Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 29

List of DirecTV channels (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This and similar articles, some editors feel serve the encylopedic purposes of academic and other types of research by enabling readers to compare and contrast television offerings by different providers. I believe that no consensus was reached in the discussions, and that too much weight was given to the vaguely-defined and poorly underpinned argument WP:NOTDIR and/or to spurious arguments on the Delete side, while cogent arguments for Keeping were overlooked and/or lumped together with some spurious arguments for Keeping. Also, suggestions to improve sourcing issues seemed to be overlooked.

For a more complete discussion of my concerns, please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination).

Also, though I have not been involved in many AfD disputes, the entire process used here seems odd. A "test case" was done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels. That AfD, dealing with a single article, drew an audience of editors with about 25 !votes, about 19 Deletes and 6 Keeps (no comment on relative strength of arguments). It was closed in 8 days. The AfD subject to this review, the second "test case", drew about 26 !votes, about 15 Deletes and 11 Keeps, more of a balance -- at that point, the 8 day mark, this AfD was relisted, and was open for 15 days.

One AfD instruction seems to hold that only essentially identical articles may be bundled, while another instruction simultaneously holds that similar articles may be. During the second AfD, the nominator stated that s/he wished to AfD all similar articles, but that "as soon as you get past a certain number of related articles, you will get people trying to discredit the entire bundled nom due to the size issue. Handling smaller batches allow judgement if exceptional articles should be kept." Thus, similar AfDs were broken into smaller bits. I have no reason to doubt the nominator's intent, but an easily-anticipated consequence of this bundling style might be to limit the audience for each AfD, since most editors don't seem to look at Village Pump or Project pages, and only seem to get "up in arms" if they notice that one of "their" articles is in danger of deletion.

So we have/had to date Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd bundle of channel lineups, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television stations in New York and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK). Additionally, the "3rd bundle" contains List of channels on RCS&RDS, which had a "no consensus" AfD of its own on 5 June 2012 and Virgin Media Channel Packages, whose AfD was closed as "redirect" on 14 August 2012.

In spite of the comments earlier about allowing judgment for exceptional articles, the NOTDIR argument is cited (by most nominators and Delete !voters) for each bundle in total and additionally cited as justification is that the similar AfDs were successful. So much for evaluating each article on its own merits. Chaswmsday (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a clarifying comment and not an endorse/overtune, I had originally AFD'd the AT&T list, and stated in that that pretty much all articles in Category:Lists_of_television_channels_by_company had similar problems and ergo this was a test case for further deletion. I then proceeded to start a small batch based on a region, just in case there were parts of these articles worth keeping to give time for arguments to be made and content to be kept. (Unless there's crystal-clear consensus, a 100-article multi-AFD is almost always knocked down on basis of size and complexity, and not necessarily on actual merit for deletion). However, I will point out that VPP had been notified as well as the WP TV project, so it is not isolating the deletions to limit audience size as Chaswmsday suggests.

