Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 2014 Deletion review archives October 2014 >

30 September 2014

[edit]
  • Jashodaben Chimanlal – This review is difficult to close because many reviewers seem to be responding to different questions. No reviewer addresses the request that a current version of the article be resubmitted to AfD, and this is therefore not done. There is instead consensus to endorse the "redirect" outcome of the most recent deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben. Three editors would grant permission to recreate the article. It is not clear whether all or most of the other participants in this review oppose doing so. I interpret this as having the following effect: To the extent that a recreation would conflict with the endorsed closure, because the recreated article would be substantially similar to the one discussed at AfD, this review denies permission to recreate the article. If a recreated article addresses the notability problems identified in the AfD, no express permission by DRV is required to recreate it, but this requires convincing an admin to lift the existing protection. Should it become disputed whether this should be done, a new DRV request or WP:RPP request will need to be made. –  Sandstein  09:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jashodaben Chimanlal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I confirm the correctness and validity of all previous deletions of this article. Previous article versions were not good and gave no evidence of WP:N. Nick the admin tells me that this is the correct venue to ask for a new review of a new article on this person. slakr was the original closing admin, who did an excellent and correct close that the version of the article under discussion should be deleted and redirected.

This article has been deleted three times because WP:NOTINHERITED, which is irrelevant to WP:GNG and GNG has never before been discussed in relation to this person. I rewrote the article. This person is the subject of multiple reliable sources and meets WP:GNG. I am coming to deletion review to ask that this article be allowed to go through an WP:AfD in its current version.

This new writing of the article is not like the others.

I acknowledge that past AfDs were recent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion/redirect result of the previous AfDs. As said at Talk:Jashodaben_Chimanlal#Contested_deletion very recently I beg to differ from nominator that GNG was never raised. Though the actual policy was not quoted, and that's good in a way to not stick walls of text, the issue was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben where User:Soman put forth that the subject had "national limelight, plenty of press coverage, and thus notable". This was the recent AfD (June) on this subject person and it was raised while she was in the highest coverage that she ever received so far when her estranged husband was sworn in as the PM on 26 May. Her notability hasn't increased at all since then. Moreover, she not getting the status in past 4 months that any PM's spouse should have got strengthens the argument that her notability is only due to her relation with the PM and thus is only inherited. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dharmadhyaksha My perspective is different. I still say that no one asked which sources confirm WP:GNG. It only takes a few and the review should be simple enough to do. See Talk:Jashodaben_Chimanlal#Notability for three interviews, for example. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion/redirect result. Still does not meet WP:ANYBIO. EricSerge (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few things. First, don't edit war over redirects then use the tools so as not to hit 3RR. Second, I'm not sure the best procedure for re-written articles it to tell people to fuck off to DRV. That's not really the role of this board (as we're seeing with the discussion being about the propriety of the original deletion and not the article) and it's not like there's some benefit to having sources scrutinized and chin-scratched over rather than just writing articles. When an article is recreated in good faith with sources that weren't in the original, what's required is some investigation on the part of editors looking to see if the reasons for deletion were addressed, not what happened here. My suggestion is to allow recreation and approach situations like this with more judiciousness in the future. Protonk (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Protonk - is this comment in the correct place ? I've not said to anybody to fuck off anywhere, and I've only been dealing with the article on an administrative basis.
The DRV request is woefully incomplete, so here's full explanation from my point of view. I was asked to look at the article and delete it (under CSD-G4 - recreation of previously deleted page, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben Modi (2nd nomination) - the page being moved in between the second and third deletion discussions. The page at Jashodaben Chimanlal was left set with a redirect to Narendra_Modi#Early_life_and_education after the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben in June (the outcome of the deletion discussion, per the closure by slakr). The page was deleted on 27 September 2014 to make way for the new article Blue Rasberry created, and was subsequently tagged for deletion by Dharmadhyaksha as recreation of deleted material. The speedy deletion request was removed by Cutest Penguin (sort of correctly, sort of by accident), the speedy deletion request was reinstated by Dharmadhyaksha, by reverting Cutest Penguin. That's where I first got involved, I knew that per the deletion discussion in June, the page shouldn't have been deleted, and reinstated the previous closure by redirecting he page as per the AfD closure 3 months back. I was reverted twice by Blue Rasberry, who reverted back to the version of the page last edited by Dharmadhyaksha, and in doing so, tagged the article for speedy deletion a further twice.
I consider just over 3 months to be far too short a time to ignore the outcome of an AfD discussion, especially one that took into account notability and have directed the editor in question here to discuss their re-creation of the article. I specifically left the new article in the history, so it can be restored in full, if the decision is to allow the re-creation of the article, or alternatively, the content can be merged into the target for the re-direct if the previous closure in endorsed.
I have no interest in the outcome of DRV or any AFD and will not be making any comment on the merits of the article being deleted, merged, re-directed or re-created. Nick (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the right place. Telling an editor "I cannot offer any other options, there are set processes to follow on Wikipedia." and "You will need to take the discussion to deletion review and demonstrate that Jashodaben is independently notable before creating a new article." is essentially telling them to fuck off to DRV. That's complicated by the fact that DRV isn't really the right venue. So now BR has had the page redirected (and protected) and been told their only route is through DRV and is now being told (not by everyone, but still) that DRV isn't the place to go and there's another process they need to follow. BR is an experienced editor and they're certainly capable of navigating the procedures, but there's no advantage to taking such a hidebound approach.
I'm aware of the history on the page, so there's no need to recap that. What's salient for me is an admin edit warring over the page then protecting the page citing "disruptive editing" while the other editor is imploring them to use the talk page. None of that was necessary. The page could've been sent to DRV (if you felt that was the only option) while remaining an article or you could've had a discussion with BR about whether or not the page overcame the reasons for deletion. But you didn't. That's why I made that comment.
There's no hard and fast limit to when an article can be created after the last AfD. If the article was deleted for notability reasons and the new one contains sources which allow it to meet the GNG (which is what seems to be the case here, though I haven't combed through it closely), then it could be created at any point. If the new article doesn't address the concerns at AfD than it can never be recreated. In between "immediately" and "never" there's room for editors and admins to exercise their judgment. A 5 year old AfD might be considered less of a hurdle than a 5 month old one, but that's really something which can be talked over and we didn't do that here. Protonk (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There has been a lot of things happening that shouldn't have been (including by an admin) though I expect all this has been well-intentioned. The only decisions for us here seem to be (1) were the repeated WP:CSD#G4 deletions legitimate (if the deletions were intended to be G4, or intended as deletions)? I can't see the history to judge but I have rather a feeling that they were not. (2) Is the new draft[1] a priori suitable to send to AFD (or even just allow it)? I would opt for AFD. There has been a tendency recently to delete articles about relatives of very well-known people even when extensive press coverage has been way in excess of the GNG criteria. DRV has sometimes endorsed this. Thincat (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion/redirect result It is inaccurate to say that GNG was not discussed. "Significant coverage" (GNG) was part of AfD rationale of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben Modi (2nd nomination). The latest AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben after her husband Modi became the PM of India. Soman presented evidence of "plenty of press coverage", but none was regarded significant. Does the de jure status of Spouse of the Prime Minister of India grant notability? was discussed. WP:BLP1E was also cited. Redtigerxyz Talk 20:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - Earlier when AfD were nominated the article lacked significant coverage but now it seems to be well cited with reliable sources and that's with significant coverage in multiple sources which ultimately makes the subject notable. Even while going through the references I discovered that those references are much recent than the AfD nomination dates. In the third AfD nomination the admin mentioned with suggestion that either to deletion or merger with the Narendra Modi which seems to be controversial due to separated marriage and I don't think a merger will be valid in this case. — CutestPenguinHangout 20:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Wrong advice was given on the redirect talk page. Unless challenging the XfD process or close, a non-deletion redirect based on new information or arguments does not belong at DRV. Instead, seek consensus to re-create a spinout fro the target article. The discussion should be held on the talk page of the target artice, in this case at Talk:Narendra Modi. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and Close the as "out of scope". There was no deletion. The use of an XfD and its close was proper. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you suggested, I started a discussion at Talk:Narendra_Modi#Article_on_Modi.27s_wife.2C_Jashodaben_Chimanlal. I am confused about process also as I continue to confirm that all past AfDs were correct closes and do not want any of them reviewed, except in the context of the new article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation WP:CSD#G4 is not a valid rationale for an article that is substantially different from the AfD version. Ideally, recreation should be allowed and the normal AfD process used to determine whether this new version satisfies our criteria for inclusion or not. (Note: I'm not sure it does, a lot of the content appears to be mere fluffy stuff, but I think this needs to be discussed. She is, after all, the estranged wife of the Prime Minister of an important nation.)--regentspark (comment) 13:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion/redirect result Check the AFDs to see whether GNG was discussed or not, just because the person is estranged wife of the Prime Minister of an important nation doesn't make that person notable. -sarvajna (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It doesn't make them non-notable either. A substantially different article about a person needs to be retested for notability, especially in this case. The most recent AfD was a couple of weeks after Modi became the prime minister and there was a recency effect that would need testing.. 4 months later, we're in a better position to do that test. Using CSD as a reason to delete this article is just plain wrong. --regentspark (comment) 16:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating; "Moreover, she not getting the status in past 4 months that any PM's spouse should have got strengthens the argument that her notability is only due to her relation with the PM and thus is only inherited". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit Recreation The discussion about procedure is absurd. The policy in effect is NOT BURO; there are many possible ways to write a replacement article. Coming here is one of them, and if that is the one chosen, this is the place to discuss it. Personally, I would not have reverted and protected the article--if upon coming across the recreated article I thought it was invalid I would have used another afd, but I cannot say that doing this was wrong. The technicality that the redirect is not a deletion is nonsense; after it has been protected it is effectually a deletion. One could of course seek consensus to overturn it at the talk page of the redirect; one could do it at the talk page of the main article. Whichever route chosen would be acceptable. Unfortunately, whichever route would be chosen, someone would object to using that route--paying attention to technicalities is creating unreasonable difficulties to an editor. If BR were a new editor, or even a only moderately experienced editor, instead of a dedicated WPedian, I'm fairly sure we'd never see them here again after this sort of treatment. It is altogether reasonable to discuss it here; this is where we discuss disputed recreations of articles, not merely XfD closes. I see no need to argue about the notability here (about which I am rather doubtful) --I or anyone else who doubts it can use AfD, and I suspect someone will. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and close as out of scope as per SmokeyJoe.  This discussion needs content specialists on the families of Indian politicians, not DRV volunteers.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Randall Bell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Poorly executed non-admin closure of an SPA and sock-puppet riddled discussion which clearly required admin tools to close. I've discussed it with the closing editor who suggested "Looking through the article... there are enough sources to meet WP:GNG". But rather than using that as a rationale for contributing the only non-SPA keep !vote to the discussion, he decided to super-vote it closed instead. Revert non-admin closure and overturn to delete. St★lwart111 02:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. Non admins shouldn't close contentiously. Ask at WP:AN for an experienced admin to re-close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I agree it's promotional, and probably will be deleted, but it deserves the benefit of a proper discussion. Tho a new AfD could bestated right away, sine the close was non-consensus, this close was a misjudgment , and should be corrected explicitly. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, with no prejudice to relisting. I'd probably have closed this as "no consensus with no prejudice against speedy relisting" myself, if only because it had been open forever and there was clearly socking of some sort going on. I agree that non-admins probably shouldn't close contentious discussions, but I would consider the close reasonable if User:SNUGGUMS had been an admin, so overturning would just be process wonkery. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The NAC overturn for an admin requires only you to sign the close as a close you would have done to satisfy the wonkery part. However, a slightly better explanation of the close is desirable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, looking at the closer's comments after the close, I'd have arrived at the same conclusion by a different path. For me, that'd be that the vast majority of contributions, from both sides, look to be suspect on some level, so a true community consensus is impossible to gauge. A fresh discussion (not just a relist) might get some more policy based arguments and clean out the noise. But yes, if it's a difficult discussion like this one it's usually a good idea to explain your reasoning when closing it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry, there are equally questionable "delete" !votes but the "vast majority" of the arguments are from bender235, LaMona and myself - all established editors in good standing. If you discard the rubbish on both sides you're still left with three policy-based contributions, all opining for deletion. The closing editor disagreed with those contributions and imposed his view on the discussion. Simple as that. St★lwart111 12:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist with a semi-protected AfD to prevent all the socking. I might disagree with this particular close, but I differ from Smokeyjoe in that I think on principle, it's generally appropriate for experienced editors to close contentious discussions even if they aren't admins. If we overturn a decision, it should be because the decision was wrong. We should never overturn a decision because the closer hadn't been entrusted with some irrelevant technical tools. That's insanely bureaucratic and authoritarian.—S Marshall T/C 01:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist, I'm afraid. It was not an appropriate case for a non-admin closure. I agree with entirely S Marshall that experienced non-admins should be trusted to close discussions. Being an admin does not make you inherently better at that task. My problem in this case is different. If, in closing a discussion, the deletion of an article is a real possibility, a non-admin shouldn't close it, because, by definition, they lack the technical ability to carry out one of the possible outcomes. An editor closing a discussion needs to come to a decision with a genuinely open mind to all possible options. Us non-admins can't do that in AfDs where deletion is on the cards and this has nothing to do with our experience or competence. My views here are entirely consistent with the parameters of WP:NAC, which in my view is an essay justified not by an authoritarian distinction between admins and non-admins but by the reasons I've given above. As for the case at hand, I'm not for process wonkery, but I think we would benefit from having a fresh set of eyes on this, and with full reasons given for the close. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete- As Stalwart points out, once the invalid votes are discarded there are three delete opinions left and no keeps. An AfD with three cogent policy based delete opinions and no keeps, is consensus to delete. Reyk YO! 04:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 September 2014

[edit]

28 September 2014

[edit]
  • VideoPad – No consensus to overturn. The matter comes down to the differences when closing a debate on whether to delete or to redirect. We assume when an article is deleted that the physical action of deletion occurs. When we vote to redirect, no deletion happens and the article is redirected. The question in this debate is whether deletion is necessarily required. Does a redirect achieve the same result to our readers while leaving advantages to our users? The arguments for each side are either that it would set precedent where redirects are systematically not deleted or that redirects do not necessarily require systematic deletion. Neither argument is well supported nor opposed explicitly in policy and so this comes down to a matter of consensus. Unfortunately, no consensus has prevailed and the status quo remains. However, I will contact the deleting admin and try to negotiata a drama-reducing solution to this problem.--v/r - TP 21:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: Nom and closing sysop have agreed to relist this at AFD.--v/r - TP 21:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
VideoPad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I am not disputing the assessment that VideoPad is not notable. I find the other editors' arguments weak but can understand how a closing admin can come to the conclusion that the consensus is VideoPad is not notable. However, I disagree with the deletion of the redirect's history. As shown in this revision (the revision that was deleted), the article contains several reliable sources and content that could be useful to a future non-admin editor that found more sources.

I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad:

My second preference (after "keep") is to redirect to NCH Software (with the history preserved under the redirect). A redirect would be better than a red link because this is a plausible search term. Preserving the history under the redirect would be better than deleting the history. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre:

The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.

A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.

Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.

In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.

Cunard (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The closer at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect wrote:

There is no consensus for automatic deletion of page history when an outcome is "redirect" (though there's also no consensus against that deletion when appropriate), and several contributors felt that a number of well-argued !votes in favor of "merge" and "redirect" should lead to a closure of "no consensus" rather than "keep", since the latter close suggests that the content was accepted as-is.

I believe the deletion here is inappropriate because the deleted content is useful and does not violate a core policy like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The encyclopedia does not benefit from its deletion. The closing admin declined to restore the article's history.

Please restore the article's history under the redirect.

