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

I feel quite strongly that consensus was misread in this closure. The closer, Stifle, stated only his closing that "the result was keep" without elaborating as to what that assessment was based on. When I contacted Stifle regarding the close he replied that "You and Hiding were the only delete !voters as against six keeps; there was no other possible closure." However, consensus is not a vote, and the strength and quality of the arguments are supposed to be a major consideration. The nomination and the delete votes were based on the article failing the core policies of verifiability and original research, as well as not establishing notability of the subject. Only one of the keep voters attempted to address these concerns. Both he and I searched for possible reliable sources for the article, and none were found that give siginficant coverage to the subject. 2 of the keep votes' rationales amount to "make the nominator (me) fix the article", when in fact the crux of the arguments was that I and others were unable to fix it, despite good-faith efforts, because no useful sources could be found. I am quite confused at how one could determine a consensus of keep after both the keep and delete voters failed to find any useable sources, and the article quite clearly fails the core policies of V and NOR even after 5 days of discussion and source-searching. IllaZilla (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The result looks like a keep to me. Captain panda 03:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than simply tallying votes, may I ask how you arrive at that conclusion? --IllaZilla (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete - arguments in favor of keeping are all in the "we can find sources, we promise" and "if we delete this we might as well delete this other article too" vein and do not overcome the policy-based arguments in favor of deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own deletion closure. There was, as I previously said, no other proper closure of this debate. IllaZilla is free to renominate at any stage. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (fixed typo, thanks Alansohn; my "keep" closures don't show up here much)[reply]

• Certainly there was. Deletion. Look at the keep !votes. There are three that cite the notability of the book series, which notability is not inherited by every character in it. Two say keep so that the nominator can fix it, when the nominator notes that exhaustive searches for reliable sources have been fruitless. One says keep because if we delete we might delete other articles as well, which is a bogus argument. The rest are WP:PERNOM. Where is the refutation of the policy-based arguments of the nomination? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:PLOT? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:WAF? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:V? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:N? Four strong policy- and guideline-based arguments versus a bunch of arguments to avoid; there's no rationale for this close other than vote-counting. Otto4711 (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AADD is an essay. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, yes it is. Now that this has been established, I'll ask you again to answer the questions. What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:PLOT? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:WAF? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:V? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:N? Otto4711 (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess the "witty" response to that is WP:ONLYESSAY, but essays have a purpose on wikipedia (and that's why we allow them), they may not have the force of a policy or guideline but that doesn't mean they are completely without merit or immediately dismissable. There are many areas of wikipedia where a guideline or policy hasn't been established (and in many never likely to be), in those situations we still listen to reasonable argument and that line of argument maybe encapsulated in an essay for easy reference. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deletion debates on Wikipedia are an effort to come to a consensus on whether an article should be deleted or not. They are not a court of law nor a debating society — a side does not "win" by making points that another side does not refute, and admins when closing the debate are not adjudicators. Rather, those who wish to contribute to the debate specify what they would like to have done with the article, and the closing administrator takes account of the community's suggestion when closing the debate. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I'm understanding this correctly, it means that no matter how valid or policy-based the rationale for deletion might be, it can be refuted simply by "keep" !votes that fail to address that rationale in any way. In other words, all that is needed to circumvent our core policies (V & NOR, in this case) is enough voices shouting "keep!" If I had known that our core policies meant nothing, I wouldn't have bothered to provide a rationale for the nomination. The policy on consensus clearly states that "In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments." I fail to see how any of the !keep rationales carry any kind of strong argument, especially when multiple searches for sources, by both the nominator (me) and an keep !voter, turned up nothing useful. Further, "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority." I think that's clearly the case here. Since Consensus is not a vote, I fail to see how anyone actually reading the discussion and following the arguments could discern an obvious keep. I think the only way that conclusion could be arrived at was if it was based solely on vote-counting, which is not what a discussion is supposed to be. At the very, very least I had expected maybe a merge closure, or at absolute worst a "no consensus". But how anyone can argue that the AfD constitutes a "clear keep" is absolutely mind-boggling to me. When an article that is completely unverified, contains a substantial amount of original research, and appears to have no reliable sources available after multiple searches can be kept with as little an explanation as "the result was keep", then WP is in a sorry state of affairs. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (and a reminder to Stifle that the article was kept, not deleted) the issues raised in this DRV were considered in the AfD and rejected. As consensus was clear for retention of the article under relevant Wikipedia policy, and as there is no eveidence that any aspect of the close was out-of-policy, the article should be retained and the close endorsed. Alansohn (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I don't think that there is enough reliable source material out there to justify the girth of the present article, but that is an editing issue, not an AfD issue. "Major character in notable series" is a strong argument for the likelihood of enough reliable source material available for such an article. Regarding the delete arguments, Starblind identified the Toronto Sun article as a reliable source at 18:58, 7 October 2008.[1] Three days later at 18:32, 11 October 2008, IllaZilla continued to argue delete because "I can't find a single reliable source."[2] There is not much strength to such a delete argument when one reliable source is in fact provided in the AfD. On balance, the keep arguments were stonger than the delete arguments. -- Suntag ☼ 14:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Toronto Sun article appears to give no more than a passing reference to the subject of the article. That point was made a couple of times during the AfD. Here is the article in question. Do you feel it gives significant enough coverage to support an independent article? I strongly believe that it doesn't. I asked Starblind to provide some quotes from it if he had access to the full article, so that we could see if it indeed gave any significant coverage to the character in question. He didn't provide any quotes, and in the absence of those we have to assume that it doesn't give such coverage. Hence I fail to see how it holds up as a reliable source to support an entire article, especially when it hasn't even been added as a reference (note that the article is still completely unsourced). --IllaZilla (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of the first AfD, the keep consensus seemed to agree that there is a likelihood of enough reliable source material available for such an article. If you wait three months and no references have been added to the article, bring the article to AfD2 where the argument that there in fact is not enough reliable source material should be much stronger. -- Suntag ☼ 19:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm really confused as to how you could read the discussion as concluding "that there is a likelihood of enough reliable source material available for such an article", as I feel the discussion concluded the exact opposite. Sure, some editors said "sources exist", but when we actually looked for them no useful ones came up. Of the ones that came up, there was a sum total of 2 sentences mentioning this character. Others editors continued to say "sources exist" but couldn't provide any. Ergo the conclusion is that it is unlikely that enough reliable sources actually exist for this article. It doesn't matter if you say sources exist; several searches for decent sources were unsuccessful. Saying it doesn't make it so, and the AfD proved this. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, and what the HELL is causing IllaZilla to spend so much time, stress, blood and treasure on this issue? Tan | 39 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I feel strongly that valid, policy-based concerns were ignored in favor of mostly "I like it" and "it's notable" !votes which could not at all be substantiated. I think that's reason enough. Honestly I don't participate in many AfD, much less as the nominator. I don't think my personal motivations are of any relevance here. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse per Suntag and Panda. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Stifle appropriately kept, based on the consensus. If I were to have done so, one might reasonably say I shouldn't have taken on myself to judge consensus where I had strong feelings that way in general for this type of article, but for him to close this as a keep or me to close as delete for a fully justified AfD with such consensus in this field is perfectly acceptable. DGG (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't see a problem with Stifle's closure, though I suspect I would have voted 'Delete' in the AfD itself. After a discussion with such mixed opinions, there could be no objection to a later AfD before too much time passes. The Keep voters would have had an easier time if anyone had been able to obtain the text of the Toronto Sun reference. To avoid a renewed push for deletion in the future, I hope that one of the fans of this article might be willing to obtain the text of the review and find some remarks from the review that can be added to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I was pretty surprised to see this closed as keep, since I didn't feel that the main argument for deletion (i.e. that sufficient sources didn't seem to exist so far as anyone could tell) had been addressed. If asked to judge myself I probably would have closed as no consensus. However, consensus on this DRV seems to be against me so I'm not going to press for an overturn. After all, if the delete !voters were right then no sources will turn up in the next few months and the article can be sent to AFD again; if we're wrong, then so much the better. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I don't see how one could get a consensus to delete from that AfD. The keep voters imply (even if they don't directly say) that some sources are avalible. If they show up, problem solved; if not, we can discuss it again later. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, though rather reluctantly. The delete arguments were clearly superior, though the numbers in favor of keeping would likely resulted in an overturn if it had been deleted. This article falls into that gray area that is currently (and seemingly endlessly) being discussed over at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Rather than calling for deletion, perhaps a solution for the time being is to take this to the article talk and trying to get the article's contributors to actually provide some sources. If after a reasonable amount of time (a month?) no sources are forthcoming, perhaps a second trip to AfD would be appropriate. AniMate 06:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have the point here — if I had closed as delete, it would have been overturned. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but I think the more important point is that sources eventually have to be supplied. AniMate 09:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I just added material from 35 sources. -- Suntag ☼ 22:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a really excellent rewrite. Any objections I had have been put to rest. AniMate 03:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Those sources that are accessible without a credit card all seem to be of the passing mention variety. The article still has no sources that are substantively about the character and the article is still little more than a plot summary. The rewrite has addressed none of the issues raised by the nomination and I note that the closing admin has yet to answer my questions above as to what specific parts of the keep !votes address the policy and guideline violations set forth in the AFD. Otto4711 (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse No consensous might have been better, but eh. New version more than meets WP:N, so turns out the keeps were right. Hobit (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article satisfies three of Wikipedia's criteria for notability: this band has been nominated for a major music award, has received significant coverage in multiple reliable media sources, and has songs on rotation on major, national radio stations. Many editors called to delete this article simply because they had not heard of this band, rather than take Wikipedia's own criteria into consideration. Dogma inc (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I checked a cached version, searching for the band myself, looking at the AFD and the band's website. Not signed, no album (according to their website), potential COI. There are only two references that arguably pass WP:RS, and only one that actually focused on the band instead of the controversy of ballot stuffing. It seems the controversy is more notable than the band. In the AFD, it appeared to me that stronger arguments were given to delete. In the end, I can see no abuse in the process, and feel that their conclusion was reasonable. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Cached version is severely lacking in references... the most recent one before deletion was notably more in-depth, had significantly more references and information. And what no album? There's no other way they could have been nominated for the award... The album is available from www.realgroovy.co.nz, iTunes, Amazon, dunedinmusic.com, and many more... They also have songs on the nationally broadcast KiwiFM, which is another criteria for notability. And the nomination itself is criteria enough. You may think the peer-voting system devalues the significance of the award, but the band was independently proposed for five categories at the awards (Best Breakthrough Artist, Best Rock Album, Best Album, Best Group, People's Choice), approved as a finalist by RIANZ judges for the People's Choice, and then voted by the fans as one of the five final nominees. You can't just throw any old band into the mix, they still have to be approved as a worthy candidate by official judges. And, the voting 'scandal' created afterwards was sour grapes by one manager who didn't get his band in the top 5... and he's been called on it, and apologized, in reliable sources (see The Christchurch Press, 11/10/08). Even if you discount the coverage as being simply related to the awards, the band's nomination in the first place and their rotation on a national radio station still qualify them as notable by Wikipedia standards. Dogma inc (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a place to point out how the deletion of a page did not comply with the deletion process, not a chance for a second bite at the cherry with a different audience. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that a lot. In fairness, you should explain to people that they can ask for a userfied version to improve and bring back to mainspace. If you say that bringing back to mainspace requires a DRV, isn't that just a form of AfD for the reworked article? A "second bite of the cherry". Your stance seems logical, but starts to fall apart when examined a bit closer with respect to what is common practice. Carcharoth (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a straw man. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you will continue to endorse deletion on procedural grounds without mentioning userfication? It is polite and courteous to try and find a solution that satisfies most people, rather than insisting on process. DRV is not a place solely to work out whether the admin got it "right" or "wrong" and to endorse or overturn that decision, but also to try and find a solution. If you had said: "Deletion review is a place to point out how the deletion of a page did not comply with the deletion process, not a chance for a second bite at the cherry with a different audience. If you would like to work on the article in your userspace, please request userfication.", then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no objection to userfication, but it's mentioned as an option under Wikipedia:Deletion review#Temporary_review so I don't see why I (or any other contributor here) should have to offer it when it is not requested. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as no consensus - The keep reasoning attributed the source material to the DFenders and the delete reasoning attributed the source material to the other than the DFenders. References are below. In "Student band upset system", it reads "The DFenders ... campaigning vigorously, pleading for fans to vote repeatedly for them." In "The new, liberated musician," it reads "The DFenders, ... has been accused of rigging the online vote." In "Night of the Conchords", it reads "the DFenders, who were criticised for encouraging fans and friends to vote for them." A delete argument that the source material generated should be attributed to someone or something other than the DFenders is weak. While there were delete because doesn't meet WP:N positions, such positions should have expressly address the quantity of available resliable source material. I don't think a consensus to delete was reached in the AfD and the results should be overturned as no consensus. The references:

• Hunkin, JoAnna (August 30, 2008). "Student band upset system". The New Zealand Herald. p. A8. Retrieved 2008-10-13.
• Asplin, Steve (September 10, 2008). "The new, liberated musician". Manawatu Standard. p. 7. Retrieved 2008-10-13. This is under debate because an independent band from Dunedin, The DFenders, has made it into one of the top-five. It has been accused of rigging the online vote because the industry, which is mostly based in Auckland, hasn't heard of the band. The DFenders claims that it has a loyal following in Dunedin, has self-released a CD of its original music and the response it's received is because of the passion fans feel for the band. The DFenders isn't the only band nominated that hasn't been nominated in other categories. In fact, all five of the artists nominated for the People's Choice award are only represented in that one category. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
• Cardy, Tom (October 9, 2008). "Night of the Conchords". The Dominion Post. p. 1. Retrieved 2008-10-13. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)

-- Suntag ☼ 15:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist While this is not the strongest situation for overturning, the participants at AfD advocating retention of the article did provide reliable and verifiable sources about the group, including meeting WP:MUSIC based on the group's satisfying the criteria that it "Has won or been nominated for a major music award." Even if the articles provided for the band are about their ballot stuffing and not their music, the group was nominated for the award and the sources about the ballot stuffing only further satisfy WP:N. The biggest problem with the close is a lack of an explanation as to why the closing admin closed this AfD as a delete. Even though deletion policy does not yet require policy explanations for closes, the lack of anything other than the word "delete" means that we are now left to try to guess the closing admin's justification and reasoning and to discern if the close was proper. Given the rough balance of participants arguing for deletion and retention, a strong case for "Keep" or "No Consensus" could well have been made, but we have no idea why these options were rejected. As there are valid justifications to support arguments for retention, as there was no explanation justifying the decision to delete -- even if no justification is required -- and as there are reliable and verifiable sources to support a claim of notability, this AfD should be overturned and relisted to obtain broader participation addressing policy justifications for deletion or retention and to obtain a clearer consensus to keep this article, delete it or close as "no consensus". Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Very tough call. Looking at the AfD this seems like a case where "no consensus" should have been the outcome. Both sides of the debate gave rational and compelling arguments, and no reason for deletion was provided by the closing admin. More community input is needed. AniMate 09:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deleting admin here. When I weighed the arguments, I was more convinced by the delete votes that emphasized ONEEVENT and the lack of meeting special notability guidelines, over the keep votes discussing general notability. To expand further, there were 2 keep votes from established users, 1 keep from an editor who had not edited any other articles, and 1 weak keep, this contrasted with the 5 delete votes and the neutral leaning delete vote that seemed to push it past no consensus and into delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV incorrectly filed on October 11 under October 6 - moving here instead. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troopergate (Bill Clinton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I nominated Troopergate (Bill Clinton), an article that about "an alleged scandal involving allegations by two Arkansas state troopers that they arranged sexual liaisons for then-governor Bill Clinton." The article has been on Wikipedia for FOUR years and contains two sources, which call the event a manufactured "scandal." Despite the reasons, which I outlined below, it was closed within three hours by the above admin editor (not an admin.) claiming: "The result was Speedy keep, bad faith nom." I want to see if I can get the AFD reopened so my concerns can be addressed. My reasons, expanded here, for the AFD were as follows:

1. The article "Troopergate" is about an "alleged scandal," which in my nomination I noted is dealt in detail with on Paula Jones's page (specifically Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton). I think the article should be deleted, and maybe a redirect there.
