editor will need to certify it completely misses the reality of the situation. DreamGuy (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn a stunningly bad, unilateral, out of process, deletion. RMHED (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn I don't think Elonka did anything wrong, but closing a discussion where multiple good-faith users obviously do think there was a problem is just making problems where none existed and making existing problems worse. – iridescent 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: votes don't change certification requirements. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • • Morven is correct, however, certification requirements, like all rules, require interpretation. There are at least two alternate interpretations here; further, the "rule" is itself subject to community consensus, which it does not bind. In other words, we can change the rule any time we decide, by consensus. This is really standard deliberative process. In this case, an administrator -- who happens to be an arbitrator, but that's procedurally irrelevant -- deleted an RfC, based, apparently, on his interpretation of the rules or IAR or whatever, it, again, doesn't really matter. And we are now following process with regard to that decision, because it was, quite simply, a deletion decision and DRV is the place most efficient to challenge it. The issue here isn't Elonka's conduct, a complex and fairly difficult question, I'd say. It's simply whether or not a project page should stay deleted or not. ArbComm could trump this process, if it chooses, but, given the heat generated, I'd highly advise doing so publicly, based on discussion and debate. If necessary, a quick injunction could be issued freezing the RfC until it's sorted out. I'm not advising this, just noting that, if there is some legitimate reason to avoid the RfC, which would surprise me, it could be done, and properly. Not as it came down. --Abd (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Why are there now three arbitrators completely out of tune with the community? Did you have a mailing list discussion before Thebainer acted? For Nth time, most of us feel that the certification requirements have been met. ArbCom has not exactly done a very good job lately winning the community's trust. Maybe you folks should do more listening, and less preaching. Jehochman 20:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • What the frak is going on? Why is ArbCom turning out in force to contradict community consensus? Are you people actually saying you approve of Elonka's application of discretionary sanctions here? I'm rapidly beginning to think that all those people claiming ArbCom is out of touch are not raving loonies after all. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• comment. But ignore all rules means there are no so called requirements, and to insist on the letter of the law is to breach our ignore all rules policy. It's also wiki-lawyering. Alun (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm a bit confused as to why three arbcom members have become involved in this. Coincidence I suppose, but it's unusual. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • We could just as well delete Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Kirill Lokshin for the same reason. There is no evidence that User:John Carter tried to resolve the same dispute, after all. That doesn't make any sense, you say? Well, that's because it does not make any sense. We don't follow rules no matter what, we follow common sense, and ignore the rules when they prevent us from improving the encyclopedia. There seems to be a legitimate desire from about a dozen people to review the actions of a user, and we should not prevent that from happening because of a technicality. --Conti|✉ 20:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• overturn. me too me too. Alun (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn With due respect I disagree with the comments by the arbcom members.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • • Again, with due respect, I see two comments by ArbComm members here. Morven states, !Votes don't change certification requirements, which is indeed a problematic statement. What determines "certification requirements?" It's technically true, it is arguments -- in theory -- which prevail, but if a dispute over certification requirements goes to ArbComm, what's going to decide the matter? Arguments or votes? Morven has made the semantic error of Lost performative, assuming that rules exist in some objective space, and are applied without any person involved, and, in particular, he seems to be assuming that community opinion doesn't matter. Yet the community could, in the next few minutes, change the rules, making the particular objection to the RfC moot, or could, here, simply decide, in effect, that this case is a legitimate exception. Votes do count, just not in any automatic, majority-rule, manner. The other admin who has opined here is Blacketer, whose comment was less troublesome. Again, technically, he was correct, but, again, the matter of how guidelines established by the community are to be interpreted has been ignored. Standard deliberative process makes the "assembly" the ultimate arbiter for interpreting the rules (see Nuclear option; we don't have specific process for that, but follow rough consensus plus an administrative decision, which can disregard the consensus, but which is always subject to appeal. I claim that Thebainer's deletion was proper and within process, it was his judgment, on the face, that the certification requirement had failed. It was a separate judgment, which he also made, that this required deletion. Both of these were proper for him to make, unless COI is shown. "Proper" does not mean "correct." It it is also proper for the community, upon appeal, to review that decision, which it is doing here. I'll note that no arbiter !voted to support the deletion, they merely pointed out the possible problem that led to the deletion in the first place. Let's all take a deep breath and take this one step at a time, without making assumptions about the next step. --Abd (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • That's a very insightful view. I have to say, though, that I take a more utilitarian view: which does more harm, leaving the RfC deleted, or letting the dispute fester by squashing the community's attempt to deal with it? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, per my comments on the RFC's talk page. Saying that the certification requirements were not met is a judgment call at best - to my eyes, a poor one - and given the level of participation in the RFC prior to deletion, an out of the blue deletion is a poor show. Thebainer has no special ArbcomPower to delete RFCs he doesn't like; Arbitrators are ostensibly a part of the community they purportedly represent, and must supposedly follow the same rules as everyone else. Do not snow, though, please - I would rather see this overwhelmingly overturned. Neıl ☄ 20:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - I'd already certified this RfC, yet Thebainer decided to overrule me, without even popping over to my talk (or any other page for that matter) to discuss it. If he had, I'd have told him this; The dispute in question centred around the belief by some that Elonka has made biased/unfair sanctions against other editors. Chris' certfication is clear - he started the RfC. Ned's certification is also very clear - Ned has attempted to discuss his concern over the sanctions that Elonka has been giving out, yet he believes his concerns haven't been relieved. There you go - two certifications, based not around one incident, but a pattern of aledged misconduct which at least two users have previously tried to solve without bringing it to RfC. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. This displays poor understanding of policy. The locus of dispute is not the al-Durrah article, it's Elonka and special restrictions in general. If Ned Scott tried to resolve that problem, as I believe he did, then the certification was valid. Anyway, if you read the "Godwin's Law" thread on my talk page, that could plausibly be viewed as an attempt to resolve the dispute (or at least try to get Elonka to see she's doing something wrong) by yet another party (myself): the dispute as it relates to Race and intelligence articles. Bad decision. Even if not properly certified - and I think it is -Iridescent is absolutely right. Moreschi 20:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn It's clear that multiple users believe it was properly certified. The deletion was unilateral. Some people seem to think there's a problem with Elonka's behaviour. I don't see why DR should be somewhat broken here. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn: Arbs don't get super sekrit vote multipliers, and this was done outside of process. There is absolutely no deus ex machine at Misplaced Pages. Follow the rules, people. Geogre (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. My talkpage contains a conversation that I believe provides support for further certification if required, even if we are to look at the narrowest possible definition of "same dispute". I am disappointed with thebainer's deletion, and with the level of wikilawyering on display. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. It's a sad day when sitting arbcom members endorse blatant wikilawyering and refusal to listen to problems with popular admins, but given their track record I can't say I'm surprised. There are legitimate and serious issues with this administrator's conduct. Skinwalker (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn: RfC's exist to explore significant issues that editors have with each other and with administrative decisions. Based on input at the RfC, a number of established editors have concerns that ought to be fleshed out and discussed. The rules are supposed to be subservient to common sense; insisting on a narrow, bureaucratic interpetation of certification is the wrong focus here. The certification requirement is intended to forestall frivolous or harassing RfC's. This is clearly neither. MastCell  22:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, RfC is on Elonka's attempts to deal with multiple contentious articles, with several articles providing examples of the results that she has achieved and the conflicts that have resulted. I therefore disagree with the argument that since not all of the users certifying were talking about the same article, that these certifications were not valid. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn while I believe there are several problems with the RfC, deleting it isn't the way to resolve the issue. Shell 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Undeleted: as per obvious consensus above. — Athaenara ✉ 22:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, obviously: I'll start with the preamble that it is likely that I have deleted more rfc/us due to lack of certification than any other admin (including some high profile ones, such as Kelly Martin's, and others) as well as having closed the latest MfD with guidelines as to its usage, including adhering to certification rules. *** The problem here, as I mentioned at ani, isn't so much the validity, or lack thereof, of the certification, per se. (whether it was or was not valid, I don't know; I've yet to examine the matter closely), but rather, that one admin deemed the certification valid and another reversed his decision without bothering to discuss it with him. (And I'll reiterate that the latter admin being a member of the Arbitration Committee, actually weakens the deletion, because they, especially, need to act responsibly and serve by the not-above-the-rules example))((Conversely, the fact we have two other Committee members, seemingly, in support of their commipatriot —yet fail to touch on the undiscussed reversal— serve to further erode confidence in the Committee. Their carelessness is not their credit) El_C 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn There are many complicated issues which can be discussed, if not perhaps resolved, in an open and calm RfC. Mathsci (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelley Gulledge