Cunard (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Endorse deletion. This belongs to WP:REFUND. However, what violates Wikipedia's fundamental policies (in this case, WP:NOTADVERT) or fails to demonstrate its notability, has no business coming back stealthily, in the form of revisions histories of a redirect. Restoring an article's history is a discretionary action, performed when there are extenuating circumstances like attribution requirements of the contents licensing terms of Wikipedia. In this case however, those "several reliable sources and content that could be useful" are already present in the AfD discussion. I stress that WP:DELREV and WP:REFUND are not avenues of defeating the purpose of an AfD, circumventing consensus or requesting souvenirs for the nostalgic who fondly reminisce the days when the article was live.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the above contribution is by the AfD nom.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He wasn't offering new arguments in favor of a redirect, he was offering the same arguments as had already been rejected, merely hoping for a different outcome. We do not decide notability of a topic based on whether sources have been cited but whether they exist. By extension, it seems reasonable (and generally supported by WP:DAB) that primary, non-disambiguated articles should refer to the most notable interpretation. I'm not volunteering to write it (it's the beginning of a quarter and I have classes to teach!) but it appears to me that there is a notable Videopad topic, just not this one. But as I also said during the AfD, this may simply be a case of WP:TOOSOON. If this product becomes notable as new sources appear, I see no reason why this article can't be recreated. Msnicki (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore edit history  The key here is whether the closer deleted for wp:notability or for content.  Neither the close nor the admin's talk page discussion states the reason for deletion.  The vast majority of the discussion was in regard to wp:notability, although one of the five commentators states, "Looks like advertising to me."  As stated, this !vote is a personal opinion that does not cite a policy.  Based on the preponderance of evidence, this deletion was for wp:notability, which means there is no policy basis to keep the edit history deleted under the redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore history A decision to delete an article on notability grounds is a decision that a topic should not be included as a stand-alone article. It is not a decision that a topic should not be covered at all. It may be entirely appropriate for the topic to be covered elsewhere and it is absurd to place obstacles in the way of achieving this. If the content of the deleted article is abusive then history deletion will be justified. If an editor were to become disruptive in using material in the history then deletion or other remedial actions might become necessary. Thincat (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore history unless the history is inappropriately promotional. The closing admin said 'I am not swayed by your arguments in favor of keeping the edit history'. I'm aware this is going to look like undue micromanagement of the closing admin's task, but the question should be asked the other way around: is there a good reason to delete the history? Unless the article was inappropriately promotional -- I can't tell -- there is no good reason. Let's put it another way: what was the substance of the consensus? Was there a consensus to delete the article's history? Or was the consensus that the subject of the article does not merit a Wikipedia page? Surely it was the latter. That's why a redirect was the correct outcome, but the deletion of the page's history was not. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral My close was based on my reading of the consensus ("delete"). Given that redirects are cheap (and, if a better target comes up, can easily be changed), I saw no harm in leaving a redirect. I'm not impressed by arguments to leave the history: those apply to all articles that we delete for reasons other than promotion or BLP concerns. Having said that, I have no strong feelings about this either way. Funny, this is the first time that a close of mine managed to draw flak from both sides of the debate :-) --Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muchmore, Michael (2012-03-30). "VideoPad Video Editor". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2014-09-30. Retrieved 2014-09-30.

    http://www.pcmag.com/author-bio/michael-muchmore says, "Michael Muchmore is PC Magazine's lead analyst for software and Web applications. A native New Yorker, he has at various times headed up PC Magazine’s coverage of Web development, enterprise software, and display technologies."

    The article says, "Product not yet reviewed by PCMag Editors", though I'm still inclined to consider this a reliable source since PC Magazine published it. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: NCH Software is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCH Software. DRV participants Msnicki (talk · contribs), Unscintillating (talk · contribs), Thincat (talk · contribs), Mkativerata (talk · contribs), and Randykitty (talk · contribs), please participate in the AfD if you're so inclined. If not, then no worries. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Reading the AfD, this seems like a clear consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline request to restore the history, on grounds of procedure. The "delete" closure appears uncontested. As such, there is no particular reason to restore the history, which would change the outcome from "delete" to "redirect" contrary to the consensus correctly established as a result of the discussion. If we decide to delete an article, then this applies to its history as well. As has been said above, the argument to restore the history would apply to almost every article deleted on notability grounds, and would contravene settled community consensus to reject any form of "soft" deletion where deleted content routinely remains user-accessible.  Sandstein  07:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with your interpretation. The AfD was not closed as "redirect". It was closed as "delete". After deletion, a redirect was, put in place at your suggestion, as they are cheap and can easily be re-targeted if a better target becomes available later. All the other policies about fixing problems and such apply before an article goes to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Notability is not a content policy/guideline, and hasn't been since early 2008.  So when an article is deleted for wp:notability, there is no content in the article that needs fixing.  Even now you have not explained (unless I missed it) your close as to whether it was for wp:notability or for a content policy.  It is the current consensus that you deleted in this case for wp:notability.  Do you want to amend your closing?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also, Category:Wikipedia content guidelines and Category:Wikipedia content policies.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section #8 you have quoted from within WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion is prefaced with the statement,
In the case of wp:notability, the "offending section" is the data structure in which the topic is posted as a standalone article.  Policy here is that "improvement...is preferable to deletion".  WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion similarly states,
Unscintillating (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand where you are going. My close was based on the whole article not meeting any notability guideline and no convincing arguments that improvement would be possible. To me, that means "delete". --Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A baseline issue is what do our policies and guidelines say, which may or may not be that with which editors agree.  The first sentence of WP:N states, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article."  So if your close was based on the article rather than the topic, IMO that provides the basis for an out-of-process deletion.  The improvability of the topic is not a point of contention, since you improved the topic to correct the problem of non-notability.  So WP:Notability is not a current point of contention.  WP:Deletion policy states, "improvement...is preferable to deletion", and the topic has been improved.  Is there another policy that supports keeping the edit history deleted?  How does keeping the edit history deleted improve the encyclopedia?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (from "Delete, then redirect" to "Redirect with history intact").
Cunard's !vote was not opposed or referred to, but just ignored. Including by the closer.
The closer and Msnicki cited WP:TOOSOON. However, WP:TOOSOON is not a argument for deletion where there is a merge and redirect target. The clear implication of TOOSOON is that the topic may possibly be suitable for coverage, it is not (yet) suitable for a standalone article. Giving a topic a standalone article is a higher test than allowing coverage. Msnicki made no argument that the content was unsuitable for any article and that history deletion was required.
The_Banner's issue is a fixable issue, especially when content is merged.
Rhododendrites makes a detailed argument for why the topic doesn't meet the GNG. However, the GNG specifically limits standalone articles, and does not speak to content contained within an article, and therefore his !vote does not imply a requirement to delete the history.
Nobody argues to delete and redirect. Cunard argued against deleting the history when redirecting.
Why not just expand the coverage at the target without relying on the deleted content? Because that is content forking and dangerous with regards to Wikipedia copyright compliance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I closed as "delete" because the article did not meet WP:GNG, as argued in the AfD (and I note that even the person intitiating this appeal explicitly states above that he is not contesting the lack of notability). TOOSOON was not given as an argument for deletion, nor did I use it in the close. Citing TOOSOON in situations like this usually is mostly done to emphasize a current lack of significant coverage, not excluding that perhaps such coverage may become available in the future. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete, because that's what the consensus in the afd plainly was. (The editorially-created redirect is acceptable.) Filibustering the same points over and over when they've already failed to convince anyone creates no onus to repeat the rebuttals already given. —Cryptic 05:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) WP:Deletion process states (emphasis in original),
Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've begun to write things about this on several occasions but them changed my mind. I find the matter rather difficult because it turns on how much weight to give to an argument that was made and not refuted, but simply ignored. I suspect we'll see more and more such cases as participation at AfD continues to wane. On the one hand, it shouldn't be necessary for those advocating deletion to isolate and destroy every single argument in favour of keeping it; but on the other hand, it shouldn't be possible to defeat a well-reasoned argument by sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending you didn't hear it.

    The business about meeting the GNG is a red herring. Whether or not something meets the GNG has no bearing on whether there should be a redirect. It also has no bearing on whether to delete the history under the redirect. On balance I think that there's a rough consensus that the redirect should continue to exist; and therefore, this being a wiki, there's a presumption that the history should be visible. If there's a particular revision that's problematic for some reason, it can be revdelled, but to remove the entire history is uncalled-for.—S Marshall T/C 11:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Michael and Marisa – The deletion is endorsed and the requester has been blocked as a sockpuppet. There is disagreement about whether the new-found sources justify a recreation of the article. Most participants seem to think that there is a basis for an established editor who is clearly not associated with any banned editors or groups to recreate the article, but any recreation may be then resubmitted for a deletion discussion by any other editor. –  Sandstein  21:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Michael and Marisa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Wrongly deleted. Closer of deletion discussion said that he could not find sufficient notable articles about the subject. There is a very long list of notable activity and articles about the subject. Currently requesting to have notable activity and articles about the subject reviewed and to overturn the decision to delete this page. There was not enough discussion on the proposal for deletion page to make a consensus. Discussion was mainly attributed to the closer. Here are the notable activities and articles:

Each source on this list includes a link to a wikipedia article to confirm that the source is viable, credible and reputable.

MICHAEL AND MARISA HAVE BEEN CONCERT OPENERS FOR:

Rixton (Top 40 Artist, opening for Ariana Grande 2015)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rixton_(band)


Cody Simpson (Top 40 Music Artist)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cody_Simpson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_4U_Tour


David Archuleta (American Idol 2nd place)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Archuleta


Drake Bell (Nickelodeon star of Drake and Josh)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Bell


Mitchel Musso (Disney star of Hannah Montana)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchel_Musso


Greyson Chance (Signed to Ellen Degeneres label)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyson_Chance


Bamboozle Tour

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboozle_Road_Show_2010


SOME NOTABLE SOURCES WHO HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT MICHAEL AND MARISA:


Billboard Magazine: http://michaelandmarisa.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/were-in-billboard-magazine/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_(magazine)


Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/vazquez-sounds-8-teen-sib_n_1121394.html (Michael and Marisa are second. Click arrow to the right)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Huffington_Post

CNN: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-500234

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN

J14 Magazine: http://www.j-14.com/posts/exclusive-q-a-with-michael-and-marisa-2435

http://www.j-14.com/tags/michael-and-marisa-2826

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-14_(magazine)

Parent's Magazine: http://www.parents.com/blogs/goodyblog/tag/michael-and-marisa/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_(magazine)

PBSKids http://pbskids.org/itsmylife/blog/2010/07/michael-and-marisa.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_Kids


PACER: http://www.pacer.org/bullying/video/player.asp?video=46

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bullying_Prevention_Month


The Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2009/08/14/teen_duo_michael__marisa_are_not_kidding_around/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boston_Globe

National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP https://www.nassp.org/KnowledgeCenter/TopicsofInterest/BullyingPrevention/MediaResources.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Secondary_School_Principals


Catholic TV: http://gloria.tv/?media=132412&language=YiwzPCkSG6u

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CatholicTV


MATTEL TOYS:

Mattel Toys has a line of dolls called: “I Can Be….”. The dolls have different occupations such as doctor, pilot, veterinarian etc. Marisa was asked by Mattel to represent the line as the “I Can Be….a Drummer.” Here is the link to the video that Mattel made and put on their web site. There was a video for each occupation on the site. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrvaIpKUsSc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattel

The chords to a Michael and Marisa song are listed on Ultimate-guitar.com:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Guitar_Archive

Michael and Marisa mentioned on sites in other countries: Their reach is worldwide including Australia, Middle East, Europe, South America, Far East: French: http://www.vagalume.com.br/michael-and-marisa/ Russian: http://www.amalgama-lab.com/songs/m/michael_and_marisa/the_same.html Spanish: http://karolayneminhamoda.blogspot.com/2011/04/michael-and-marisa.html

Marisa is endorsed by Vic Firth (drum stick co.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Firth

Patch Game company made over 70,000 games with three different Michael and Marisa song titles. Patch enclosed in the games a CD with the Michael and Marisa song matching the title of the game or a download card with their song.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_Products Tuesday536 (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to Black Kite and Carrite: I support a direct restoration to mainspace. The sources I provided in citation templates above can be copied by anyone to the references section of the article. That would make {{db-repost}} no longer applicable. I cannot do that since the article is deleted, but would the DRV closer consider doing that? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Consensus in the AFD was clear and no way one can question the closure.The issue about sources where it meet or did not meet WP:GNG or failed WP:SIGCOV was discussed in the AFD which was open for 15 days and do not see any significant new information.Further here Closer's judgement here is not in question neither has it been discussed with the Closing admin Black Kite first.Hence this Deletion review needs to be closed.Deletion Review should not be used :
1:because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
2:when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
5:to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion.
Further WikiExperts are banned by the Community and have editing this page in violation of there ban.Hence even speedy deletion under WP:G5 may be applicable.Hence the closure needs to be endorsed and this Deletion review closed. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A respectful response to the comment directly above:

    Although the discussion was open for 15 days, there were too few participants to carry out a full discussion.

    Points made previously were not intended to be repeated here, but instead were one by one substantiated with a link to a wikipedia page containing a necessary definition.

    Contact was made twice with someone with Frog or Froggy in their name who was thought to be the closer.

    No WikiExpert was ever hired and no WikiExpert has ever participated in editing this page.

    All efforts have been made to respect and follow the rules of wikipedia.

    All efforts have been made toward substantiating the viability of the subject.

    Further discussion would be appreciated including a specific description of what is lacking so that any shortfall may be addressed if there is one.

    Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuesday536 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The plan is to update the page immediately. It would save a tremendous amount of time if you would put the page back up so that edits can be made from it rather than have to start from scratch again. Please empathize with those of us who are not as Wikipedia savvy. Perhaps you can give a time frame by which updates and improvements need to be made? Thanks for your consideration. Tuesday536 (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Tuesday536[reply]
  • These discussions are usually open for seven days, at which point a call will be made by a neutral administrator to either undelete or keep it deleted. I could restore the page for you, but that would open us up for further chicanery and pointless bureaucracy. I think just waiting for this process to finish naturally rather than attempting shortcuts will result in the least hassle for everyone involved, yourself included. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Yes, of course....happy to wait for the process to finish naturally and definitely not looking for shortcuts. I didn't realize that the discussion is open for seven days. Thank you very much. Tuesday536 (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Tuesday536[reply]
  • There was no other way to actually read the discussion at that AFD than as "delete." However, had the initial nominator followed the steps outlined in WP:BEFORE, the nomination never would have been made, given that they would've found the sources listed in this deletion review. Given that, I endorse the closure as reflecting consensus at the discussion, but recommend that this article be speedily restored, and perhaps that an admonishment regarding WP:BEFORE be given to the initial nominator. LHMask me a question 12:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain but permit recreation using no previous material. Tho Carrite obviously disagrees, I am very willing to evaluate any borderline situation an article written by a paid editor as meriting deletion. In this case, if the article was written by Wikiexperts, they're a banned editor as of Oct 17, 2013, and that is sufficient reason for deletion. I do not think we need in all cases to remove good work by editors banned for some other reason than their article editing, but if G5 applies anywhere, it should apply here. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to reiterate one more time that No Paid Editor Was Ever Used To Write Anything on the Michael and Marisa page. When the article was nominated for deletion we googled what to do and the Wikiexperts came up. We emailed one time asking how to handle the situation and they emailed back saying to post credible articles. We posted their response on the deletion page for all to see. That was the only correspondence with them and at the time we did not know they were banned. They did not edit the page or have anything to do with the page. We certainly would not knowingly communicate with anyone banned from the site. Fortunately they had nothing to do with the content on the site. Thank you. Tuesday536 (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Tuesday536[reply]
  • Furthermore, see the post here:

    -----Original Message-----

    From: James Cummins <jc@wikiexperts.us> To: Sent: Wed, Sep 10, 2014 9:47 am Subject: Response to your inquiry about visibility in Wikipedia

    Dear

    Thank you for considering WikiExperts! In order to determine if you qualify for a Wikipedia profile, can you please send us 7-10 examples of substantial press coverage you have received over your career (not including press releases), which have not already appeared on the page? These kinds of references are required for any new entry to stay up on the site.

