Wikipedia:Deletion review

ZOMG! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

None of the concerns in the nom were properly addressed and the debate was clearly showing consensus to redirect rather than default to keep. Closing an AfD based on vote counting is out of process and the closer could have chosen to relist, in fact that is the preferred option in cases like this rather than close it as no consensus. Overturn and redirect instead.Withdrawn Fine, things aren't what they used to be. I've been here a long time, several years in fact. I'm well aware of how things work and I did try to redirect it first but was reverted. Back in the day these articles would get deleted with little or no opposition. That's changed. Point taken, lesson learned and moving on. No reason to waste more time on this now. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse as closing admin. There are a few points I'll address here.
  1. The article was listed on Saturday, and I closed it today, the following Friday. That's six days, or more than the five days required by policy. This objection removed due to reformatting of the DRV argument. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. "No Consensus" was the only possible close based upon the comments made. Despite the claims made above, there were three "Keep" arguments (including that of User:Uncle G, who chose not to bold the word in his comment), only one of which (MuZemike's) was comprehensively rebutted. Of the other two, one was left alone, and the other had a rather unconvincing and offtopic response. As far as redirecting it, only two users (out of the nine who participated in the discussion) advocated such a move, so I think it's slightly bizarre to say that "the debate was clearly showing consensus to redirect".
  3. Even had the discussion been given another ten hours as advocated in this comment, it's hard to see how a consensus could have been established.This objection removed due to reformatting of the DRV argument. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Contrary to the argument made above, the relisting policy clearly states that it is only desirable to relist a discussion if "an XFD discussion has only one or two commenting editors (including the nominator)". The discussion in question did not meet the criteria listed here, so a relist would not have been appropriate. Even had I chosen to IAR that, I consider it unlikely that an extra few days would have produced additional discussion and produced a consensus.
  5. If the person who brought this to DR had brought this up with me politely on my user page, as it instructs in the instructions on this very page, I probably would have been happy to relist the discussion for a couple of days as a show of good faith.
• I won't lose any sleep if the call is to relist, but I strongly object to overturn and redirect based on point #2 above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC).

  For the record I changed the nom 22 minutes after I posted this and 13 minutes before your response so #1 and #3 in your response is moot. Uncle G posted 3 reprints of press releases which was discussed without a response from Uncle G. Self-published sources was a main reason for deletion in my nom yet this was ignored. When were the concerns in the nom addressed? They weren't. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse; fine to let it evolve for now. Hardly "clearly" showing consensus to redirect. --A D Monroe III (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus. I do not see "clearly showing consensus to redirect". There were calls for a major cleanup. See if it happens. Consider relisting in a month or two. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as there was no consensus. Nothing stopping you or another editor redirecting, merging, or starting a discussion on the article talk page which may lead to one of those outcomes. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Emdorse closure, that group did not reach consensus on any point I could determine. I would have closed it the same way, and Stifle is entirely correct that you may seek to gain consensus and merge/redirect through the regular editing process. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

List of bow tie wearers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD 2|AfD 3|AfD 4)