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

WP:BIO unambigiously states that an athlete who has played in a "fully professional" league is notable by that fact alone. The subject of this article is currently playing in AAA baseball, the highest extant minor league and fully professional, and has played professional baseball for years. The closing admin stated - after the fact, and only when asked to elaborate on his decision - that there has never been consensus that professional minor league play was notable, but this is incorrect; broad consensus has upheld just that, time and time again, for years, and all attempts to change WP:ATHLETE to alter that have so far failed. The closing admin also relied on Delete voters who stated, quite inaccurately, that WP:BIO was more restrictive than WP:BASEBALL's own project criteria (in fact, it is a good bit less so). Given the controversial nature of the admin's assertion that minor league sports are not inherently notable, one would think he would close with a clear consensus, but in fact it was a 7-6 split. Finally, the closing admin appears to be a staunch partisan of the POV that minor league baseball players are non-notable, as per the discussion here, and in his shoes I would myself preserve the premise of neutrality by avoiding a close apparently that much in keeping with my own partisan views. This deletion merits overturning.  RGTraynor  14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn due to partisan nature of closing admin's views. A neutral administrator should have handled the close on this AFD. Debate was split down the middle and close should have been "no consensus"Spanneraol (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. I was not closing it based on my personal views, but rather, how the votes lined up. DRV is not AfD part two, and AfD is NOT a vote, as seems to be the counterargument here. No one countered the rationale proposed by BRMo, and his rationale outweighed the keepists arguments. (If you take his vote and reasoning out, it is clearly a no consensus close. The fact that no one's counterarguing it speaks volumes). That's what I based my close on, nothing partisan. Wizardman 16:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm curious as to Wizardman's rationale that the counterargument is that AfD is a vote. The plain counterarguments are (1) This decision goes against the explicit and unambiguous language of WP:BIO; (2) That BRMo's argument was based on the unofficial and nonbinding baseball Wikiproject's private notability criteria, which certainly does not override WP:BIO and which itself is currently under hot debate; (3) That several of the Delete voters misrepresented WP:BIO's criteria as more restrictive than WP:BASEBALL's, instead of less so; (4) that while if a consensus went for Delete anyway, the matter would be moot, but in fact there was no such consensus; (5) if an admin is going to back a controversial deletion decision which goes against black-letter policy, it shouldn't be against consensus as well, and definitely not; (6) where he rules in favor of a position which he provably holds. That aside, a couple editors argued against BRMo's reasoning; that Wizardman plainly prefers BRMO's side is his own business, but it scarcely trumped the debate.  RGTraynor  16:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• There's been a debate for nearly two months on the WP:BIO talk page as to what "fully professional" implies. Wizardman 16:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Every few months for years, some faction or another comes in to reopen that debate, and the language hasn't budged one syllable in all that time. I'm certainly all for appropriate Wikiprojects to be given binding authority to rewrite subsections of the notability criteria, but until and unless that happens, I'd like to see a slightly better rationale for a close outside of consensus than that you don't like black-letter guideline. In any event, this isn't the venue for arguing whether WP:BIO should be changed or not.  RGTraynor  17:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's just say the best course of action is for some outsiders (non-baseball people) to check this drv to see if it's right. We already know what each person on the baseball talk page is gonna say. Wizardman 18:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're that convinced that people can only judge violations of policy and guideline based on what decision most favors their personal partisan views, mm, fair enough.  