    Best regards,

    James Cummins COO, WikiExperts.us JC@WikiExperts.us (917) 725-2030 Skype: jc.wikiexpert

    Dear James,

    Many thanks for your response. Here are the articles you requested about Michael and Marisa. After all the on line links there is a link to newspaper press. Please let me know what other information you need so that the page is not deleted. The duo has an album they wrote about to be released (Jonas Brothers co-wrote a song), just toured the U.S. with platinum top 40 artist "Rixton" as their concert opener, and will be touring as opener for Demi Lovato later this month. I appreciate whatever you can communicate at Wikipedia so that the Michael and Marisa page stays active as it has been since 2009. It definitely needs updating and I will make sure that happens. Many thanks!

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.152.255 (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

    The email was sent after the AfD started, indicating that WikiExperts had no involvement in the article between the article's creation and 10 September 2014. The article was deleted 23 September 2014. If there are any WikiExperts edits to the article between 10 September 2014 and 23 September 2014, those edits can be reverted pursuant to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5. Creations by banned or blocked users. Based on Tuesday536 (talk · contribs)'s above post, it appears that contact was made with WikiExperts in an effort to save the article, but no edits from WikiExperts or other paid editors were made. Therefore, none of the content violates {{db-banned}}.

    Cunard (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, do not recreate. Call this WP:IAR if you must, but it is clear to me that Tuesday536 not only has a major WP:COI, but is almost certainly a puppet as well, or at the very least not being forthcoming about his or her history. Tuesday's only contributions are to this DRV. Good faith and avoiding COI are fundamental concepts on which Wikipedia depends. I'm not seeing either here. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is whether the subject of this article is notable enough to maintain an article. The answer is yes. The other concerns regarding T536 are best dealt with using blocks/bans, not by restricting article content. WP:IAR was not, in my opinion, ever intended to be used as a way to keep notable topics from having an article on Wikipedia. LHMask me a question 20:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as disruption, and also salt the topic for six months WP:IAR  Requestor is indefinitely blocked, so there is no further need to consider this appeal.  The norm for speedy closes is no prejudice against a speedy renomination; however, I support letting this issue sit idle for a while so that the disruption from this request can subside and not affect future decisions.  There is no WP:DEADLINE.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 September 2014

[edit]
  • Criticism of The New York Times – Endorse, but.... There is pretty clear consensus of the participants here to endorse the original (4 year old) AfD close. On the other hand, 4 years is a long time. World events evolve, as do our policies and community opinions. The title is not protected so there's nothing to prevent anybody from writing a new article at the same title, per WP:RECREATE. In turn there's nothing to prevent somebody else from bringing that new article to AfD if it doesn't address the concerns of the original AfD. – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Criticism of The New York Times (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The rational for deletion was that the article was "implicitly hostile" despite similar articles on same topic for other organizations. This was deleted with an administrative supervote. The actual !vote was for keep ... even no consensus would have been acceptable. See CNN controversies and Fox News Channel controversies and Al Jazeera controversies and criticism and BBC controversies and CBS News controversies and criticism and MSNBC controversies for similar articles that summarize reporting problems. I don't see anything "implicitly hostile" in the New York Times article that sets it aside from the other media criticism articles. The article is mostly a summary of other articles already in Wikipedia. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I saved it around the time it was deleted. I think any differences would be minor when compared to the deleted version. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The title to be standardized should now be "New York Times controversies and criticism" or "New York Times controversies". We should pick one as the standard and change all to that name.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The nominator ought to have noted that this has been to deletion review before: see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 4. And, he should have pinged the closing admin (Timotheus_Canens), which he was admonished for not doing the last time around. The closing admin's rationale, posted at the last DRV, was as follows:

Briefly, the point that there is a NPOV violation was not contested anywhere in the discussion, and there appear to be a rough consensus that the content should not remain in mainspace (considering the deletes and the incubate !votes). I also read CaliforniaAliBaba's comment as against retaining the present content. Arguments such as "it needs to be available, as the NYT is certainly one of the most influential news organizations in the US. A less influential news organization, Fox News Channel, has Fox News Channel controversies", is basically WP:WAX and are accorded less weight; "Article is notable if not without faults" is WP:JNN but more importantly beside the point, since notability is not the reason for the nomination; and of course the bare "keep" is not accorded any weight since AfD is not a vote.

Of course, nothing has changed since then. The previous DRV result should stand. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best to endorse the close of 4 years ago as the title was problematic and we need not rehash the AFD's strength or weaknesses here. However, as a major metropolitan newspaper which has been the subject of numerous controversies over a many-years period (they ain't perfect, after all) and, as the coverage of those NYT-specific controversies meets our inclusion criteria, a recreation of the content of this article should be allowed and be neutrally covered within these pages. A separate article? A sub-section at The New York Times? Just where folks... just where? Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete for rewriting It's 4 years later, and there is more to be said. I cannot say I agree with the close; I see it as no-consensus; some of the arguments for deletion make no sense to me, such as that since we had articles of notable instances, a general article is inappropriate. (An argument the other way round, that a general article is sufficient, is more usual, and ofter successful). DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The appeal seems to be primarily other stuff exists which is weak because it seems likely that those other pages should be deleted too. WP:NPOV is still core policy and this requires that we write upon topics in a balanced, impartial way. One-sided attacks obviously violate this policy and so should be deleted. Note that the main article already contains two substantial sections of a similar sort - Coverage issues and Ethics incidents. Material which is too petty to get in there should not be indulged elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia, not a complaints department. Warden (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with User:Colonel Warden here. Anything that is too trivial for inclusion in the main article is also too trivial for inclusion in Wikipedia altogether. The closing admin has recognised this and closed the discussion appropriately. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 September 2014

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was speedily deleted giving the reason, in part "POV forks are not the way to resolve content discussions, especially not with borderline BLP vios using iffy sources." A copy of the page as it existed not long before deletion is archived here, though that archived copy does not include updates adding additional sourcing made just before deletion.

A previous speedy deletion nomination was declined by the admin GB fan on 24 September, and the article was taken to WP:AFD. The discussion was open for only one day and had a great deal of active discussion at the time it was preemptively closed, and editing to add additional sourcing was underway, though there were already a number of reliable sources on the article.

I've asked the closing admin to explain his rationale here but was advised to bring my concerns to this forum.

In regards to the reasons given, the article was in no way a violation of WP:BLP. Despite the remarks of the closing administrator, all contentious facts were cited to reliable sources, to include Physics Today,[2] The Washington Post,[3][4] The Tampa Tribune,[5] The Daily Beast,[6] National Review,[7] and The Weekly Standard.[8] Just before the article was deleted, citations were being added to a lengthy article in The Week[9], and today another article on the topic was published by The Christian Post.[10] I have asked those citing WP:BLP to specify exactly what the violation is, and I am still uncertain what the answer to that question is. In regards to claims that the article is a POV fork, I would say the article is a content fork and expresses no particular POV.

I understand the argument that some have made regarding notability of the topic, though I may disagree. Regardless, notability issues are not dealt with via speedy deletion, but by community consensus. I would ask that the article be relisted so the community can complete the discussion. If the content is deleted or merged back into the main bio, then so be it...but the discussion should not have been shut down in this case. Kelly hi! 08:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support close it wasn't closed in the direction I !voted for, but I can see why it was closed the way it was. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On one hand, the discussion at the AfD was trending toward delete at the time. On the other, this was quite clearly an out of process close, as there's no speedy deletion rationale that applies here. Overturn and reopen/rerun the AfD, as the information that continues to come out about this topic should get a full hearing to figure out the consensus. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse on WP:SNOW grounds — the deleting administrator's reasoning wasn't exactly in line with the policy, but once policy-non-compliant votes are ignored, there's not a single "keep" that remains. Every "keep" voter either said I don't see this Genie being put back into the bottle (see WP:BALL), or addressed the "delete" voters without providing a rationale for keeping (16:36, 24 September 2014), or advocated keeping based on primary sources such as the news articles that Kelly provides. Given that this is an ongoing issue, the claims of Kelly and the remnant "keep" voters are wrong by definition (read primary source or scholarly documents such as this one if you don't understand); we mustn't keep articles based on factually inaccurate claims. So...once we ignore the demonstrably incorrect keep votes, it's all "delete", and if we overturn this because it was closed too early, it will only attract more "delete" and more "keep"-on-inaccurate-grounds votes; WP:SNOW is applicable because it doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting consensus to keep on policy-compliant grounds. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify what you mean by "factually inaccurate claims"? And are you saying that news articles are not acceptable sources? That doesn't jive with WP:RS. Kelly hi! 11:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really not true, for the record. My keep, for example, was based solely on the existence of multiple, reliable, independent sources that existed about the topic at hand. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete Kelly has a severe case of WP:IDHT. Kelly has been following an agenda of the federalist (not a reliable source) to try and force material into wikipedia about misquotes. After inserting the claims sourced to right wing sources, it was removed from the Neil deGrasse Tyson article by an admin citing BLP concerns. Then Kelly forked the content to another article. Now that it has been deleted early by another admin for dodgy sources, here we are again. Further, Kelly knows that The Volokh Conspiracy is editorially independent from the washington post, and that it is misleading to characterise it as the Post. Kelly knows that the "the right stuff" is not a regular Tamba Tribune article, but a blog which is explicitly from a conservative viewpoint. Kelly knows that the Weekly standard is a political opinion magazine with a specific agenda, and so is the national review. Kelly is well aware of this, because they have been informed of these things multiple times. The reliability of an evangelical christian news source with regards to Tyson should also be self evident. The only reliable source is physics today, which says Tyson has been under attack by conservatives and thats about all. Second Quantization (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that Kelly has also stuck the attacks into List_of_Wikipedia_controversies. Second Quantization (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it if you didn't attempt to ascribe motives to me and refrained from making the discussion personal. On the subject of sources, WP:BIASED says that biased sources may be used so long as they are reliable. Did you have any comment on The Week as a source, or Physics Today? Kelly hi! 12:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comment, then try again, Second Quantization (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Now, what does The Week say? It chiefly undermines the reliability of the federalist by calling it a conservative blog, not a news source. What does it say about this conservative attack? "So this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel" and generally portrays the misquotes as largely irrelevant and unimportant. That fundamentally undermines any claims to notability, Second Quantization (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Kelly hi! 12:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's an article consisting of attacks against a named individual based on dubious partisan sources, if you are throwing up attack pages from unreliable sources, that's a BLP violation. Second Quantization (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Attack page? An archive of the page can be found here, could you point out examples of the attack language and/or BLP violations? On sourcing, I'm sorry you find them dubious or partisan but they've been judged as reliable by the community. Kelly hi! 12:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"they've been judged as reliable by the community" Please show where me "The Right Stuff a blog which "provides insight into the evolving human condition from a distinctly conservative point of view" is considered reliable by the community at large? Please explain where the The Volokh Conspiracy (link) was regarded as suitable source for a BLP? Or how about The Christian Post (link)? Etc etc (I already discussed the unreliability at the original AfD for those interested). Second Quantization (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G10 is an appropriate speedy deletion rationale. Even apart from the question of sourcing, this was essentially an attack page. But even with a neutral tone and reliable sourcing, it would still have been a POV fork. We do not cover one person's allegations against another as a separate article, unless it becomes a truly monumental historical case. where the allegations, not just the career, are covered in separate substantial sources.(I'm thinking of J'accuse). This is one of the bases of proportional coverage under BLP. It should never have gotten as far as an afd; I would certainly have deleted as G10. Consequently, though I usually temporarily undelete history for discussion here, I will not undelete this one. DGG ( talk ) 13:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse I'm not entirely happy with the rationale; it's a little too IAR for my tastes, but the discussion was heading towards a consensus to delete anyways. Per WP:BURO and WP:SNOW, there's no impending need to force a process to completion when the result is clear. --Jayron32 13:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I doubt you could find a more suitable admin to make this call, as he's experienced in dealing with sensitive BLP issues, and, if memory serves, he is European with no stake in the minutiae of American political bullshit. This was an obvious call to make, and I would have done it but I had no stomach for the inevitable screaming match at ANI that would result. The article's creator is conflating a POV fork, which this article is by definition, and criticism of her work as POV. I have no doubt that her intentions were good and she attempted to write the best, most neutral article possible. As has been explained to her, it doesn't matter how neutral the article is, as the article itself is a violation of NPOV as it disproportionately inflates the significance and notability of this non-incident by its existence as a separate article. Even if none of this were true, deletion would still be the right call. The incident is still developing and the discussion is still raging on the talk page of the original article this one was inappropriately forked from. With sensitive BLP issues, it is important that we take the time to get it right. If we were all wrong, the article can always be recreated later when this is demonstrated. Gamaliel (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted for the time being - as noted, "speedy" rather than "snow" is probably askew here. At the moment, at least, this probably merits a ~1 sentence mention in Tyson's biography, but trying to make permanent decisions now is daft. While I'd normally be keen on letting "wait and see" articles develop, and maybe merge later, obviously with BLP concerns one should be inclined to go the other way (and thus, an appropriate SNOW close of the AfD with no prejudice against recreation at some future date if the sources play out that way, if not exactly a G10 or whatnot). WilyD 15:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as Snow: Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Tridevil (though not nearly as ridiculous). But there was already enough discussion to know what the result was going to be, the early closing did not "game" the result. In high profile AfDs we get more discussion in 24 hours than 90% of the rest of AfDs get.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as Snow "...if an article is speedily deleted for the wrong reason ... but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving deletion through the normal article deletion process, there's no sense in resurrecting it and forcing everyone to go through the motions of deleting it yet again." Seems to characterize this situation 100%. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
there is sometimes (not here): if the error is such that the deleting admin needs to be told so in an emphatic manner. This wouldn't normally apply to mere errors--it would apply if an admin is deliberately ignoring the consensus on how to use speedy. It's a lesser step than RFCU and arbcom. This sort of public admonishment is within the community's power, and if needed, we can and should use it. It does not apply here--it was a good faith and reasonable decision. . DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant endorse I don't think it was a good idea to do an early closure of a debate this contentious, the article didn't qualify for speedy deletion and while there were certainly legitimate BLP concerns I don't think it got close to the territory where summary deletion was appropriate. On the other hand I think this was a justifiable WP:SNOW deletion. The discussion was clearly tending strongly towards deletion and I would have been surprised if the debate was eventually closed some other way. Hut 8.5 19:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I'm sure the admin meant 'snow' rather than 'speedy', because otherwise it was a perfectly good close. Snowing these ones as delete is appropriate in the circumstances: it is of substantial benefit that an article roundly considered problematic got deleted after one day instead of seven. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that's actually the best way to look at it. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not One Bit Surprised The deletion of the article is yet another classic example of Wikicensorship. This website has an absolutely terrible track record of handling controversy, and it traces back to Wikipedia's basic view that the truth is whatever this or that roving clique decides it is. No wonder Wikipedia is the butt of jokes at every serious learning institution on earth. Moynihanian (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Wikipedia has a poor reputation because it's full of badly sourced articles that fail to accurately summarize the few sources they have, advertisements disguised as articles, reams and reams of intricately detailed pop culture trivia, and thinly veiled political propaganda. It's the keeping of shit like this that makes Wikipedia a laughing stock, not the deleting of it. Reyk YO! 03:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'd be minimally credible if your outrage was even slightly even-handed. Yep, Wikipedia is full of everything you've mentioned, but the roving flash mobs of 20-something editors have, shall we say, a selective filter. Unlike the various wingnuts who joined up in the last day or two to protest (justifiably) this particular hack job, I've been on the edges of the Wikipedia fustercluck long enough to see flash mobs of both lefties, righties, and no-wingies eviscerate articles. It's not the politics at fault, but the hollowness at the core, i.e. the lack of actual standards, which emanates from the core lack of recognition of fact, and pursuit of truth.
Bottom line is that Wikipedia has no authentic standards, which makes every single article vulnerable to vandalism of one sort or another. As long as there's a big enough clique, 2 plus 2 can equal 5 at Wikipedia, and everyone knows it. The Federalist is but a grain of dust in the dust storm. No serious person respects or contributes to Wikipedia, nor should they. Moynihanian (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point it's not really clear what your problem is. Are you upset that this shit article has been "censored" at all, or that it's been deleted when other shit articles aren't deleted? Reyk YO! 06:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm claiming not to understand because I really do not understand what you are trying to say. You are being very obscure, and not clear at all, but I think that even if I could decipher your angry comments I probably wouldn't care. Reyk YO! 22:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- there is no way the AfD could have ended up ended up with any result other than the article's deletion. Reyk YO! 03:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I have no idea why an experienced editor should think that a badly sourced, BLP violating POV fork about a non-incident started by a non-notable person on a blog should be worth a Wikipedia article. FWIW, I would have G10'd this as well if I'd seen it. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It was snow and I'll forgive anyone thinking it was speedy snow. Thincat (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I agree the subject is not suitable for an article, I am concerned that there seems to be attacks based on the reliability of sources which appear at first blush to be perfectly reliable for what they were used to source - as well as the usual attacks on editors. Moreover there appears to be a increasing culture of [ab]using BLP as a blanket excuse to remove things that people "DONTLIKE". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC).
  • Endorse, but with reservations I agree that with comments running something like 6:1 in favor of delete, it looks like snow. But, looking at the text of the deleted article, I don't see anything that's so far out on the WP:BLP fringe that this required such immediate action as to be closed less than 30 hours after the AfD was started. So, yes, endorse the close as correct, but maybe the next time, letting the AfD run at least a few days before pulling the snow trigger might be a better course of action. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse As the AfD was a snowballing to deletion at that point, any error in the speedy deletion decision was harmless.-- danntm T C 06:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The article was a BLP minefield to start with, and the presence of some otherwise respectable sources reporting on the "controversy" of some dirt-flinging by a hard-right blogger, does not stop this from being a pretty naked attempt to perpetuate the smear by repeating it. User:FreeRangeFrog is to be congratulated for taking a firm but common sense approach to BLP in this case. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 September 2014

