Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 2

Eugenie Carys de Silva (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Out of process closure. This deletion was made after less than two days being open, due to the closing administrator incorrectly arguing that the result was irrecoverably tainted by sock puppetry. The existence of sock puppetry and meat puppetry is not uncommon at AfD; it is the job of closing administrators to weigh the legitimacy of all comments there. Sock puppetry does not mean that an article should be auto-deleted out of process to prevent theoretical future sock puppetry in the same debate. Moreover, whether one thinks of this as deletion-worthy or not, the fact is that this was not an uncontroversial ("snow") deletion, as the closing administrator intimated when I asked him to revert his action. I don't ask for anything more than a relisting here so that the AfD process may work itself through in the normal manner. It is an arguable deletion challenge; what should be unarguable is that this speedy closure was out of process and should not be allowed to stand. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - as nominator. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I certainly understand why the admin might have thought the article an obvious delete. But the discussion having started, using " closing early due to disruptive input" to close in favor of what is obviously one's own opinion when the disruption is merely a few obvious sockpuppets making arguments, not engaging in abuse, isn't really a good use of discretion. Even if the sockpuppettry were more extensive, to the extent of confusing the issue, closing as a relist to start over is usually a better choice. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my own opinion, it is my reading of the debate. I have no opinion, other than the view of the debate that this is WP:BLP1E. I do have a view on the advisability of allowing AfDs to play out in the case of BLP articles, when the likely comments are going to be along the line of "not notable". I have seen enough emails from article subjects to understand how hurtful this is. Most of them never wanted an article in the first place. Guy (Help!) 07:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I can understand the argument for a snow close in this case. I'm concerned about the closing statement that it was an early close "due to disruptive behaviour". Because if we allow quick closes due to disruptive behaviour, then we're creating an incentive for future disruptive behaviour when someone wants a discussion closed quick. At the very least, the closing statement should be struck out and amended to a straight "snow close", but if there's plurality support for a relist then I don't object to that either.—S Marshall T/C 18:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I closed this because there were strong arguments for delete, and evidence of off-site solicitation that was already leading to WP:SPA input. The only valid !vote for keep, was Carrite. This had already received more delete !votes than many uncontroversially deleted articles, including one switch from keep to delete. This is a WP:BLP of a minor child, and the article does not establish notability other than for the single event of graduating while still a minor. In normal Wikipedia practice, the article would be merged to a list of youngest graduates (and a redirect there would be fine right now), but spinning out an acrimonious sock-riddled deletion debate on a living person does not seem to me to be the best idea we ever had. That is the limit of my caring about this particular article, so I'm done here. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The creator also opined in favor of keeping; even if it were 6-2 or whatever this early in a debate, that's not snow. Potential acrimony is present in every AfD debate and there are sock-strewn debates almost every single day. We need to be consistent with our process to keep things grounded in group consensus and policy rather than the randomness of individual action. As a betting man I would agree this will probably end in deletion; the process is important, however. There should remain a window for the article's defenders to muster sources, improve the piece, and to mount a successful policy-based defense. Carrite (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• relist and semi protect There were other solutions to socking that should have been tried first. I think it is likely this will end up deleted, but I don't see a SNOW case here. Hobit (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse One misguided inclusionist and a pile of someone else's socks shouldn't prolong what is a rather straight-forward "news of the day" wonderkid. WP:NOTBURO. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But nor should it require early closure... Hobit (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't require it, no, but it isn't out-of-bounds to do so either. Admin discretion, I'm fine with that. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Substandard behavior on both sides -- the AFD nom's principal rationale, "no independent reporting", is plainly incorrect, and indicates a failure to meet WP:BEFORE; the COI and possible puppetry issues aren't anywhere near enough to justify summary closure and deletion. I'm cautious about BLPs of minors who don't place themselves squarely in the public arena, but this doesn't appear to have been inappropriate or intrusive in terms of content. Her family is (justifiably) proud of here, and may have committed minor sins in terms of Wikipedia editing, but nowhere near so severely as to justify out-of-process deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Out of process closes can sometimes be justified on BLP or other unusual grounds, but I see absolutely no compelling reason here not to do this one by the book. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Pseudoscientists (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As one of the people suggesting the renaming that because the centerpiece of the outcome I hate to have to press this, but one of the elements of the decision has proven to be disruptive. The statement that Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, the replacement category, "will only serve as a holding category for subcategories" and "therefore should be empty as to articles" set off a race to strip the category from articles before anyone could create a new subcategory to contain them. We also have a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 22#Pseudoscientific fooers to get rid of new subcategories. I agree that the new categories are problematic, but this is brought about by a fundamental flaw in the decision: it violates the policy that "Wikipedia is not censored". There are plentiful modern advocates of bogus science who are not readily lumped into some easily-named or pre-existent category, and who refuse to admit their fringiness, even though it is exceedingly easy to find authoritative voices to so classify them. Therefore their supporters here are having little difficulty protecting these articles from accurate categorization, thus censoring the categorization system.

