Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 7: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:13, 8 October 2008

< October 6	Deletion review archives: 2008 October	October 8 >

7 October 2008

Image:NewYorkYankees caplogo.svg

Nominator reuploaded image after deletion -Nv8200p talk 17:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It got speedy deleted as salted as a g4. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the IFD is here Spartaz Humbug! 18:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed, and the consensus was KEEP. The rationale for deleting was listed as "Any detail need to identify the uniform of the team properly should be shown as a magnified inset in the uniform drawing image not in another non-free image per NFCC 3a", ignoring the discussion which noted that the subset (the subject of this image) was not legible in the other image, and consequently was not helpful to the article, which discusses in detail the differences between the Yankees' uniform, cap and print logos. Without adequately legible versions of all three logos, the article is diminished. In addition, if we are to delete this image we will need to delete hundreds more, as most uniform graphics include images of a team's cap, primary or helmet logo (this is certainly the case with the thirty Major League Baseball articles). If that is to be the policy, I would argue that it would be better to delete the uniform graphics, not the cap or helmet graphics, and adopt a system similar to Template:Football_kit. SixFourThree (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Endorse deletion (from closing admin) Adding another non-free image goes against WP:NFCC3a. The detail should be part of the uniform image (already non-free) not a separate image. -Nv8200p talk 16:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with 3a is that the one item mentioned is not able to "convey equivalent significant information" as the cap logo is not distinguishable from the print logo (which was the consensus of the original discussion), and is arguably not even distinguishable from the uniform logo. To that end, I would suggest again that if any of these graphics violate 3a, it would be Image:ALE-Uniform-NYY.PNG, and that is the one which should be deleted. I personally think that they fail to violate 3a, for the reason noted. The information conveyed is hardly equivalent, if it fails to address the relevant section of the article. SixFourThree (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]
Overturn The decision seems to ignore the facts of this specific case in favor of a broader principle.LedRush (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, correct closure. Multiple non-free images may not be used where one would suffice. Pick one. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument seems to be that one does not suffice here. Can you refute that argument and show how one image does suffice? Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was giving my opinion on the matter; that's what DRV is about. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we think the "NY" logo is protected by copyright? Postdlf (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'overturn There is a clear explanation for why multiple non-free images make sense here so there's no 3a issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep. Not violating copyright is policy; NFCC is a guideline & therefore flexible; the interpretation of the guideline is decided by consensus in the community, not be individual admins. Unilaterally reversing a consensus decision because you disagree with it is abusive. Our role in closing & subsequent actions is NOT to decide whether the community is right--all we do is see which arguments have a reasonable basis in policy,and decide what the consensus of them is--whether or not we feel that way ourselves. anyone who said otherwise at a RfAdmin would not get appointed, and to behave that way afterwards is just plain wrong. The arguments here for deletion are irrelevant--the matter was decided fairly by consensus. This is not IfD 2. If I were to go around, see discussions where everyone said delete, and close them as keep, what would happen ... ? DGG (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I go to WP:NFCC it is quite clearly stated as policy. Indeed it also has the note "As per the March 23rd, 2007 Wikimedia Foundation Licensing policy resolution this document serves as the Exemption Doctrine Policy for the English Wikipedia.". Not sure how you can then say NFCC is a guideline. If eveyone said "delete - wibble" closing it other than delete would be fine. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, why do we think this logo is protected by copyright? It's just an N superimposed over a Y, so why wouldn't Template:PD-font apply? Or even assuming it is copyrighted, wasn't it in public use (i.e., published) prior to 1923, in which case Template:PD-US would apply? Postdlf (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image was tagged with a Non-free logos license and that is how it was discussed at IMFD. DRV is for reviewing that discussion, not the image itself. DRV is not the place to determine whether the image is free. You can raise that issue at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or try Wikipedia_talk:Possibly unfree images. -- Suntag ☼ 13:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while we are on that topic, there's PD and then there's feasibly PD. We are talking about the New York Yankees here. Steamboat Willie for example is almost certainly PD. I don't think anyone is going to try to upload it to commons anytime soon. Part of what we mean when we label things as PD is that people can reasonably expect to treat them as PD and get away with it. Even if this image is PD I doubt that would be the case given who it associated with. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn DGG said it quite well. I also agree with SixFourThree. Hobit (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus - The keep reasoning had good, fact based arguments as to why one item can not convey equivalent significant information. However, the keep reasoning lacked discussion as to what reliable source material supported the significant information conveyed by the image. The delete reasoning stated that the logo already is contained in another image in the article (Image:ALE-Uniform-NYY.PNG), but did not address how Image:ALE-Uniform-NYY.PNG conveyed equivalent significant information. Both keep and delete arguments were not well founded and no consensus seems more appropriate. Although not intentional, the closing language seem to interject the closer into the debate. Closing with wording such as "consensus below indicates", "keep arguments say", and "delete arguments say" may help keep focus on the closing task. -- Suntag ☼ 14:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn IfD procedurally flawed, permissible fair use, otherwise acceptable image. MBisanz ^talk 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The IfD provides clear consensus and arguments for retention. Alansohn (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths by age

