1243:. Did the closing admin look for an original press release? If such had been cited, we would know that it exists, and we would know how much it had been re-written. I tried to find the editorial policy regarding press releases for Linux Magazine, but it would probably require an email be sent. Had the closing admin done this, he would probably have found that Linux Magazine retains editorial control—this is evidenced by the lack of mentioning any press releases in the news article and the giving of an author's name. Moreso, it should not be a surprise that technical magazines use press releases as a source. In this case, this news article is what we are looking for at Knowledge, Kristian Kissling and the editors at Linux Magazine are second party and independent, the author is considered to be an expert, and Kristian Kissling and the editors that used the article believed the material sufficiently reliable and notable to put his and their names on the news article.
1065:
of which conflicting policy based arguments are the stronger. But the judgement about whether sources are substantial and independent is to a considerable extent a matter of opinion--any rational argument that they are or that they are not is an argument supported by policy--and is generally a decisive question when that is the issue. What he should have done is seen whether there was consensus that the sources were or were not sufficient, or whether there was no consensus on the issue. If he had an individual view on the matter, he should have joined the discussion. I respect his analysis, though I think I probably disagree with it; it would have been a useful contribution to the AfD. Additionally, I would have discarded Hrafn's argument as not based on policy--as, in fact, based on rejected policy that specialized sources are insufficient.
915:(which is "only an essay") where I am trying to argue that while AFD is not a "vote", neither is the !vote count meaningless. In my view, for "admin's discretion" to have applied here, the "delete" position would have had to be a "significant minority". 4:1 isn't but 4:2 may be. Your "delete" !vote might have made it possible for the next admin to have punched it "delete" without us being here. (or at least made this DRV a certain endorse) What would be a "significant minority" is subjective but when I close AFDs, I like to see at least 2 editors concur with the nom before I hit the delete button. (though there are exceptions such as for "high risk" articles like BLPs) --
2089:. I can see where the DRV nom is coming from, and the attempt at sourcing during the discussion was not really successful. Nonetheless, with almost unanimity for keeping, I can hardly blame the closer for following that. The article is not in the best of shapes, and since South African media has a tendency to not make it onto the internet, it can be difficult to locate sources online. Nonetheless, I am quite certain that this orchestra
1778:
available to use and C) there almost certainly are other sources out there for a group that's been around for 2 decades. So how is this not an AFD2 argument? It some extent it is. But more so, we have !votes that argue any such group should be notable. We don't have a subject-specific guideline for something like this, so we should be listening to those at the AfD. The closer did exactly that.
1530:
community wants to do, and then do otherwise. This wasn't a close call where you agonize and weigh each opinion to decide who has the better argument, this was a case where, in a well-attended AFD, no one agreed you had a case. I don't think you had a case, either, but that opinion is formed from reading this debate so many times the last couple days, not meaningful in closing this.
1491:
which case I would fully support its retention... or you would admit that your claim is invalid. There are thousands of professional orchestras in the world. I believe that only the ones that meet our notability criteria should have articles on
Knowledge. At the time I nominated the article it did in fact have absolutely no sources other than a link to the orchestras website
2047:. Notability is established, albeit perhaps not so strongly. Given the location of the orchestra we can't expect the quality of media coverage we'd get in London or New York. Overturning the decision would be a bad precedent. Dismissing a symphony orchestra like a band that had just been formed by a group of teenagers in someone's garage would not be the way to go. --
1494:- obviously that does not establish notability. If you really think that a lack of reliable sources to establish notability does not constitute a 'plausible argument for deletion', I must seriously question your competence to act as a closing admin for these discussions. And I say that with at least as much respect as you have shown me.
1758:
1754:
1571:– If it's not a vote, then the argument that only one entry made an attempt at establishing notability is invalid – one is enough. As for that particular argument: I still believe that performing a world premiere of an opera by a notable composer and accompanying a highly notable singer confers notability. --
1682:
It was very disappointing to me to have put so much time and effort into looking at those sources and seeing that, no, they did not establish notability, and then to construct a comment that showed that in detail, while entreating further discussion. But then I waited for days, diligently checking my
1585:
It's hard to make a brilliant close off a less than brilliant discussion, and I have some sympathy with
Courcelles' position on his talk page. I'm tempted by Duffbeerforme's view, although I don't think there's any point overturning a "keep" to a "no consensus". Let's leave things unchanged for the
1064:
The deleting admin did exactly what he is not supposed to do, which is to make his own analysis of the issue. He is certainly allowed --and in fact, required--to make his own evaluation of whether the arguments presented are based on policy, and many people think he is entitled to make an evaluation
881:
I'm also struggling to accept the argument presented that I should have !voted instead of closing since the "numbers were against" delete. Let us suppose that I had done that, since it was 4:1 or some such (though we're not counting votes, of course). Then the next admin who attempted to close would
747:
As for things as they stand, unless someone has an argument of substance against the statement in Aaron's close, rather than one of technicality, I don't see any value in sending this back to AFD for the sake of sending it back to AFD. Simply claiming that there's coverage in reliable sources is not
740:
This was a miserable debate. I can't fault Aaron for refusing to close this as a keep or even a no-consensus, even after correctly discounting all the keep votes. The article as it stood at the time of the nomination was 3/4 features list and screenshot gallery, and the other quarter was so full of
1524:
one. Finally, I'd remind you that a few sentences here and there in reliable sources are enough for verifiability, which is non-negotiable, as the
Verifiability says merely "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Knowledge should not have an article on it.", and there is no way
1133:
To be fair to Hrafn, I changed the NBOOK guideline following a couple of recent AfDs. Consensus on that matter--specialized sources--seems to have changed for books. I don't think there ever was one for software, as there's no separate guideline. However, all sources except one in this AfD have very
997:
with the closing statement moved to the discussion section as a "delete" opinion. The closer is probably correct on the merits, but the question of whether the sources are sufficient to establish notability is so difficult, and dependent on editorial judgment, that it is not suitable to be the basis
503:
is a reliable source shouldn't have been enough to result in a "delete" argument, because people differ on
Internet sourcing all the time. There was no compelling reason for the relister to relist, nor for the eventual closer to close as anything other than keep. No consensus would have been within
2141:
nomination statement followed by 0 delete votes, and you bring this to DRV? Stop wasting everyone's time. If people still think the article should be deleted, then relist it with a better rationale, but don't bring it to DRV and accuse the closer of incorrectly closing it as keep. If it had been
1717:
does not suggest that being "a professional symphony orchestra" (do we even have a RS for its being 'professional'?) demonstrates notability, so the first 'keep' and its two 'me-too's are without basis and thus irrelevant. Likewise the "Coverage in reliable independent sources" cites no actual (let
677:
sources, and Hrafn also considered
Cybershack lacking. I consider the closing statement's expansion of these to be acceptable. The "Gargoyle FAQ" by the founder/lead developer is clearly not independent, which I think is obvious and thus allowable. The LWN.net evaluation is novel and nuanced enough
259:
keep votes were based on sources. and are thus substantiated. One of the people who originally said delete, scratched that out and congratulated an editor for finding sources, providing a link to the article itself to show the changes that had been made. Those changes are what caused everyone who
1691:
be numerous print sources to establish this that are just not accessible through Google. The web is not the world. Perhaps one of the South
African Wikipedians who participated in the deletion discussion could add some print sources that we can't find with a web search, but as newbies they don't
1490:
You claim that it would take a minimal effort to find reliable sources to find the significant coverage in independent reliable sources required to establish notability. However unlike me, you obviously haven't undertaken that effort, otherwise we would have such sources to add to the article, in
1441:
The first four swath of keeps fail to address a single policy or guideline betwixt the lot. The fifth makes a bald claim with no supporting evidence. The only meaninful contribution to the debate was
Dlabtot's, where he carefully lays out why this fails to meet policy, "showing his work" so that
625:
Fundamentally, a closer should not both insert their own analysis of the arguments AND override the numerical consensus. If you disagree with the way things are going enough that it seems clearly appropriate to override the numerical consensus in your close... then you probably ought to just !vote
220:
I don't like that debate very much at all. We've got a bunch of unsubstantiated votes, which can safely be disregarded, plus another skirmish in the ongoing argument between Hrafn and Dream Focus, largely about the philosophy behind WP:N, in which Dream Focus gave us a refreshingly unconventional
1777:
So A) it's a very reasonable case where our guideline is simply wrong. We really are going to have a band because they are signed to a major label but not cover one of the 4 classical orchestras in South Africa? and B) there are sources (the two books if nothing else), they just aren't easily
1845:
as no consensus to delete. Aaron
Brenneman is right that the first three opinions should have been discounted as not addressing the question of notability raised by the nomination, but even so it's a deadlock between the nominator and Michael Bednarek, and so no consensus to delete. Consensus
1529:
must make in its role as the sovereign, not the closing administrator, who merely acts on this aspect as the instrument of the community's will. Before someone jumps on me, I'm not saying "count votes", I'm saying the closer has to have a damned good reason to read a discussion, know what the
1177:
There are multiple places above that phrases like "numerical consensus" are being used as indicators for how decisions are driven. I must admit I'm surprised at this, and I would like someone to link to a policy or guideline that states counting is how consensus is formed. (Note that I have
498:
version of the debate was not suitable for relisting. No one had agreed with the nominator after a week--or rather, one had, and then had rescinded his own !vote. Relisting is for debates with less participation and/or clarity. The additional debate between two participants on whether
741:
peacock phrases that it could probably have been speeded as a G11. But when an administrator sees an afd debate like this in the closing queue, the correct action is to put your analysis in a delete recommendation yourself and trust that the next administrator to take a look at it will
1468:
argument for deletion, and it was poorly thought out. Anyone who mashed the "find sources" buttons ontop of the AFD would have found copious plenty, especially if they thought to use the organizations current name. The nomination amounted to saying the article was lousy, a classic
223:
I'm conscious that the debate had been relisted by Ron
Ritzman, so relisting again would not have been appropriate. Therefore the closer had little choice but to examine the sources for himself. The rather detailed and helpful closing statement shows that this is exactly what he
882:
have said, "Oh, well, the best arguments are for deletion, but sadly it's only 4:2, so I have to !vote instead of closing." Then the next admin tries to close, but oh dear, it's only 4:3, I better !vote." Then the next admin... See where we're going here? We don't count votes.
2118:, on the basis of both consensus and of further sources, though the article at the time of the AfD was borderline. And the first argument is imo, based on a reasonable interpretation of policy: a professional orchestra is exactly analogous to a professional sports team.
588:
Do you see how you're not actually adding to the debate, Dream Focus? I can just so "no it's not" again and again, just like your saying "yes it is." Please stop making claims wholly unsupported by evidence, show how you're correct by referencing policy and guideline.