I suggest two alternatives:

1. remove the dictum that Category:Advocates of pseudoscience be a container category only, or
2. allow "Advocates of pseudoscientific foo" subcategories of any size

I do not oppose any of the rest of the decision and would prefer that this discussion be limited to the specific issue I've brought up. Mangoe (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close by the three wise men because they were delegated to make a decision and it has not been shown to be unreasonable in itself. Close discussing question 2 here because the CFD is still open. @Mangoe: I'm puzzled by "subcategories of any size". What is the relevance of size? Thincat (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This is unusually complicated and I'm sure it'll take some time for us to review and think about the substantive issues. But I do differ from Thincat to a certain extent: I don't think it's for Mangoe to show that the decision is unreasonable. I think the allegation that the decision is creating practical problems is sufficient for us to look at it. I see no reason why we can't give proper scrutiny to a triumvirate close. The other CfD is, at present, not within DRV's purview because there's been no close to review, so we'll need to look at that separately.

  As I said, I'll look at it but in the meantime I wanted to make a procedural suggestion. Mangoe's advice that editors are in "a race to strip the category from articles before anyone could create a new subcategory to contain them" is obviously time-sensitive, and this may continue during the course of the DRV. I wonder if we should put in a bot task request for a bot to go through identifying which articles were in this category when the CfD began.—S Marshall T/C 12:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've now been able to review the discussion and consider it. In the light of the second paragraph of WP:LABEL, it seems clear to me that all the deletes on the basis of "BLP nightmare" should have received less weight. We have Category:Fascists and Category:Monsters which could be misapplied to create a BLP issue. The fact that they can be misapplied does not mean they should be deleted. This simply does not follow, and Elaqueate pointed this out during the debate. In the light of points 15, 16, and 17 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, there are times when it's appropriate to label something as pseudoscience. Misusing that label is a conduct issue that can be dealt with. Accordingly, I conclude that the closers' decision not to delete the category was appropriate and I endorse it.

  Mangoe's complaint, though, is not unreasonable and DRV should help ensure the spirit as well as the letter of the closers' decision is followed. We need to work out which articles were in the category when the CfD began, and we need to move them all into the holding category. We might need to refer this to a bot coding person to see how this can best be achieved (a python script of some kind?).—S Marshall T/C 18:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wary in general of categories that don't function the way their names imply, so it's a bit ironic to me that this decision resulted in the deletion of a straightforwardly-named category on the basis that it could "not be maintained as it" stood, only to be replaced with a category which was prohibited from being maintained with what it says on the tin. I didn't follow this discussion closely, so I don't have a strong opinion on the initial question; I just think we really need to be careful when making categories that will be lightning rods for error like this. (Ping me if you want to discuss this; I won't be watching here.) --BDD (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This does look to be that a reasonable result that has unfortunately led to a biased attempt to disrupt the change into appropriate subcategories, or categories, of whatever name. I do agree the name of Supporters of foo and its subcategories is much clearer and less susceptible to misuse than the original category here. The items originally listed should be moved to a category, which could well be Supporters of Pseudoscience, until subcategories are decided, and the articles listed under the proper ones. I'm not entirely sure how this fits under the usual purpose of deletion review, but this is an administrative board with wide discretion, and a medieval legal maxim seems applicable: where there is a wrong, there should be a remedy. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• On behalf of the panel, we did the best we could to address a bad situation. We had no intention to initiate a mad dash to depopulate the category without introducing appropriate subcategories to the relevant articles, nor to instigate the creation of equally amorphous subcategory titles. It is well established that many existing areas of advocacy are pseudoscience (e.g., phrenology), and it should suffice that categories be used or created to specifically identify phrenologists and other adherents to specific pseudoscientific beliefs. bd2412 T 18:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with bd2412's response. BOZ (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a clear consensus against the status quo in the original CFD. We, the panel, chose the most well-supported and policy-compliant alternative among those offered in the CFD. I don't think either of these conclusions is actually being disputed. This seems to be a complaint at the way the some members of the old category were re-classified, which of course was not decided by us, but by the users making those decisions. It was our intent that people be classified by the field or fields that "earned" them the pseudo-science label. Although people have asserted this is not possible for some members of the former category, I have yet to see an actually example of this - all those offered as examples to date were eitehr improperly classified to begin with (for example, scientific frauds are not practing pseudoscience, but instead belong in Category:Fraudsters, or a new Category:Scientific fraudsters/Category:People who comitted scientific fraud/whatever subcategory) or have been shown how they can be reclassified without resorting to a "psuedo-fooers" category. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse well-reasoned, pragmatic close that accurately reflects core values while maintaining utility. It's really hard to see any better possible outcome. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• further explanation I'm not faulting the panel's decision in the large; I just want to deal with this consequence. Everything about pseudoscience and its advocates is affected by the pressure to have Wikipedia legitimize these theories; in the case of certain figures the pressure is quite intense. What this detail of the decision has done is create a loophole which protects figures whom it is not easy to classify in one of the existing subcats. There are for example a number of people who have wildly divergent theories of basic physics (and one of those people is particularly the "beneficiary" of protection from supporters), but making a category for these people is proving difficult to fit into the dictated structure, and lone eccentrics who are hard to fit into a group with others are protected because there's no obviously legitimate way to subcategorize them. Mangoe (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe, I suspect this might be the wrong venue then. Your concern seems to be with things that happened after the deletion, rather than with the deletion itself. Shouldn't this be dealt with at WP:AN where the panel was constituted (wasn't it?) rather than DRV? You're not actually asking for a review of the deletion, are you? Or am I missing something? St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that somewhere in the discussion there was a suggestion that the renamed category would be made only a container, but I don't recall that. It is that aspect of the decision that I'm asking to have reconsidered. This is the appropriate venue for that reconsideration, not WP:AN. Mangoe (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposal to restrict the contents was raised at several points in the discussion; making the renamed category a container category is one kind of restriction, and is a kind that insures that articles falling under this category do so because sources specify the pseudoscientific belief advocated by the subject. Of course, many participants in the discussion would have deleted the category altogether, and raised strong arguments favoring deletion. Keeping the category as a container category also addresses the BLP concerns arising from categorizing people as general-purpose pseudoscientists. bd2412 T 18:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No problem Mangoe - if your concern relates to the close decision then that clarifies that. And if having considered it you are comfortable with it here, that's fine. Just didn't want you to waste your time. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse This was a very contentious, complicated CfD. The three closers put their heads together and thought that this compromise was a suitable path forward. I'm willing to give this a shot, as the change of structure will probably result in less edit warring and BLP problems. If they resume, however, as a result of this labelling, we may have to revisit the idea of scrapping the category tree completely. But for now let's try it out. ThemFromSpace 17:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose alternative I think Category:Advocates of pseudoscience should remain a container category only. Appropriate new subcategories are still being debated and I think there is little difference between labeling an individual a Pseudoscientist or an Advocate of pseudoscience. The decision regarding the category Pseudoscientists only occurred two weeks ago so, of course, the situation is still being sorted out.

The important thing is that more specific subcategories, that describe the beliefs or practices of the scholar or author that cause them to be judged pseudoscientists, be teased out and used as identifiers rather than using a broad brush that lumps together a wide variety of individuals as Advocates of pseudoscience. If these specific categories (like Category:Creationists or Category:Pseudohistorians) can't be found, then perhaps new identifying categories have to be created or maybe this means that the individual shouldn't be classified as an Advocate of pseudoscience at all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the closure as well-reasoned and not unreasonable. The category as it was was very problematic from a BLP standpoint, and I find the "not censored!!1!" argument to be a particularly weak one in this case. I do also agree with User:S Marshall that stripping articles from the category has been disruptive and somewhat circumvents the spirit of the close. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Tacoma Streetcar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted for not having any sources. It suffered from a framing problem: its title refers to a proposed vintage/heritage streetcar system in Tacoma, Washington whose notability was contested. Several sources were brought forward during the discussion (though not immediately added) indicating that the project might exist. The other part of the article, which contained a source, discussed the history of Tacoma's original streetcars, which ended operation in 1938. Some of this is discussed in Tacoma Link. As I read the discussion there would be a consensus for a reworked article with a lessened emphasis on the vintage/heritage project. I see no consensus for deletion; even the one person who came out strongly for deletion thought that an article, suitably reworked, could exist at a different location. AfD is not cleanup. Disappointingly the close did not address the existence of sources nor the history part of the article. I followed up with DangerousPanda (see User_talk:DangerousPanda#Tacoma_Streetcar) but he did not expand on his rationale. He also reiterated that there "was no possible other way to close an article with zero sources". Leaving aside whether that's a valid reason to delete, sources were brought forward late in the discussion and they weren't addressed. I think this should have been closed as no consensus, with a mandate to hold a move discussion and refactor the article. Barring that, I'd like clarity that an article on the history of Tacoma's streetcars won't be treated as a re-creation of deleted content. Mackensen (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn sources provided in the AfD were light at best AFAICT, but there was no consensus for deletion. Hobit (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2014
• Overturn: It looks to me like there was no consensus for deletion at the Afd and although the article seems to me problematic Mackensen's suggestions would seem the way to go to address problems. An article with this title but with a changed focus as well as one on Streetcars in Tacoma, Washington could be possible though. (I have only looked at a cached version of the article) (Msrasnw (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