CfD can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 30#Category:Deaths by age

The 00:55, 8 October 2008 comment below was merged from a duplicate deletion review

Umbrella nomination of hierarchy. Closing admin disregarded a clear consensus and instead made an argument based on precedents to support deletion (and in effect also discounted WP:CCC). Close should be overturned. meco (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I had contacted the closing admin asking for a reconsideration, but it appears that the DRV was created before the admin would have had a chance to respond, I will be more than happy to address any response from the admin in question, but he seems to have anticipated a DRV in the close. To go through the arguments presented in the close. 1) Precedent - The three CfDs offered as "precedent" are poor matches for the series of categories discussed here: this prior CFD and this prior CFD both involve deaths (and more irrelevantly, births) in the specific month of October, and I know of no source that groups by month; This prior CFD seems to be one of those "quadruple intersections" that solely address entertainers. The death by age category structure addresses only age, provides clear inclusion and calculation criteria, and is not a multiple intersection. 2) Not Defining - While I understand that many voters, including the closing admin, have called age at death "trivial" or "not defining", I have provided examples of numerous obituaries that include age in the title, including one day's worth of obituaries in The New York Times in which all four articles included age of death in the brief title. All three of the obituaries in today's New York Times include age in the title. I also showed examples where the exact calculation of age was relevant for someone who died the day before a birthday. I could provide millions of references showing that age of death is a defining characteristic, above the four I already provided. Given Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, it was demonstrated that the media deems age of death to be a rather strong defining characteristic. 3) WP:NOT - Wikipedia:NOT#INFO states that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Age of death meets none of the criteria specified here, and this is a policy about articles. We would not have an article List of people born in 1937, but we certainly have Category:1937 births. The relevant standard for categories is not "would we have an article about this", but "is this a defining characteristic" and reliable sources have been provided to show that it is. 4) WP:DEATHAGE - WP:DEATHAGE is an effort to come to agreement on a structure by which age of death would be organized into categories and to provide clear inclusion criteria for its use. It appears to have been established in good faith to reach consensus on the subject, and the claim that it was "created to try to hold off a CFD exactly like this one" appears to be both in extremely bad faith and a rather poor argument for deleting this, or any other, category structure. The arguments provided in the close appear to have been written in the form of a vote for deletion reflecting personal preferences and biases, rather than a balanced and dispassionate consideration of relevant Wikipedia policy based on the evidence provided by all participants in the CfD. As the arguments for deletion have been shown to be irrelevant to supporting deletion under Wikipedia policy, and as it appears that well-sourced, and unrebutted, evidence showing that the age of death is a rather strong defining characteristic appears to have been disregarded, it seems that this close as out of process and should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. I stand by my close, and I'm not going to go tit for tat on each point. I will respond to the trivial/not defining reason, though. As in the discussion itself, and above, it was not established that age of death is a defining characteristic. Just because the NYT prints it in the title doesn't make it defining. Example: if I asked you what defines George Washington, would the first thing you'd reply with be "he died at age 67"? Would it even be in the top ten? Just because you can cite a fact about someone doesn't make it defining, nor does WP have categories about every little tidbit about a person. --Kbdank71 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To someone asked at random, age at death may not be the first characteristic listed about George Washington, but it would rank up there with "born in 1732" or "died in 1799", all of which establish a clearer precedent and are covered by a thorough categorization system. That age of death is not the first characteristic listed in a hypothetical original research project about George Washington is not a valid argument for deletion, nor are we limited to one category per article. I have Monday's edition of The New York Times on my desk, which has three articles titled "Donald Blakeslee, Who Commanded Fighters Over Berlin, Is Dead at 90", "Aaron Katz, 92, Advocate for Rosenbergs" and "A. Biran, 98, Archaeologist Who Studied Biblical Sites". For that matter, every single obituary listed at [The Times' obituary web portal includes age of death, including historical ones listed in its archive, and I could provide thousand of other sources from each of thousands of other publications showing that media sources deem it to be a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Characteristic, yes. Defining characteristic, no. Is Aaron Katz known for dying at 92 or is he known for being an advocate for the Rosenbergs? 500 years from now, are we going to remember Donald Blakeslee for dying at 90? Are they going to start A. Biran's eulogy with "A. Biran was 98 when he died"? Again, just because you can cite a fact about someone doesn't make it defining. --Kbdank71 18:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, I have offered reliable and verifiable sources to show age of death as a defining characteristic, which stands fairly strongly against an imaginary anecdote. 500 years from now, we won't know the ages these people died at, let alone who they were. We won't know what year they were born or what year they died. We won't understand why anyone would fly a plane driven by a spinning propeller and we won't know who the Rosenbergs were or care about their death (circumstances, year, or ages). But I am pretty sure that Wikipedia will still be around. Archaeologists studying the early history of our universal encyclopedia will try to answer the question on the minds of many, "why was so much time wasted by so few trying to delete so much useful information?" If only a fictional time traveler would come back and tell us (with reliable sources) whether "age of death" will be a defining characteristic and if it will stand the test of time. Alansohn (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The fictional time traveller would probably consider both sides to be wasting their time. The information is still there, no matter what the result of this discussion. This is merely presentation. Where and how, and how many times, should this information be presented? You do realise that even if the categories are deleted, it is still possible to use various methods to generate lists using the deathage template in the infoboxes, right? What you do is include a custom-formatted "invisible" link, and then use "what links here" for that specific invisible link to find all the people who died at a certain age. I think someone (Rick Block?) suggested doing this for maintenance categories. I'll ask him. Carcharoth (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I suggested adding an invisible link for the maintenance categories (prior to the implementation of hidden categories). This technique is used for template:update after. I think the real answer here is something more like Semantic MediaWiki, but I suspect we're not likely to get there soon. Hidden categories are probably better than invisible links, since the presentation order for a category is more user friendly. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This seems like over-categorisation to me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, properly closed as over-categorization. Supporters mainly argued that other existing categories were no worse than this scheme; it was never explained why it was useful to group biographical articles together based on their age at the time of death. That it is a relevant and important fact means it should be noted in articles; it does not mean it's defining of the subjects (not every fact worthy of inclusion in an article is), or that it's meaningful or helpful to group individuals on the basis of that fact without any context. This is particularly true given the wide range of life expectancy between cultures contemporaneously and the range even within a given culture across human history. Postdlf (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, closure was proper and within admin discretion. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - admin closed a difficult discussion and his closing statement indicates that he took arguments into account on all sides as well as other similar CFDs before making the decision. No procedural error in this close. Otto4711 (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - Per above, difficult but well argumented decision. Note, I voted delete myself, still see no use at all in these categories. Garion96 (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The closer's own words in the CFD are "nobody has made any good arguments to delete/keep" which is tantamount to saying there is no consensus. Reading the arguments presented on both sides of the issue, I find reasonable arguments for, as well as against, delete. There is clearly no consensus. The closer used his own opinion, bordering on original research to try to resolve this and that is not within the scope of the closer's responsibilities. The close as delete was done in contravention of Wikipedia policy, which is grounds enough to overturn. The additional arguments for the validity of the category expressed above further solidifies a no consensus for delete opinion of the Wiki community. At an absolute minimum, the closer should recuse himself from this discussion and let community consensus (or lack of it) rule. Truthanado (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, where exactly did I say "nobody has made any good arguments to delete/keep"? --Kbdank71 20:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer: second line of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 30#Category:Deaths by age after "The result of the discussion was ..." I assume your signature at the end of the paragraph means you wrote them. Truthanado (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was clearly Kbdank71's characterization of others' comments; he was noting that anyone saying "keep" or "delete" purely because they didn't think anyone had offered good arguments to the contrary was themself not offering a good argument. Postdlf (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - First of all, not making valid arguments for or against delete is a good argument because Wikipedia policy requires consensus to change things; if there is no consensus, you leave things as they are ... status quo. Secondly, the use of quotation marks infers that someone actually made that exact statement, which is not found in anyone's comments. Therefore, one can only conclude that this is the closer's opinion. In which case, there is no consensus. Truthanado (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        For fuck's sake, the whole first sentence was as follows: There are many arguments here on both sides which are along the lines of "keep/delete: nobody has made any good arguments to delete/keep", which is not a good argument to keep or delete. Disagree with his conclusion if you like, but let's not pretend we can't understand what was and wasn't his own opinion as if we have no better than a first-grader's reading comprehension level. Postdlf (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This part of the discussion needs a cup of WP:TEA. Swearing, assuming pretence and comparing people to first-graders will not help. Thouhg for the record I agree with you that people are misunderstanding what Kbdank71 said. Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Missing the point - seriously, why do people seemingly not want to look at the bigger picture here? I raised it at the CfD discussion (suggesting a hidden category), but the timing was bad as the discussion was nearly due for closing and not many people saw my comments. Year of birth, year of death, age at death, name, index sorting value (i.e. DEFAULTSORT), and so on. All these are standard biographical values that can be requested and (where available) supplied on practically all biographical articles. The fact that people try and do so in different ways (plain text in the article, templates in the infoboxes, categories, persondata, DEFAULTSORT) suggests that the disparate systems need integrating and consolidating. This would need a co-ordinated effort with much discussion and bots to implement the changes, but would allow people to extract the stats to their heart's content, as well as avoid perennial discussion like this one. I realise the "category" people want to put an end to the categories before they spread (though actually, they can be implemented using templates and enabled and disabled at the flick of a switch on the template), but the aim here should be for people to work together to get a result that satisfies everyone, not for people to stick to and focus on their "specialities", whether that be categories, biographical data, or whatever. So to return to what I said at the start of this comment, deleting or keeping these categories is misssing the point. The real need is to improve the way biographical data is handled on Wikipedia's biographical articles. I've made attempts towards this in the past (and others have tried to and achieved more, and have done stuff quietly with bots), but the task is so massive that it really needs a co-ordinated effort and if some of the people here would be prepared to devote some time towards that, it would really, really help. If anyone agrees with this and has advice or wants to help out, please comment here, so the closer of the DRV can take this into account. Carcharoth (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I had considered the possibility of a hidden category when I saw this one. I'm not sure that this is the right solution, but it could be a good starting point for a compromise that includes an automated system to create the entries. This specific problem is yet another instance of AfD deciding that something should not be an article but it should be a category. So some articles get deleted and some categories get created. Then someone points out that the categories are not the right solution so those editors who wanted the data are left out in the cold and frustrated. To complain about the CfD process is anger misdirected. The real problem in my mind is the lack of foresight at AfD when someone presupposes that a category will in fact be considered the best solution. I like the talking points raised by Carcharoth since that could produce a broader solution then a discussion here. The issue would be making sure that all of the parties are at the table. Not sure how to make that happen. Considering that there is a discussion about linking or not linking the birth and death dates, or at least I think that discussion is still happening, then maybe the best solution here would be to defer to the other discussion. If the dates are to be linked, then create a template to do that and calculate the age. The including of links or hidden categories becomes a simple template change. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The action is supported by the previous related CfDs, the fact that apparently this attribute about a person is not mentioned in most bio articles and the strength of the reasons presented in the discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus which is the fair evaluation of the situation. There just wasn't any. It's not a question of when it's balanced, the closer decides. As there's 1500 of us, that's a prescription for chaos. When it's balanced, it's no consensus. Additionally, as Vegaswikian points out, there were various suggestions for automation that may make this moot. DGG (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. My personal opinion is that the categories could be kept—on a strictly personal level, I wouldn't mind having them for my own use. However, whatever the result, I don't think the closing admin can be faulted in this case, as it appeared to be a hard situation. Why I say this is that while I think in terms of numbers there was somewhat of a "balance", if not a tilt towards keep, but the arguments in favour of keeping were, in my opinion, not very good, while those for deletion were quite strong. So at first glance it really looks like a no consensus, but on closer examination I think it comes clear what the decision needed to be. The closer could have taken the easy route and just closed as no consensus, but he actually read the arguments and considered them. There is no procedural error here, and the decision seems well within the discretion of the admin. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If this were true, then the CfD would have been closed with a statement like There is Clear Consensus to delete based on strength of arguments. But the closer didn't do that. He gave a wordy opinion (some of it not based on the arguments presented, reflecting his own opinion) and that is not proper process. Truthanado (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't pretend to know exactly how another admin will enunciate comments based on his or her own thoughts. It never ceases to amaze me how many editors can read the mind of admins and how many know exactly how an admin should write about what they are thinking. But since from the above it looks like you've had a hard time discerning the difference between the closer's own opinion and his paraphrasing of others' comments, I won't put too much stock in your Kreskin-esque suggestions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This comment was merged from a later discussion above on this page.

