674:
best-selling book The
Beautiful Team In Search of the 1970 Brazilians and have met, interviewed and written about these footballers for the past ten years. I have a website www.beautifulteam.net to which I linked my contributions but cannot see that this falls foul of your rules. Essentially I have more unique, copyrighted, biographical information on my site than can be fitted on to Knowledge (XXG). By visiting my site your readers will be able to get more information as well as view videos of the players in their pomp. I was intending to build biographies of each of the members of the team on Knowledge (XXG). None of the current ones - apart from Pele - are any good at all. (I thought I had added something new to Pele's page on the derivation of his name, but that was taken down too.) I see little point in doing so now. Thanks Garry Jenkins
169:, which clearly encourages coexistence of lists and categories), or the circular logic that this category could never be recreated because it had been deleted earlier. As this category had been changed and provided clear inclusion criteria, these arguments are not valid rationalizations for deletion. Regardless of the results of this DRV, the entire CfD process needs to have greater involvement from the community as a whole, and not just from the same three or four editors and admin who have imposed their arbitrarily restrictive definition of what categories should be.
561:). I asked TenPoundHammer to get consensus for the page move and I'd take care of the category. After pointing me to one user that posted at his talk page and a discussion at IRC which I have no access to as proof of consensus, we're here. I'll repeat: get consensus for the page move and I'll strike this endorsement. --
329:
The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and whether one method or multiple methods should be used will depend on what
187:
No arguments presented a policy justification for deletion other than the circular argument that a similar category had been previously deleted. Admin has already been forced to retract the bulk of the proffered justification for deletion, acknowledging that the argument of the supposed superiority
1002:
Non admins are not supposed to close any AFDs where the outcome is not crýstal cut and this is clearly one that should have been left for an admin to evaluate. That said, sources were provided in the debate and discussion centred around whether the scope of the article fully matched the citations
673:
I would like to know why all the contributions I have made to
Knowledge (XXG) have been removed? They all related to members of the 1970 Brazilian football team, a subject which - I think I can modestly say - I know more about than anyone else in the English speaking world. I am the author of the
164:
had been improperly added, that only a list could prevent improper category placement. After having it pointed out that this is design feature that applies to all categories in
Knowledge (XXG), the admin has taken the fall back position of "recreated content" as a justification for deletion. The
315:- typed up a comment, thought I'd saved it but I guess not. There was no procedural error in deleting this as recreated content. And nominator is once again misrepresenting the comments of a number of editors in this and several recent similar CFDs. No one appears to be suggestion that lists are
985:
As the closing editor, I didn't see anything close to approaching a consensus and even after relisting I didn't see a consensus build itself. It can be relisted in a month or two (not five days from when the last AfD was closed) but if there's no consensus then there's nothing to appeal really.
594:
doesn't look like a DRV issue, no process issues have been raised, but disagreement with the result something DRV explicitly isn't for. No broken process, misinterpretation of policy etc. issues. The underlying issue sounds like a broader question best discussed and general consensus reached in
1003:
with no serious challenge to the validity of the sources. To my mind this suggests that the article exhibits notability but has content issues that need fixing. That isn't what AFDs are there to fix and, in fact, I would have been happy with a keep close to this discussion. I therefore
243:
as closer. Recreation of deleted content. Which, I might add, was not the "fallback position" of the close, it was the main reason. Alansohn is correct in that it is wrong to say that any deleted category cannot be recreated. It can, but there must be consensus to do so. Consensus
1007:
the close because I'm an evil deletionist vandal but I strongly advise the closing editor to be more carefúl where they practise their AFD closes and avoid anything controversial. DRV can be a nasty and unfriendly place to have your decision-mking dissected.
918:
Some of the delete arguments were pretty weak also, & merge is a keep; reasonable conclusion. Since it was no consensus even after a relist, no reason not to try again in 1 or 2 months. It hardly ever makes sense to appeal a no consensus close.
264:
deleted category. Had I been aware of that, I (or someone else) could just as easily have speedied the cat, without nomination. And as Kbdank71 notes above, the discussion itself showed no consensus to support recreation. (The category also had
939:. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)?