RGTraynor  18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. Clearly meets WP:ATHLETE as noted by those opting to delete in the AfD because they don't like WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This will continue to come up again and again. This really needs a community discussion of whether to endorse WP:ATHLETE--a decision made harder by the lack of consistent agreement there. Personally, I don't care which way it comes as long as it gets settled--and for those who do care about the subject, it should be in their interest also, so whatever the rules are decided to be, they can go back to writing articles according to them. But the notability guidelines, general or specific, are not binding in any particular instance, the community has consistently refused to elevate them to policy, and we have very frequently made all sorts of rational and less rational objections. It does not make sense to talk about what WP:N or any other guideline permits in an absolute sense. My own view of the relationship between general and specific, is that specific supersedes general, being obviously able to be tailored more closely to particular situations--but only if endorsed tacitly or explicitly by the community. We take the advice of experts, we do not give them final authority. DGG (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: One bad precedent wouldn't justify another, so any of our excesses of granularity in other places or sports wouldn't justify multiplying the error. If we gather up all of the MLB players, we're in the thousands. If we wish three levels of minor league, per year, we're at astronomical sums, and yet without any genuine cultural significance. Geogre (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. As others have stated, he didn't meet the poor guidelines at WP:WPBB#Players. Further, most of the content was sourced by unreliable fansites and non-independent web sites anyway. There would have been precious little left if that content was removed per WP:V. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood Undead

Hollywood Undead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD AFD2 AFD3)

New information has been released by the band on myspace and amazon and other online retailers show the band's new album is being released on the 26th of August 2008. Plus the band is now going on tour. The band is one of the most popular myspace bands to be signed up and now with definite information(from reliable sources like amazon.com and the band itself) about the new album and its release date and even its tracklisting, I think this article should be undeleted and just semi protected so that we can edit it. Killeroid (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have added links to two other AFDs for this band. Davewild (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Allow Recreation I have done a bit of searching and there does appear to be quite a bit of coverage recently since the previous AFDs - , , combined with the older coverage such as , , . There seems to be just enough now for notability. Davewild (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Given the history of the article, I really think it would be a good idea to work up a version in userspace (e.g. at User:Killeroid/Hollywood Undead), making sure that is establishes notability via reliable sources, and then bring that to Deletion Review. --Stormie (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted until per Stormie: recreation is fine, but to make that carte blanch just puts us right back here, I fear. Get the sources and the information and a good looking piece, and then let's examine it. Better here than AfD x2. Geogre (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment As people require a userspace version I have created the outline of one at User:Davewild/Hollywood Undead (feel free to improve it anyone). I feel it clearly establishes their notability, which is only going to grow over the next month, and so we should allow it to be moved to mainspace. Davewild (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

County Route 59 (Chautauqua County, New York)

County Route 59 (Chautauqua County, New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted for "no assertion of notability", but that's not a speedy deletion criterion. The deleting admin did not reply. --NE2 02:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at AfD if it's truly not notable. I am of the personal belief that enough can be found on most roads to establish notability. TravellingCari 03:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about county routes like this, but if it's not notable the best course of action is to redirect List of county routes in Chautauqua County, New York. Having the article text would obviously help determine if that's so, and even if it's not there's no reason not to have it in the history. --NE2 04:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not 100% certain either, I'd also support the redirect. It's not one I'm interested in enough to research, but I think we all see it's not a speedy. TravellingCari 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overeturn all county highways are notable. Splat5572 (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Not according to this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Roads do not fall under the A7 speedy criteria. Davewild (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn primarily per Davewild. A7 is the only speedy criteria that mentions notability (and even that says that it has a "lower standard than notability"), which clearly does not apply to roads. If the road is truly not notable on its own (I never saw the deleted article so I don't know if this is true), then the correct course of action is to redirect it to the list article (per NE2 above), and keep the history so that it can be merged into a more detailed list article (like List of county routes in Rockland County, New York (1-38)) in the future. -- Kéiryn (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn as above. A7 does not apply to roads. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn This is a question for AFD. I don't believe all roads or even all county roads are notable, but this isn't like an article on your garage band playing its first gig in two weeks. A large enough percentage of road articles are notable that an article on a road deserves an AFD. --Rividian (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn While County Routes are not always notable, A7 certainly doesn't apply. Should have been taken to AfD rather than speedy deletion. Juliancolton 19:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn A7 doesn't apply to roads. RMHED (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)