• Overturn to keep - Sources presented during the discussion aren't the best, but they're enough to plausibly meet WP:N, and the headcount is quite in favour of it. WilyD 09:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The close was completely wrong. Thincat (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - article does not satisfy the WP:GNG. The only source given in the AfD discussion was a community meeting protocol and while possibly accurate that does not establish notability. No referals to magazines, established experts in the field by those who wanted to keep the article last time I looked in the AfD discussion. AadaamS (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You feel that was the consensus of the discussion? Hobit (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my mind, although many editors pushed to keep the article, no editor gave good proof on how the article satisfies the WP:GNG (the keep criterion for any article. AadaamS (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a guideline. We often delete things that meet the GNG and violate no other policy. We also keep things that don't meet the GNG. Local consensus is that way. As is WP:IAR. Hobit (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Hobit, that sourced quality articles meeting the WP:GNG are deleted in their entirety is surprising news to me. Consensus means I have to follow the consensus, not that I have to change my mind or like it. My AfD suggestion was merge, not outright deletion. I still don't see how a streetcar project where no shovel has entered the ground is worthy of a standalone article and that it should be merged into another general article about public transport in the area in the meantime. AadaamS (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Things like "Michelle Obama's arms" which met the GNG by a silly amount was deleted because there was a general sense we didn't need the article. Meeting the GNG is a good indication we should keep something, and not meeting it is a good indication that we shouldn't. But we occasionally don't follow the GNG. Hobit (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi Hobit, thanks for elaborating. Of course GNG is not always enough. So consensus aside, why do you think this article should be a standalone instead of being merged or renamed on this occasion? AadaamS (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ah, I honestly don't have a strong opinion, and I suspect a merge might be the right outcome. But generally the question at AfD isn't "what would you like to have happen?" it's "what was the consensus of the discussion?". I don't see the consensus of the discussion here being for deletion and I don't see that discussion as so flawed that a deletion outcome is a reasonable option. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • I suppose we must agree to disagree here. My opinion of the discussion was that nearly all the editors who wanted to keep the article pointed the fingers to the deletionist faction and said "find the sources yourselves and improve the article", neatly sidestepping the issue that the subject lacks notability to be an article in the first place. In my mind it is always that editors that want to keep an article that have the burden of proof to find the sources, I want to be overwhelmed with evidence of notability if the first two pages of my google search turned up no WP:RS. Anyway it's very interesting that any WP notability and verifiability guideline can be overruled by consensus formed by local interest groups. In truth I don't care about that streetcar much either, I am only here to ascertain how WP works in practice when it comes to allowing unnotable content to stay or be misrepresented by way of article misnaming. So thanks for your time, peace. AadaamS (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So add some sources. They're clearly there, as a moment's looking or the discussion in the AfD already acknowledged. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was one WP:RS source listed in that whole discussion, this one: [[1]]. That's an article from 2008, 6 years ago. Which were the other sources in that discussion? I'm not joking, I can't find them listed in neither that discussion nor the article itself. Also there is no Tacoma Streetcar in existence, shouldn't the article be named "Tacoma Streetcar Project"? A project is all it is, it is certainly not a streetcar at this point in time. I did google for sources a few days ago, but did not find any good WP:RS. AadaamS (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Citing "consensus" to delete (from that AfD? from where?) and "delete because there are no sources at present, even though sources are obviously there for use" are both nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It's weird to me to keep hearing things like "sources could be added!" or "I'm sure sources exist" and so keep the article. It's begging the question. The whole point of the discussion -- the only relevant question -- is DO sources exist? If you want to keep the article, it should be because you know the sources exist, and if you know that, then it's your job to present the sources. If you can't present sufficient sources, then you should not expect to win a "vote". You don't have to add footnotes, you don't have to format them. You only need to provide sufficient links or descriptions of offline materials to make it possible to verify that the sources are there and that they provide sufficient depth. We don't have that. We have one news article. The history of streetcars in Tacoma can be put into a section of another article on transport in Tacoma. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources definitely exist for the pre-2000s history of streetcars in Tacoma. In a few minutes searching I found sources concerning the community effort to establish streetcars beyond Tacoma Link. The question isn't whether sources exist. They do. It's inaccurate to state that they do not exist. The question is whether this topic is notable on its own, or should be covered as part of a larger article on streetcars in Tacoma or transport in Tacoma. These were issues raised in the discussion but unfortunately the close did not address them. Lack of notability means a merge, unless there isn't a suitable target. The existing article, containing as it did a partially-referenced discussion of that very history, could well have been the "target" under a new name. Deletion isn't an appropriate outcome. Mackensen (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to see the sources you found. Please enumerate them.

