493:, "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 discounted." The keep arguments are valid, of course, but seem weak and I think the closing admin should have discounted some of the arguments. Apparently, the closing admin thought otherwise. The closing admin's close itself carries weight at DRV and I don't think that has been overcome. Feel free to list the article at AfD on or after 29 November 2012 (3 months from the 29 August 2012 close). --
291:"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 discounted". Not all arguments count, and my view is that arguments that should have been discounted because they're more votes than arguments, have been taken into account. I did not open this DRV to know whether there are only keep !votes in there (that's the case), but if the !votes are acceptable or not.
201:"Per first comment" (username omitted), then "Appears to have appropriate independent, reliable sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG", then "The article does have multiple reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the subject" (does not even mention "significance"). One comment states "the nominator's claim that sources 2, 5 and 6 are primary sources is debatable" yet the following keep comment disagrees ("While I don't think the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide books are independent...").
886:
reliable editor who has not previously worked on this article, so I assume he asks here because he wants to write an article, and he might as well write the article now as later. I would have restored it if asked--I don't think Joe recognized the significance of the college (not that it inherently makes for notability , but in practice it means there will be published material for notability, and indeed there is and always was). It's a pity this was not noticed during the AfD .
856:- The closer interpreted the debate correctly. I don't think its a WP:BLP1E. However, in the fifteen days the article was listed, only a few people cared enough to add their opinion and those that did were of clear consensus. From the AfD alone, you can tell that there isn't much interest in this topic. If the article were without BLP problems, then I doubt the AfD would have went the way it did, given the extensive amount of source material for the topic from December 8, 1999
554:. Closing against a unanimous response is possible if and only if there are clear policy violations mandating deletion, e.g. that the content in its entirety is unverifiable, or a copyvio etc. Cases where editors unanimously ignore core policies are exceedingly rare, because most endorse the core policies fully. In this case, there is a simple disagreement on whether the provided sources are sufficient to satisfy a notability
332:. If no strength of argument is found, then a close on delete is not a supervote, AfD not being headcounts. And that's why I took this to DRV, though there are only keep votes (omission of "!" before "vote" is voluntary), I don't think they provide strong arguments and there was ground for another outcome than "keep" (not necessarily "delete", but I think a keep here is too controversial with arguments that clearly don't meet
558:(not a policy). Regardless of the exact wording of the guideline, guidelines have exceptions (whether this article actually does violate the wording of the guideline is a separate matter), and so issues like that are resolved by consensus. In this case the consensus was clearly against deletion, and they made a case that at the very least has merit. I see no other way that this could be closed.
929:(Added:) When I looked for sources myself, the vast majority of what came up easily related to the criminal stuff. My general sense was that if the sourcing wasn't quite up to snuff in the article it was verifiable, I do think that can be carefully handled. What's more complex is the editorial process of giving due weight. --
204:
The most disturbing comment is the last, which states "It seems to me that the nominator's reasons, if accepted, would mean that there would rarely be articles on fictional characters in fictional universes, or in game universes". Since my nomination was based on WP:GNG, does that mean that, per this
830:
Joe Decker closed the AfD correctly, of course; "endorse" is certainly the technical outcome we're looking at here. The new sources provided imply that a new article could be written that overcomes the reason for deletion, so on the face of it, it could be argued that DRV has no role. But I don't
350:
Okay, it appears to be your good faith view that you as nominator were right and all the other participants' contributions should receive little weight. I also see that you've replied to everyone else who's participated, individually, which indicates that you care very much about the outcome. I'm
305:
If Mark Arsten had agreed with you that the !votes weren't "acceptable" and closed it as delete, then he would be dragged straight back here to DRV and overturned in a rare
September snowstorm. If he'd done that, we'd be saying words like "supervote" quite stridently. We'd be pointing out that a
200:
the article meets/violates policy" rather than merely stating it does, and I don't see any explanation as to the "how". First comment states "despite the nominator's arguments, the sources included should be enough to pass WP:GNG" (and the reason for that is left for the reader to guess), later a
243:
One quick note, the comment of mine that Folken de Fanel links to was actually a typo on my part (I meant "ideal" but wrote "idea"). My thinking was that these were not ideal arguments, but most were acceptable. Also, I didn't address the idea of a merge (which often makes sense with articles on
885:
As founder of the college, an article can be written. If BLP violating material is added, the atticle can be protected, but I do not think reporting the convictions would be a BLP violation, though I doubt I would use the full details of the case as the deleted article did. Arnivan is a
922:] for review as requested by SmokeyJoe. It seemed clear enough to me that the criminal event was notable, and given the college relationship seems uncontroversially significant, I don't see a problem with regard to recreation/restoration. Apologies if I was overly hesitant here previously.