998:
of a closure on the basis of the strength of the arguments presented. The AfD should have been closed as "delete" only once there was a numerical consensus on the basis of all opinions that address the question of whether the sources are sufficient for notability.
944:
It seemed obvious to me that the sources were adequate, if not stellar, so I didn't feel the need to expand on what had already been said. I disagree with your analysis of the sources and would have been happy to debate it had it been presented in the discussion.
1516:. You never made that argument, you said it had "no sources". not that no sources existed. No one, until this came to DRV, ever made even an attempt at a valid argument for deletion that had any basis in policy; here you come much closer to advancing the
176:
The sources are reliable, as they have editorial oversight as to what goes there, one a broadcast television show and another a print magazine even. Administrator clearly ignored consensus of those participating in the AFD, and instead made a super vote.
172:
Four editors thought the sources significant to warrant keep: Qrsdogg, Widefox, Dcxf, and Dream Focus. The nominator and one other felt otherwise. There was no consensus to delete. I discussed this with the closing administrator on my talk page.
1234:
IMO, this is not coherent analysis. The phrases "mostly identical to above" and "All as per above" have unclear antecedents. Even if we assume a worst case scenario, there is still no relevant statement here. The author, Kristian
Kissling, is
1686:
Clearly the correct course of action would have been to relist, so that further discussion and perhaps further improvements to the article could happen. For example if this really is, as asserted, the 'national orchestra of South Africa', there
1769:
is a book (again looks like an academic work) on the group. there are a massive number of passing mentions of this group both in a news archive search and a book search. Every "guide to South Africa" mentions this group as far as I can
1767:
1047:. Aaron Brenneman's comments would be better stated as a "vote" in the debate than as a leonine form of jumping on the giraffe when its neck is down in the water, waiting to be the closing admin so his argument would win and then -- SNAP!
1764:
834:
Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently
1155:
is a project that has been dormant for four years, and that was cited by all respondents in the deletion discussion as the reason for merging it. Gargoyle is still being actively developed, and still receiving coverage. For example
1948:. The expressed consensus was rather clear, and while comments like Deskford's may not be good reflections of policy/guideline per se, they're also rather reasonable empirical comments which need not be discounted out-of-hand.
1760:. In the US any such group would have a large number of reviews. Perhaps these are in something other than English? Perhaps South African newspapers don't cover classical music? Perhaps they just aren't on-line? No clue.
526:
is that arguments that are not supported by policy are subordinate to those that are. As noted by S Marshall, there was little to no effort by the keep side to conform to policy. I had hoped that the participants might
1757:. Frankly, WP:N is a guideline and should be overridden for cases like this. Why can't we find reviews of this group (well I've found a few, all just a sentence or two)? No idea. They perform a regular weekly series
1391:
Closing administrator says the reason for keeping the article is that it 5 editors against 1, however, this is not a vote. The sources that allegedly establish notability of this topic are only trivial mentions.
1913:
While the nominator did make strong arguments and the other !voters didn't really demonstrate the notability of the subject, I don't think it should be deleted if the nominator makes the only case for deletion.
857:
The keep arguments were fundamentally flawed in almost every aspect. Their reading of policies and guidelines was superficial at best, and is badly out of step with the standards that routinely applied at the
1096:
1683:
watchlist in hopes that someone would engage in discussion. What my watchlist did alert me to was 'closed as keep'. The closing admin's reply to a request for a rationale? to paraphrase: 5 to 1.
1967:
1374:
839:
260:
said keep, to make that decision. And we're not here to reevaluate anything other than the close. Are closing administrators suppose to weigh consensus, or ignore it and cast a supervote?
155:
1722:'keep' opinion. On this basis, and given Dlabtot's rebuttal, a 'delete' close would been not have been unwarranted (though would have been somewhat brave on the closing admin's part).
1554:. Nominator questioned the validity of the coverage being sufficient with details, something the keeper didn't give. there is no consensus that the sources presented were sufficient.
720:
states that "Multiple sources are generally expected", but I've seen that interpreted as two or more good sources, one good source and other marginal ones, and lots of marginal ones.
1611:– I'm afraid I cannot see any other way to close this; the consensus looked like that notability was established, and many of those arguments on the retention side seem reasonable. –
1974:. Classical music editors find it exasperating (and tiring) that, e.g., sports people get automatic notability if they appeared in their sport's highest or second highest league (
593:
Consensus was that it was. You went against the consensus. You decided to cast a super vote, defying the rules of Knowledge. You are suppose to judge consensus, not ignore it.
1822:
Thanks for searching! I suspect if we could get those sources they'd nicely point us to more useable ones. It would be hard to write an MS thesis without a few RSes I'd think.
1450:
must be good before the article is deleted. When decent contributions follow on from a nomination, for example, we don't let the nominator withdraw, if I may draw a parrallel. -
1410:
The administrator weighed consensus, which was of everyone saying the sources presented were sufficient to establish notability, only the nominator, you, seeking to delete it.
843:
770:
I concur with Flatscan & 74.74.150.139. Although I agree with Aaron Brenneman closing argument (no surprises there), an admin should not both argue to a substantive extent
518:
I know I said I wouldn't comment, but please explain to me how this debate showed that there were the multiple reliable sources that are required by our core content policy of
692:
I agree with the statement the decision on LWN was beyond what an admin should take on themselves. But, as I tried to make clear in the close, the fact was that that was the
221:
view of our inclusion criteria which Hrafn seems to have countered by citing the existence of a template. The whole exchange seems like a poor basis on which to close an AfD.