Note that I did not expect that the AFDs on the New York state or UK Terrestial channels to ever be considered (they are not in the above category). The NOTDIR approach specifically was focused on the business of one carrier, and ergo only to be applied to the carrier lists. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And thus, "give 'em an inch..." crops up. The followup nominators and/or !voters are still citing the same spurious arguments about how all of the articles are exactly the same as an electronic program guide or a TV Guide... --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no one has said it is "exactly" an EPG. The delete !votes generally say these fail WP:NOTDIR, which like the rest of NOT is not fully inclusive of what WP is NOT. You've mentioned your problem with the vagueness of NOTDIR, but that's not a problem, that's design by purpose. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus There was no consensus here. You don't automatically delete articles because something you believe similar got deleted. That's not how it works. Dream Focus 17:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't just similar, it was the exact same format and style, just with one provider's offering swapped in for the other. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus Agree with User:Dream Focus and User:Chaswmsday. The topic was closed with no consensus and then swiftly reopened because it would seem some didn't like that result. No consensus was ever achieved. The arguments for deletion mostly revolved around WP:NOTDIR, without ever stating what exactly that meant or how the page 'failed it,' excepting statements along the lines that 'It obviously fits.' Stating unceasingly that something is an electronic programming guide does not make it so. Making arguments along the lines of 'We won the other AfD, so we'll win this one, too' are also unhelpful and create the impression of a zero-sum contest. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Just to clarify your first statement (if I'm reading it correctly), the AfD was in fact erroneously closed as a keep at first, by a non-admin. This was a clearly inappropriate non-admin closure (the discussion was heavily contested by both sides and clearly controversial, thus making it inappropriate for non-admin closure), and that was why the decision was made to relist, not because "some didn't like that result." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. There was no consensus on this one. We make too many mistakes to go by the precedent of merely a single AfD or even a group of similar articles at the same time. It is at this point equally likely the other ones were the ones in error. Long term consistent decisions at AfD do establish a rough precedent, but even those based on consistency over multiple AfDs for multiple years are subject to challenge. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Arguments for keep were mainly "Its useful" and "I like it", which are prima facie invalid as a standalone rationale. There was a very weak but somewhat valid argument proposed by a few keepers that it aids in organization of the encyclopedia, though little rationale was offered to explain how this is the case. The arguments that the articles would inevitably fall out of date were rebutted by the claim that they are well kept, but those rebuttals miss the point that Wikipedia articles should not be ephemeral in nature, they should be converging toward enduring coverage of a topic. This sort of ephemeral material being inappropriate for an encyclopedia is exactly the reason we have many of the things we have in WP:NOT, which is a core policy. We are an encyclopedia, not a periodical, and our coverage should be of enduring things. I endorse the closure as a reasonable application of policy and proper discount of weak or invalid rationales. Gigs (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Another case where the local consensus was at odds with the wider community consensus. What the wider community believes is summed up in WP:NOTDIR, and the view that was expressed most succinctly by Postdlf during the discussion we're considering. The local consensus was divided, and although a correct weighting of the !votes after subtracting those that should clearly be disregarded does lean towards "delete", it was probably still within the "no consensus" range. The question for this DRV is whether it should be the local consensus or the wider community view that prevails. Reasonable people might disagree about that. I'm going to endorse on the basis that the close was within Drmies' discretion. I do think that in the circumstances and considering Drmies was closing against the apparent consensus, a much fuller and more complete closing rationale would have been helpful.—S Marshall T/C 20:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, without question. Per comments by Gigs, 80% of the "Keep" comments were "It's useful" or "I have been using this list for years and years" or "I put a lot of effort into these pages," and did not address any Wikipedia policy concerns at all. WP:NOTDIR is the policy for which the articles were nominated against and for which they were deleted. To say it is against community consensus is absurd. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd bundle of channel lineups (and soon-to-be-deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups), which provide broad evidence that the community stands by WP:NOTDIR on several occasions. I am the nominator of the 3rd bundle and should agree with Masem that the articles in the Lists of television channels by company Category were identical in content and structure, not similar. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also the nominator's citing the List of channels on RCS&RDS AfD as "no consensus" is hilarious as one person voted (!!). -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I see no point on evaluating arguments other than to win over. The whole list is too clunky, too inconvenient, and too time-consuming to edit, and I'm glad that it is gone. Now this nominator thinks these pages still have historical potential. Undeleting the whole page and changing decision to "no consensus" would lead to greater disaster than before. --George Ho (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as plainly within reviewing admin's discretion. I agree with previous suggestion that a longer rationale would have been helpful, given the length of the discussion, but that's neither here nor there. Striking previous as I see that the closing admin did indeed supply a rationale at the AfD's talk page. This was a very heavily contested discussion but I think the result is hardly the type of clear miscarriage of Wiki-justice that would justify a DRV overturn. Full disclosure: I voted !delete in this discussion so perhaps my POV is biased and should be disregarded. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. If you read all the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) not just the votes, you'll see that there was no WP:Consensus to keep or delete. Powergate92Talk 00:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also urge everyone to read the full discussion. Most of the "Keep" voters' arguments can be summarized at WP:USEFUL, WP:EFFORT, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. User:TomCat4680 in particular also focused on WP:NOTPAPER as well. None voting "keep" (and none looking to "overturn") have successfully countered the WP:NOTDIR policy claim. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, regardless of the numbers, the "keep" votes were not soundly based on policy or guidelines. Notwithstanding straw man mischaracterizations above, the "delete" votes were substantial, and did not merely rely upon the mere fact of the prior AFD but instead upon it having an identical deletion rationale, because these lists were subject to the exact same problem: they were a directory of the cable/satellite TV services provided by individual companies, certainly a reasonable application of WP:NOTDIR. It is unfortunate that a couple editors have so poorly understood that result so as to attempt the deletion of all channel/station lists, but as is clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television stations in New York we don't need to keep the cable provider lists as a bulwark (re: "give an inch" comment above) to ensure that the valid channel lists are safely kept. postdlf (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A single argument solidly grounded in policy can trump a much larger number of arguments that have no basis in policy. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. While I do have a problem with some other editors taking this and the Uverse AFD as a means to nominate articles like the list of New York stations for deletion, that's not a reason to invalidate this one, only to provide clarity on those other AFDs that the same reasoning shouldn't be used. (I specifically was focused on channel lists of specific providers, recognizing that national/state-level media is more an encyclopedic topic than provider channel listings). --MASEM (t) 16:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - AfDs are not votes, and if a pile of keeps are 100% without merit, then they ar treated as if they do not exist. Good, bold call for a change. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD closing is much more than a demonstration in counting, no one advocating keep articulated how these articles were not a directory. Mtking ^(edits) 07:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - While it would have been incredibly useful for the closing admin to give a bit more of an explanation for why he felt the consensus was being made, and I think this deletion review is well justified in the context that this was a contentious deletion discussion that was repeatedly relisted due to a lack of consensus, I think the ultimate decision based upon the general discussion was legitimate. It would have been better had some sort of compromise been offered and genuine consensus really was never achieved in the discussion... instead it still broke down into two camps of one trying to delete and the other trying to keep the article. I am endorsing so far as I think the arguments in favor of deletion really did win the day in a battle of arguments. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If anyone is curious, the closing admin did offer a rationale subsequent to the actual close on the AfD's talk page, here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if, as "nominator", I'm allowed to !vote here. And while I'm not keen on re-litigating the original AfD discussion, I do find that the points I mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) (such as encylopedic purpose and non-provider sourcing) have gone largely unaddressed here -- to wit, the main focus has been on the more spurious (almost straw-man) Keep rationales. On the Delete side, NOTDIR has been parroted ad nauseum -- without really defining what that instruction means.
No, @Masem, contrary to your statement, it has been said that these articles are EPGs. From @Wikipedical's nomination in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups: "they all fail WP:NOTDIR, as they are clearly electronic program guides..."
As for @Wikipedical, I didn't appreciate the tone of your comment, "citing the List of channels on RCS&RDS AfD as "no consensus" is hilarious as one person voted (!!)" I didn't reference those articles as to the quality or lack thereof, of their AfDs, just to the AfD doctrine that articles recently nominated should enjoy a "reasonable" cooling-off period before they're re-nominated.
How would one ever counter a NOTDIR policy claim, as this very "policy" is nebulous and is defined mainly by how many !voters can repeat it.