[edit]

24 September 2014

[edit]

23 September 2014

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kelle Roos (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Now played in a senior football match as per WP:FOOTBALL. [11]--92.18.202.2 (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 September 2014

[edit]

21 September 2014

[edit]
  • Belle Knox – The closure of the second AfD as "speedy delete" is overturned, and the AfD discussion is relisted. Consensus is that the sources published since the first AfD should be discussed in a full deletion discussion to determine whether or not they confer notability on the subject. –  Sandstein  12:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Belle Knox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Speedy deleted as G4. WP:CSD#G4 states, "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version." The newer article is not substantially identical to the previous version, which was deleted after an AfD about six months ago. BLP1E was the primary reason for deletion; since then the person has been the subject of a biopic series that represents significant continuing and expanded coverage compared to what was available at the time of the previous AfD. Requesting that the speedy be overturned to allow a full discussion. VQuakr (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...I was under the impression that you were going to open a DRV on the first AfD now that new sources have emerged? (hence my comments about it being a BLP and we should avoid recreating it until we are certain it is notable) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: I guess I do not understand why I would, but then again this is my first DRV creation so it is quite plausible that I do not understand the process. I agreed with the first AfD closure; I disagree with the second because it does not appear to be justified by any policy or guideline. What in WP:BLP mandates deletion of the article during a notability discussion? VQuakr (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I told you to come here is right underneath the listed purposes of DRV: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". Hence, reexamining the first AfD. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRV is neither policy nor guideline. The relevant policy, linked above, makes it clear IMHO that the 2nd AfD was closed inappropriately incorrectly. VQuakr (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AFD The above discussion isn't too inspiring. The nomination says it wasn't the same as the deleted, then goes on to make a general assertion that things have changed not giving any context as to how the article may have substantially changed as a result - one more source doesn't seem substantial to me. Similarly starting on the this isn't policy sort of arguments aren't usually a good sign of a reasonable discussion ahead. The question should surely be, what is the "best" way of resolving this? That said, since this documentary is currently airing having the article present for reevaluation now, would seem to be the best way of minimizing the overall exposure for the individual if the new AfD concludes on BLP1E also. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I avoided going into details because I was under the impression that the purpose of DRV is to review a closure, not have an AfD discussion in a separate venue. Some discussion of recreation started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Belle_Knox.2C_revisited prior the article being created by a new editor; I think those arguments likely would appear in a new AfD discussion as well. Since the subject sat for interviews and generally quite clearly was a willing participant in the documentary, I do not think "minimizing exposure" is necessary to stay compliant with WP:BLP. VQuakr (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are raising a question around a G4 since you think the article was substantially different, saying what was different is going to be pretty essential, that isn't the same as putting an AFD argument forward (e.g. it was restructured/expanded/whatever and there are these x additional references added). The general principals of BLP are around being sensitive to living subjects and respecting their privacy, of course excessive exposure we give here is a BLP concern. The person deleting it as G4 stated it as a reason they weren't keen on leaving it on view for too long, I see no reason to believe that person's concern isn't genuine (Regardless of if you or I agree with that concern, clearly others do think it's still a problem). To me the best way to minimise that is to get it out of the way now with regards the new evidence, whilst the topic is still getting active exposure, rather than waiting until it's finished. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page appears to be creation-protected. I cannot see any documentation on why, or who did it. AfD was contested, but driven by an argument on poor sourcing. Poor sourcing as a deletion is overcome by new quality sources. I cannot see the deleted content, but strongly suspect that it contained new sources and thus is a straight Overturn AfD2, not a proper G4 deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I expected to find protection logs when going to Belle Knox, or when attempting to create it. Is there an easy way to review all logs for a page like this? Is see that the dfault is to display only deletion and move logs. The new sources, and "Belle Knox is the subject of a new Condé Nast Entertainment docuseries" are not consistent with WP:CSD#G4. The BLP argument for page protection here is weak. Shouldn't these things go through a WP:RPPP process, if not the direct outcome of an XfD discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the same log link as in the DRV header, and (for existing pages) the history page. In general, though, you have to jump through some hoops: administrators get a big pink box with the most recent protection log when following the redlink, just like the normal deletion log box, but everyone else gets redirected to a non-edit view that doesn't include it. You can get at it, sort of, by manually stripping the &redlink=1 from the edit url, to get https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belle_Knox&action=edit. What a PITA. —Cryptic 03:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whichever way around we do it, the thing that's blatantly clear to me is that Belle Knox shouldn't be a redlink. It's such a depressingly plausible search term; by converting it to a redlink, Wikipedia's processes have failed. There will, obviously, be persistent attempts to create an article in that space. Whether Belle Knox should point to a biographical article about the lady in question is much less clear, and we need a way to have an intelligent discussion about it that respects the subject. I view of the BLP concerns, putting a biographical stub into mainspace while we go through an AfD process seems suboptimal to me. AfD is the right process, though, as SmokeyJoe suggests, so I think we need an unconventional solution.

    Can we allow creation as a draft, or in userspace, or some other unindexed space, and then AfD the draft in order to establish a consensus? I do mean "AfD" and not "MfD" because I feel that it should be assessed as an article, not as userspace content. The AfD listing should say that this is a plausible search term and should direct AfD participants who don't think we should have a biography to consider whether it could be redirected, and if so, to where.—S Marshall T/C 15:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I know nothing about the subject or the article in question, but just wanted to comment that I think Ed (the deleting admin) is mistaken on the relevant policies (based on what he has written above and on his talk page). WP:DRVPURPOSE says you may use DRV when an article has been deleted but significant new information has come to light that would justify recreation. It does not say that you must or even should use DRV in such cases. It is common for articles to be recreated without discussion once new information has come to light. WP:DRVPURPOSE says you can choose to start a DRV in such cases, but that would only be if you think one is warranted (for instance, if you want some other people's opinion on the new sources before starting an article, or want to see the prior content of the article rather than starting a new version from scratch). However, it is definitely not required to use DRV to recreate a deleted article. Conversely, WP:SPEEDY#G4 can only be used when the recreated article is substantially identical to the deleted version. If in this case new sources were listed in the recreated article that weren't present in the deleted version, it should not have been deleted under G4. Calathan (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD1 as within discretion. As an irrelevant technicality overturn AFD2 because the rough consensus was not "speedy delete G4". Overturn the G4 speedy deletion because an admin tells us four additional references had been added and these might affect a BLP1E assessment. It was appropriate to have raised this DRV. Thincat (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn/relist sources about this subject continue to appear, including a multipart documentary. G4 was not appropriateGaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn salt, overturn G4, oveturn 2nd AfD, WP:NPASR  The reasons as stated at [16] don't seem to be valid reasons for using these tools, and the 2nd AfD result was speedy delete as per G4:
  1. 2014-09-18T07:10:40 The ed17 (talk | contribs) protected Belle Knox‎ ‎[create=sysop] (indefinite) (Recently deleted BLP) (hist)
  2. 2014-09-18T07:08:32 The ed17 (talk | contribs) deleted page Belle Knox (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belle Knox (2nd nomination))
Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 September 2014

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
HMS Richmond helicopter crash (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