1088:
288:
I'm sorry, Dream Focus, but I'm afraid it's quite beyond me to see how those keep votes were based on a critical analysis of the sources. Could you explain in more detail?—
1362:
851:
824:
75:
1800:
is a 33-page University of KwaZulu-Natal Masters thesis (so not really a reliable source), held in no library other than that university (so presumably unpublished).
1034:, the close was quite clearly a supervote. I can't help but feel the closing admin should have just !voted and left it at that rather than closing the discussion.
478:. It could've been left as no consensus, and the closing is clearly a super vote. I don't see a problem with an AfD2 instead, but the article needs to be restored -
407:, however. My apologies if my comments in the discussion were unclear. My view is that the sources that were found are less that I like to see if I'm going to !vote
1508:
That an article is unsourced is not and never has been (excepting newly created BLPs) a valid argument for deletion. The valid argument is that an article is not
143:
1473:
hand-wave, and that is NEVER a good argument for deletion. Someone, at least the nominator, has to make a plausible argument for deletion, and no one did here.
1383:
1971:
1995:
847:
34:
495:
78:; rough consensus incidates that the AFD should be relisted and further discussed. Article also restored in the meantime, while the AFD is ongoing. – –
164:
48:
1586:
time being, but perhaps we could encourage an early renomination of the article at AfD in the hope of a more evidence-focused discussion next time.—
43:
1900:, not the best arguments on either side, but it's a bit hard to close something as delete when only the nominator is arguing for that outcome.
2072:, which is what I would have voted. Most of the keep votes did not present any policy or common-sense based arguments, so they are just noise.
859:
1635:
respectively. But unfortunately, while Dlabtot's arguments were stronger, I don't think it would be worth the drama to reclose it as delete.
227:
The only basis on which DRV can assess whether the close is correct was to make our own examination of the sources. I think we will need to
655:
is detailed, I think it stretches the amount of independent investigation that closers should do. It would have been better presented as a
1981:
811:, and reopening something just for the sake of process, when the logic behind the closure is sound, is unnecessary and a waste of time.--
753:
862:. The extensive close raised no arguments that had not already been presented by the other participants. Had I simply closed this as
870:
they were correct, and link to the relevant policies and guidelines, it suddenly becomes a supervote? I'd point in particular to the
1627:
stronger than the keep votes, which were (1) a reference to policy that didn't actually exist, (2) same as 1, (3) same as 1, and (4)
1332:
39:
909:
Then the next admin who attempted to close would have said, "Oh, well, the best arguments are for deletion, but sadly it's only 4:2
1931:. It was a shitty debate but closing it as delete would have been crazy-brave. As others have said above, just re-nominate it. --
1599:
359:
301:
244:
1953:
1207:
113:
21:
1695:
I must also add that I am extremely offended by the dismissive and insulting tone taken towards me by the closing admin.
1751:
1328:
1284:
807:
The closing admin here went beyond what he should have here, and this certainly shouldn't be repeated. That being said
1811:
1729:
1114:
793:
1442:
others may see. This should have been a total drop-kick delete. I'm also unimpressed by the reasoning provided at
2003:
1949:
1888:
1576:
1157:
2159:
2012:
That's an argument to change the sport notability guideline, not the other way around. Otherwise, we'd soon have
1455:
1312:
1263:
1248:
1183:
1020:
889:
828:
701:
580:
538:
211:
93:
17:
1087:
In response to DGG's snippy comment about my comment I would like to point out (i) that the passage in question
231:
the principle that DRV is not AfD round 2 and focus on the sources for ourselves. Would anyone object to that?—
1643:
1525:
that applies here. Whether the coverage is enough for the GNG to be satisfied, however, is a decision that the
109:
70:
866:
that would have been well within the range of normal closes. Since I took the time to explain very carefully
1559:
757:
403:
but then struck my !vote upon learning of sources that my searching had missed, I never changed my !vote to
206:
My only comment is that I said it all in the close, and thanks to Dream for bringing it to my talk first. -
1866:
with leave to renominate; no reasonable delete closure could have been distilled from the debate provided.
1550:
to No Consensus. Only one of the 4 keepers adressed any real reason for keeping, coverage. The others were
2044:
1999:
1936:
1884:
1747:
1572:
920:
808:
1970:
that a professional symphony orchestra should automatically be notable.) I, too, made a similar remark
1292:. The consensus below is that Keep is a reasonable close of the debate and within admin discretion. –
1632:
1595:
1551:
1451:
1443:
1297:
1244:
1206:
Kristian Kissling (17 Jul 2009). "Gargoyle: Web Interface for Router Configuration". Linux Magazine.
1179:
1159:, published after the deletion discussion, lists it as one of "the most popular options out there".
1016:
885:
697:
652:
576:
534:
355:
297:
240:
207:
2148:
2129:
2110:
2081:
2060:
2029:
2007:
1957:
1940:
1923:
1904:
1892:
1875:
1858:
1831:
1817:
1787:
1735:
1704:
1675:
1650:
1615:
1603:
1580:
1563:
1534:
1503:
1477:
1459:
1433:
1401:
1301:
1252:
1187:
1168:
1147:
1120:
1076:
1056:
1038:
1024:
1010:
989:
954:
935:
924:
893:
818:
799:
761:
729:
705:
687:
668:
635:
616:
584:
570:
542:
513:
487:
466:
444:
424:
381:
363:
337:
305:
283:
248:
215:
200:
82:
2105:
2054:
1636:
1628:
912:
2138:
2077:
2025:
1883:, pretty much per Stifle. The debate is, frankly, crappy. I would have gone for a relist myself.