831:
like that outcome because it means allowing creation of a BLP about a person convicted of trafficking children for sex, and I feel would be irresponsible without examining a draft article. I would like to suggest that
Anirvan begins a userspace draft accordingly.—
919:
as closer under review. DGG roughly has my feelings on this correct, including my missing the relevance of the college, which was in the refs but not in the text, and was only mentioned in passing in the refs provided. I've restored (temporarily) to
531:. Understandable nomination, but the solution is not deletion. I agree with there is virtually no worthy content in the article. Whatever the references, there is no secondary source material in the article. The solution is to apply the advice of
215:" close on delete. If too extreme, then I think maybe a no consensus without prejudice to merge would also have been appropriate. But in any case I think there is a need to adress the fact that the comments did not follow WP:AFDFORMAT, and since
512:- policy and numbers both carry weight in AfD - this is pretty marginal with respect to policy, and very one sided with respect to numbers. Strong policy arguments can weigh heavily against middling numbers, but that isn't the case here.
424:– There were no responses other than Keep, so that was the only realistic option available to the closer. It will truly be a sad day for Knowledge (XXG) when a unanimous response no longer yields a consensus. This is a textbook
286:
what I'm saying. That there are only "keep" !votes is a fact that I acknowledged. I'm saying all these "keep" !votes are not valid in that they don't explain how/why the article would "meet the guidelines" according to them. Per
160:
1123:
notes, "An illustrative photograph associated with the
Autofellatio article was removed from Knowledge (XXG) after several discussions. The record of the final discussion is at Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22
402:
Again, not asking whether there were only "keep" arguments (there were), the issue is on whether the keep arguments were valid or not. If they were like votes, then yes, there were other possible way to close this
724:, but (a) that's not a blanket policy to erase all people who are best known for a single incident (otherwise we'd have deleted Rodney King), and (b) Reddy is a public figure notable for other reasons.
1059:
902:
Request temporary undeletion to review. The deletion discussion was weak. BLP1E usually allows for a merge and redirect. Apart from BLP1E, were there BLP concerns with the deleted content? --
702:
Deletion review didn't take into account substantial importance given to the Reddy and his actions in international news media, books, and academic literature, as well as independent notability.
1127:
1114:
1074:
685:
490:
862:. I agree with S Marshall that any editor can present a draft article to DRV and request that it be posted to article space. (As an aside, in searching the matter, I found
351:
sorry, but I really don't think DRV will overturn this one for you. Nor should it. I hope this doesn't make you too unhappy, and good luck with your future nominations.—
208:
None of the "keep" comments satisfyingly adress the nomination, and though sticking to his close, the closing admin even acknowledges that these were not idea arguments
48:
34:
43:
181:
since, as I explained in my reviews of the sources in the nomination, all of them are one-sentence mentions of the character's name, clearly identified in GNG as
192:
Yet the AfD was closed on "keep". While there are indeed only keep !votes, the problem is that neither of them addressed the lack of significant coverage. Per
1097:
794:
For what it's worth, the
Knowledge (XXG) page about Reddy is also a commonly referenced source of NPOV coverage of Reddy. For example, here's an example of a
673:
148:
177:
The article was nominated for deletion because though independent reliable sources appear in the article, they don't provide "significant coverage" per
1084:
761:
1029:
1025:
985:
750:
The
Lakireddy Bali Reddy case was a landmark incident in the history of American sex trafficking. You can read about this legacy in this article,
795:
1181:
1158:
694:
169:
39:
731:
When Reddy was arrested for sex and labor trafficking, it was both a national and international news story, with coverage in India (e.g.
483:
1091:
and may fall under {{G8-exempt}}. Please undelete the page and add the {{G8-exempt}} template if you feel that is appropriate. Thanks! —
751:
211:. Anyone looking at the article can see it only has 3 or 4 sentences that are not plot summary, I think there was ground for a "per
1140:
Rossami's 27 April 2006 comment restoring the page noted "Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD: restored - accidental speedy".