And I have found that objections to the allegedly invalid OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument are often used as cover for disingenuously maintaining or manufacturing distinctions between ILIKEIT articles and IDONTLIKEIT articles. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Chas. I would say that like an electronic program guide, these channel listings are guides and are frequently updated to maintain current listings, which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. While they may not be listing programs, it is close enough to label them as directories and failing the spirit of WP:NOTDIR. I would also ask you to assume good faith. The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments do not hold up against Wikipedia policy, not because I don't like or dislike these articles. I don't think it is constructive to question other editors' motives rather than actions. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Filipi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Notable artist and creator of Political and Charity Organisation 28. Jun which raised over $1.5 million of medical supplies to the poor in Kosovo. http://www.hiphopcanada.com/2012/10/music-for-healing-bc-rapper-filip-filipi-raises-1-5-million-article/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.126.39 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 29 October 2012 This entry was added to the log for 28 October, but since the timestamp is 29 October (UTC), I am moving it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the background to this nomination: There have been numerous attempts over the course of several years to get articles on this subject, under various titles such as Sin (rapper), Filip Filipi, Filip Filipi (Rapper), Sin Sizzerb, Sin (musician). There have also been several articles on closely related articles, such as Sizzerb Inc, Big Mike, Nu Jerzey Devil & Watsman Present: Sizzerb Mixtape Vol. 2 - Sin's City and others. There have been to my knowledge at least three AfD's, all of which closed as "delete". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin (rapper), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin Sizzerb, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin (musician). There have been numerous re-creations of the article under various titles, and numerous re-deletions under speedy deletion criterion G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). The present deletion review is the latest in a long string of attempt to get this article kept by one means or another. The person who created this deletion review entry did not inform any of the administrators involved in any of the AfD closures or other deletions. The deletion of the version of the article named in this review was a G4 deletion by me.

Comment about the claim of notability, and its relation ship to the deletions: The nomination appears to rest its claim of notability on the fact of the subject having set up a charity which raised a lot of money. Since this fact was not mentioned in any version I have seen of the deleted article, it cannot be directly related to any of the deletions. Whether or not there is enough coverage of this one event to provide enough evidence of notability to justify a new article on the subject is another question. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review I decided to restore this particular one, among the others mentioned, since it is the one being appealed, so non admins can see what we are talking about. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and closure based on the three AfD discussions above, solid consensus closures. Since article recreation has proven to be a problem, I suggest salting all of the article names mentioned here. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The Filip Filipi topic has some source information Press & Sun-Bulletin July 11, 2008 (two sentences mention him), Gulf News February 19, 2011 (one sentence), Hollywood Reporter June 23, 2011 (one sentence), Corriere della Sera October 18, 2011 (name mentioned), World News Connection March 26, 2012 (two sentences). Not enough for a stand alone article. In any event, DRV probably would need to see a draft first before allowing creation of an article on the topic given the topic history. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romnesia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

If one looks at the actual discussion, there is clearly no consensus. The votes are evenly divided between keep and delete votes. Moreover, the closing admin even acknowledges that the strength of each argument is similar. The argument to redirect to United States presidential election, 2012 is very questionable. There are very few votes to redirect. The closing admin uses the argument of that ObamaCare is redirected to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The logic of that redirect seems simple to me. ObamaCare is a common word (now used by supporters, opponents, and is in the general vernacular) for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. If a person wants to find information concerning the use of Romnesia, does one simply think that United States presidential election, 2012 is the same topic? There is a clear and logical consensus that synonyms of the same subject should redirect to one page. THat makes it simple for the reader. However, this isn't the case here. For those reasons, I which to challenge this AfD result. Casprings (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• . Note I understand that a non-notable topic will be redirected to a subject that covers it in a boarder context. That is not the case here, as the closing admin clearly states that the topic is WP:N.