When I saw Hawkeye7 claiming that the article has "attracted sufficient coverage to write a substantial article about it, so on the face of it meets WP:GNG.", and then when I read his claim that "Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS neither the existence nor the non-existence of similar articles is a factor", I'm afraid I only had conclusion - that he had, at best, just skimmed the debate and article, possibly taking the claims of the keepers regarding coverage and sources at simple face value. A detailed review would have surely seen the objections I had to these ideas, leading at the very least to some explanation as to how I was wrong. I had come to expect being ignored by some of the keepers, especially the ones who seemed to have little or no interest in either what the sources actually contained or the clear intent of rules like EVENT, but I don't expect to be seemingly ignored by the person tasked with making a ruling on the debate. My personal vanity aside, there's also the problem that he appears to be dodging the central issue here, whether or not EVENT is met, by effectively declaring it a 'draw' - an outcome which surely helps absolutely no-one at all, neither keepers or deleters. There were some pretty out there claims made in this debate which appeared to me to absolutely fly in the face of a common sense reading of EVENT/GNG (like the inquest issue), so they surely warrant addressing with a yes or no answer, for the benefit of everyone. Patrol forty (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - This is simply a rehash of the DRV nom's AfD arguments and their meta-discussion as to their own interpretation of WP:EVENT and WP:GNG (the DRV nom's arguments in the AfD used up more bytes than all of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:EVENT combined), which was way out of consensus in this case. Many users, particularly User:Mike Peel, very much addressed the DVR nom's interpretation and consensus was very much in agreement him. --Oakshade (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade is a keeper, so I hope his endorsement and claims of a rehash are ignored as being hopelessly biased. You've got a cheek even mentioning Mike though. I take great issue with what Mike has said, it is flawed, and like your own positions, ignores the contradictions between what you both seem to want Wikipedia to include, and what it actually does (so it can hardly be consensus). And I don't see where anyone agreed with him anyway; certainly if you did at the time, you kept awfully quiet. You had your opportunity to respond to my criticism of his first post, yet you apparently couldn't be bothered. Something about having a life. But I can at least now see that I wouldn't be wasting my time responding to Mike's second post (I didn't see it until after closure, otherwise I would have done). Unlike yourself, Mike is clearly someone who appreciates what a discussion actually is, and can treat people with respect even if he disagrees with them. The delay not withstanding, he has actually read what I wrote, and tailored a specific reply which leaves me in no doubt where he is coming from. He seems to appreciate exactly which parts of is argument come from the rules (without tediously copy-pasting it verbatim, as if the other person is an idiot), and which are closer to personal preference. I hope if he attempts to create articles for some of those other Lynx crashes, he'll get some perspective on how easy it is to write them when they do actually pass EVENT. Patrol forty (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The task of the person closing an AfD is not to make a 'ruling'. It is to assess where the consensus lies, in the context of applicable policies and guidelines. That task often requires discounting !votes that are policy-ignorant. But it does not mean deciding that one or more contributors to the debate have 'won' the argument. Here, the arguments for 'delete' were not so overwhelmingly strong, and the arguments for 'keep' were not so overwhelmingly weak, that a delete outcome was appropriate. Hawkeye7 carried out the task correctly. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The policy context of EVENT is that Wikipedia does not want articles to be written on things like air crashes if the only thing you can put in it is a few facts scraped together from news reports - either at the time or as part of simple recaps after the event. The whole point of EVENT is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper archive, so having evidence of sources which provide an historical interpretation from a secondary perspective in enough breadth/detail to be able to write a proper (i.e. complete and reliable) article is vital. Therefore, if he really thinks the keep voters case was not overwhelmingly weak, he was clearly not even paying attention to the policy context, because not a single keep voter provided any evidence at all that the sources used here were anything but news reports at the time, or simple recaps. The only non news source [17], was a brief recap in a non-independent source, whose accuracy it turns out might not be all that good. Rather than winning by providing not weak enough arguments, the keep side appear to have won the argument by simply deciding not to see these sort of objections, in the apparent hope that the closer would take their claims as read and not even notice that in some cases they simply totally misrepresented what the sources actually were, in the apparent hope of a 'draw' outcome like this.
This is why I expect a ruling, as it's not clear to me whether the article is still here because he thought that source I linked to really is an example of the crash being covered in depth by a reliable independent source as was claimed by keepers, or whether it has been kept in full awareness that it's a brief mention in a non-independent source, whose accuracy is well in doubt thanks to subsequent discoveries (ironically by Mike, one of the keepers). It's not going to help anyone who comes across this article in future and notices all the flaws, inaccuracies and omissions, as well as the serious problems with sources like that, to simply be told that the closer didn't think these objections were not so overwhelmingly strong to require deletion. They will look at that comment, look at EVENT, and quite rightly come to the conclusion Wikipedia's left hand doesn't know what the right one is doing. Those sort of objections clearly don't matter to people like Oakshade, but Wikipedia doesn't exist just to satisfy his personal desire to have an article on anything he personally thinks is 'notable' (but is entirely reluctant to prove it in any way), hence the need for outcomes like this to be reviewed, so others know where they stand. Patrol forty (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, noting that I was both the first delete !voter and one of the strongest advocates for deletion. I still believe it should be deleted but there was no consensus in that discussion for deletion which is exactly what the closing admin concluded. Can't fault that. It was well and truly hashed out with strong arguments from both sides (toward the end; some at the start were just woeful as HJ Mitchell and I discussed). At the end of the day, the community just couldn't come together on this one. In those instances, the result defaults to "keep" (and rightly so). St★lwart111 06:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't seen any other outcome to such an approach other than Wikipedia being continuously filled up with articles which are extremely poor in quality, but which have no hope of being improved (because if the sources really existed to improve them, there wouldn't even be any disagreement in the first place). Patrol forty (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep - meeting WP:N doesn't always mean keep (nor does failing it always mean delete), but it creates a strong presumption that way. Combined with a strong headcount (about 15-5), and a pretty weak delete position that boils down to more or less "I don't find this particularly interesting" a no consensus close is unsupportable. WilyD 07:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same discussion? That opinion never formed even a small part of the deletion argument and about half of the keep votes were completely valueless ("a woman was involved"), as detailed in the discussion itself. St★lwart111 13:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Stalwart says, I find it hard to believe anyone who actually reads that debate, could even begin to describe it that way. Not to mention that finding the topic interesting or not is neither here nor there - it doesn't count either way, per INTERESTING. Bar a few exceptions, out of that supposedly strong headcount of 15, the vast majority seemed to me to think the case for deletion was so strong that their best strategy was to just ignore it - after all, you can't lose an argument that you simply don't engage with. And on that score, for like, the hundredth time, the relevant issue here was obviously whether the article meets EVENT or not. Simplifying the issue to just satisfying WP:N ignores the rather important fact that, certainly under the rather loose definitions of breadth/depth/significance that seem to be in play here, every single fatal crash will always be presumed to be notable enough for Wikipedia purely by virtue of the news coverage they get at the time. I've certainly yet to see a fatal military crash that doesn't get the sort of news coverage this one did. Patrol forty (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you ought to read the discussion. The delete "argument" isn't really engaged because there's not much to engage. Lots of classes of things always get kept; generally because they're rare or important (although professional athelete biographies, for instance, fall in there, which are neither). The delete position trying to argue against policy and against headcount with a weak argument (which even you say shouldn't count either way) can't pull this from keep to no consensus. A willingness to badger people because a position lacks both a policy basis and popular support doesn't make it stronger - it reveals it's weakness. WilyD 07:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's twice you've claimed my argument was weak, and for the second time, you've declined to explain how or why that is the case (except to quite falsely claim the only thing behind it was a belief on my part that it was uninteresting).
I'm sorry if you, like Oakshade, don't like being badgered, but it appears to be the only way to illustrate just how unwilling you are to actually answer what are some very simple questions - the answers of which would be incredibly easy to give if my position was as weak as is claimed. Such as, if EVENT says an article should demonstrate PERSISTENCE of INDEPTH sourcing in RELIABLE SECONDARY sources giving a BROAD overview of the topic, in enough DETAIL to be able to write a complete and well rounded article on the subject from a historical perspective, then why is it that the sources currently in it (and in Mike's draft) singularly fail to do so, unless we entertain quite ludicrous positions such as this idea that news reporting of inquests into fatal military air crashes is some how remarkably unusual and non-routine (which is a complete fantasy), or that brief mentions in MoD publications are somehow non-independent and examples of deep and detailed coverage (which is practically delusional).
The only people revealing their weakness are those of you who continue to ignore these glaring issues, which all combine to result in an article which is frankly worthless, if the goal is to explain to readers how this particular crash, to the exclusion of all the other fatal Lynx crashes, was historically notable or significant. Take a look around, one of the classes of things that seem to get deleted with great consistency on Wikipedia are articles on fatal military air crashes which had no historical importance or significant impact on aviation or the military, or otherwise were largely forgotten, except as part of recap style reporting when things like memorial services or newer crashes occur. And obviously, for something to be considered historically significant, under Wikipedia's own rules, it's not enough for individual editors to simply say they found it INTERESTING for reason x/y/z, or to point out that it meets GNG (while completely ignoring EVENT), and then simply count their heads while pretending the other side's arguments never even existed (that's effectively what you're doing by claiming they're weak without a shred of evidence or further explanation to back up that claim).
The sad truth is, I suspect the only reason the article was created was Harry noticed the train name (he has written at least one other article where a train is named), and he then simply assumed (without checking at all) that the depth and gender aspects which are briefly mentioned in sources, had been covered in enough detail by reliable secondary sources to make this crash notable enough for Wikipedia. Clearly, that's not true (or if it is, nobody here is willing to prove it any time soon), otherwise there'd be something more to say about it than what little is already there, and what little is said wouldn't be open to challenge on grounds of failing VERIFY/SYNTHESIS as detailed below. He seems to have paid absolutely no attention to EVENT or how Wikipedia has dealt with similar topics (i.e. by not having articles about them for reasons that are clearly not just effort related), and apparently nobody else cares that this is the case either. Right from the very outset he was making claims that the article's own sourcing doesn't support, and that nobody else has shown can be proven with more sources either ("the Royal Navy's first loss of a female pilot an aspect which generated significant media attention").
Its retention seems to be down to nothing more than it fits an apparent desire in many of the keepers for Wikipedia to simply be one giant archive for every single detail that's ever been reported in the news, and leave it up to the reader to decide if the time it takes to interpret it (and indeed fact check it) is truly worth it - something which isn't much different to just pointing people to the Google News archives. Patrol forty (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The clarity of the consensus is what I am contesting. I'd say that if this consensus was as clear as you say, I wouldn't be having such a hard time getting some specifics about what it actually decided, such as the whether or not a news report on a coroners inquiry is an example of PERSISTENCE, or whether or not that MoD source is an example of DEPTH. And on a point of order, having researched the article and sources thoroughly, I thought I had made it quite clear in the debate that I had found evidence of multiple other policy violations (which only exist precisely because the quality of the sourcing is far below what an objective observer would say was being asked for by EVENT). If anyone here needs a reminder, they are:
  • 1. A crucial component of what would be considered a 'finished' version of this article, the crash investigation conclusion, can only apparently be sourced to the crash report itself (published in 2005). As these are highly technical documents, the likelihood of ORIGINAL RESEARCH occurring whenever an editor attempts their own summarisation of this PRIMARY source, is high. It goes without saying, this wouldn't be an issue for a notable crash, because the report would have been analysed and summarised by secondary sources.
  • 2. The depth claim is sourced only to a PRIMARY source which is in no way independent of the subject (MoD). Its accuracy is in doubt since it contains other statements of fact which are later contradicted by other releases from the same source. So it can be argued that, by including this claim, the article fails VERIFY.
  • 3. The true facts regarding the gender claim are not clear - due to the scarcity of sourcing there are two different versions of what this death might have signified in that context (either first RN pilot/observer killed in service, or the first female RN servicewoman killed at all). Both of those claims can be traced back to PRIMARY sources, with no independence to the subject. So again, like the depth claim, it can be argued this is another failure to adhere to VERIFY.
  • 4. The article contains no proof at all, not even in a PRIMARY source, that the reason for the locomotive naming was as an act of dedication/memorialisation of the crash itself (the topic of the article), or by extension, the two dead crew. What it does contain are sourced statements that it was meant to memorialise only Lewis (who is not the subject), and to mark for posterity her love of trains/Devon (as opposed to marking for posterity her being the first female to die in this particular job). The article also makes it clear that the decisions was clearly not made independent of the subject (her father being a major donor). For all those reasons, if people are going to claim this crash is notable because of this train naming, this can be said to be a violation of ORIGINAL RESEARCH.
  • 5. Keeping an article on an aircrash simply because 15 people claim it was historically notable, but which any actual reader of it is going to find out very quickly doesn't contain a single secondary source that's not simply basic news reporting, i.e. it contains absolutely no content from a source which has actually analysed and interpreted the crash, which happened 12 years ago, from a historical perspective, seems to me to be a very obvious violation of COMMONSENSE, since Wikipedia would clearly be improved by not misleading readers into thinking this is what it considers proper selection and curation of notable air crashes to record for all time
  • Obviously none of 2-4 above is meant to be an assertion that any of the claims are actually false (I can't say they are any better than the next person), merely that they can't ever be proven in a way that adheres to Wikipedia's rules (due to the scarcity of sources, particularly RELIABLE SECONDARY ones). And to point out the obvious, if the 15 people claiming this crash was notable had nothing to say on these issues, either because they just never read them, or otherwise just ignored them, that hardly suggests the consensus is clear at all (I'm not going to go back and do a thorough review to be absolutely certain, but from memory, I don't recall a single keeper addressing a single thing about points 2 to 4, not even just to say I was just wrong).
  • And lastly, having looked up SPA, I'd like to know precisely why you thought this was even relevant. On what basis are you seeking to dismiss my views on the basis that my only interest in Wikipedia is the issue of why this article was kept, despite being a pretty clear violation of EVENT. Quite apart from the fact that I have clearly benefited Wikipedia by ensuring that the Lynx article at least mentions some of the other crashes which are easily more notable than this crash, I'd like to know how anything I might have said or done in this matter might be considered to be engaged in pushing an "unsuitable agenda"? Patrol forty (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note with some trepidation that Mike Peel, perhaps confident that nobody here is likely to waste any more time on the issue of debating whether or not the crash is actually notable in a robust manner, has already apparently begun working on the article, or at least on an alternate draft - User:Mike Peel/Richmond. As I feared, rather than being expanded with material from reliable secondary sources that would actually go some way to proving it meets EVENT, the main thrust of the effort appears to be:

  • adding material directly interpreted/summarized from the PRIMARY source of crash report (not even for this crash, but a much later one) - presumably because that's the only one accessible on-line
  • adding information from unreliable sources (unless someone can convince me the folks of the Wolverhampton Aviation Group, the people behind http://www.ukserials.com/, are to be considered reliable).
  • adding yet more material directly from news reports at the time, bringing it ever closer to the point where the article truly will be simply a complete archival record of all the news reporting of the incident

It should be obvious by now that the only reason he is having to resort to this, rather than add anything from the sort of source that that would address any of the problems I just listed above, is because the crash is simply not notable in the true sense of EVENT - whatever looser interpretation (if not complete disregard) others, 15 or otherwise, want to apply to it. Patrol forty (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been spending a bit of time working through the existing material in the article, and the references that support it, to double-check that everything in there is currently verifiable. I've added a couple of refs I found by a quick google search to back up currently unreferenced material added by Patrol forty (thanks for adding that content, BTW!), and I've done a bit of work to track down the complete ref that I mentioned an extract from during the deletion debate that gives a summary of this crash in a crash report of another helicopter. The next step, once I'm happy with what's there at the moment, would be to do a more in-depth search for references to add new material in the article - I haven't yet got on to that. Please be patient and don't make assumptions. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had already found the complete ref and linked to it in the deletion debate, specifically I mentioned it in the reply directly to you, while listing all the issues that using it would raise if you couldn't find anything better. If you intend to work on this article, then sooner or later you're going to have to deal with these issues, even if nobody here cares to. Since these are all issues which fundamentaly undermine the article as a piece of encyclopedic writing, these should have been addressed at the proposed deletion stage. And I really shouldn't have to keep repeating this - the very idea that you would even need to to an "in-depth search for references" to add more material, for a crash which was already claimed to meet EVENT ("easily" by some), is yet further proof that this crash isn't even close to meeting it.
Given the time-frame, everything you would require would already be easily available on the net, or at the least the titles of the books you would need to go and find at a library would have been revealed by now. Rather than doing this, you should be looking for sources which actually fix the inconsistencies and omissions already present in it (listed above, but ignored, yet again) precisely because of how poorly sourced it was before, and would also give readers some reason to believe that this particular crash, out of all other fatal Lynx crashes, was indeed historically notable or significant (not just simply recalled now and then, for reasons which have very little to do with the actual crash).
Just scraping together yet more of the same from all available news content and apparently unreliable enthusiast sites, as well as performing your own analysis of the PRIMARY source of the report, isn't going to do that. Not now, or in the future - which is why patience is not really relevant here. For me not to assume the worst here, there needs to be some recognition from you that you're approach so far has done nothing to improve this article's notability credentials or actual quality, except perhaps to move it yet one more step closer to being a complete archive of all the available news reporting on it, with a few more details added which even the news reports didn't feel the need to include (not a problem if they are being noted in reliable secondary coverage, but they aren't). Maybe that's what you believe Wikipedia should be, but as anyone can see, no matter what their opinion on the particulars is, that's not what it is supposed to be, if EVENT is to be believed. Patrol forty (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kiyoshi Shiina (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Substantial updates to article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrazyAces489/shiina CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow re-creation (move to mainspace). the AfD is old, and it was contested, and the new sources are reasonable at least to overcome WP:CSD#G4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation  I haven't seen the previous article, but this article has lots of sources and appears to have good content and good inline citations.  Needs work on the format of the references, which does not prevent re-creation or WP:Verifiability.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 September 2014