528:
to delete the old category; Dragonfly approved this bold move on IRC), it's mostly about the redundancy of the (band) at the end. These albums are irrefutably by a band, so I don't see why there has to
149:
573:- the procedure described for a category rename is not bold but explicitly out-of-process - emptying an existing category and creating a new one. I am completely sure that the band should be at
223:
520:, in which Ericorbit even says "categories don't even need 'band'". This discussion isn't about my bold pagemove, or my bold category move which got reverted (I created a new category at
165:
consensus at CfD among those who offered a policy reason was for retention. Deletion arguments revolved largely around the supposed superiority of lists over categories (in violation of
219:
260:- When I nominated this, I was aware of one similar category that has already been listified. After being opened, however, Otto4711 noted that this was a more direct recreation of
886:
961:
closed. No admin to discuss it with. I was simply looking for consensus on the closing, something that a discussion with the editor that closed would not have accomplished.
485:
51:
37:
188:
of lists over categories would effectively gut the entire category structure in
Knowledge (XXG) and no other policy justification has been offered in its place.
46:
703:, so what page exactly are you objecting to the deletion of? Please note that removal of information from pages if not under the purview of DRV. Cheers.
496:
I listed this for CFD back in
September and it was closed as no consensus to move. Frankly, I think this was a wrong close, since a.) the parent page is
332:
This reflects widespread practical consensus from across the project and nominator either does not understand or refuses to believe this to be the case.
700:
222:, and presents a straw man mischaracterization of the closing admin's rationale, and the arguments made at both CFDs, both at the original CFD and
850:
845:
854:
42:
878:
837:
133:
125:
690:
723:
The edits appear to have mostly been links to the website noted, which were removed as self-promotional. Definitely not a DRV issue.
596:
116:
76:
21:
958:
504:, and b.) I feel that either way, the (band) is redundant at the end because "BlackHawk" is unambiguous here (compare, say,
248:
change, but in this situation, the consensus did not change, and therefore this category should not have been recreated. --
461:
549:
as closer. The main reason it didn't go through at CFD was because several editors were concerned that the main article,
992:
1065:
817:
772:
658:
615:
469:
436:
385:
100:
17:
1028:
above that "No
Consensus" AfD's generally and this AfD in particular are not good candidates for Non-admin closures.
452:
406:
370:. Seems to have been a logical decision based on lack of consensus to re-create and there are no procedural flaws.
937:
where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question
525:
521:
944:
841:
643:
286:
678:
505:
686:
204:
Since you nominated you are already assumed to have voted. Would you mind refactoring to to bea comment?
1055:
1037:
1012:
997:
973:
948:
930:
909:
806:
761:
732:
714:
647:
604:
600:
586:
565:
540:
425:
374:
362:
341:
307:
290:
273:
252:
235:
208:
197:
178:
89:
744:
as a non-DRV issue. A note to the nom that anything you can add may be edited or removed, please read
682:
218:
The plea for undeletion neglects to mention that the category under discussion was previously deleted
1033:
85:
894:
757:
534:
371:
833:
802:
793:
728:
709:
337:
193:
174:
231:
512:, for one). Yes, I moved the page against consensus, but since the move, other users such as
1043:
Thanks everyone. No need to drag this on any longer. Consensus reached. I withdraw the DRV.
987:
582:
574:
554:
501:
418:
303:
749:
745:
324:
166:
1029:
81:
882:
489:
153:
1045:
963:
899:
753:
558:
513:
926:
798:
724:
704:
562:
357:
351:
333:
249:
189:
170:
935:
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used
1025:
1009:
509:
227:
205:
871:
269:
issues, but these reasons should be enough for an endorse of the closure here.) -
940:
639:
578:
413:
299:
282:
550:
497:
270:
161:
921:
577:
and would prefer all associated categories to follow the same pattern.
516:
have expressed consensus to get rid of "band" in the category. See
893:
Closed as no consensus. However most keep arguments seem to be
226:, regarding why lists were preferred in this circumstance.
323:
one method of information grouping is better than another.
349:. Not liking the outcome does not make it invalid, sorry.
160:
Admin originally closed CfD with the claim that becauset
897:. The results were 5 keeps (2 weak), 2 merge, 5 delete.
867:
863:
859:
517:
477:
473:
465:
457:
141:
137:
129:
121:
319:superior to categories. What we are saying is that
1020:. Given the AfD I don't see how any close but
117:Category:Fictional characters who time travel
77:Category:Fictional characters who time travel
8:
816:The following is an archived debate of the
657:The following is an archived debate of the
557:after getting no support for the move (see
435:The following is an archived debate of the
99:The following is an archived debate of the
786:
629:
399:
69:
699:It doesn't appear that you have have any
41:
330:is appropriate under the circumstances.