• Support close by Splash. The first flush of strongly worded (and apparently partisan) keep and delete votes gave way to a clear preference for merge / redirect as tempers cooled. There was considerable diversity as to where it should be redirected to, but a neutral page was picked and seems sane. As for whether ObamaCare is a common word, I don't recall hearing it outside of this AfD debate, YMMV. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  The review argument seems to be that since all redirects are synonyms, the close was erroneous.  If so, this is a false premise, as Redirects are commonly used for non-notable topics that are covered in the encyclopedia in a broader topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:n was adknowledged by the closing admin.Casprings (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus - A discussion of forty people in which maybe three mention redirection (and for none of who does it really seem like they think that's a good idea) can't be closen as redirect without a super-compelling policy reason. There's no real compelling policy reason either way here - it's a simple content management question being blown out of proportion because of the election. Under any normal circumstances, most of the votes would be along the lines of "Who cares? AfD isn't here to nitpick how to present content." I suspect in three or six months, such questions will have more obvious answers (and the outside influences will be considerably lessened). In the interim, it needs to be accepted there's no consensus and one shouldn't try and force one where there isn't - how to best present recent events will always be tricky, and they become basically impossible when ballot box concerns (or however Americans vote?) outweight encyclopaedic concerns. WilyD 09:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus - in his closing rationale, Administrator Splash writes the following sentence: "However, a number of the keepers do a fair job of defending against claims of neologism (mainly that Wikipedia is clearly not being used to create the phrase itself), and thus have a WP policy basis that has not been successfully challenged, in my judgement" (emphasis mine). Reading through the Afd, one cannot but realize that even though the article is about a Neologism, yet from the 29 editors who ivoted with delete/speedy delete/merge/redirect, none was able to explain how the article violates Wikipedia's Policy on Neologisms (WP:NEO). WP:AFD clearly stipulates that "...when making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". Since the article is about a neologism, it is expected that editors who are for or against the article should mention the content of WP:NEO and then explain how, in their opinion, the article either fulfills or fails WP:NEO. From the delete/speedy delete/merge/redirect ivoters, four mentioned WP:NEO, but all four editors did not explain how the article fails WP:NEO, and all four editors ignored the inclusion criteria found in WP:NEO. If, for instance, we have an Afd about a new band or a musician where notability is not clearly established, experienced editors know that the artist may be notable if s/he fulfills one of the 12 inclusion criteria found in WP:BAND. Unfortunately in the case of the neologism Romnesia, the inclusion critera were ignored in the Afd (exceptions confirm the rule). Since the closing administrator admits in the closing remark that "...a number of the keepers...have a WP policy basis that has not been successfully challenged", the Redirect should be overturned into No consensus. Amsaim (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think further reliance on WP:NEO, by either keep or delete sides, is probably not useful in terms of this article. Splash - tk 20:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support close Actually, eleven people suggested redirection, although there were differing suggestions as to the target should be. I was one of them, with the note that I preferred outright deletion. To do a head count (and yes, I realize that head counts are not a substitute for analyzing the rationales of each), there were 19 keeps and 17 deletes, plus eleven who suggested redirection as one of their choices. While I would have chosen a different target, I see nothing wrong with the close, especially noting the thoughtful analysis the closing admin used when looking at the rationales. Horologium (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counting, a total of five editors bring up the idea of redirection (six bring up merger, although at least one editor lies in both groups). Combing both is pure hookum, as redirect is fundamentally a delete vote (destroy the content, then create a redirect) and merge is fundamentally a keep vote (keep the content, but organise it differently). WilyD 11:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, "delete and redirect" is different to merely "redirect" since the former is a stronger AfD outcome, implying that the content was so bad that it should not even remain in the history of a redirect. A simple redirect outcome is somewhere between "delete" and "merge", since the redirect target would probably at least have a nod to the existence of the term, but might not, whereas for a merge you'd expect to recognise parts of the merged article's content in the target. Splash - tk 20:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The content is still available anyways, it's just a bit more of a pain to get. "Redirect" is fundamentally "we shouldn't have this content", while merge is fundamentally "we should have this content". "delete & redirect" is no different from "redirect" WilyD 09:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse close You might have guessed that it was the US silly-season again. One side coins a partisan neologism, it unsurprisingly is reported in the media, and certain Wikipedians insist it justifies a standalone article because of x-g-hits. Unfortunately, our processes don't deal well with type of stuff and in the circumstances the closer's assessment is perfectly reasonable (and he's British which give me more confidence). Look, can't we debate this again in a few months - by then we'll be able to assess if this becomes a major election meme (unlikely) or deserves a line somewhere under "2012 partisan spin". Right now, we're not going to get a sane debate let alone a sane response.--Scott Mac 16:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A good compromise close. When there is no consensus about whether to keep or delete and there is a reasonable intermediate proposed, it is open to an admin to do so instead of saying non-consensus, if there is sufficient explanation of why it is in fact a reasonable alternative, and there was. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I wasn't aware of this discussion and don't have a position on the procedural validity of the close, but it appears that Romnesia redirecting to United States presidential election, 2012 is a poor choice. Since "Romnesia" doesn't appear anywhere on that page, I'm not sure it would even survive RFD. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Some notes:

• A redirect could be to any number of targets, I chose one that was intended be Obama/Romney neutral, and actionable to avoid vagueness. DRV is not really the place to determine a redirect's target; an article talk page should be used for that.