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Edmund F. Brennan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This deletion appears rather clearly inappropriate. Brennan is a federal magistrate, and US magistrate judges are generally notable under WP:NPOL. A quick check of the Google cache[18] shows a reasonable stub, adequately sourced, with an inappropriate sentence tacked on about a third party, probably earlier this week. Rather than deleting the article entirely, the inappropriate text should have been removed, probably RevDel'd. The deleting admin, Carlossuarez46, refuses to correct this, saying on my talk page "some admin would probably ignore BLP for you". The existing text (aside from recent addition) appears to be an adequate and appropriate stub, but I can't cut-and-paste it from the Google cache without violating attribution requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: while the above complains about notability - a Strawman argument - it was an attack page, and the source had nothing about the attack even in a NPOV manner and no version without the attack. Per WP:G10, "Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met." Have they been? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't an attack page. It appears to have been a perfectly legitimate article (just look at the Google cache!) with two lines tacked on about a defendant on a case the magistrate was handling. Per WP:ATTACK, "If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject of the article, and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place." It looks like the offensive content was added earlier this week by User:Forthe1789usconstitution, who vandalized at least one related article, and could easily have been suppressed. There ought to be a "clean" version in the article history. Even in the less likely event that it was created including the offensive content, that could easily have been removed to create the "appropriate stub" that WP:ATTACK. which is policy, calls for. And that's why the subject's undisputed notabily is not a "strawman argument", because relevant policy calls for particular action based on it -- but you did something different. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As should have been evident from my phrasing, I couldn't tell that. Nobody posted a notice in the creator's talk page, so I couldn't identify the creator. I don't have access to a deleted article's history. But, per WP:ATTACK, which is policy, the subject was clearly notable, and you should have created an "appropriate stub." By restoring the article and using RevDel to excise the attack -- which is on a third party, not the article subject -- policy would be satisfied. I don't have the tools to do that directly, and can't cut-and-paste from the Google cache without violating attribution requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are federal magistrates really notable? Is this one notabl? I get that WP:NPOL says judges who hold nation-wide or state-wide offices are presumed notable, but magistrates are a long way down the judicial food chain. There are over 500 in the US. I'm not seeing any significant coverage in reliable sources: just his brief dot-point official bio on the court website, and a range of newspaper articles that mention him, incidentally, as the magistrate handing down such-and-such an interlocutory order. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have not in the few instances I recmember held them automatically notable (as contrasted to US District Court judges and higher). DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I moved this here from a posting in the wrong section-DGG) Good evening. Why was my posting for Judge Edmund F. Brennan deleted? What was the offense or problem? The man is a setting Judge for a U.S. Federal Court System, has been so since 2006, and has been with the Department of Justice since 1988. In public service since 1974. Its a legitimate posting. And facts that I grabbed directly from his bio. Additionally he set free a person of interest in a California case, that I am interested in that is related to, "Operation Broken Trust" a federal ponzi scheme investigation ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthe1789usconstitution (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering this and his mistaken views on a number of policies and guidelines (based on his statements in a number of the 51 AfDs he recently filed within two days), I'm shocked that Carlossuarez46 has the mop. WP:ATTACK doesn't say -- and never has -- that nothing disparaging can ever be said about a subject or anyone else in the article; it simply stipulates that negative statements must be adequately sourced and should not be of undue weight within the article. It is, unfortunately, no surprise to me that rather than taking the two seconds necessary to remove the inappropriate text, Carlossuarez46's response was to delete the article altogether. Ravenswing 08:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the article was not at all close to being a G10 candidate. Most of it was a bland summary of the subject's career, referenced to [19]. The only sentence which was at all objectionable was one which said the subject was involved in legal proceedings related to a certain named criminal. Without a source that was indeed a BLP violation but it was hardly justification for deleting the page. Removing that one sentence (and using revdel if deemed necessary) would have been enough. An attack page is a page "that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material which is entirely negative in tone and unsourced". Since the article didn't say anything negative about the subject, didn't threaten the subject, wasn't entirely (or even mostly) negative in tone and wasn't unsourced it was not an attack page and deletion on these grounds was not appropriate. Hut 8.5 09:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I can't endorse the G10, for all the very good reasons given above. But, having pondered my question (posed above) further, and made a fairly exhaustive search for reliable sources, I don't think there is any reasonable prospect of the subject meeting our notability guidelines. It takes an overly literal reading of WP:NPOL to suggest that a lowly federal magistrate -- one of over 500 -- is notable. They are the US equivalent of registrars, who carry out the administrative functions of a court and exercise fairly narrow judicial functions delegated to them by judges. But, much more importantly, WP:NPOL aside, the significant coverage in reliable sources just isn't there. Nowhere near it, in fact. All we seem to have from his eight-year judicial career (aside from his dot-point official bio, which isn't independent) is the occasional mention, in coverage of a particular criminal case, that the subject issued a particular order like denying bail (eg [20] and [21]). No-one has written anything about Mr Brennan: who he is, what his judicial philosophy is, etc. So nor should we. Now, I'm normally loathe to turn DRV into a quasi-AfD like this. But I think it is such a clear-cut case for non-notability that we shouldn't be going through the bureaucratic hoops of restoring the article then going through an AfD.--Mkativerata (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to afd The purpose of deletion review is not just to correct problems with articles, but to send appropriate messages to administrators that what they're doing is not what is expected. It's happened to me once, a good long time ago and the overturn made quite an impression. It's also important for all the rest of us to see that an overturn will happen when appropriate. Frankly, there should be more such brought here. I often don't because the result will be deletion anyway, but then the admin goes uncorrected. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - If it was deemed an attack page and deleted, then that is within admin discretion. However, any editor who feels the subject is indeed notable may begin a draft article in their userspace, and it can go to ASfD if someone feels it is necessary. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't an attack page, either technically or in substance. It was a reasonable biography of a judicial official with a brief, unsourced negative comment about a third party. It didn't qualify for db-attack because the negative comment wasn't about the principal subject of the article and because, as Ravenswing accurately points out, the inappropriate content could easily have been removed, leaving an appropriate text. Admin discretion doesn't extend anywhere near this far. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - if the page was deemed an attack page and there was no good version to restore, then deletion was correct, and I'm absolutely comfortable with admins having wide latitude to exercise that judgement. However, the gcache version linked above (and again here) shows a version that is very, very far from an attack page, and was certainly nowhere close to "entirely negative in tone" or existing "primarily to disparage or threaten its subject". That or a similarly neutral version should have been restored as part of due process by the deleting admin. Following this, we have processes for dealing with unsourced BLPs and nominating non-notable bios for deletion, none of which fall under speedy criteria and none of which were exercised here. At the very least, the deleting admin should have acknowledged this and restored the article when asked. Frankly, and with due respect, Carlossuarez46 stepped way over the line here; his poor understanding of WP:G10 and stubborn refusal to follow community guidelines when his error was pointed out show appalling behaviour from an admin. Ivanvector (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, this piece needs to be restored for DRV. If it is an attack piece, restore some pared back version so we can at least see the history. DRV is not an administrators-only process. Carrite (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have temporary restored the article -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Sutton twin towns mural – Somewhere between moot and no consensus. There is a fair amount of sentiment here that the AfD should be relisted, but I think it would be pushing it to say there's consensus to relist. In any case, it's kind of a moot point. There's nothing to keep somebody from nominating it for deletion again, so there's really nothing to do here. Sometimes (often?) when an article is brought back to AfD shortly after a previous discussion closes, the new AfD is administratively shut down as too soon for another nomination. What I will do in this case is state for the record that anybody is free to bring it back to AfD immediately without the it's too soon argument shutting things down – -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sutton twin towns mural (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am aware that the votecount in the above discussion is quite clear. However, according to me and the lone person who shared my view, most of the keeps were based on reasons that were either not policy- or guideline-based, or were votes where the policy or guideline had no relation to what was in the article. I have tried to raise my concerns with the closing admin at User talk:Philg88#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutton twin towns mural, but he clearly has no interest in giving any further explanation than "it was a strong consensus". To me, it looks as if the closing admin did nothing but a quick votecount, which goes against the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators (see his statement about "the will of the community"). I argue that if one follows the definition given there of "rough consensus", especially the part reading "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." was applicable here, and that the closing admin has not followed this definition (and surely has refused to adequately explain his closure). So, despite the clear votecount, I ask for this AfD to be reopened and to let another admin decide the outcome based this time on an actual determination of rough consensus instead of a votecount. The actual debate about the validity of arguments can be found at the AfD, no need to rehash it in this nomination. Fram (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not overturn keep* I notice that most of the "keeps" in the AFD cited WP:PERSISTENCE, which I must admit is actually about persistent coverage in media over a period of time, rather than persistence of a graffiti mural for over 20 years. However, I believe that the !voters actually meant to say that, if a supposedly temporary artwork is actually preserved over such a long period of time, and is praised by its local council, then it is notable enough for an article. (And they just assumed that WP:PERSISTENCE actually said this.) In this particular instance, I agree with them. I am quite sure that this unusual street art would have been mentioned in press over the last 20 years - it is just that most of these mentions are not available online. There is the possibility of merger with Sutton High Street; however, I feel that the street art is genuinely notable, whereas the High Street itself may not pass the notability threshold. Bluap (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the mural was supposed to be temporary, this is not some illegal graffiti that suddenly gets accepted but a project that was either condoned or supported by the council from the start (most schools don't encourage their school children to participate in illegal street art). Not every work of art in public spaces is notable, no matter how long it stays. Most cities are filled with sculptures with little to no notability, next to some works of art with lots of notability of course. Fram (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not clear at the moment what the policy (sic) issues are though I see allusions such as "let's twist policy beyond recognition", "arguments that contradict policy". This is important (to me anyway) because of what it says in WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators "a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no more common in deletion than in any other area". Is there a reason why this would clearly be improper in the present case? Also, we seem to be lacking any policy-based (or guideline-based) reason against redirection or merging, particularly in the light of "Delete All this mural needs is a mention in Sutton High Street" in the AFD discussion. Thincat (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy reasons are that PERSISTENCE is not applied correctly (we have three sources, spanning two days), NOTABILITY (guideline) isn't applied correctly (we have one local rewrite of the press release, printed identical in two local (versions of) papers, and one reprint of the press release in a local advert paper, so nothing beyond routine, local, one-off coverage), and arguments like "it's the summer of monuments" are completely beyond the pale (apparently the AfD should have waited until the summer was over?). The reverse objection which you raise here, that no good arguments have been made against redirection, has merit, but redirection wasn't really discussed anyway. As a compromise, it would probably have been acceptable, but both sides were rather entrenched. And of course, the DRV only focuses on whether the closing admin has correctly applied the guide for closing admins, which is impossible to determine from his closure or subsequent responses, and for which there are counterarguments (in my view, how convincing others find them is not up to me). Fram (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as within the closer's discretion. I doubt I'd have voted this way myself, but there's no content violating any significant content policy and no clear reason to reject the expressed consensus. It's not a BLP, where stricter review could be appropriate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Misinterpretation of policy in the arguments, accepted without comment by the closer. The votecount is irrelevant, since most of the !votes were basically "everything is notable". Whether or not that actually means that in this case "I like it", Closers are expected to disregard such reasons. Of course, we can simply have a new afd. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or simply start over again with a new AfD. I don't mind. These rare cases where one side of an AfD clearly has the numbers, but the other side clearly has the arguments, do put the closer in a difficult position. I think this case was a failure of the whole AfD process and it should be referred back to AfD for another go. That's a safer course than overturning to "delete". I'll have my !vote there. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "No Consensus". I'd be fine with a relist but I think that it is worthwhile to note that the close and not only the debate was problematic. WP:PERSISTENCE does not apply by it's terms and Carptrash's comment is a non-argument. Excluding those, the other Keeps are weak, but not in my view invalid. That leaves a couple of reasonably strong, policy based deletes and some week keeps. I think Bencherlite's suggestion of coverage in a wider context is a good idea, but whether that means merging, redirecting, or even deleting this article is a question to be decided at AfD rather than here. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At most, overturn (from "Strong consensus to keep" to "Rough consensus to keep). Well within admin discretion. The close reflected the discussion. If the communty is getting something wrong, a better explanation is needed, not an adminstrative overrule. Advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion applies. Wait a few months and make a more persuasive deletion argument. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think a more persuasive deletion argument is useful if people are allowed to vote "keep" with whatever reason they wany, no matter how wrong it is (for this case). All that is needed is gathering the most voters, something which AfD was designed to discourage. Fram (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's very useful is participants in the discussion pointing out the weakness of others' !votes. This can be especially powerful if laid out in a fresh nomination. The closer is encouraged to discount !votes validly criticised in the discussion, and discouraged (WP:SUPERVOTE) from performing their own original analysis of !votes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - everyone argued keep (although Bencherlite labelled their comment "delete", the argument doesn't support deletion, but merging (which is fundamentally keep outcome). I couldn't in good conscious close a discussion as delete when everyone who commented favoured keeping (excluding the nominator, but still). I would have probably gone with "no consensus", but I don't think I can explicitly say "keep" is wrong. "Strong keep" is too much. But ultimately, piddling between the various (adjective) keeps isn't worthwhile, so Endorse? WilyD 11:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (after commenting above). Taking WP:Notability as a strict set of rules, I expect this topic fails but, of course, it is against the guideline to treat the notability criteria in a rule-based manner. I doubt the reporting being local is in itself of great significance. Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) is of interest although that is a failed proposal. I can't see policy grounds for deleting the article. So, I don't think a relist at AFD would be at all abusive (the discussion was weak on both sides) but I wish a redirect (after merging additional material?) was being pursued rather than outright deletion. Thincat (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse outcome - although a more detailed analysis by the closer may have been appreciated, this result was within the closer's discretion and I don't see any procedural reason to reopen the discussion. At the far end, I might have called this "no consensus for deletion" which would result in a keep anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - One might differ with use of the adjective "strong," but pretty clearly a consensus that this meets GNG, which it does. Carrite (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 September 2014