1671:
1612:
1555:
1470:
1143:
1138:, was merged/deleted even though it had a more extensive word-count-wise burst of news coverage.
725:
683:
664:
631:
509:
79:
1919:
1700:
1499:
1397:
1052:
483:
462:
440:
420:
1986:), but professional symphony orchestras of many years' standing do not. The unsuitability of
774:
close the discussion -- that leads to a perception of partisanship in the close. I think any
1932:
1871:
1714:
1411:
985:
916:
815:
710:
I saw "This now means that no matter if it is decided that LWN is reliable, it doesn't have
594:
548:
315:
261:
178:
1236:
745:
ignore the invalid keeps. If he didn't, that would be the correct time to bring it to DRV.
2143:
1987:
1827:
1783:
1587:
1531:
1474:
1293:
696:
source that was even close, and that thus it didn't matter. Wee need multiple sources. -
523:
347:
289:
232:
314:
They saw the sources, and agreed they were notable, which they are. Consensus was clear.
1798:
An investigation of the mentorship programme of the KwaZulu-Natal Philharmonic Orchestra
2102:
2049:
1991:
1901:
1849:
1164:
1035:
1001:
950:
377:
2125:
2073:
2021:
1667:
1178:
provided a link that explicitly states the opposite, and even provided the text.) -
1139:
1072:
973:
721:
717:
679:
660:
659:
recommendation to bolster the source shortcomings pointed out by FuFoFuEd and Hrafn.
627:
505:
228:
1662:
comments were very poor. Dlabtot's follow-ups were convincing and not rebutted, but
2093:
covered reasonably extensively, for although I had to search a bit, but I did find
1915:
1696:
1495:
1393:
1048:
977:
932:
479:
458:
436:
416:
2094:
1743:
Classic case of WP:IAR and of people not searching for sources. So to arguments:
1867:
1766:
is a book (perhaps an MS thesis?) that looks at how this group does mentorship.
1509:
1240:
981:
812:
519:
2142:
closed as anything other than keep, it would have been at DRV in a heartbeat.
626:
yourself and let some other admin close it with the benefit of your reasoning.
1823:
1807:
1779:
1725:
1110:
789:
431:
Honestly though, I think this discussion probably should have been closed as
1804:
is a Bachelor's degree thesis (again unpublished & even less reliable).
1160:
1015:
Again with the "numerical consensus." Where does this come from, anyway? -
946:
547:
Verification was met. There are links to the coverage in reliable sources.
373:
2120:
1793:
1666:
closes based on a single supporter – even with no opposition – are rare.
1067:
1746:
It's a professional Philharmonic Orchestra that played the opening of a
533:
before coming here, but sadly that appears not to have been the case. -
1152:
1135:
931:
Should I be alarmed that 2 of the 4 precedents you cite are my closes?
500:
372:
Speaking for myself, yes I did, and please don't assume that I didn't.
1219:* 210 words, mostly identical to above, also in the "news" section...
1107:
of coverage being required to extend beyond a specialised audience.
1763:
In addition, there are sources, they just aren't easily available.
504:
the realm of discretion, but delete is unsupported by the debate.
1802:"Disestablishing" symphony orchestras in a changing South Africa
752:. No such sources were provided, and I don't think they exist.
346:
I don't think they looked at the sources very closely. Do you?—
970:
Demote closing statement to a delete recommendation and relist.
782:
his detailed and cogent argument (and doing so may lead to a
1968:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Natal Philharmonic Orchestra
1753:. It's one of 4 South African classical Orchestra's listed
1101:
relying on what was explicit policy at the time I commented
911:, Not necessarily true. I've recently made some changes to
874:
debate, where the biggest complaint was that the admin had
823:
I've not at all "gone beyond," as I followed the guideline
1444:
User_talk:Courcelles#Natal_Philharmonic_Orchestra.E2.80.8E
1239:. There is no evidence that the basis of this news was a
838:
This principle is routinely examined at deletion review:
778:
closing admin would have trouble closing the discussion
1492:
1369:
1355:
1347:
1339:
748:
in itself a get-out-of-jail card, you have to actually
174:
150:
136:
128:
120:
840:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Canada–Tonga relations
1718:alone significant) coverage. Therefore there is no
844:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Women's superiority
411:and more than I like to see if I am going to !vote
1846:normally requires more than one "delete" opinion.
1623:and possibly renominate. Dlabtot's arguments were
878:explained why the various keeps are not correct.
852:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9
768:Relist and let another admin decide on the close:
825:Knowledge:Deletion guidelines for administrators
76:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 12
827:, and in particular it's advice on determining
8:
1103:. (ii) I would also point out that this was
1311:The following is an archived debate of the
848:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Monika Star
92:The following is an archived debate of the
1277:
1200:I have researched the following assertion:
678:to be inappropriate as part of the close.
63:
864:"Delete, FuFoFuEd and Hrafn are correct."
786:DRV thread), but that's for another day.
2101:, one of the main newspapers in Durban.
1099:-- and that I can hardly be faulted for
74:– Relisted for further discussion under
673:FuFoFuEd criticized the Cybershack and
860:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
7:
2162:of the page listed in the heading.