There were basically two sets of arguments here. There were a number of votes to keep that argued that the article is based on reliable and verifiable sources from such publications as The New York Times (see "A Red Flag That Comes in Many Colors") and The Wall Street Journal which are among a number of articles that talk about bow tie wearers and the significance of wearing a bow tie. Without exception, the delete votes were variations of "I Don't Like It", such as "trivial", "Indiscriminate", etc., without regard to the arguments presented or the more than 100 sources provided in the article. The closing administrator has tossed in what would be a rather poorly-thought out vote for deletion and presented it as a rationalization to close as delete, allowing this to be sorted out at "the inevitable DRV". It is not articles like this that bring Wikipedia into disrepute. It is administrators who substitute their own personal biases and preferences in lieu of any semblance of Wikipedia policy that is the real problem. Overturn and whale slap is the appropriate action here. Alansohn (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I just comment here: The votes for keep and delete both relied on policy equally, just different interpretations thereof. I would also add that a DRV was inevitable given the strength of opinions being expressed, even if the article had closed 37-35 in favour of deleting. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Restore. The topic is not exactly weighty, but is treated in printed, reliable media. Perhaps the effort expended on this article is disproportionate to its importance, and perhaps from the quality of the rest of Wikipedia, we might expect at most a stub here. However, that does not necessarily mean that the minimum notability criteria were not met, as judged by coverage in secondary sources, and once those criteria are met, however marginally, then the article may be extended to any length justified by the quantity of material to cover the subject.
  Further, I suggest that if the closing admin thought a DRV was "inevitable", then this reflects the lack of consensus to delete, and an inappropriate response, discarding the reasoned thoughts of both some who had not contributed to the article and some who had. You may disapprove of the NYT for running articles on this 'trivial' subject, but if they choose to do so, and in so doing reflect the significance of the topic in a particular specific field, then Wikipedia as a "specialised" encyclopaedia has every right to document the interest that some have in that topic, however obscure or how few they may be.
  To clarify, my point is thus that the closing summary implies a strong consensus or clarity in the outcome of the debate which was not present, and insufficiently acknowledges, let alone address, the concerns of roughly half the debaters. The only actual argument given ("Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate.") is so utterly incomplete as to make it unclear whether the debate was even read or not. —Kan8eDie (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• At last count, there were 37 votes to keep, 30 to delete, 3 to merge, 2 to delete and/or merge. 37 is greater than 30 so how did the user get delete from that? Furthermore, they just had a deletion review and the result was keep. Even the original poster admitted that the article had been improved since the discussion.SPNic (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for noting this, but the AfD process is not a vote, and instead we should be concerned that the strong views leading the majority to support the article were ignored. —Kan8eDie (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Restore - agree entirely with Alansohn - the closing admin exhibited no evidence of having even read the discussion. Occuli (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Staying neutral on the restoration, I don't think any action should be taken without a statement from the closing administrator. Assuming the discussion was ignored is on the edge of WP:AGF, but it's true there wasn't much of a rationale provided. I'm sure everyone would benefit from an elaboration. :-) --Koji† 01:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore That luxury is not available. He/she is either offline or merly reading (no recent posts). I believe this closure falls under criteria 4, given the contentious and seemingly un-admin-like nature of the closing comments. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • It's available if you have any patience (usually taught around preschool-ish, I got that lesson when I went back to school for my GED though). I'm not sure where you're getting the sense of urgency here, DRV isn't a snap of the finger; it's meant to further elaborate on the points taken into account (or perhaps lack thereof).--Koji† 02:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Believe a possible WP:DGFA violation (just learned about this policy by following along with the argument, see most recent comments below) merits some degree of impatience. I would argue one of the tell-tale signs of a great Christian is a certain kind of impatience. Christ showed this at times. Reinhold Niebuhr, who was arguably the greatest American Christian mind of the 20th century, was famous for his impatience. And the Christian historian Reijer Hooykaas is another figure who comes to mind as a Christian thinker who garnered respect for his impatience. Be worried about wikipedia if some of its editors didn't exhibit some impatience sometimes. (Also not at all claiming to be a great Christian. I'm not. I sin like it's going out of style. :-) ) --Firefly322 (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
        • What do these opinions about what constitutes a great Christian have to do with the matter in hand? Wikipedia is not a theocracy, nor are the content, deletion or review guidelines influenced by Christian history or scripture. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - It was obvious from reading the discussion that no consensus for action had emerged; several alternatives had been proposed on the delete Talk page. Regardless of the merit of the article, it's clear that the results of the discussion were essentially ignored. --Clay Collier (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The relevant policies are quite clear here, the debate was heading towards a 'no consensus'. However, policy always overrides consensus in these matters. I will reserve further comment until the closing administrator makes a statement. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Clarification. With respects, Calvary is using wishful thinking. I could just as easily (and more accurately) state that the "debate" was already at a decided consensus to keep, as "keeps" outweighed "deletes" 37 to 30 and that ratio had remained fairly constant. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is not wishful thinking. The number of votes does not matter a blind bit if the article is against policy. I'll quote the deletion guide for administrators... "that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus". "A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy". Consensus is not determined by counting heads. Instead, a deletion must take into account arguments that contradict policy, or arguments based on opinion rather than fact, and must discount them. A brave close by the admin, but a sound one. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So, you're asserting that the article violated at least one of