• Time and tide can alter the final disposition of a page not actually deleted at AfD. Patience may be in order. Splash - tk 20:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup, there's been no actual deletion to review. This discussion probably belongs more on the article talk page than here. Trying to get a definite outcome in cases where there really is fundamentally no consensus across the encyclopaedia—as in this case—isn't usually very productive, unfortunately.—S Marshall T/C 20:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Delete. Mention of the catch phrase would be perfectly appropriate at the Obama campaign article, but same editors that don't want it there, want a big separate article. Makes no sense. Either not Undue there or not notable here. At most, since it was introduced as a campaign strategy late, it will last another 10 days, hence no probability of continuing notability. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus clearly notability is established in the article. The historical significance of the term 'Romnesia' is established. When the 2012 presidential election will be covered in the future 'Romnesia' will be mentioned and discussed. With coverage of the coining and usage of the term being equally covered on both sides of spectrum of the main parties it is evident that there should be an article from a neutral point of view that informs those coming to Wikipedia to learn about it. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Close - The closing administrator seems to have provided an adequate interpretation of the discussion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Notability was clear, and the closure was improper. Everyking (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist closing admin admits closing error with notable topic. Deletion discussion did not establish a consensus. Paum89 (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Errr, no. I don't know where you get that from, but I haven't written anything of the sort and, to avoid confusion, I do not admit a closing error. Any improved reasons, seeing as the page is not deleted? Splash - tk 07:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Did you state that the topic was notable, met the WP:GNG, and was sourced to reliable sources? I read that you did. Did you state that the arguments for deletion were weak? Yes, in your first sentence. Did you state that the arguments for notability were strong? Yes. Was your decision out of proportion to the numerics? Yes. Was your decision out of proportion to the strength of the arguments? Yes. If you disagree, please explain why. Paum89 (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Paum89 reverted your redirect with an edit summary that echos exactly what he said above. I have restored the redirect and come here to weigh in. If this user is flat-out lying, and making controversial edits based on a lie, then that may need admin action to intervene. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for Administrator Splash: According to my understanding of Wikipedia's Policies & Notability Guidelines, there are specific policies & guidelines for each individual subject by which editors can determine the notability of the subject and by which editors can determine if a subject deserves an article in Wikipedia. For example, there is WP:MUSICIAN for musicians & bands, WP:ORG for organizations & companies, WP:PEOPLE for living people, WP:BK for books, WP:NF for films, WP:MUSIC for music, WP:TITLE for article titles, and so on. Now, the only policy in Wikipedia on Neologisms is found in WP:NEO. WP:NEO is part of Wikipedia's Content Policy. A policy, as you know, is "...a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow...". You posted this message as a reply to my posting, saying: "I think further reliance on WP:NEO, by either keep or delete sides, is probably not useful in terms of this article". Please help me out here, because with this remark from you as an administrator I'm a bit confused about how Wikipedia's policies should be handled. Am I missing something here? Are you are saying that in order to determine if the neologism Romnesia should have an article in Wikipedia, then the only policy which Wikipedia has that directly addresses neologisms is "...not useful...", and therefore that policy should not be taken into consideration? If the answer to this question is yes, does this also apply to other topics in Wikipedia? If we as editors are to regard WP:NEO as not useful for a neologism article, shouldn't that policy be deleted so as to avoid further confusion? Please clarify this issue for me. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the question. For the deletes, their attempt to claim authority from NEO had been stopped, in my judgement, by the keepers' argument that Wikipedia is not being used to promulgate the term, thus NEO is not useful to that side of the debate. For the keepers, relying on NEO to say that it should not have been deleted when it hasn't been is not useful, and NEO does not appear to have an opinion on redirects. Therefore, at this stage of proceedings, where we are at DRV, NEO does not seem to be further useful. NEO may be useful in deciding what sort of mention to make in whatever article the redirect points to, though. Such a discussion belongs on some suitable talk page. On your broader question regarding other topics and other policies, no all-encompasing answer can be possible, since each page is carefully treated according to its own circumstances. Splash - tk 18:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The nom and the bulk of the overturns are predictable "I don't like it" claptrap. There is no major error or misjudgement in the closer's decision. You don't get to overturn because of simple disagreement. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Anonymous209.6 Arzel (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Looks like a decent reading of consensus and strength of argument to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question since when did Articles for Deletion become Articles for Redirection? Either an article merits remaining in place or else it is deleted. Why is this article being redirected as a result of an AfD? 85.170.164.197 (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer someone should probably read the first paragraph of the AfD process page: Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Then the page may be kept, merged or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy.. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If one looks as Reasons for deletion not one of the reasons enumerated suits a decision for deletion of this article (or redirection for that matter). Again, there was zero consensus in the AfD for deletion or redirection. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If one looks, one sees "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I've laughed in real-life at your comment. What you wrote is laughable. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Thankyouverymuch. I am here every Thursday Friday and Saturday night with shows a 6, 8 and 10. Don't forget to tip your waitsatff. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

adore this response. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to non-consensus. Valid arguments were made on both sides but i don't see that the delete position was overwhelming or compelling. Insomesia (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to non-consensus No compelling reason with majority to delete, arguments were presented for several options and keep seems feels reasonable. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Excellent close. Really, top stuff. A thorough and correct reading of the discussion, and a sensible exercise of discretion to reflect it. If "Romnesia" gets lasting coverage, then the consensus would no longer apply and an article may be warranted. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep Sourcing clearly rises to meeting WP:N. Arguments for deletion are pretty much "it's a short-lived meme" which doesn't rise to a policy-based argument (WP:EVENT doesn't apply, WP:NNN was found by the closer not to apply, while WP:NTEMP does). The analogy to Obamacare is on the surface somewhat compelling, but it is a false analogy as there is a very clear redirect target that literally discusses the same thing that phrase refers to (and WP:OTHERSTUFF may apply in any case). I'm also seeing 32 uses of the phrase in Google news in the last 24 hours and have no doubt at all this phrase will see analysis post-election in reliable sources (and if Romney wins it will see continued use in response to his actions). So we have pretty massive sustained coverage and no reason to believe it will stop (at 32 articles per day it could drop a LOT and still see use once/week a year from now). I agree the keep arguments weren't great (at least one was a personal attack), but when a topic clearly meets WP:N there just isn't much a keep voter can do. Hobit (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I do applaud the closer for a clear and well-written close. I disagree with it pretty strongly, but it is exactly what a good close of a difficult topic should look like. Hobit (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - reasonable decision, well-justified by closing arguments, within the bounds of administrator discretion. Robofish (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The closing admin does not state the topic is notable in the close (not sure where Casprings got that from), and has not advanced any argument of their own (i.e no supervote). The careful weighing up of the different arguments according to policy and guidelines is what we want admins to do. Good close. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close per DGG and the very reasonable rationale that Splash attached to his decision. Splash is entirely correct that there was no consensus for deletion, and his evaluation of the issues at hand to make an editorial decision to redirect were based on sound policy and common sense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. Although I recommended deletion of this article, the closing admin's decision to redirect was a reasonable way to resolve the discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There really ought to be a standing WP:NOTNEWS rule that these campaign outbursts don't get articles until a year or two after the election, but in any case the decision to point this back into the election article is a perfectly reasonable resolution. Mangoe (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]