1266:of the page listed in the heading.
1134:brief coverage. A similar article,
976:) it is no good just saying it has
1994:in particular, was noted as early
1980:eligible because I twice refereed
28:
457:either, given the circumstances.
1658:, with leave to renominate. The
1512:, and that reliable sources are
2158:The above is an archive of the
2018:Keep, professional porn actress
1262:The above is an archive of the
651:. While the source analysis by
1998:, and nothing has changed. --
809:Knowledge is not a bureaucracy
645:Demote closing statement to a
1:
2014:Keep, professional pop singer
1966:Comment: (Deskford opined at
1464:The nomination here was the
1329:Natal Philharmonic Orchestra
1285:Natal Philharmonic Orchestra
1195:Revert closing and reclose
2185:
980:if you don't put them up.
530:go and read those policies
399:Though I initially !voted
1881:Allow speedy renomination
1302:04:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
649:recommendation and relist
522:? The long tradition of
83:18:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
2165:Please do not modify it.
2149:04:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
2130:18:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
2111:15:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
2082:13:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
2061:07:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
2030:13:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
2008:04:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
1958:02:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
1941:02:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
1924:03:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
1911:Overturn to No Consensus
1905:03:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
1893:22:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
1876:19:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
1859:17:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
1832:22:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
1818:17:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
1788:09:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
1736:07:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
1712:Overturn to no consensus
1705:05:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
1676:04:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
1656:Overturn to no consensus
1651:00:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
1621:Overturn to no consensus
1616:21:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
1604:11:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
1581:09:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
1564:06:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
1535:16:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
1504:04:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
1478:17:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
1460:06:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
1434:05:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
1402:01:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
1318:Please do not modify it.
1269:Please do not modify it.
1253:13:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
1208:Retrieved June 16, 2011.
1188:14:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
1169:01:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
1148:19:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
1121:04:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
1077:18:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
1057:11:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
1039:03:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
1025:14:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
1011:17:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
990:10:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
955:10:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
936:10:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
925:15:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
894:10:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
819:06:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
800:06:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
762:05:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
730:04:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
706:09:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
688:04:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
669:04:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
636:05:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
617:04:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
585:04:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
571:04:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
543:04:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
514:23:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
488:22:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
467:18:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
445:18:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
425:18:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
382:09:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
364:08:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
338:04:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
306:23:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
284:12:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
249:10:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
229:set aside for the moment
216:06:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
201:05:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
110:Gargoyle Router Firmware
99:Please do not modify it.
71:Gargoyle Router Firmware
40:Deletion review archives
2137:- give me a break. A
1439:Shocked by that close.
1231:
968:or in the alternative
837:
1950:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
1748:Bongani Ndodana-Breen
1203:
832:
750:provide those sources
453:I'm not opposed to a
1692:know how to do that.
1097:I made that argument
653:User:Aaron Brenneman
1315:of the page above.
1222:* All as per above.
1105:not my only example
716:reliable sources."
96:of the page above.
2070:overturn to delete
1520:argument, not the
2172:
2171:
2108:
1985:
1976:which would make
1857:
1602:
1552:It's just notable
1276:
1275:
1009:
590:
362:
304:
247:
2176:
2167:
2106:
2057:
2052:
2045:Michael Bednarek
2000:Michael Bednarek
1975:
1856:
1854:
1847:
1816:
1734:
1646:
1594:
1592:
1573:Michael Bednarek
1430:
1427:
1424:
1421:
1418:
1415:
1386:
1381:
1372:
1358:
1350:
1342:
1320:
1278:
1271:
1197:by another admin
1119:
1008:
1006:
999:
798:
613:
610:
607:
604:
601:
598:
587:
575:No it wasn't. -
567:
564:
561:
558:
555:
552:
493:Overturn to Keep
354:
352:
334:
331:
328:
325:
322:
319:
296:
294:
280:
277:
274:
271:
268:
265:
239:
237:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
167:
162:
153:
139:
131:
123:
101:
64:
53:
33:
2184:
2183:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2163:
2160:deletion review
2055:
2050:
1850:
1848:
1843:Endorse outcome
1814:
1805:
1732:
1723:
1644:
1588:
1452:Aaron Brenneman
1428:
1425:
1422:
1419:
1416:
1413:
1382:
1380:
1377:
1368:
1367:
1361:
1354:
1353:
1346:
1345:
1338:
1337:
1316:
1313:deletion review
1288:– Keep Closure
1267:
1264:deletion review
1245:Unscintillating
1180:Aaron Brenneman
1117:
1108:
1017:Aaron Brenneman
1002:
1000:
886:Aaron Brenneman
829:rough consensus
796:
787:
698:Aaron Brenneman
611:
608:
605:
602:
599:
596:
577:Aaron Brenneman
565:
562:
559:
556:
553:
550:
535:Aaron Brenneman
524:rough consensus
348:
332:
329:
326:
323:
320:
317:
290:
278:
275:
272:
269:
266:
263:
233:
208:Aaron Brenneman
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
163:
161:
158:
149:
148:
142:
135:
134:
127:
126:
119:
118:
97:
94:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2182:
2180:
2170:
2169:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2132:
2113:
2084:
2063:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2020:and so forth.
