Category:People from Riverdale, New York (edit | [[Talk:Category:People from Riverdale, New York|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|CfD)

Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York also included.

Category listing individuals from Riverdale, Bronx was deleted improperly in the face of consensus supporting retention and the inclusion of clear arguments for retention under Wikipedia policy. Administrator who improperly closed the CfD acknowledges that there are valid arguments for retention, but has stated in the close and in discussion that he disregarded valid arguments he disagrees with and imposed his own personal deletionist biases in this case to override consensus. As the sole justification for deletion in this case was the improper insertion of personal bias by the admin to override a consensus for retention, these improper actions should be overturned. Similar improper deletion by this same admin in the face of clear contrary consensus was also a factor in , which is also included here. Alansohn (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn In the face of consensus to keep and acknowledged valid arguments for retention, there is no place or justification for deletion based on arbitrary biases. Consensus is turned into a joke if any admin is granted unlimited discretion to overturn decisions on a deus ex machina basis. Concerns expressed regarding possible overcategorization have been addressed and are easily resolved, limiting such categories to articles with places, a suggestion that was disregarded by the closing admin. Given the improper close, overturing is the proper action. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer. Several of the keep arguments: Riverdale is a distinct and unique neighborhood, We shouldn't fault people for living in combined metropolitan districts. Consensus is not a vote count, and not all arguments are created equal. The delete arguments were simply stronger. --Kbdank71 19:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the excuses that the admin falsely defines as "simply stronger" and that were accepted by User:Kbdank71 for deletion -- "People can live in dozens of neighborhoods in the course of a lifetime." and "Merge per Otto" -- offer no justification under Wikipedia policy that would require deletion of the category. The arguments in the nomination -- "Single entry category without a parent category for the neighborhood." were addressed under Wikipedia policy and no longer relevant. The stronger arguments for retention, based on Wikipedia policy, were simply discarded. Admin simply refuses to respect or accept consensus without improperly inserting his biases. Alansohn (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn no valid arguement for deletion. DGG (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't CFD 2. Otto4711 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Nothing procedurally wrong with the delete. While there was a small response, the deletion reasoning was sound and the Keep reasoning was that somehow this neighborhood was notable (with nothing to back up that assertion). -- Kesh (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - the arguments for keeping were weak and generic, relying in large part on the problems that are inherent in the People from categorization scheme. As the closing admin correctly noted, there are indeed problems with that entire scheme but the problems with it in no way prevent us from dealing with particularly problematic categories as they arise. Otto4711 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the arguments for keeping were really about why the neighborhood should have an article, not about why it makes sense to categorize people by neighborhood of association. There are significant problems with the subnational "people from" categories as a whole, and those problems are far more egregious when dealing with something as tiny and amorphous as a neighborhood, which lacks formal, agreed-upon boundaries and is far more easily and commonly moved in and out of than a city. So keeping people by city categories, for example, by no means necessarily leads to keeping people by neighborhood categories. Postdlf (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article has been changed and even the slightest hints on advretisement have been removed. It would be highly requested to restore the article so that appropriate editing could be done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuegoazul (talk • contribs) 08:30, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

• endorse It has been deleted repeatedly by a number of different administrators for both G11, and A7-- no indication of importance. I have looked atthe last deleted version, and there is indeed nothing that makes a reasoanble argument for notability or importance. We should see a draft of an article with some 3rd party sources for notability before permitting restoration. DGG (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse nothing in the article to indicate notability. I recommend you read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and come back once you can provide evidence this company meets those requirements. If you are employed by this company then I strongly advise against writing an article for it. Hut 8.5 19:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept at AfD even though only one good source was found. As usual a bunch of Uncy' users voted keep. The article is almost entirely original research, so notability of this particular website isn't established.

