User:DonaldRichardSands/Examples of keep decisions

Since you asked, I recommend putting this on a WP:SUBPAGE such as user:DonaldRichardSands/Examples of keep decisions. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks: Lionel, thanks for the nudge. I had thought of this earlier. Your suggestion made the decision to do so quite easy. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimer: This is not intended to be a policy page.

To all interested editors: This subpage is not intended to be a policy page. It is merely my examination of the AfD process along with the documentation of examples. Also, it is not intended to be a complaint page regarding decisions. I believe it is philosophically mature to take a look at what's going on. I invite all editors to give their opinion about this subpage. I invite, especially, veteran admin editors to weigh-in and give their advice on the creation of this subpage or on any points of our discussion that follows. Thanks to all. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Introduction and Rationale

Hi, in this section I hope to document recent Keep decisions re: AfD. I am not sure where to present this, so I have decided that my own talk page is the least controversial place for this. If any other WP editor wants to discuss or add to the documentation, you are more than welcome to provide input. Thanks.

Seventh-day Adventism in popular culture

• On August 1, Resident Anthropologist nominated the article for deletion. He reasoned: "fails WP:SIGCOV. No secondary sourcing contextualizing it simply a list of WP:SYNTH of Primary source material." See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh-day Adventism in popular culture.

• Keep On August 9, The result was keep. This was a non-admin closure by editor Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• New learning: I was not aware that a non admin (experienced) can sometimes close a deletion discussion. Information on such decisions can be found at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. Notice that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh-day Adventism in popular culture shows that there was no controversy re: deletion. All three opinions given after the nomination were Keep. Apart from the nominator's concern there were no editors who stated Delete in the discussion. A delete nomination must be open for seven days. If no dispute arises, a non-admin can decide and close the matter. Zhang's decision was in order. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Notability was the concern. I suggest that Resident Anthropologist probably still stands by his concerns. But, since Wikipedia is managed by consensus, the decision was to Keep. Three is a rather small consensus. But, there was no controversy. If we compare the discussions for deletion on the Leonard R. Brand article or the earlier discussion on the Generation of Youth for Christ article, this article got off quite easy. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

1826 Miller

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1826 Miller

The Keep decision on this is quite interesting to me. I found out about it from admin User:Kubigula's user page where he includes a section for his favorite diffs, My favorite Keep rationale ever

I think this is the one he means:

• Keep. More significant than Squilliam Fancyson but perhaps not Gary the Snail... --Bcsr4ever 01:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

More later: DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Geography of Italy

This is not a keep page, but the discussion of it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1826 Miller caught my attention. It has no references at all, not even a reference section. If you scroll down, you will find a request to remedy the problem. The page has never been nominated for deletion even though there are no secondary sources to establish notability. Notability is obvious, of course. It doesn't seem like it would be very hard to source the article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)