2. An article solely about one portion of an alleged series of sexual claims (which were thrown out in court) violates WP:BLP for Bill Clinton. Again, relevant information that complies with BLP is on the Paula Jones page.
3. The title Troopergate, as I mentioned in the original nomination, is inappropriate. The other "Troopergate scandals" do not use troopergate in the title. For instance, there is not a Troopergate Palin article, but it is called Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal despite "Palin's Troopergate" being a headline news story today (it is how I came across this article).
4. A discussion to delete this came up by another editor at Talk:Troopergate_(Bill_Clinton)#Delete and merge. There was no response after a month (28 August 2008) so I took it to an AFD. That editor wrote:

   This article should be merged into the PAula Jones article. Apparently "troopergate" is a term that is only being used in a NY tabloid. This doesn't merit another article, and the term should not be used by Wikipedia to describe this. Wikipedia is not the place to showcase novel neologisms.[3]

5. I just noticed in 2006 another editor noted: "the content was a subset of jones, and the notability is because of jones." He too thinks the material does not deserve an article independent of Jones.

In response to the AFD was two replies. One included claiming the AFD was "bad faith" because it is "more than notable and sourced and is not replaced by the current Alaska incident." Such remarks, show misunderstanding of my concerns and nomination: 1) It has TWO in-line sources over the last four years and 2) I did not call anywhere for the article to "replace" the Alaska incident. Thus, I believe these are legitimate concerns for an AFD, which was prematurely closed. We66er (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV template added to the article. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is an ongoing AfD that may be affected by this DRV. -- Suntag ☼ 14:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close was premature and should not have been called "bad faith" (closer, you jumped the gun), but this should stand. First of all, you never really gave a valid deletion reason. This incident was more than significant enough to receive a separate article. As for your points: 1) Simply because it is "alleged" doesn't warrant a deletion. It was still widely reported on. 2) It does not violate WP:BLP because the statements have a source (but could be sourced better), are true, and the article never claims he actually did anything anyways, only that they were alleged. 3) If you don't like the title, come up with a better one. That's not a deletion reason. The article needs more and better sources. But there is no reason to delete and this should have been brought up for discussion, not deletion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • UsaSatsui, you misunderstood my first point. Above I wrote "Troopergate" is "dealt in detail with on Paula Jones's page (specifically Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton)." The Jones v.Clinton section deals with the allegations and subsequent lawsuit in much more detail. We66er (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point about the "alleged" actions were they are presented in a POV. I am not the only one concerned about the way in which one of the trooper's claims violate BLP. Again, my point was this is better presented on the Jones article since it is about that event and does not need an independent article. We66er (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. this is a scandal that is rooted in american history. it should be kept in Wikipedia.Degrassi. 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What does "Troopergate" deal with that isn't or can't be explored at Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton? The Jones' piece covers the allegations and failed lawsuit. We66er (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note This is NOT the place to discuss the merits of the article. This forum is for reviewing the AFD itself only. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Closed I suggested a speedy keep in the original AFD, and questioned the nom's motives in a more colorful and indirect manner. The nomination itself DOES appear to be biased, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others. Personally, I would have waited for one more 'keep' and worded the summary differently, but the net result would have been the same. The only "crime" here is being too blunt (ie: honest) in summing up the conclusions that we participants had already drawn and clearly stated. I have worked with Hammer a little, and I'm confident he is smart enough to see that it would have been better to choose a more neutral closing statement and wait for another 'keep' or two. This was a gut judgment call on his part, and most experienced editors have made similar calls before (for better or worse), so I don't question his motives. As for the nomination itself, my original statement stands without modification. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the first time Hammer's been accused of "jumping the gun" on AFDs: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TenPoundHammer_6#Oppose. Read the 54 opposing comments and 18 neutral comments for examples of that. In fact, his closures and behavior seems to the be the crux of his six RFAR failures. Nonetheless, you question me when other editors have the same concerns about the article. I would appreciate if you focus on the content and not level further accusations. We66er (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This forum isn't for discussing RFA's either. My focus and the entire purpose of this forum is to discuss the process of closing the AFD, not the content of the article, as I have tried to explain to you above. This is degrading into a personal attack against TenPoundHammer rather than a review of an AFD, which will not be tolorated. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You brought up your experience with Hammer so I cited other people's AFD experience/complaints with him. I have not attacked anyone. As I wrote to you above: I would appreciate if you focus on the content and not level further accusations. We66er (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer. Yes, it was a little premature and hasty of me, but I stand by my closure. There are sources and the article can easily be expanded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate you apologized on my talk. For the record, I never said there weren't sources. I wrote that it has no notability outside of Paula Jones or Jones v Clinton. A glance at Google News 1994 for "Troopergate Clinton" shows the 87 hits are about Jones (or Brock's article about Jones). We66er (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think that those sources are enough for an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • They all are about Paula Jones, which later became the Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton case. As I asked above, what are in those sources that is not covered or relevant to Jones or Jones v Clinton? If this can be explained then there are two issues and thus, a point to having two articles. We66er (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:Deletion Review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review states: "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question." This forum is an opportunity to correct errors in process relating to an AFD/deletion/keep. This is not the place to discuss content of an article. I have tried to politely say this twice previously. This is not a 2nd AFD. Please keep it on topic. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was responding to an inaccurate concern made by the person who prematurely closed the AFD. If that person closed the AFD on that misunderstanding then it is relevant to this discussion. You can stop commenting on the DRV purpose, it is understood. We66er (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reclose as keep without the assumption of bad faith. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the concerns about whether or not this should be a separate article should probably be addressed in a merge discussion. Someone could be bold and carry out a merge and see if it sticks. But maybe not right now. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. I am tempted to suggest a relist since 3 hours is awfully fast for even a speedy keep and the accusation of bad faith was unwarranted but there is no point in reopening it so it can be speedy closed again in 22 hours by an admin. Therefore, my recommendation is to slap TenPoundHammer and his otters with some trout and leave the close as is. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reclose as speedy keep a snow keep will obviously be the conclusion no matter who does it, but I see the point of Stifle's suggestion above, to remove the "bad faith" from the record. Apart from that inappropriate wording, --admin or non-admin it would have been a little fast for the circumstances; over-rapid closes typically are counterproductive, because they just result in long discussions here. I suggest that perhaps in order to prevent drift into worse problems, we consider asking Hammer not to make any XfD closes at all, or as a minimum and speedy XfD closes. There are enough other people to do them. DGG (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Severely troutslap Hammer for a really lousy closing statement, one that seemed certain to escalate rather than defuse any conflict, and consider a merge. I've begun the discussion at Talk:Paula Jones#Merge. Chick Bowen 03:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - per UsaSatsui. Clearly a notable event but should not have been closed as early as it was. If there are issues with the sourcing, find more. If there's unsourced contentious information, either source it or delete it per WP:BLP. Otto4711 (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse this is an