1. verifiability
2. original research
3. copyright
4. neutral point of view

and you presumably have obvious examples. Let's see them. htom (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to debate the deletion of the article; that's been done. DRV isn't for discussing the article's merits. It's for discussing whether or not the closing administrator was out of line in closing. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is your own argument that the closing administrator is not "out of line in closing" if the "article is against policy". So by not supporting the premise that the article is against policy, your argument that the closing administrator was not out of line falls apart. DHowell (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• • You can't simply assert that something violates policy, and then use the slogan "policy always overrides conensus" to ignore extensive discussion revolving around whether it actually violated policy or not. Otherwise what's the point of having a discussion at all? DHowell (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Dude, WP:CONSENSUS is policy. But if you want to come at it from some non-WP:CONSENSUS-policy-overrides-WP:CONSENSUS angle, then how about all the policies the article does pass? Like WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTPAPER, etc.? Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Or of course, the policies we've shown that it doesn't pass. Two sides to every debate, dude. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly which policies do you believe you've "shown that it doesn't pass" and exactly where have you done this without relying on "arguments that contradict policy, or arguments based on opinion rather than fact"? I apparently must have missed that part of the debate. DHowell (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - I'm not stating my feelings or my position during the debate, just interpretting the consensus as per the DRV guidelines. I think that in the first place, the AfD was procedurally premature as it had just been nominated for deletion 2 or 3 weeks before and was kept. In addition to that, the debate was far from conclusive either way. Most of the Keeps cited the fact that various sources covered the subject of people wearing bow ties and this contributed to notability. Deletes felt that the list was too indiscriminate usually, despite the fact that everyone in the list was covered by sources stating that they wore a bowtie in a somewhat notable fashion. Looking at the debate, I'd say there was no consensus, and the article should be kept as a result. There wore more keeps as well numerically, and although it is not a vote, it still contributes to their being no consensus. Also I'm interested in what the closing administrator has to say and that may affect my decision. --Banime (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - Belligerent and lazy close, almost entirely dismissive of either side of the argument. Admin should be ashamed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Let's see what they have to say before shaming, shunning or otherwise dismissing their work. -- Banjeboi 04:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Um, Benji, Ryulong already told us what he was going to "say at the inevitable DRV", quite unambiguously. I suggest you re-read his closing comments, such as they were. I stand by my characterization.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Closing admin has now said "There was no real consensus either way" - I was hoping they would add something like "oops" or "my dog stepped on my keyboard" or a more diplomatic version that they erred and misapplied tools. I'd rather see admins face a mistake and work to correct it than to go on mucking things up that have to be cleaned up thus spending resources of the community. -- Banjeboi 22:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and keep; Bad judgment entirely in several respects.There was a first Afd, with a non-consensus close, in Jan 07; quite reasonably, it was nominated again, and had a close as keep, in June 07. OK, consensus can change, there was a third, in Oct 08, with the very sensible " For some reason that I cannot comprehend, this is a keep. Ah well.. " close by NuclearWarfare on Oct 23, 2008. But unfortunately he wasn't an admin, so it was nominated again, and closed by Ryūlóng on November 19 2008 with a close, which he knew would be objected to: " Really. A "list of bow tie wearers." Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate. And this is what I'll say at the inevitable DRV, too". The role of an admin at afd is not to judge whether articles should be deleted. The role of an admin is to judge whether wikipedians think that articles should be deleted. In doing this, it is right for them to consider opinions that have some basis in policy, ignoring idontlikeit and similar arguments. When when two policies conflict, or when policy based arguments are raised in different directions, they do not get to conclude which one is right. Most of the time, it will be clear which side is the general opinion, and then, like NuclearWarfare, they should say just that--whether or not they agree. If there is no such consensus, then that's what they should say. At requests for AfD we see if admin candidates understand the basics of what is policy or not. We do not examine to see whether they are such experts as to decide between competing policies--there is no individual wikipedian entitled to claim such knowledge; rather, in contested questions we go by the community. People will inevitably tend think in disputed matters that the opinion they happen to agree with is the one supported. for fairness, perhaps we need a rule that in contested afds nobody should close except against their own opinion. DGG (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn to close - The closer injected their personal opinion in the close rather than interpreted the discussion. It is too late to unring the bell, so overturn to close. What a waste of time. -- Suntag ☼ 02:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and keep per consensus, as the closing Admin ignored such consensus to keep and substituted his own opinion. Even had he simply expressed his view at the AfD and opted "delete", it would not have outweighed the consensus to keep. Overruling a decided consensus runs diametrically opposed to what the AfD process is all about... specially for an article that had just 2 weeks previously been "Kept" as the result of a consensus at AfD. Bad form... bad form. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Consensus hardly supported a delete. I was more than shocked at this - that the closer also stated this DrV was going to happen likely was a sign that a different approach should have been taken. -- Banjeboi 02:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see my statement below regarding that particular comment. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, not swayed. We agree diplomacy would have helped here but disagree on the article itself. Bowtie spins this out to its own and I agree with that organization, the list would overwhelm the main article so having a separate list seems like the best route. -- Banjeboi 22:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn The article is kind of coatracky but usually a closing rationale that says "i expect this to be at DRV" should not be used to declare a consensus to delete. Protonk (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see my statement below regarding that particular comment. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The relevant policies override consensus. JBsupreme (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Which policies are the relevant ones? I saw none mentioned. Alansohn (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn / Restore I especially agree with Alansohn, Kan8eDie and DGG. Dozens of editors took the time to comment and to respond to others comments in a long discussion. Serious arguments were offered, questions were raised and answered, facts were put forward about sourcing, policy was argued over, researched and cited. Time and effort were spent not only in the discussion but even in improving the article further. The closing administrator, Ryulong, gave no evidence whatever of having read or understood the discussion. The two-line closing statement was inadequate -- and, frankly, deeply disrespectful -- to all those editors, and added an extra kick with the disparaging comment, Really. A "list of bow tie wearers.".
  When there's no consensus and when the "Keep" side has arguments that cite policy -- even if only to give a credible interpretation of it -- the closing admin should respect the fact that there is no consensus and default to keep. (Or, as in this case, when the keep arguments are so much stronger than the delete arguments, declare "Keep".) It wasn't Ryulong's job to substitute his or her judgment for that of the 70-plus editors, but to judge consensus and only overrule it if policy was irretrievably violated by the article's existence.