857:
863:
844:
364:
319:
273:
21:
767:
Reddy is a public figure, notable even outside of his reputation in sex/labor trafficking history. For example, he endowed the
482:
and that only says, "Arvada 421-6368. Ten Towns BBS (Easthaven); sysop
Bruenor Battlehammer." Google books brings up more hits,
393:
386:
closure. Clear and obvious consensus from everyone except the nominator; there was no other possible way to close this one. —
1117:
notes, "Vote on previous image is recorded at Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD --Audiovideo 22:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)."
757:
1192:
1009:
964:
623:
578:
329:
288:
205:
comment, the GNG wouldn't apply to fiction ? Taking that into account for the close would have repercussions on GNG...
98:
17:
212:
994:
608:
643:
408:
341:
296:
228:
186:
118:
1120:
1088:
219:
but are based on "strenght of arguments", "keep" was far from being the only possible outcome (weak arguments
783:, a major Indian newspaper, from just last month about his work at the college. Here are two more articles (
998:
953:
935:
911:
897:
877:
848:
821:
711:
612:
567:
544:
521:
502:
465:
451:
437:
412:
397:
368:
345:
323:
300:
277:
253:
232:
87:
333:
193:
1095:
990:
604:
249:
603:– Closure endorsed, but recreation may be allowed if a suitable userspace draft is presented to DRV. –
860:
1177:
1154:
933:
873:
840:
819:
803:
717:
639:
599:
498:
404:
360:
337:
315:
292:
269:
224:
114:
83:
70:
776:
535:. Then, most likely, it will be obvious that the article will need to be merged and redirected. --
216:
949:
907:
784:
562:
540:
721:
788:
707:
425:
78:
closure endorsed. There is a clear consensus below that the close of the AfD was correct. –
1092:
245:
815:: Indeed, I'm happy to stick by my comments there, thanks for the notification. Cheers, --
736:
532:
486:
182:
178:
1173:
1150:
944:
No criticism of the close. I recommend relisting on the basis of new sources presented. --
930:
869:
832:
816:
516:
494:
446:
352:
307:
261:
79:
802:
Thanks for your input! I made sure to checked with closing admin Joe Decker, and you can
945:
903:
740:
559:
536:
388:
1168:
possibly speedily. This is pretty clearly an invalid G8 since it expressly excludes
893:
461:
433:
1130:
notes, "10. Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD Restored for proper archiving.
703:
185:. The issue was serious enough that it was notified years before by another user
732:
480:
716:
The deletion of the article about
California landlord and sex/labor trafficker
513:
443:
780:
485:
but they don't seem to add up to much. It's doubtful that the topic meets
888:
457:
429:
772:
442:
The presence of a nominator means there wasn't a unanimous consensus.
744:
244:
fictional characters) since it wasn't raised by anyone at the Afd.
1170:
in particular deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere
1128:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)
727:
Here are the facts that didn't come up in the AFD discussion:
1115:
Knowledge (XXG):Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio 2
752:"How Lakireddy Case Spurred California Sex Trafficking Laws"
866:
768:
796:
news article about the 10th anniversary of the Reddy case
1141:
1131:
1066:
1052:
1044:
1036:
680:
666:
658:
650:
260:
This close was fully in accordance with the consensus.—
209:
155:
141:
133:
125:
1106:- to help prevent another mistaken speedy deletion.
1083:This is a talk page deleted by a retired admin per
328:Your scenario doesn't seem to be in line with
8:
739:), and by international news services (e.g.
1008:The following is an archived debate of the
864:Lakireddy Bali Reddy College Of Engineering
769:Lakireddy Bali Reddy College of Engineering
745:series of 27 newspaper articles about Reddy
622:The following is an archived debate of the
306:sysop's job is to implement the consensus.—
97:The following is an archived debate of the
978:
592:
456:Which is why I said "unanimous response".
63:
1172:. Could well be tagged with G8-exempt.
758:shows Reddy's name mentioned in 155 books
479:- I only found one reliable news source,
1026:File talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD
986:File talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD
491:Deletion guidelines for administrators
196:, participants are asked to "explain
7:
743:). One media outlet literally ran a
1195:of the page listed in the heading.
967:of the page listed in the heading.
798:that links to the now-deleted page.
581:of the page listed in the heading.