327:clearly recognizes this when it states
298:because it meets the speedy criteria.
50:
33:
7:
1024:could be supported, but I also echo
797:– DRV withdrawn, closure endorsed –
1068:of the page listed in the heading.
775:of the page listed in the heading.
618:of the page listed in the heading.
388:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
453:Category:BlackHawk (band) albums
407:Category:BlackHawk (band) albums
1064:The above is an archive of the
771:The above is an archive of the
614:The above is an archive of the
384:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1:
30:
1056:20:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
1038:19:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
1013:18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
998:18:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
974:14:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
949:14:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
931:14:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
910:14:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
807:20:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
762:02:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
733:22:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
715:18:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
648:09:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
605:06:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
587:03:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
566:19:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
541:19:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
426:00:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
375:04:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
363:19:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
342:15:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
308:12:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
291:09:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
274:08:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
253:02:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
236:01:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
209:05:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
198:03:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
179:01:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
90:18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
1091:
522:Category:BlackHawk albums
1071:Please do not modify it.
823:Please do not modify it.
778:Please do not modify it.
693:) 17:56, October 2, 2008
664:Please do not modify it.
621:Please do not modify it.
526:User:DragonflySixtyseven
442:Please do not modify it.
391:Please do not modify it.
321:under some circumstances
106:Please do not modify it.
43:Deletion review archives
410:– Decision endorsed. –
820:of the article above.
661:of the article above.
439:of the article above.
103:of the article above.
80:– Deletion endorsed –
701:deleted contributions
533:a (band) at the end.
506:Category:Cream albums
638:– Not a DRV issue –
224:the most recent one
834:Star Wars marathon
794:Star Wars marathon
539:and his otters •
1078:
1077:
785:
784:
748:...and actually,
731:
695:
681:comment added by
628:
627:
595:another forum. --
553:, was moved from
398:
397:
361:
306:
60:
59:
1082:
1073:
1052:
990:
970:
906:
890:
875:
857:
825:
787:
780:
727:
694:
675:
666:
630:
623:
575:BlackHawk (band)
555:BlackHawk (band)
537:
536:Ten Pound Hammer
502:BlackHawk (band)
493:
482:
481:
444:
423:
421:
416:
400:
393:
355:
302:
157:
146:
145:
108:
70:
56:
36:
31:
1090:
1089:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1069:
1066:deletion review
1046:
995:
988:
964:
900:
876:
848:
832:
821:
818:deletion review
776:
773:deletion review
676:
662:
659:deletion review
619:
616:deletion review
535:
483:
455:
451:
440:
437:deletion review
419:
414:
412:
389:
386:deletion review
372:Good Ol’factory
147:
119:
115:
104:
101:deletion review
68:
61:
54:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1088:
1086:
1076:
1075:
1060:
1059:
1041:
1040:
1015:
1000:
993:
979:
978:
977:
976:
952:
951:
933:
828:
827:
812:
811:
810:
809:
783:
782:
767:
766:
765:
764:
738:
737:
736:
735:
718:
717:
669:
668:
653:
652:
651:
650:
626:
625:
610:
609:
608:
607:
589:
568:
559:Talk:BlackHawk
514:User:Ericorbit
447:
446:
431:
430:
429:
428:
396:
395:
380:
379:
378:
377:
365:
344:
310:
293:
276:
255:
238:
216:Endorse close.
212:
211:
201:
200:
111:
110:
95:
94:
93:
92:
67:
65:2 October 2008
62:
58:
57:
49:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1087:
1074:
1072:
1067:
1062:
1061:
1058:
1057:
1054:
1053:
1051:
1050:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1016:
1014:
1011:
1006:
1001:
999:
996:
991:
984:
981:
980:
975:
972:
971:
969:
968:
960:
956:
955:
954:
953:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
932:
928:
924:
923:
917:
914:
913:
912:
911:
908:
907:
905:
904:
896:
891:
888:
884:
880:
873:
869:
865:
861:
856:
852:
847:
843:
839:
835:
830:
829:
826:
824:
819:
814:
813:
808:
804:
800:
796:
795:
791:
790:
789:
788:
781:
779:
774:
769:
768:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
740:
739:
734:
730:
726:
722:
721:
720:
719:
716:
713:
712:
708:
707:
702:
698:
697:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
671:
670:
667:
665:
660:
655:
654:
649:
645:
641:
637:
634:
633:
632:
631:
624:
622:
617:
612:
611:
606:
602:
598:
593:
590:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
569:
567:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
545:
544:
543:
542:
538:
532:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
494:
491:
487:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
454:
449:
448:
445:
443:
438:
433:
432:
427:
424:
422:
417:
409:
408:
404:
403:
402:
401:
394:
392:
387:
382:
381:
376:
373:
369:
366:
364:
359:
354:
353:
348:
345:
343:
339:
335:
331:
326:
322:
318:
314:
311:
309:
305:
301:
297:
294:
292:
288:
284:
281:per Postdlf.