  Ryulong stated: Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate. If these 12 words are supposed to be a policy argument, the only policy that WP:DISCRIMINATE applies to is a section of WP:NOT, and the only phrase in that section that applies to this AfD would be merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. That vague policy statement isn't enough to impose an administrator's judgment, overruling the results of a deletion discussion. Ryulong hasn't deigned to favor us with a detailed explanation, and it's not worth trying to guess what other policy the closing decision might stand on.
  For the closing to be upheld, the reasoning should be not only more cogent than all the Keep arguments, but show that all of those alternative readings of policy are not nearly as reasonable as his own. I can't wait to see that superior wisdom. -- Noroton (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep: Absolutely no consensus to delete. And, as I pointed out in the AfD, the phrase, "list of bow tie devotees" is even sourced--which is more than what can be said about most WP:L's--so it is hardly indiscriminate per WP:RS. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep there was no consensus to delete the article. Also consider admonishing and possibly de-sysopping the closing administrator. X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I hope to god that you never come to a position of power in your life if you're seriously considering de-admining Ryulong over bow ties.--Koji† 04:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • For your sake, indeed. ;) X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • X MarX the Spot, I'm not aware of any procedure for punishing administrators simply for having done their jobs, even if you (or I) think they carried their work out poorly in a specific case. Your over-reaction does the 'overturn' argument no credit, and is a pointless distraction from the main discussion here. If you really have a problem with the closer's adminship, there are other routes of complaint and appeal. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the prim wikiadvice, Alex. I'll be sure to keep your sobering words in mind. Be well, X MarX the Spot (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep; I just elaborated on the membership requirement on the topic page itself. It was not indiscriminate, and the change made that even more apparent (through wordiness.) The closing administrator doesn't need to say any more; his current words and action are more than enough to show his motive. He doesn't like it, I get it. There's no accounting for taste. Restore. htom (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Endorse Wow the inclusionist cabal got here pretty quickly. As per the talk page discussion after the closure, the 'Keep' votes were a summary of all arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT), . The only arguments citing policy were arguments to delete (WP:N, WP:INDISCRIMINATE). This is why AfD isn't a popularity contest and why Wikipedia isn't a democracy and this is why we have administrators to judge consensus. Themfromspace (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • You can chant INDISCRIMINATE as much as you like; it wasn't an indiscriminate list, and the deletionist cabal's chanting (a half dozen of you, within ten minutes of the AfD listing) doesn't make it so. There were many people who were otherwise notable who were not on the list. htom (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:INDISCRIMINATE is Wikipedia policy, not an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The article can have all the sources in the world, but if the topic is not notable, the topic doesn't belong. That's the essence of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Themfromspace (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
      • In order to use that policy, it's got to fit, and it doesn't fit this article. The concept of notable people wearing bow ties is itself something that was footnoted to multiple reliable sources that covered the subject in a substantial way. So the article not only passes WP:N, but any possible interpretation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Your quote from the policy could just as easily fit List of presidents of the United States, since that article's "[m]erely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make [the article List of presidents of the United States ] suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Can you explain why one list is indiscriminate and the other is not? -- Noroton (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec) WP:NOTABILITY Policy:

        This page in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

        INDISCRIMINATE lists five things that are to be excluded: Frequently Asked Questions; Plot summaries; Lyrics databases; Statistics; and News reports. Which of those was this article? And while I'm quoting policy,

        Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so ... Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

        htom (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Restore per lack of consensus. I argued strongly for deletion in the AfD as it's an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list and thus inappropriate for the encyclopedia and I stand by it (there are three things required to have an article -- something that's notable, verifiable, and encyclopedic -- and I think it's clear the article failed the third), but it's clear from the AfD that the result should have been no consensus despite my beliefs. The arguments that the "score" of 37–30 should have resulted in a keep are completely missing the point that an AfD is not a vote, and the "score" doesn't matter. Despite my beliefs about the unencyclopedic content, however, I think it's clear that the AfD was no consensus and thus its deletion was inappropriate, regardless of what the "score" was.  Xihr  05:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep as "no consensus". While I somewhat agree with the sentiment of the closing administrator, his closure does not reflect consensus. There were numerous well-argued "keep" opinions, many pointing to coverage of the topic in reliable sources. These cannot easily be dismissed.  Sandstein  05:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• As I promised: Really. A "list of bow tie wearers." Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Ryulong, do you have an argument to go along with that opinion? -- Noroton (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • There was no real consensus either way. Seven votes (that's right, I went there) does not mean anything in the long run. As an administrator, I used my discretion to close as I saw fit, and as I saw the subject of the list. I had never seen this list before. I was asked to review the situation, and I did what I saw fit. Is Wikipedia going to lose something from the deletion of this list of people who have been known (and oddly well referenced) to wear a bow tie? It certainly doesn't necessarily benefit the encyclopedia. I don't think Britannica, World Book, or Encarta say, "X wears a bow tie, as do Y, Z, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, ß, Æ, Ø, ə, ll, etc." Sure, they may have a photo of a noted person who has worn a bow tie, but not a whole list of them as extensive as the Wikipedia one. As such, I stand by my deletion. It may have been not what you all wanted, but that's what always happens to some extent.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
      • "No real consensus either way" means we don't delete the page. That's policy. Administrative discretion means you have some discretion in determining whether or not there was a consensus to delete. It does not mean you get to impose your own opinion when there is no consensus. As for comparisons to print encyclopedias, well Wikipedia is not paper. DHowell (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think Britannica, World Book, or Encarta say [...] You fail to address the argument in the AfD that WP:FIVE specifically states that Wikipedia is meant to be more than a general encyclopedia. It is supposed to encompass specialized encyclopedias and this article could easily go into a specialized encyclopedia on men's fashion. Your statement also flies in the face of WP:NOTPAPER which is official policy. Just how many of our 2.6 million articles would pass the test you set up? Would any of the articles in Category:City of Heroes, for instance? (That's the category of articles you mention on your user page that you'd like to work on. Why is it that your interests are supposed to be more important than the interests of people curious about bow-tie wearing?)
        It certainly doesn't necessarily benefit the encyclopedia. We don't delete things because one administrator thinks they don't necessarily benefit the encyclopedia, and "doesn't necessarily benefit" isn't the standard and certainly isn't deletion policy. What Wikipedia loses is a topic that has been of proven value, as demonstrated by reliable sources: the topic of notable people whose bow-tie wearing has become notable a topic that, as proven by the sources referenced in the article is influential in both fashion commentary and news articles about the popularity of bow-tie wearing because sales can go up when men become intrigued by bow ties seen beneath famous faces. This was further reinforced by the sourced references to bow-tie-company websites, where famous people were listed -- showing that this exact subject is a well-sourced phenomenon of some importance in the real world. This was all brought out in the AfD that you say you read.
        I used my discretion to close as I saw fit Your "discretion" ("power of free decision or latitude of choice within certain legal bounds") is bounded by deletion policy and is supposed to follow Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators which states, A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy. Outside of consensus-endorsed deletes, you get to delete if -- and only if -- policy is irretrievably violated. You haven't shown that any policy at all was violated. If you aren't being discreet, then discretion isn't what you're exercising.
        You've also been combative in your closing statement and combative in your statements here, which is offending many editors. -- Noroton (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
      • And another thing: but not a whole list of them as extensive as the Wikipedia one So what. No policy or guideline demands that. It isn't our job to be mediocre but to excel. From the first line of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia Even your discretion within WP:IAR is bounded by the limits of improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Your close was policyless, Ryulong. -- Noroton (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Restore. Neither the closing administrator nor anyone who has commented in this DRV has so much as suggested that there was consensus to delete this article. Instead, there is an assertion that the article violated "policy", but I have seen no coherent explanation of which policy was violated, other than the nonpolicy of something that seems this trivial to me couldn't possibly belong in an encyclopedia, could it?. Unfortunately, this entire AfD (from the nominator's noncredible claim that he was totally unaware that there had been three previous AfDs -- including one 2 weeks earlier, to the rapid appearance of "delete" comments within minutes after the AfD was started, to the closing administrator's dismissive remark about the "inevitable DRV") has the unpleasant smell of having been a group effort to disrupt Wikipedia to prove the group's collective manhood. This kind of "mine is bigger than yours" behavior by administrators should be rewarded by a slap with a very large fish. --Orlady (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's just full of bad faith there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Did you read the AfD discussion before you closed it? There was plenty of discussion there of the phenomena to which I refer. --Orlady (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I quite agree with Ryulong. If you have actual hard evidence to show that several of our most experienced administrators and editors are all working together to disrupt the project for some unspecified purpose, then show it. Otherwise, assume good faith and stop insinuating false claims. There is no cabal, unless you go looking for one. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Evidence?