1104:Restore and add clarifying comment
28:
1087:, but this page is referenced in
1191:The above is an archive of the
963:The above is an archive of the
577:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
954:22:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
936:20:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
762:38 academic papers and reports
613:19:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
88:06:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
1:
1182:21:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
1159:09:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
1098:02:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
999:14:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
912:06:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
898:22:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
878:05:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
849:19:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
822:18:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
756:A simple Google Books search
712:18:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
568:18:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
545:06:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
522:10:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
503:05:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
466:14:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
452:10:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
438:17:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
413:15:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
398:15:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
369:12:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
346:11:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
324:10:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
301:10:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
278:22:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
254:22:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
233:22:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
1133:22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)"
1121:Knowledge (XXG):Pornography
1089:Knowledge (XXG):Pornography
791:) mentioning him last year.
1218:
859:through at least Sept 2009
741:Agence France-Presse (AFP)
189:(without being adressed).
1198:Please do not modify it.
1015:Please do not modify it.
970:Please do not modify it.
629:Please do not modify it.
584:Please do not modify it.
187:at the article talk page
104:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
804:read his comments here
720:was predicated on the
718:Lakireddy Bali Reddy
640:Lakireddy Bali Reddy
600:Lakireddy Bali Reddy
282:Once again, that is
115:Bruenor Battlehammer
71:Bruenor Battlehammer
1012:of the page above.
735:) and the US (e.g.
626:of the page above.
101:of the page above.
773:is the chairperson
330:WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS
289:WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS
217:AfDs are not votes
1205:
1204:
977:
976:
883:Permit recreation
847:
737:Los Angeles Times
591:
590:
565:
367:
322:
276:
242:
213:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
1209:
1200:
1113:The 30 Mar 2005
1079:
1077:
1069:
1055:
1047:
1039:
1017:
979:
972:
839:
837:
775:of the college.
697:
692:
683:
669:
661:
653:
631:
593:
586:
563:
519:
449:
359:
357:
314:
312:
268:
266:
238:
172:
167:
158:
144:
136:
128:
106:
64:
59:3 September 2012
53:
49:2012 September 4
35:2012 September 2
33:
1217:
1216:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1196:
1193:deletion review
1073:
1071:
1065:
1064:
1058:
1051:
1050:
1043:
1042:
1035:
1034:
1013:
1010:deletion review
968:
965:deletion review
833:
777:Here's a quote
760:, and at least
693:
691:
688:
679:
678:
672:
665:
664:
657:
656:
649:
648:
627:
624:deletion review
582:
579:deletion review
517:
447:
405:Folken de Fanel
396:
353:
338:Folken de Fanel
308:
293:Folken de Fanel
262:
225:Folken de Fanel
168:
166:
163:
154:
153:
147:
140:
139:
132:
131:
124:
123:
102:
99:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1215:
1213:
1203:
1202:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1162:
1161:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1135:
1134:
1125:
1118:
1108:
1107:
1081:
1080:
1062:
1056:
1048:
1040:
1032:
1020:
1019:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
975:
974:
959:
958:
957:
956:
941:
940:
939:
938:
924:
923:
914:
900:
880:
851:
827:
826:
825:
824:
800:
799:
792:
771:in India, and
765:
754:
748:
733:Indian Express
700:
699:
689:
676:
670:
662:
654:
646:
634:
633:
618:
617:
616:
615:
589:
588:
573:
572:
571:
570:
548:
547:
525:
524:
506:
505:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
418:
417:
416:
415:
392:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
257:
256:
175:
174:
164:
151:
145:
137:
129:
121:
109:
108:
93:
92:
91:
90:
61:
56:
47:
44:2012 September
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1214:
1201:
1199:
1194:
1189:
1188:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1163:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1142:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1129:
1126:
1122:
1119:
1116:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1096:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1076:
1068:
1061:
1054:
1046:
1038:
1031:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1018:
1016:
1011:
1006:
1005:
1000:
996:
992:
989:– Restore. –
988:
987:
983:
982:
981:
980:
973:
971:
966:
961:
960:
955:
951:
947:
943:
942:
937:
934:
932:
928:
927:
926:
925:
921:
918:
915:
913:
909:
905:
901:
899:
895:
891:
890:
884:
881:
879:
875:
871:
867:
865:
861:
858:
855:
852:
850:
846:
842:
838:
836:
829:
828:
823:
820:
818:
814:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
805:
797:
793:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
763:
759:
755:
753:
749:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
729:
728:
725:
723:
719:
714:
713:
709:
705:
696:
687:
682:
675:
668:
660:
652:
645:
641:
638:
637:
636:
635:
632:
630:
625:
620:
619:
614:
610:
606:
602:
601:
597:
596:
595:
594:
587:
585:
580:
575:
574:
569:
566:
561:
557:
553:
550:
549:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
527:
526:
523:
520:
515:
511:
508:
507:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
481:
478:
475:
474:
467:
463:
459:
455:
454:
453:
450:
445:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
420:
419:
414:
410:
406:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
390:
385:
382:
381:
370:
366:
362:
358:
356:
349:
348:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
326:
325:
321:
317:
313:
311:
304:
303:
302:
298:
294:
290:
285:
281:
280:
279:
275:
271:
267:
265:
259:
258:
255:
251:
247:
241:
237:
236:
235:
234:
230:
226:
223:be ignored).