280:
277:
275:
272:
268:
263:
259:
256:
254:
251:
247:
242:
239:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
214:
213:
210:
207:
203:
202:
199:
195:
191:
186:
183:
182:
181:
180:
176:
172:
168:
163:
158:
155:
151:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
118:
113:
112:
109:
107:
102:
97:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
72:
71:
66:
63:
53:
48:
44:
39:
32:
23:
19:
1070:
1063:
1048:
1047:
1044:
1042:
1022:No Consensus
1021:
1017:
1004:
982:
966:
965:
962:
936:
920:
915:
902:
901:
898:
892:
831:
822:
815:
792:
777:
770:
742:Speedy close
741:
710:
705:
683:Garryjenkins
677:— Preceding
672:
663:
656:
636:Page unknown
635:
620:
613:
591:
570:
546:
530:
510:Cream (band)
495:
450:
441:
434:
411:
405:
390:
383:
367:
350:
346:
328:
320:
316:
312:
295:
278:
266:
261:
257:
245:
240:
215:
184:
159:
114:
105:
98:
75:
64:
47:2008 October
597:82.7.39.174
220:in this CFD
1030:Eluchil404
895:WP:ILIKEIT
752:, too. --
524:and asked
317:inherently
82:Eluchil404
1049:Gtstricky
967:Gtstricky
959:non-admin
903:Gtstricky
754:UsaSatsui
746:this page
551:BlackHawk
518:this diff
498:BlackHawk
162:Spiderman
52:October 3
38:October 1
799:Davewild
750:this one
725:Tony Fox
706:lifebaka
691:contribs
679:unsigned
563:Kbdank71
334:Otto4711
250:Kbdank71
190:Alansohn
185:Overturn
171:Alansohn
20: |
1026:Spartaz
1018:Endorse
1010:Spartaz
1005:endorse
983:Endorse
957:It was
916:Sustain
879:restore
851:protect
846:history
592:Comment
571:Endorse
547:Endorse
486:restore
466:history
368:Endorse
347:Endorse
313:Endorse
296:Endorse
279:Endorse
262:another
258:Endorse
241:Endorse
228:Postdlf
206:Spartaz
150:restore
130:history
989:treelo
941:Stifle
855:delete
729:(arf!)
640:Stifle
579:Occuli
500:, not
325:WP:CLN
300:Hiding
283:Stifle
167:WP:CLN
994:radda
883:cache
872:views
864:watch
860:links
490:cache
474:watch
470:links
358:Help!
267:other
154:cache
138:watch
134:links
55:: -->
16:<
1034:talk
945:talk
927:talk
868:logs
842:talk
838:edit
803:talk
758:talk
687:talk
644:talk
601:talk
583:talk
508:vs.
478:logs
462:talk
458:edit
338:talk
287:talk
271:jc37
232:talk
194:talk
175:talk
142:logs
126:talk
122:edit
86:talk
35:<
922:DGG
887:AfD
420:ykh
415:kur
352:Guy
246:can
22:Log
1036:)
947:)
929:)
885:|
881:|
870:|
866:|
862:|
858:|
853:|
849:|
844:|
840:|
805:)
760:)
711:++
689:•
646:)
603:)
585:)
531:be
488:|
476:|
472:|
468:|
464:|
460:|
340:)
289:)
234:)
196:)
177:)
152:|
140:|
136:|
132:|
128:|
124:|
88:)
45::
1032:(
943:(
925:(
889:)
877:(
874:)
836:(
801:(
756:(
685:(
642:(
599:(
581:(
492:)
484:(
480:)
456:(
360:)
356:(
336:(
304:T
285:(
230:(
192:(
173:(
156:)
148:(
144:)
120:(
84:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.