1961:
1960:
1943:
1926:
1908:
1895:
1878:
1861:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1810:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1761:
1738:
1728:
1708:
1707:
1693:
1684:
1679:
1678:
1653:
1618:
1606:
1583:
1566:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1436:
1389:
1388:
1378:
1365:
1359:
1351:
1343:
1335:
1323:
1322:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1274:
1273:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1220:
1210:
1209:
1202:
1201:
1191:
1190:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1113:
1080:
1079:
1059:
1042:
1029:
1028:
1027:
992:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
941:
940:
939:
938:
928:
927:
899:
898:
897:
896:
884:
883:
880:
879:
856:
855:
854:, all upheld.
802:
792:
765:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
675:Linux Magazine
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
490:
472:
471:
470:
469:
448:
447:
428:
427:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
367:
366:
341:
340:
309:
308:
253:
252:
218:
170:
169:
159:
146:
140:
132:
124:
116:
104:
103:
88:
87:
86:
85:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2181:
2168:
2166:
2161:
2156:
2155:
2150:
2147:
2146:
2140:
2136:
2133:
2131:
2127:
2123:
2122:
2117:
2114:
2112:
2109:
2104:
2100:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2085:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2064:
2062:
2059:
2058:
2053:
2046:
2042:
2039:
2038:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1993:
1989:
1983:
1979:
1973:
1969:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1944:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1927:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1912:
1909:
1906:
1903:
1899:
1896:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1879:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1862:
1860:
1855:
1853:
1844:
1841:
1840:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1815:
1813:
1809:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1792:According to
1791:
1790:
1789:
1785:
1781:
1776:
1775:
1768:
1765:
1762:
1759:
1756:
1752:
1749:
1745:
1744:
1742:
1739:
1737:
1733:
1731:
1727:
1721:
1716:
1713:
1710:
1709:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1685:
1681:
1680:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1654:
1652:
1649:
1647:
1640:
1639:
1634:
1633:WP:ITSNOTABLE
1630:
1626:
1622:
1619:
1617:
1614:
1610:
1607:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1591:
1584:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1567:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1556:duffbeerforme
1553:
1549:
1546:
1545:
1536:
1533:
1528:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1479:
1476:
1472:
1467:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1440:
1437:
1435:
1432:
1431:
1409:
1408:Endorse close
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1385:
1376:
1371:
1364:
1357:
1349:
1341:
1334:
1330:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1321:
1319:
1314:
1309:
1308:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1286:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1272:
1270:
1265:
1260:
1259:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1241:press release
1238:
1233:
1232:
1221:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1205:
1204:
1199:
1198:
1193:
1192:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1176:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1122:
1118:
1116:
1112:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1069:
1063:
1060:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1043:
1040:
1037:
1033:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1007:
1005:
996:
993:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
964:
963:
956:
952:
948:
943:
942:
937:
934:
930:
929:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
895:
891:
887:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
853:
849:
845:
841:
836:
830:
826:
822:
821:
820:
817:
814:
810:
806:
803:
801:
797:
795:
791:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
766:
764:
763:
759:
755:
754:74.74.150.139
751:
744:
739:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
714:
709:
708:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
690:
689:
685:
681:
676:
672:
671:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
648:
643:
637:
633:
629:
624:
618:
615:
614:
592:
591:
586:
582:
578:
574:
573:
572:
569:
568:
546:
545:
544:
540:
536:
532:
531:
525:
521:
517:
516:
515:
511:
507:
502:
497:
494:
491:
489:
485:
481:
477:
474:
473:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
451:
450:
449:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
429:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
395:
394:
383:
379:
375:
371:
370:
369:
368:
365:
361:
357:
353:
351:
345:
344:
343:
342:
339:
336:
335:
313:
312:
311:
310:
307:
303:
299:
295:
293:
287:
286:
285:
282:
281:
258:
255:
254:
251:
250:
246:
242:
238:
236:
230:
225:
219:
217:
213:
209:
205:
204:
203:
202:
199:
198:
175:
166:
157:
152:
145:
138:
130:
122:
115:
111:
108:
107:
106:
105:
102:
100:
95:
90:
89:
84:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
2164:
2157:
2144:
2134:
2119:
2115:
2098:
2090:
2087:Endorse keep
2086:
2069:
2065:
2048:
2040:
2017:
2013:
1977:
1945:
1928:
1910:
1897:
1880:
1863:
1851:
1842:
1806:
1801:
1797:
1740:
1724:
1719:
1711:
1688:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1641:
1637:
1629:WP:VAGUEWAVE
1624:
1620:
1608:
1589:
1568:
1547:
1526:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1465:
1447:
1438:
1412:
1407:
1390:
1317:
1310:
1289:
1283:
1268:
1261:
1196:
1194:
1109:
1104:
1100:
1092:
1091:
1066:
1061:
1044:
1031:
1003:
994:
969:
965:
913:WP:SUPERVOTE
908:
875:
871:
867:
863:
833:
816:(let's chat)
804:
788:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
749:
746:
742:
712:
711:
693:
674:
656:
646:
644:
595:
549:
529:
528:
520:verification
492:
475:
454:
433:No Consensus
432:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
349:
316:
291:
262:
256:
234:
226:
222:
179:
171:
98:
91:
69:
58:
35:2011 June 30
2139:WP:NOEFFORT
2099:The Mercury
1933:Mkativerata
1720:substantive
1518:unsourcable
1514:nonexistent
1471:WP:NOEFFORT
1089:was removed
917:Ron Ritzman
872:Monika Star
835:discounted.