      As far as a new name, there's nothing stopping you from going and creating Streetcars in Tacoma or Tacoma streetcars or History of streetcars in Tacoma or whatever right now. If that's your solution, just fix it. No need for all this discussion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Said article would necessarily cover much of the same ground as the deleted article (mostly the pre-2000 history). Such an article might well be speedily deleted for attempting an end-run around the deletion debate. If the close were narrower, or had spoken to the content of the entire article, then such a course might be open to me. See also DGG's comment about bureaucracy. Mackensen (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you please tell me the titles, dates, authors, etc of the sources you found? Or just the URLs if they're online? Please? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is really not the venue for that, but THIS and THAT and THE OTHER took me about two minutes off the first page of a simple Google search. This is miles over the GNG bar. Carrite (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are about streetcars in Tacoma, not about the Tacoma Streetcar project under consideration, so they fail to establish the notability of Tacoma Streetcar. They could be used in an article like History of streetcars in Tacoma or something like that. The third is most definitely about the actual subject, the Tacoma Streetcar Initiative, but it is a self-published blog by a transit activist, Chris Karnes, who is not cited as an authority by any reliable sources. So a blog post does not meet WP:GNG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The discussion showed there are sources available; deleting the article before there was a chance to add them, and forcing the re-creation instead is inappropriate bureaucracy . We normally do not do that, but instead keep with the explicit option to renominate in a few weeks if the material does not get added or is thought insufficient once it has been added. If it was desired to avoid a keep close in the absence of their being present in the article, the AfD could simply have been continued. I also think that the line in the article "Washington House Bill Bill 3068 was introduced in the 2008 Legislature would have made significant strides toward implementing a street car system" could be interpreted as a reference to the bill, that just needed to be properly formatted as such. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - This by the closing administrator is not a valid rationale for deletion: "An article requires REFERENCES in order to establish and prove notability. It appears - based on reading - that this article *could* satisfy standards for inclusion. However, the complete lack of support ref's make it impossible to keep as a live article." The article should be flagged for sources. Controversial unsourced content may be removed. But tossing an article for which sources exist is not a valid outcome at AfD. We deal there with the existence of sufficient sources, not for their actual inclusion as proper footnotes — although having those properly integrated into the article is desirable, to be sure. Carrite (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Not only was consensus in favor of retaining, the entire deletion rationale - "Advocacy page with no references" - was shown to be incorrect with references provided. The closer either ignored or failed to understand one of the basic rules of WP:AFD which stipulates that if adequate sources exist but are simply not present in the article, that is not a reason for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now isn't that just the most WP:AGF statement, ever the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad faith to think someone made a mistake. Hobit (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. The closing statement is grounded in policy but it should have been cast as a vote within the discussion. I agree with the sentiment of the closer and probably would have voted to delete if I participated. No objection to a renomination within a few months. ThemFromSpace 17:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - The point of AfD is to determine if the article meets WP:GNG. That simply requires the existence of proper sources, not their current inclusion in the article. The consensus was that the article passed muster, although it needed substantial work to become a proper article. Admins are supposed to interpret the consensus when closing, which was clearly keep; the close reads more like a deletion !vote than such an interpretation on consensus. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist. It can be difficult to close discussions like these, where the clear consensus clashes with established policy and precedent. So, I can't fault the closing admin for choosing 'Delete'. With that said, in cases where I've felt that the consensus in a discussion was "wrong", I've found it more productive usually to articulate that in my own !vote rather than supervoting and closing the discussion with what I think ought to happen. In this case, I think that relisting the discussion to see if the consensus is still to "Keep" after receiving all this attention is the best way to proceed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Incubate  If there weren't sufficient choices for the closer, what was wrong with relisting or posting a !vote?  In spite of the erroneous claims that WP:N is a content policy, WP:BURO does not require getting more comments to prove that the article has a major WP:V problem.  People who want to discuss this article at AfD will get another chance when the article returns to mainspace.  And if the article never returns to mainspace, those keep and improve !votes weren't all that committed and nothing is lost.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]