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Overt-Kill (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Despite a consensus of 5 Keeps vs 2 Deletes, closing admin went against consensus. Closing admin feels that the keeps were "I like it", when maybe one could be read that way, the others speak to the sourcing. Ignored is the fact that the 2 deletes cited "no sources" before sourcing was added. I'm not one to canvass so I thought the piece would stand on its own merits. How can an !vote for delete for lack of sources be valid when there are sources any more than an alleged "keep it because I like it"? Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I stand by the closing rationale given. In addition, I copy from my talk page: "I had a look again at the AfD debate, the article, and the sources and [...] I stand by my decision [...]. Please note that AfD is not a vote (which is why we call opinions "!votes" and not "votes"...). The closing admin has to evaluate the opinions expressed in the light of policy. In the current case, only one of the keep !votes was policy based, the others just said "I know it" or "I like it" or something similar. The sources were trivial mentions (or even did not discuss the character at all) and none of them provided any out-of-universe notability." --Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment unless you looked at a completely different article or someone deleted everything I added just prior to your decision, those sources were not "in universe". 2 involved the 2 different lawsuits over ownership/copyright, one involved an action figure, two spoke to the creation of the character at the behest of Stan Lee on a cable TV show and one mentioned the character's appearance on HBO and the ctor who provided the voice. I'm not doing this to upset your 90% close as delete rate, I honestly feel this one was a mistake.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without seeing the content it's difficult to tell, my leaning at this point would be towards delete, given the things like the bizarre keep suggesting that wikipedia policy shouldn't be a factor in keeping or deleting. A brief look for some of the sources mentioned didn't reveal much for me (though it wasn't extensive). Can this be temp restored?--86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. —Cryptic 19:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse of the sources added since the AFD began we have a passing mention in the washington times, a reference to comics where the character appears (primary, non-independent sources), reference to where the character was created (again primary, non-independent) and the ref to "African Americans and Popular Culture" which I don't have access to the page referenced, though given the material in the pages I can access I'd be surprised if there was a lot of depth to it. This seems to me that these new sources were unlikely to change the minds of those who already commented, since they still seem to fail to be non-trivial or 3rd party. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closer correctly summarized the appropriate weight given to the arguments presented. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closer was entirely justified in giving little or no weight to arguments such as "I've heard of it", "this one is popularity and good" and a bizarre exhortation not to cite policies in comments. AfDs are not votes and the raw count of people on each side (which the OP has got wrong anyway) makes little difference. Hut 8.5 22:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I read the first half of that policy one as sarcasm and he goes on to state that the sources are reliable. But you guys will do what you want, I just thought the closure was incorrect. Even if you throw out the ESA "popularity" one and ironically throw out mine (admittedly I was frustrated by the nominator, but his behavior is not the subject here) it still comes out to 3-3 which should be no consensus. I guess the message I'm taking from this is to canvass after improving an article to change people's minds. Thanks for clearing that up.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That comment didn't strike me as sarcastic at all. It does seem that the editor thought that personal opinions should trump arguments based on policies, which isn't going to get very far in an AfD. And the comment doesn't go on to say the sources are reliable, it goes on to say that "I have seen various sources online although probably not as many as the nominator wants", which isn't the same thing at all. Your 3-3 count is including one of "this one is popularity and good" and "appears to have enough information to be notable" as a valid argument and again AfDs aren't closed on raw numbers, even after discarding invalid arguments. Hut 8.5 06:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So two votes saying "No sources" before the article has sources carries more weight than that? Whatever dude.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse - not particularly strong arguments from either side and the admin did what he could. I suppose it could have been re-listed but the conspiratorial comment at the end was probably enough to discourage further and wider community input. At the end of the day, the "delete" contributions were weaker including some outright bizarre comments like the suggestion that "keep" opinions amounted to "constantly quoting Wikipedia acronyms" when, by that point, not a single WP acronym had been linked. St★lwart111 08:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The community expects that its notability guidelines get followed. There is always room for interpretation about how to apply those guidelines, and there is even room to create exceptions to them in individual cases. But because the community expects that guidelines generally be followed, administrators are not only entitled, but in my view required, to give less weight to contributions that are plainly at odds with the guidelines or give no reasons for creating exceptions to them. The closing admin acted in accordance with this principle here, and the outcome was accordingly correct. With bonus points for picking up the redirect option that no-one else identified. Just one thought -- and this is not intended as a criticism of the closing admin -- perhaps had the admin instead weighed in with a very strong and compelling delete !vote, another admin would have come along and closed it as delete. Then, in light of that concluding strong and compelling delete !vote, the chance of the AfD ending up here might have been a bit lower. Or maybe not. Just a thought. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD closers aren't just encouraged to weigh the given arguments, they're actually required to, and given the incredibly poor arguments on display from the Keep side, the closing admin really had no choice. They ran the gamut from very poor ("I've heard of this character") to bizarre and nonsensical (a comment that people's comments shouldn't be based on policy) to absolutely pants-on-head WTF bizarre and nonsensical ("Keep this one is popularity and good" -no, really, it says that). A dozen, a thousand, or a million more comments of equal quality would still not have carried the debate. Since the level of discourse hasn't exactly risen in this DRV ("Whatever dude."), there's really not a lot to discuss. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, not the best set of arguments ever presented in an AFD, but an admin has to work with what they get. None of the arguments were great but most of the Keep ones were especially feeble, so the close is reasonable to my eyes. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse close and yet restore an earlier sourced version. Ignoring the keep arguments, and closer's discretion aside, the article was sourced and appears to show suitable notability for a fictional element... IE: sourcing speaking toward the topic need not be solely about the topic. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Susan Lindauer – Relist at AfD. It would be very easy to close this DRV as no consensus. Numerically, the arguments are running slightly in favor of overturn, but not enough to call this a consensus to overturn. Further complicating things is that much of the discussion here has been a rahash of the AfD, to the point where it's hard to tease out what's arguments about process and what's arguments about the article itself. In the end, however, what matters to the encyclopedia is deciding if the article meets our standards, and the place to do that is AfD. So, I'm going to undelete this for now and relist it on AfD with no prejudice either way. There, we can have a clean discussion of the merits of the article, unfettered by arguments about process. And, hopefully, what will come out of that is a clean consensus one way or the other. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Susan Lindauer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted based on arguments such as "fails notability as a person. Also smells of WP:promo for her book" and BLP1E for her trial. Her references span over 10 years from her trip to Iraq, her incarceration, to her antiwar activity, to her book. She has a full profile in the New York Times Magazine that runs 5 pages. There are four references to her in the current Google News which covers only the past 60 days. There is no BLP1E for her trial, there was no trial, at an administrative hearing she was found incompetent to stand trial. That people are using the article to push their point of view about her, should not be a reason to delete. Every current president has that problem with their article. She seems to have become a symbol for conspiracy theorists, and readers need a fact based biography of her. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse- DRV is not a venue to re-argue the AfD, which is all this nomination is doing. There is no indication that the closing admin has judged consensus wrongly. As it happens, I think the closer judged consensus correctly. Reyk YO! 06:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cogently pointed out above that "fails notability as a person" is not correct at all. You can't have a 5 page profile in the New York Times Magazine and 10 years of coverage in Google News Archive and Google Scholar and contemporary hits in Google News and "fail notability". If "fails notability as a person" was consider as a valid reason for deletion, then the original AFD count was flawed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All you're doing is re-arguing the AfD, which is not what this venue is for, and badgering everyone who said "endorse". The consensus at the AfD was to delete, and the closer judged it right. Reyk YO! 23:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Deletion Review may be used: if there was a substantive procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion". This is not re-arguing or badgering, it is Wikipedia policy: 1) The count was flawed, "fails notability as a person" should not count, multiple reliable sources say she is notable. The actual policy reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." 2) BLP1E is also incorrect she meets all three criteria to be excluded from that policy. 3) The AFD was done stealthily with none of the contributors to the article notified. 4) The actual count, including bad arguments, was a tie, and should have defaulted to no consensus. Remember AFD is not a vote, the arguments have to be policy based and be a correct interpretation of policy. 5) SpringandFall voted twice, first to delete and then, after consideration, voted to keep without removing their initial vote. Someone struck SpringandFall's second keep !vote and kept SpringandFall's first delete !vote. The proper thing to do would have been to keep SpringandFall's second !vote, not their initial !vote. Or contact them to ask which is their final !vote, not to delete the one that goes against the way you !voted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were no substantive procedural errors though. Claiming that certain arguments "should not count" is just you being sour that you didn't get your way. The community reached a consensus that this person did not meet notability requirements, their opinions were well argued in terms of policy, and the closer accurately gauged consensus. That's all there is to it. Just because you think people ought to have had a different opinion does not mean the close should be overturned. Reyk YO! 05:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All I can do is again quote policy to counter your emotional argument about me being "sour": Wikipedia:Notability says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." If someone argues the opposite and it is counted as valid, we have a procedural error. Her father owns a newspaper but he does not own the New York Times and the Washington Post, so they are independent reliable sources. Again, I am quoting actual policy whereas you are arguing that people's opinions are valid without explaining what makes those opinions valid. People expressing their opinions are voting, AFD is not a vote. For an opinion to be counted it must be backed up by actual policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This is a closer case than I'd expected, and ordinarily someone whose reported criminal conduct is attributed to mental illness shouldn't be singled out for an article here. But this subject was given extensive, high-visibility coverage, including repeated coverage by the New York Times including a full-length profile, and there appear to be a significant number of examples of coverage in sources turned up via GBooks (discounting conspiracy theory claptrap). I don't believe the closer properly measured the invocations of BLP1E and PERP against the actual policies (admittedly a more difficult task than usual here); they're a bad fit when there's no article on the purported crime/event, and the person has been so substantively covered in national media (not merely wire service pickups of local news). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn / Consider Relisting The AfD was a farce on both sides, with apparent sockpuppets supporting retention and brain-dead ignorance of dozens of reliable and verifiable sources combined with misinterpretation of BLP1E on the deletion side. A search of The New York Times (see here) turns up more than a dozen sources about the subject that clearly demonstrate notability, including an extremely lengthy article about the subject in the Sunday Magazine, all of which was ignored and unmentioned by the closing administrator, let alone the hundreds of other available sources. Even ignoring her own book, which is hardly typical of someone seeking to remain under the radar, this Google Books search turns up more than a dozen mentions in other books. This is someone who clearly meets WP:N and the keeps, deletes and closing administrator all seemed to fail here in their own unique way. Alansohn (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. Thanks first to User:Mkativerata who took the trouble to notify me of this discussion when the original nominator did not.
I acknowledge that this was a difficult discussion to close (in fact, it was several days overdue, perhaps because other admins didn't want to touch it with the proverbial 20 foot pole), largely due to a number of SPAs gracing us with their presence. I found the rationale advanced by User:TheRedPenOfDoom and User:Tgeairn to be the most convincing offered. Filtering out keep arguments that were basically WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSNOTABLE and the like, there were also two editors that made a decent go of making a policy based argument. One seemed to argue that Lindauer was a high-profile individual and thus WP:BLP1E did not apply, but I found this unpersuasive and the argument did not appear to gain much traction with the other participants. Another suggested that while a biography might not be appropriate, an article on the event itself might pass muster. I have no opinion on that, but we were dealing with a biography, not an article on an event.
This DRV seems to be introducing new information to the case, but obviously I was not able to consider arguments that had not been made. The proper time to make them would have been when the article was at AFD. In any case, I don't see anything particularly compelling that would indicate that this is anything other than a case of WP:ONEEVENT or that the article should be undeleted. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Of course if anyone who worked on the original article had been notified they would had participated, but this was done as a stealth deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse the NYT "profile" is of a perp before her trial which is about her trip to Iraq about which her case was dismissed-BLP1E. her book is self published and primarily mentioned in other self published conspiracy theory propaganda -no significant coverage in reliable sources. there was no misreading of BLP1E by the closer, even with the "newly introduced " evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The search " 'Susan Lindauer' Extreme Prejudice" gives 705 results in GBooks and 56 in GScholar, that is a high impact for a self published book. None of the three criteria for BLP1E are met in this case. 1. She is still in the news over 10 years later, and the events consists of her trip, incarceration, and the continuing mentions in the news as an example of medicating a person against their will to make them competent to stand trial, and her continuing antiwar activity. 2. she is not a private person because she published an autobiography and she has over a dozen interviews at news outlets on YouTube. 3. A 5 page profile in the NY Times is about her, it contains full biographical information. This is not a person in the news for a DUI, or for shoplifting, or celebrity gossip, those are what BLP1E are meant to exclude. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9/11 conspiracy theorists are an extremely prolific bunch. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Google News and Google Scholar think the topic is notable, why is it that you do not? I think you are trying to get rid of the article not based on notability in multiple reliable sources, but because you do not like the fringe following of the topic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank the closer for his dealing with a SPA-ridden AFD and then Overturn and return article to mainspace. Coverage over a many-years period and for different aspects of her life, including her book, prevent this from being simply a BLPIE, and per WP:NRVE... [22] [23] [24] [25] [26], such wide significant coverage implies notability enough for these pages. Editors may like her politics or hate them, but such PPOV notwithstanding, we have coverage enough for inclusion herein. Issues with content or style would require regular editing, not deletion. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as a violation of the principles of BLP. If there is sufficient press coverage, we cover the subject; the bar at BLP for what counts as significant for negative or potentially material is appropriately higher, especially for matters of mere gossip. This however, is a political case of substantial historical interest, and the coverage shows it. It is not the function of wikipedia to pretend the world is better than it is. Normally, the NYT is an appropriate standard, as they tend to be very conservative on this sort of coverage. OneEvent is not applicable to matters of public or political concern, but just to accidents, routine crimes, and the like. Political crimes are politics, not routine criminal matters. If the principles of BLP were not sufficiently considered during the AfD, then we can revisit the matter and take them into account. In any case, this was not a proper close, for the closer in the end closed a disputed situation in accordance with what seems to be his own opinion. Personal opinion is not the proper approach to BLP. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Comically bad close - close explicitly discounts "keep" heads on the grounds of socking/meating, where it seems the "delete" camp is mostly socks/meats. If one discounts the heads, you're left with a person who's a) been biographically profiled in the New York Times, and b) Been the subject of continued press interest for several years. If one actually reads WP:ONEEVENT, it's pretty clear that it refers to people covered as context to an event, not people who become famous because of one event; admins shouldn't be closing discussions on the basis of policies they don't understand. (Better would be if people didn't try to invoke them in discussions when they don't understand them, but that may be dreaming too high). WilyD 11:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's unfair. Who on the delete side are you accusing of being a sock- or meatpuppet? Every delete voter (except one person, who voted both delete and keep) has been here for over a year and made more than 500 edits. I know this because I checked, which is what you should have done before spewing out unfounded accusations. Reyk YO! 05:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - DRV is not Round 2, no significant error found in the close. Standard "I disagree". Tarc (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely you can't be serious. DRV is not AfD round II, but nor is it "vote for a close you wanted based on statements known to be wrong". The only bit of reasoning explained in the close was that there was a lot of socking/meating on the "keep" side, when socking/meating was a problem for the "delete" side. Here, the closer characterising the keep position as "ILIKEIT", when the keep position is the inescapable "Meets WP:N"; while asserting it meets ONEEVENT, which is does not (at least one source is presented biographically - the New York Times), and over an extended period. Beyond which ONEEVENT also says that articles about notable events written as biographies where the event is notable should be turned into articles about the event, following the sources' lead, not deleted. Given that every element of the close has been shown to be in total error, why would you assert otherwise? WilyD 14:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As Alansohn noted above, both sides in the AFD debate managed to entirely avoid discussing the most significant coverage of the subject, particularly the prominent feature in the New York Times. Failure to consider the most reiable sourcing clearly taints the outcome and justifies reversing the outcome. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - This discussion appears to be focusing on BLP1E, but the better measure is WP:PERP. I won't repeat my AfD statement here (as has been said, this isn't AfD part II), but we may need to look outside of BLP1E. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except WP:PERP says as a reason for having a biography: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." (emphasis mine) We have over 10 years of coverage including a five page biographical profile in the New York Times Magazine. The unusual aspects of the event are: prosecuting an American as a foreign lobbyist and the attempt at medicating an incompetent person to make them competent to stand trial. That is why there is still coverage in the past 60 days in Google News. People are ignoring or purposefully misinterpreting Wikipedia notability rules based on their personal dislike of the subject matter and the fringe element that it attracts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
because of america's wonderful healthcare and mental healthcare system, criminal trials with mentally incompetent defendants with narcissistic delusions of grandeur are not at all unusual. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn I was asked to comment here and wrote the following e-mail: I do not have any particular interest or background in the topic, so I don't have much expertise on the finer points of nobility articles. I also can't see the deleted content as I'm not an admin. But sources establish notability and she seems to have it, so even on first glance, it seems like it could be undeleted. At the very least, it can be moved to draft or user namespaces... Deletion is pretty silly for something that has at least some borderline notability and sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note it is a standard practice to temporarily undelete items at DRV, if someone could oblige? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC).
  • Overturn This should have been a snow keep. Lindauer is certainly notable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC).
  • Comment on Notifications -- Not to sidetrack the discussion (although that really is what I'm doing) I'd like to ask the nominator, or someone else who may be able to explain, about the editors specifically notified to come to this discussion. The nominator seems to have asked 3 editors to come participate in this discussion in requests that can be seen on their talk pages. One, User:Nomoskedasticity, was an editor who !voted keep in the original discussion. Another User:KahnJohn27, was an editor who had agreed with the nominator in an unrelated argument at Talk:Robin Williams. The third is User talk:Rich Farmbrough, an editor whose particularly !voting habits or attitude on notability I don't know. Additionally, the nominator seems to have asked User:koavf to comment in this discussion via email -- obviously we don't know how that was worded, so I won't try to guess how he is related to this article. Of these 4 editors that were asked to contribute, 3 have participated so far, both !voting to overturn to keep. While I certainly will happily assume good faith and not jump to any assumptions about WP:Canvassing, an explanation for this would be quite helpful. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is appropriate if limited and neutrally worded. Bringing in people who have edited the Wikipedia Noability rules is a perfect example of the people to notify. Notifying the one person who participated in the AFD but who has not already commented here is perfectly appropriate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that isn't what you did. User:1292simon, User:Two_kinds_of_pork (the nominator), User:BusterD, User:Rpclod, and User:Aerospeed are all non-SPA editors who also have not participated (and I would note that 4 out of these 5 !voted delete). Can you please provide an explanation?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that User:Lankiveil was invited to come here. Also note the stealth deletion where none of the writers of the article were invited to participate in the the original AFD. All the other people, except two, on your list are redlinked editors. Part of the deletion rationale was about sockpuppets and meatpuppets, those are generally redlinked users who never bother to create a user profile. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 5 users I listed, all 5 are active users with recent contributions, not SPAs. 2 of the 5 do not currently have userpages, but they are still active editors. Please explain your decision to claim accurately.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, what you're saying is that you didn't notify User:Rpclod because User:Two_kinds_of_pork does not have a user page. Interesting. Reyk YO! 22:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I already pointed out "if its red its dead". User:BusterD is on vacation according to his page.
  • Endorse, both procedurally and substantively. On the former, I'm not going to !vote in favour of a DRV nomination in which targeted participation has been procured by the nominator both on-wiki and, it appears, off-wiki. Whether it was done in good or bad faith isn't material; the point is that it was done and it has affected the population of participants here. Second, the close is reasonable. Just to pick one example: the nominator places great emphasis on the fact that the subject has published a book. Except, so far as I can see, it has not been reviewed in any of the usual mainstream book review sources, and it appears that the book is self-published. This suggests to me that the claims to genuine lasting notability beyond the particular event in question (which is, for instance, the focus of the NYT article) are over-inflated. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are engaging in sophistry with the strawman argument. The book was mentioned not for reasons of notability. Notability was determined by the rule: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." If we have coverage in the Washington Post and The New York Times Magazine then she is notable. Her book was used as an example for the three requirements that exclude a person from BLP1E. If someone is a private person vs. a public person. She is a public person by publishing an autobiography and by giving interviews to ABC news and RT. Her autobiography has nothing to do with notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and Relist DRV is not AFD #2 , but I do agree that BLP1E is not really applicable as an immediate reason to close as we have actual two events here: her trial, and her authorship. I make no claim here (per first statement) that she is notable or not otherwise, but I believe that BLP1E was not the right reason to close (there are both reasons I see to keep, and reasons I see to delete, beyond that). --MASEM (t) 17:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think the closer correctly judged consensus during the AfD. I am not convinced by the arguments here that policy was not followed. Neither do I see significant additional coverage that was not yet available during the AfD. The accusation that this was a "stealth AfD" (?? was there no AfD notice on the article as required? Was it not delsorted correctly?) seems top be groundless. --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion" Yes, it is a stealth deletion if you do not notify the people who worked on the article. This would be the same strategy as printing a legal notice in a newspaper that I do not read to notify me that my bank owes me money. We all have userpages that send emails when someone writes there. BTW, your using the strawman fallacy too. I gave 5 strong reasons for overturning the deletion, and you chose to demolish the weakest one without addressing the other 4 stronger arguments. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw those other arguments and they don't convince me. I stand by my "endorse". You should also realize that your incessant badgering of anybody who disagrees with you does not really do your case any good. --Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing "incessant badgering" with cogent, policy-based counter-arguments. I am sorry you feel badgered by having the actual policy quoted. Remember this is not a !vote or an opinion poll. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I specifically made sure the TW box to notify the article creator was checked. I'm not sure what happened,but it appears something went wrong. There was no intent on my part to make this a "stealth" deletion. That I or anyone should be expected to notify even a significant portion of the contributors is ridiculous. There is a reason we have watchlists after all.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 20:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for kindly explaining WP:NOTAVOTE to me, that's really helpful. I'll keep that in mind for next time. --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as several commenters above have pointed out failures in notifying editors with an interest in the article, and thus feel they did not have the opportunity to comment on the AfD. While it appears that the closer interpreted the discussion correctly based on what's there, with the subsequent discussion here taken into account the consensus becomes much more murky. A number of the participants on this page didn't comment on the AfD, which leads me to believe that it should be reopened. Ivanvector (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist with temporary undeletion. The closer's guess about the number of "sockpuppets" on each side is not particularly persuasive. The subject is notable for multiple events: claiming to have inside information about a 9/11 coverup, relaying an offer from Saddam Hussein to buy a million cars for ten years if war were not made on him, being press secretary for Zoe Lofgren, serving as a back channel for Iraq peace negotations, or at least trying. The last two are NYT and pretty solid, the first two might be a conspiracy theory floated out of one bad editorial decision by Veterans Today; that I can't tell you from one poke at the stack of paper. So it is possible that the deleted article is sloppy and deficient - can't say without reading it. But the clearest error is the idea that an ongoing set of notable activities by a subject is completely subsumed and overridden by an unproven accusation of criminality (the prosecution for her dealing with Iraq), or that it is all one "event" because the accusation was one event -- this is a bad, partisan mistake I just saw recently with (the completely unrelated story) of Daniele Watts at AfD. It's a way that people can take an allegation, use it as if it were true to try to get someone's article banned out of wikipedia, even while saying that because it is unproven it can't be included at all. That is a disease that must stop altogether, in any article. Wnt (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why is this not unhidden for the deletion review? This strikes me as a grave violation of DRV protocol. Make it invisible to web search if there's something that concerns, but there is no way to opine on the merit or defectiveness of the close without being able to see the article. DRV is not an administrators-only process. Carrite (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 September 2014