While there was no concensus to keep, there was no concensus to delete either. Should have been closed as "no concenus, default to keep." The closing administrator was concerned about the triviality, though I personally feel this is not trivial, this is of high importance. People are compared constantly for having lived to the same age. For example, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford are two presidents who have lived to age 93, the oldest of any U.S. presidents. There are connections that are commonly cited at times between historic figures who live to the same age, even if centuries apart. A category like "deaths from falls off the roof" or "deaths after x amount of time of hospitalization" may to a little too trivial and fit under WP:NOT#INFO, but this is not a collection of statistics or any other indiscriminate information; in fact, this does not provide statistics on age of death. It does, however, show who shared a common age of death with the subject in the article, which does have importance as to what the reader views as a "long" or "short" life. There was plenty of concensus to keep this set of categories. Sebwite (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as clearly no consensus. Both keep and delete arguments made vary good points, showing that the issue has yet to be resolved. Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic does not require that the age of death be a defining characteristic to be used as a categorization. Per OCAT non-defining it needs to be (i) "useful for categorization", (ii) non trivial, and (iii) notable in a person's life. That part of OCAT says, "If something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely not a defining characteristic." Age at death is vital to a biography, which addresses the notable in a person's life requirement. Age at death is not similar to the other trivial examples listed at OCAT non-defining. The issue seems to come down to usefulness and both keep and delete arguments made vary good points on this. Mozart dies at age 34 in 1791. What relationship does that have with someone who dies in 2008 at age 34? The usefullness of the category, including the inherent intersection in these categories between age at death and year of death, should be clear before a keep or delete consensus is determined.. Comment - To get a different perspective of how age is used in categorizing, see Category:Awards by age of recipient. -- Suntag ☼ 14:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some other efforts in this area: Actors who died in their 20s AfD, Artists who died at 27 AfD, and List of people who died before the age of 30 AfD. -- Suntag ☼ 15:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo Marri wars