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
199:
195:
190:
188:
184:
180:
171:
162:
157:
150:
143:
135:
127:
120:
116:
113:
112:
111:
110:
107:
105:
100:
95:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1197:
1190:
1169:
1165:
1103:
1082:
1014:
1007:
984:
969:
962:
916:
887:
882:
853:
834:
812:
801:
779:from him in
726:
722:BLP1E policy
715:
701:
628:
621:
598:
583:
576:
555:
551:
528:
509:
476:
421:
387:
383:
354:
334:WP:AFDFORMAT
309:
283:
263:
239:
220:
207:
203:
197:
194:WP:AFDFORMAT
191:
176:
103:
96:
75:
69:
58:
246:Mark Arsten
1174:Eluchil404
1151:Uzma Gamal
1093:D'Ranged 1
931:j⚛e decker
870:Uzma Gamal
835:S Marshall
817:j⚛e decker
495:Uzma Gamal
489:. Per the
355:S Marshall
310:S Marshall
264:S Marshall
240:Afd closer
80:Eluchil404
991:T. Canens
946:SmokeyJoe
904:SmokeyJoe
781:The Hindu
605:T. Canens
560:Sjakkalle
556:guideline
537:SmokeyJoe
389:Torchiest
183:"trivial"
564:(Check!)
20: |
1166:Restore
1075:restore
1045:history
917:Comment
854:Endorse
813:Comment
704:Anirvan
695:restore
659:history
552:Endorse
529:Endorse
510:Endorse
477:Endorse
426:WP:SNOW
422:Endorse
384:Endorse
170:restore
134:history
868:.) --
533:WP:WAF
487:WP:GNG
428:case.
179:WP:GNG
1124:IfD."
1067:watch
1060:links
894:talk
681:watch
674:links
394:edits
156:watch
149:links
52:: -->
16:<
1178:talk
1155:talk
1053:logs
1037:edit
1030:talk
995:talk
950:talk
908:talk
874:talk
708:talk
667:logs
651:edit
644:talk
609:talk
541:talk
514:Wily
499:talk
462:talk
444:Wily
434:talk
409:talk
403:AfD.
342:talk
297:talk
250:talk
229:talk
142:logs
126:edit
119:talk
84:talk
76:Keep
32:<
1149:--
889:DGG
686:XfD
684:) (
458:BOZ
430:BOZ
284:not
221:can
198:how
161:XfD
159:) (
22:Log
1180:)
1157:)
1085:G8
997:)
952:)
910:)
896:)
876:)
806:.
787:,
710:)
611:)
543:)
501:)
464:)
436:)
411:)
344:)
336:).
299:)
252:)
231:)
86:)
74:–
42::
1176:(
1153:(
1078:)
1072:(
1070:)
1063:|
1057:|
1049:|
1041:|
1033:|
1028:(
993:(
948:(
906:(
892:(
872:(
845:C
843:/
841:T
789:2
785:1
764:.
747:.
706:(
698:)
690:|
677:|
671:|
663:|
655:|
647:|
642:(
607:(
539:(
518:D
497:(
460:(
448:D
432:(
407:(
365:C
363:/
361:T
340:(
320:C
318:/
316:T
295:(
274:C
272:/
270:T
248:(
227:(
173:)
165:|
152:|
146:|
138:|
130:|
122:|
117:(
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.