undeniably notable event and an article that provides sources to support the claim. While there might -- repeat, might -- have been an issue if there were no sources whatsoever in the article, the reliable and verifiable sources support the claim of notability and the close appears to be fully within process. The Wikipedia gold standard that articles and the statements therein backed by reliable and verifiable sources are retained is one that needs to be respected. Alansohn (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I, the original nominator, want to let everyone here know that I have since proposed merging the article with Clinton v. Jones or renaming, the issues in my nomination, at Talk:Troopergate_(Bill_Clinton)#Renaming. When I did that, the "speedy keep" is thrown in my face by User:Pharmboy (who has four posts in this DRV and one in the AFD). This is really tiresome, I thought if the other Troopergates don't use that name in the article title neither should this. What makes it even more compelling is all the information was at Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton which makes the article redundant. This is very disappointing. We66er (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That didn't look "thrown in your face" to me. It appeared to be merely a mention of it. And just because it is mentioned in the Paula Jones article doesn't mean there can't be an article on a specific incident that goes into more detail. For example, staying with the "Troopergates", the "Palin Troopergate" scandal is mentioned in Palin's article...I'm not seeing any suggestion for a merge there. Or the OJ Simpson murder case has it's own article, but also get a mention in the Juice's page. You need to convince people this event is insignificant enough to not warrant a separate article. And, to be blunt, you're not doing that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, it is now up for merge at Talk:Paula_Jones#Merge. That makes an AFD, DRV, Rename and Merge all in a couple of days. This is bordering on Bludgeoning the process. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically the Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton contains the Clinton-Troopergate article. Everything about Troopergate has relevancely in Jones_v._Clinton. It's the reason she filed the lawsuit (to set the record straight after she said Brock defamed her)! As I asked above and in the AFD that was closed: What can be covered in troopergate that is not covered or relevant in the Jones (or subsection-Jones v Clinton) article? It's all about her. No one explained how troopergate is separate from Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton or how troopergate- the pejorative term from David Brock, complies with NPOV for a article title. My two issues in the first AFD. We66er (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC) We66er (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reclose as speedy keep I may have been hasty with my claim of 'bad faith' with my first vote, and that may have contributed to the line of votes following and the closing decision by TPH, who is someone I look up to in the AfD process. But as I read it when I chose to speedy keep, it read as if the nominator was objecting to this case at the expense of the Palin version of Troopergate, and I was trying to say that the notability of this event is not trumped just because of the newer Troopergate, so I thought the nomination was not neutrally stated. I apologize to We66er for my bad faith claim and in hindsight I could have stated my argument in another way. However I feel that no matter the case, the article should be kept because it can be sourced, and no matter the possibility of untruth with those involved, they did get media attention that was notable. Nate • (chatter) 05:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and close as speedy keep and strike any mention of bad faith in the close. - This clearly was not a bad faith nomination. The nominator felt that the article itself need to have enough reliable sources in it to meet WP:N. While not a prevailing view in Wikipedia, there is enough editors who hold that view to make it a reasonable, usually unsuccessful, AfD position. The AfD nominator also appeared to feel that troopergate name of the article could only lead to a POV article not capable of being fixed - a reasonable basis to request deletion, even though there are better process (such as a name change request) to address such a concern. Without a nail, no hammer should have been brought down on the AfD nominator. -- Suntag ☼ 16:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn closure and relist the debate. It will likely end in a "keep" but the nomination did not meet any of the criteria for Speedy keep. Premature closes are bad for the project and undermine our editors' confidence in the integrity of our decision processes. Let the system work. Process is important. Five days with a tag is not a high cost. Rossami (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]