Closed as "no consensus". I'd like to relist it because the nomination had a strong basis in WP:VER and WP:POV and the author himself seems to admit these points when he commented that "I agree with you at some extent, that there's no such thing as the Anglo Marri wars previously but it doesn't mean that it cann't be in future". But there were very few contributions and the nomination wasn't properly discussed. andy (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse own closure, WP:RELIST discourages relisting when more than one or two people have contributed, and the keep !voters were satisfied with the references as they stood. I would be ignoring them and doing them a disservice to have deleted the article. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree if there were any references but it was clear from the debate that there weren't (have a look at the article) and the subject gets zero ghits. I think that where there's such a clear difference of opinion and relatively few people contributing it's necessary to look into the matter before closing. We had two deletes, two keeps including the author and a comment which agreed that there were no acceptable references. andy (talk)

Endorse closure. I think that the author's words quoted above were simply a case of less than perfect language by someone with English as a second language rather than an admission that the wars didn't exist - that's pretty clear from the the author's other comments. And there is a reference - the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I located the EB article and linked to it in the AfD. It doesn't contain any references to "wars" in any sense. andy (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep would also have been an acceptable outcome here with an EB source and unchallenged assertion of urdu sources. Sourcing does not need to be in English and there is already too much western centric systemic bias in Wikipedia. This nomination looks like reasons to fix the article not delete it. 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC) That was me by the way Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought of fixing it but since there have never been any "Anglo Marri wars" (not in the EB or anywhere else) I couldn't quite work out how... andy (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could always move the article to a better name that more accurately reflects the EB reference and then work from there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that but it's already covered in Marri, almost word for word. I'd redirect there except it would fail CSD R3 since there were, err... exactly zero Anglo Marri wars. Whatever, I'll stick some Caveat Emptor tags on it and let other people worry about verification. andy (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm if its already covered word for word then just redirect as this is the more logical place for the article. I wouldn't worry about R3. Its not that implausible a search term and if you carry any data across when you redirect then the GFDL requires the redirext to be preserved. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Procedurally appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 14:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Chey