          This article is entirely original research. Almost everyone has worn a bow tie at some point, and this article is an indiscriminate collection of information, contrary to WP:NOT. A case in point would be the 'list of big-busted models' article that was earlier deleted. How many times must one wear a bow tie in order to be included?. The "Attention to famous bow tie wearers in commerce and fashion commentary" should be merged back into bow tie and the list deleted. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

          (Disclosure: I've never worn a bow tie.) We don't need this. It's an embarrassment. If a given individual was known for his bow ties, then they can be mentioned in the article about that individual. Delete. DS (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

          Neutral- I just wanted to point out- the last AFD for this list closed not even a MONTH ago. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

          I wore a bow tie once. I don't see any of my wedding photos in this article (probably just as well). More seriously, anything encyclopedic here could easily be shifted across - with no GFDL issues - to Bow tie. Delete. Black Kite 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

          Merge all useful content to bow tie. There is good content here, however the list is entirely indiscriminate and what content we do have would be much better off in the bow tie article, which I note needs a wider perspective on things anyway. A short list could be included in the bow tie article. Listing people who wear article of clothing X isn't very encyclopedic. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

          Delete - seems mostly non-encyclopedic The muffin is not subtle (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

          Strongest of Deletes maybe now that Noroton "fired" Wikipedia we can get this off. Seriously, like the nom said, this is an embarassment. JuJube (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

          Delete Well referenced, but a dictionary article can be well-referenced too; the point is that this is too trivial of a list topic. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

        • For something not a conspiracy it collected a lot of deletes in the first ten minutes. (quote edited from the AfD 4 page.) htom (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• And for more "evidence" here are some of the statements about this discussion that turned up on user talk pages (names removed to keep this impersonal) that gave me the strong impression that this AfD was not a civilized effort to obtain consensus, but rather a demonstration of which members of the pack are the alpha males:

"If I was a bolder admin, this would be a straight WP:IAR delete, then a fight to the death at WP:DRV."
"Damnit, [name deleted]. You've got balls. I salute you."
"For your gutsy closure on this AfD, I hereby award you the (brand new) Admin's Barnstar!"

--Orlady (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment-I would just like to point out my comment in the AFD was NOT a delete. When I said Neutral, I meant I'd had no opinion at the time whether or not it should be kept. My only purpose in commenting at the time was to bring up the recent AFD that had been closed as a keep. Even Assuming Good Faith, it still seemed silly to me to have another AFD so soon after the last. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • And? The first five "restores" here were all within an hour. I don't see anyone accusing you of any conspiracies. I'd also note that two of the arguments here weren't in favor of deletion - I was for a merge, and Umbralcorax has already stated that s/he was neutral. Quick responses like this are not unusual. Again, stop digging for dirt when all you're going to find is bedrock, and let's all get on with the topic at hand. Tossing about accusations is not conduct becoming of a good editor. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• I had the page on "watch", was part of the discussion, and was extremely surprised that it was deleted. The fact that the first five restores got here so soon can only nean that they shared this concern. And looking above, even the editors arguing for delete are concerned that the closure and deletion was an error of judgement. With respects, consensus here indicates that the deltion should be overturned. Will this consesnsus be ignored as well? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, did you say something? ;) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 12:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • • You misunderstand me. I merely wanted to make sure that my Neutral vote from the original AFD wasn't considered as part of the deletes, as it looks like OtterSmith may have done (if that wasn't the case, then my bad). Other than that, if my comment about it being silly ruffled your feathers, that wasn't my intention. I never said it wasn't legit or that it wasn't in good fait