59:1 July 2011
49:2011 July 2
1852:Sandstein
1590:S Marshall
1532:Courcelles
1510:verifiable
1475:Courcelles
1448:nomination
1294:Eluchil404
1004:Sandstein
350:S Marshall
292:S Marshall
235:S Marshall
2103:Sjakkalle
1972:last year
1902:Lankiveil
1885:T. Canens
1715:WP:NMUSIC
1527:community
1522:unsourced
1446:that the
1036:Lankiveil
44:2011 July
2107:(Check!)
2074:FuFoFuEd
2022:FuFoFuEd
1988:WP:MUSIC
1794:WorldCat
1668:Flatscan
1613:MuZemike
1548:Overturn
1290:Endorsed
1140:FuFoFuEd
1045:Undelete
974:Flatscan
972:(as per
722:Flatscan
713:multiple
680:Flatscan
661:Flatscan
628:Jclemens
506:Jclemens
80:MuZemike
20: |
2135:Endorse
2116:Endorse
2041:Endorse
1996:as 2005
1992:WP:BAND
1946:Endorse
1929:Endorse
1916:Qrsdogg
1898:Endorse
1864:Endorse
1750:musical
1741:Endorse
1697:Dlabtot
1609:Endorse
1569:Endorse
1496:Dlabtot
1394:Dlabtot
1384:restore
1348:history
1153:FreeWRT
1136:FreeWRT
1049:Wiwaxia
966:Endorse
933:Spartaz
805:Endorse
780:against
501:LWN.net
480:frankie
459:Qrsdogg
437:Qrsdogg
417:Qrsdogg
165:restore
129:history
2066:Relist
1990:, and
1868:Stifle
1664:delete
1062:Relist
1032:Relist
995:Relist
982:Mtking
813:Yaksar
718:WP:GNG
657:delete
647:delete
476:Relist
455:Relist
413:Delete
401:Delete
2126:talk
2097:from
2051:Klein
1984:games
1824:Hobit
1812:Stalk
1808:Hrafn
1780:Hobit
1770:tell.
1730:Stalk
1726:Hrafn
1429:Focus
1370:watch
1363:links
1237:known
1115:Stalk
1111:Hrafn
1093:AFTER
1073:talk
794:Stalk
790:Hrafn
612:Focus
566:Focus
333:Focus
279:Focus
196:Focus
151:watch
144:links
52:: -->
16:<
2145:—SW—
2095:this
2078:talk
2056:zach
2043:per
2026:talk
2004:talk
1982:WNBL
1954:talk
1937:talk
1920:talk
1889:talk
1872:talk
1828:talk
1784:talk
1755:here
1701:talk
1689:must
1672:talk
1660:keep
1645:Talk
1577:talk
1560:talk
1500:talk
1466:only
1456:talk
1398:talk
1356:logs
1340:edit
1333:talk
1298:talk
1249:talk
1184:talk
1165:talk
1161:Dcxf
1144:talk
1053:talk
1021:talk
986:talk
951:talk
947:Dcxf
921:talk
890:talk
758:talk
743:also
726:talk
702:talk
694:only
684:talk
665:talk
632:talk
581:talk
539:talk
510:talk
496:this
484:talk
463:talk
441:talk
421:talk
409:Keep
405:Keep
397:Note
378:talk
374:Dcxf
224:did.
212:talk
137:logs
121:edit
114:talk
32:<
2121:DGG
2068:or
2016:or
1625:far
1375:XfD
1373:) (
1068:DGG
876:not
868:why
784:new
776:new
772:and
257:All
156:XfD
154:) (
22:Log
2128:)
2091:is
2080:)
2028:)
2006:)
1978:me
1956:)
1939:)
1922:)
1891:)
1874:)
1830:)
1796:,
1786:)
1703:)
1674:)
1638:NW
1579:)
1562:)
1502:)
1458:)
1400:)
1300:)
1251:)
1186:)
1167:)
1146:)
1075:)
1055:)
1023:)
988:)
978:RS
953:)
923:)
892:)
850:,
846:,
842:,
831::
760:)
728:)
704:)
686:)
667:)
634:)
583:)
541:)
512:)
486:)
465:)
443:)
435:.
423:)
415:.
380:)
214:)
42::
2124:(
2076:(
2024:(
2002:(
1952:(
1935:(
1918:(
1907:.
1887:(
1870:(
1826:(
1782:(
1699:(
1670:(
1648:)
1642:(
1631:/
1600:C
1598:/
1596:T
1575:(
1558:(
1498:(
1454:(
1426:m
1423:a
1420:e
1417:r
1414:D
1396:(
1387:)
1379:|
1366:|
1360:|
1352:|
1344:|
1336:|
1331:(
1296:(
1247:(
1182:(
1163:(
1142:(
1071:(
1051:(
1041:.
1019:(
984:(
949:(
919:(
888:(
756:(
724:(
700:(
682:(
663:(
630:(
609:m
606:a
603:e
600:r
597:D
579:(
563:m
560:a
557:e
554:r
551:D
537:(
508:(
482:(
461:(
439:(
419:(
376:(
360:C
358:/
356:T
330:m
327:a
324:e
321:r
318:D
302:C
300:/
298:T
276:m
273:a
270:e
267:r
264:D
245:C
243:/
241:T
210:(
193:m
190:a
187:e
184:r
181:D
168:)
160:|
147:|
141:|
133:|
125:|
117:|
112:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.