This was originally closed as "keep", but the closing administrator reversed that decision to "delete" after the discussion here and here. I do not accept that there was a consensus to delete. The first editor to support the AfD nomination said that he would support keeping the article if further sources were found, which they were, and the other "delete" supporter based his comment on a Google News search where he had omitted to select "all dates". During the AfD three further reliable sources with substantial coverage of the subject were identified (The Sacramento Bee, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and La Crónica de Hoy) on top of the two that were already in the article (Christianity Today and Christian Spotlight). Overturn Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have I missed it or have you not tried discussing the decision with the admin yourself? Did you read the instructoons on listing DRVs that states that you should do this before raising a discussiom? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have missed it: here and here. I brought this to DRV on the suggestion of the deleting admin. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. My apologies if my tone was overharsh. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion or Relist - As the AFD nominator, I endorse the deletion close, but would be content to see this relisted to arrive at a less ambiguous consensus. There simply isn't enough coverage of Chey in reliable sources to support a claim of notability. The sources from the article ([1] & [2]) are simply reviews of Chey's film. Likewise, of the additional sources offered, one is clearly a movie review, one is is a very short Spanish-language piece, and the SacBee piece is a review of an earlier documentary, although without being able to read it, it may be unclear how much mention it makes of Chey. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Reviews of the subject's films are sources about his work, which is what makes him notable. The majority of articles about people such as politicians, businesspeople, academics, sportspeople, rock stars etc. are based on sources about their work. Why apply a different standard to film directors? Having said that, I'd be perfectly happy with a relist. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, valid closure. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. #1 changing from keep to delete seems like an obvious case of no consensus. #2 sources came late in the AfD and those that !voted delete argued for deletion because of a lack of sources. The second delete !vote was flawed (claimed there were no google news sources at all due to a flawed search. Closing as delete after sources are provided and no other comments come in is probably the wrong call 9 times out of 10. In this case, it clearly was. Keep would also be a poor call. So either relist or no consensus would be fine, and I'd lean strongly toward relist. Hobit (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also this is an article solely on the subject.

Relist Given that new sources were produced at the end of the discussion (and above on here) I think a relist to allow a full discussion of whether people believe notability has been established seems sensible. Davewild (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/Relist Sources provided support notability which were correctly noted in the original close as Keep. Alansohn (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and probably relist since there still seems to be some objections to keeping. I see the sources for notability as adequate, but that can be discussed DGG (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 :While there was no concensus to keep, there was no concensus to delete either. Should have been closed as "no concenus, default to keep." The closing administrator was concerned about the triviality, though I personally feel this is not trivial, this is of high importance. People are compared constantly for having lived to the same age. For example, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford are two presidents who have lived to age 93, the oldest of any U.S. presidents. There are connections that are commonly cited at times between historic figures who live to the same age, even if centuries apart. A category like "deaths from falls off the roof" or "deaths after x amount of time of hospitalization" may to a little too trivial and fit under WP:NOT#INFO, but this is not a collection of statistics or any other indiscriminate information; in fact, this does not provide statistics on age of death. It does, however, show who shared a common age of death with the subject in the article, which does have importance as to what the reader views as a "long" or "short" life. There was plenty of concensus to keep this set of categories. [[User:Sebwite|Sebwite]] ([[User talk:Sebwite|talk]]) 00:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Overturn''' as clearly no consensus. Both keep and delete arguments made vary good points, showing that the issue has yet to be resolved. [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic]] does not require that the age of death be a defining characteristic to be used as a categorization. Per [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic|OCAT non-defining]] it needs to be (i) "useful for categorization", (ii) non trivial, and (iii) notable in a person's life. That part of OCAT says, "If something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely not a defining characteristic." Age at death is vital to a biography, which addresses the notable in a person's life requirement. Age at death is not similar to the other trivial examples listed at OCAT non-defining. The issue seems to come down to usefulness and both keep and delete arguments made vary good points on this. Mozart dies at age 34 in 1791. What relationship does that have with someone who dies in 2008 at age 34? The usefullness of the category, including the inherent intersection in these categories between age at death and year of death, should be clear before a keep or delete consensus is determined.. '''Comment''' - To get a different perspective of how age is used in categorizing, see [[:Category:Awards by age of recipient]]. -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big><font color="#FF8C00">☼</font></big></b>]] 14:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
+* '''Comment''' - Some other efforts in this area: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actors who died in their 20s|Actors who died in their 20s AfD]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artists who died at 27|Artists who died at 27 AfD]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who died before the age of 30 (2nd nomination)|List of people who died before the age of 30 AfD]]. -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big><font color="#FF8C00">☼</font></big></b>]] 15:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 ====[[:Anglo Marri wars]]====