• According to Alexa.com the site is currently the 10,267,272th most popular site on the web.
• Not in the top 250 Wikis in the world, according to meta:List of largest wikis

Sources evaluation

• http://estrecho.indymedia.org/newswire/display/73061/index.php

  This is just an article saying that 'Frikipedia' was closed down. As far as I can see, 'Inciclopedia' isn't mentioned in it.

  http://www.frikipedia.es/friki/Inciclopedia

  An wiki article from the old spanish uncyclopedia, unreliable and looks like nonsense.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WM2006_0060.jpg

  A picture of Jimbo Wales from Wikipedia..

  http://desciclopedia.pt/wiki/Tio1.jpg

  Primary source of an image on the site..

  http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/wikia.com

  Alexa.com page for wikia.com showing that 8% of traffic to wikia.com goes to the site (according to alexa anyway) and it's the third most popular wiki of wikia.com

  http://www.lun.com/modulos/catalogo/paginas/2006/09/16/LUCSTDI05LU1609.htm

  The only decent substantial coverage from a newspaper. I don't read Spanish so can't say much about this.

  http://www.cuatro.com/videos/index.html?xref=20071114ctoultpro_6.Ves&view=ver

  A tiny mention on a TV show. "Inciclopedia was also mentioned..." Otterathome (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't go around endorsing my own closures (evaluating my work is something I leave to others), but I will give a rationale for my close, and note that I have given my reasons on my own talkpage. First, the reasons given to delete were "Notability has not been established. A notability tag has been on it for nearly 3 months now. No third-party references still. So fails WP:WEB.", "another non-notable wiki", "This article sounds like an advertisement written by the website's users, also. It fails WP:N in that it is non-notable." These arguements are largely assertions of non-notability, and when the discussion contains people who argue for notability, they don't carry all that much weight. The fact that Rataube added a section on notability, and was able to produce a third-party source addressed the main concern in the nomination, that there were no third-party references. In short, there was in my view certainly no consensus that the article should be deleted, and with some of the concerns given by the nominator alleviated by the presence of a third-party source, I chose to close it as "keep" rather than "no consensus". Two points about this DRV nomination: An argument given in this DRV nom is that the article is "original research", this was not presented in the AFD. Looking at the article, I don't think that the article suffers from blatant OR problems, rather much of the article is sourced from the website itself which is OK to a certain extent (see WP:SELFPUB), and there is also some third party coverage now. Finally, the Alexa ranking looks like it's for "inciclopedia.org" which is probably a redirect address, since the actual address is "inciclopedia.wikia.com". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You keep referring to the sources like there's more than one, when infact there's only one legitimate one.--Otterathome (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and DeleteSjakkalle offers a fairly strong defense of his close and it is not necessarily out of process, except that I think this site does clearly fail WP:WEB as noted in the original nomination with a dash of WP:RS concerns thrown in (noted in the DRV nom); so it would have been better for the admin to have closed based on policy, not !vote-counting. I am unmoved by the lazy endorsements of some of those below whose sanction is the usual stuff one expects when a close conforms to one's own views; but I include myself in the laziness category for not having consulted this discussion which I think provides sufficient grounds for retention and makes Sjakkalle's close reasonable. Eusebeus (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, pretty clear consensus even if not for the best of reasons. Recommend merging with Uncyclopedia, which is a normal editorial action that can be done anyway. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree, only Rataube & carl responded to my concerns, the rest were just votes. The discussion ended without the concerns of another reliable source being addressed.--Otterathome (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The closer's explanation seems impeccable and the challenge to it seems not to have any basis in process. DRV is not AFD². Colonel Warden (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  So you want me to move this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inciclopedia‎ 2?--Otterathome (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Good summation of closure from the closer, given that a reliable source was found to meet the core verifiability policy and provide some notability, overturning the consensus of the discussion based on the possible failure of a guideline would not have been appropriate. Davewild (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse per Davewild and Colonel Warden. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse keep this is not AfD2. Since there was clear consensus to keep, if you insist on another AfD, i'd think it necessary to wait at least 3 or 4 months before starting one.DGG (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom comment If this is kept, I will make Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inciclopedia‎ 2, as the fact still stands it still fails WP:WEB despite the Keep votes which never seem to address the problem at hand.--Otterathome (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latienda (talk • contribs) 10:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]