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ralph Publicover (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

firstly I believe this is an inappropriate non admin closure, non admins should only close as no consensus when there is a lack of participants. I feel the closer is applying a supervote here. The article was relisted to gain further consensus. whilst I did !vote delete here, I will let others judge on the relative merits of the keep v delete votes. LibStar (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn There seems to me to be a clear consensus to delete. The arguments for keeping it lacked in policy basis and the arguments for deletion cited serious concerns regarding sourcing and notability. This was an incorrect interpretation of consensus. I also agree that the closure flies in the face of the guidance at WP:NAC which says no consensus closes should only be done by non-admins when there is little or no discussion. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 03:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete a couple of non-arguments on the keep side (wikipedia content should be dictated by a directory type entry in one publishers work vs GNG of significant coverage in multiple sources, and I think they should all be notable despite there being no guideline/policy to that effect) and on the delete side arguments highlighting problems with sources demonstrating notablity which is what he actual guideline requires. I don't see how any real weight could have been given to the keeps here. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 September 2014

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
National Socialist Japanese Workers and Welfare Party (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was deleted for non-notability in 2009, citing a lack of coverage by secondary sources. The party has been mentioned in recent news articles, such as Neo-Nazi photos pose headache for Shinzo Abe, and the party has Japanese, Spanish, Finnish, Italian, Korean, Serbian and Swedish language Wikipedia articles. Andrew Grimm (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse party is mentioned only briefly in the linked article, tangentally mentioned in relation to a photo controversy involving a notable person who is NOT a member of the party in question. Does not even come close to constituting substantial coverage in reliable sources with which to overturn the discussion or to base a new article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse notability is not mentions, it's significant coverage. Coverage by user contribution based sources (e.g. other wikis even if hosted by the wikimedia foundation) is not usable as a reliable source. Particularly between wikipedia projects that should be true, otherwise it would merely be a case of rush to dump something on a few wikis and they all suddenly become obliged to keep it since it's on the other projects, what a self sustaining pile of junk that could allow. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Recreation or restoration could only be permitted if there were sources providing significant coverage of the party, per WP:GNG. Significant coverage, according to WP:GNG, means coverage in detail, not passing mentions of the party in controversies concerning non-party government ministers. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This request feels more like a request for an AfD2, the close appears appropriate. Separately, I suspect the result is correct, per Mkativerata. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 September 2014

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mersin International Music Festival (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Mersin International Music Festival has been speedy deleted with the creteria A7 (non notable). But the borderline between notable is and non notable is vague and the non notability depends on the deleter's opinion only. The 10 day annual festival, a member of European Festivals Association (EFA) ([27]) is an important event in the city of 900,000 population. How can such an event be considered non notable in an 4,5 million article- encyclopaedia? The article should be restored. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 September 2014

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Stephen Sama (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In 2012 the decision of MBisanz to delete this article was the right decision. But yesterday Stephen Sama made his debut for VfB Stuttgart II in the 3. Liga. [31] [32] [33] According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Men's leagues Sama now meets WP:NSOCCER. So I ask you to restore the article. Yesterday I left a message on the talk page of MBisanz but he seems to be away for some days. Yoda1893 (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 September 2014

[edit]

12 September 2014

[edit]

11 September 2014

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2000 A.D.D. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no discussion in the AFD, simply the comment by the nominator, "Does not meet WP:NALBUM." I would like to point out that this is one of Relient K's EPs in fact, after doing five seconds worth of research, its their debut EP. I can find several external sources about this album, including a short review by Jesus Freak Hideout that states "Relient K's first national release may not be a big one. But it helped showcase what kind of a quirky, fun-loving, Christian band they were right from the start." Smile Lee (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, thanks for responding SmokeyJoe, I completely agree with restoring the deleted information. I honestly don't know what the album's article contained, but I would like to also say that the discussion didn't result in redirect, the discussion resulted in deletion. Its one of the reasons I'm here, and not on the talk page for the discography. I would normally agree with merging with a discography article, but in this case I think it would break to flow of the discography article, and the album is notable on its own. This album is not claiming notability due to it being a Relient K album, its notable for being Relient K's first release with Gotee Records. There's even a brief mention of it in "Katy Perry: The Unofficial Biography", and on several other sources. Regardless of the negligible information on both the Relient K or Relient K discography articles, there's no call for a spinout, the article's information was never moved to the discography in the first place. The other reason I'm here is due to the fact that the discussion didn't take place, there was simply a nomination for deletion. I'm open to merging it with the discography, but there would need to be a more thorough discussion about the entire Relient K Discography before that should happen. I was leaning towards a "Relist", since I didn't know what to think about the situation. But, after you mentioned the Relient K and Relient K discography articles, I noticed that there wasn't really an effort to start a debate about the deleted article. There wasn't even an effort to clean links to 2000 A.D.D. from Relient K, Relient K discography, All Work & No Play, or Relient K (album). Smile Lee (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - an unparticipated in discussion that results in a broken outcome can't be supported. An admin encountering a deletion request that no one has participated in where deletion is unambiguously the wrong outcome has a duty to do something other than just close as delete. Relist, perhaps. Participate, perhaps. But just honour a broken request? No. Probably the best outcome at the moment is redirect to Relient K discography with the history preserved for merging if warrented. The discography article is small enough, and the album article is currently unsourced, with pretty minimal content. WilyD 10:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, without prejudice. Best practices in Wikipedia for dealing with discussions with no participants includes relisting them, closing them with "No consensus" as verdict or performing non-prejudicial deletion by treating the discussion like a proposed deletion (PROD). (A PROD can be overturned by contacting the deleting admin.) Of course, since I have no means of knowing whether there have been a PROD in advance of the AfD, I don't comment on the appropriateness of this vector. That aside, I see that slakr (the closing admin) is not contacted prior to this deletion review. Therefore, pursuing the latter is now pointless. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This is a strange one. It was open for about two weeks yet wasn't re-listed. It must have stayed on the 23 February 2014 log and just slipped off into the distance. That might, at least in part, explain why it had so few participants. In any case, I agree that we should treat this as an expired prod and just restore it, without prejudice to another AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When an administrator encounters encounters an afd discussion like this with no participants but the nomonator, and thinks the article should be deleted, the best course is to make a !vote to that effect in the discussion, to help establish a consensus. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — this was totally my bad; it should have had a "(soft)" on it to more clearly indicate it as a soft delete. On a related note, I figured it'd be a good idea to restore the rest of the history if someone's looking to build the article, so I went ahead and took the liberty. Cheers, and sorry for any delay =) --slakr\ talk / 03:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Cornelius, Inc. – Keep deleted. The general consensus here seems to be that while the G11 deletion wasn't strictly per process, the end result was OK. In theory, the right thing to do would have been to bring the article to AfD once the deletion proposal was contested, but it seems unlikely that the article in its current state would survive Afd (and there are copyvio concerns), so bringing it there now would just be pointless process wonkery. In addition, there's already a draft of a new article which has been submitted to AfC. So, the best course of action seems to be to let AfC consider the draft. If it's accepted, then the title can be unsalted and the draft installed in the main article namespace. – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cornelius, Inc. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I find that the deletion of my article was an unfair deletion with the reason of unambiguous advertising and promotion. After doing a little research on speedy deletion for this reason I found that in many times that this is not the way to handle an article such as the one that I posted as it is easy to have minor edits to adjust it from the look/feel of an advertisement. There was even some help detailed by an editor on the page by the name of JacobiJones who did not see the article as an advertisement and believed it should stay on the main page with updates and more citations. As the articles creator I added proper citations with several different citations. The company is clearly notable as it is global and part of Berkshire Hathaway. It also has been in business since the early 1930 (clearly a long history). The admin Secret unjustly speedy deleted the page on two occasions after I made even more adjustments when not even offering a discussion. In the speedy deletion criteria there was no call for this. As a third party writing my first article on Wikipedia this should not have happened. I am willing to do the work to make this article GREAT. I nominate this article to be undeleted and posted back on the main page where other editors can continue to help make it a great informing article about a company that has an intriguing history and strong global presence in the world today.Mcshanemichael90 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete and list at AfD Cornelius, Inc. The G11 is contested. The appropriate place for the formal community discussion is at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation if and only if Draft:Cornelius, Inc. is approved at AfC Remain salted in the meantime. A page's creator cannot remove a CSD tag and the fact they disagree with deletion doesn't mean that the article didn't unarguably met critria G11 (hint: it did). Also, the article suffers from barely reworded copyvio (source, amongst others), and I strongly object to recreation of the latest deleted revision in mainspace. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. While the claim that the article "unarguably met G11" is so silly I can't begin to imagine how to engage it, the copyvio concerns are legit. A new article must be started from scratch. So without endorsing a bad G11 deletion, undeletion can't be supported either. WilyD 10:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some Agreement. I thank you all for participating and taking the time to take a look at my article. I do agree with WilyD as it does not meet G11 criteria as it is ignorant to say that(Salvidrim). (Take a look at any company page and you could end up deleting every one) I do not agree with having to start the article from scratch as the feedback that I am seeing from this is mostly about the "History" portion of the article. This is easily fixed as done so already, take another look and you will find it has been changed from the list format that seems to be the objection to undelete the page. Again I will state that this is a notable article that if it is on the main page it can be discussed, adjusted and added to as time passes I believe it deserves another look and to be "unsalted." And I agree with smokey that it should be undeleted! Mcshanemichael90 (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted; work on the AfC Looking at the current state of the AfC, I do not think that the article sufficiently shows notability to be acceptable in mainspace, and is still worded as an advertisement or company web page, complete with a list of minor officers down to the rank of Area manager. The references do not really show more than that it has been acquired by a notable company; everything else appears to be a press release. Deletion at AfD is inevitable, and we'd be doing the contributor no assistance by sending it there: There's no possibility of acceptance in mainspace at this time, but this is what afc is intended for. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 September 2014

[edit]

9 September 2014

[edit]

8 September 2014

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The version of this article is substantially different from the one that was deleted in July (discussions here and here, previous versions of deleted article here and here). Given references were more readily available (~20), that the corresponding article for the previous World cup had fewer refs and was still left alone, then why was it redeleted? Asoccer maniac (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment using the 1998 article in a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is pretty disingenuous since AFAICT it's not been AFDd and was only put in mainspace a couple of weeks ago (by you with a note dismissive of deletion discussion). As it stands, and I'm about to edit it out it in at least one place (I haven't read them all), it shows why these can be a nightmare. It states "Ronaldo played in the final despite having suffered a seizure just hours earlier due to a painkiller overdose." and quotes a source. The source talks of a doctor finding him post seizure, the source goes on asking asking the doctor.. '"Could not the pain-killers have triggered the seizure? "No, no,.."' i.e. quite the opposite to what the wiki article says. The source goes on to talk about "In the Brazilian papers the conspiracy theorists...", generally the common term "conspiracy theorists" should tell us something about the quality of what's being discussed. So much for BLP? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it was disingenuous, as it's not the sole basis of my argument. As for the issue with Ronaldo, I read in the aftermath of that world Cup that he confesses to using painkillers and having a fit. He appears to have changed his mind, not that it's wrong. Neither does it undermine the argument. A major improved revision to a previously deleted article was related without mediation or discussion, or in the case of the 1998 [article] modification of the content. That leaves me only one channel. Asoccer maniac (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC) PS I don't think I was dismissive of anything (certainly not deletion discussions). It seems more to be refering to the fact that the AFC process is (was) very backlogged. Asoccer maniac (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you really don't see the problem with "I read in the aftermath of that world Cup that he confesses to uses painkillers and having a fit. He appears to have changed his mind, not that it's wrong.", rather than "I have a reliable source which I can cite it to" then I give up. Similarly the difference between "I use painkillers and have had a fit" and "I've had a fit as a result of overdose of painkillers" are not even close in meaning --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do get it; correlation does not imply causation. "I read" in a sports newspaper (forgotten the title, over 16 years ago) that the initial suspicion for the seizure was an overdose of painkillers he took for his knee (which turned out to be a major problem throughout his career) during France 98, and it was at this stage of the affair that my knowledge ended. Perhaps I was not clear. "Not that it's wrong", as in for Ronaldo to change his mind on what happened that day; on what he felt caused his seizure, especially as more (medical) information comes out. This detail, while important, did not undermine the whole article. If a fault in the information was indeed found, it should simply have been explained, then corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asoccer maniac (talk • contribs) 01:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC) PS To rejoin the above to the relevant article, any contentious information could have been fact checked. The main issues that I can see are about Rivaldo and Fadiga. Nothing else, I think violates the BLP policy. What's really annoying is that the original deletion criteria were not reapplied as fully in the new form of the article. Asoccer maniac (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sunday_Publishing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Disclosure: This is my first real submission and I do work for Sunday.

My intention was to provide a brief summary of the business for curious parties, it was not intended as self-promotion (and indeed I don't think it would be especially effective in that regard).

The original draft did feature one poorly chosen phrase ('effective and compelling') that I was unsurprised to see immediately removed. Beyond this it seemed to me that it met the 'notability' criteria, in terms of reliable significant coverage in secondary sources, independent of the subject. I tried to provide copious online references to support this, and am very open to modification (or suggestions) if the text is seen in any way to fall short of accepted standards. I have discussed this with the deleter, who suggested this course of action. T1kenobi (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse While the honesty is refreshing and appreciated, it would be pretty poor form to undelete an article written by someone with a conflict of interest as severe as working for the company in question. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the quick response, much appreciated.T1kenobi (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - mostly agree with Andrew here. T1kenobi - it might be worth collaborating with someone (you might find a helpful volunteer at WP:COIN if you explain the circumstances) to help you create a draft article. That way there is more input from the wider community to mitigate some of the COI concerns. St★lwart111 01:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the deleted content is the same as that found here: User:T1kenobi/sandbox? The WP:COI is a lesser concern, given the refreshingly honest disclosure. The greater concern is the meeting of the inclusion standard described at WP:CORP. Wikipedia is particularly sensitive about being used for promotion, or to repeat promotion. Corporations have a clear incentive to self-promote, and self-promotion has no place here. Industry awards and industry sponsored commentary are regarded with extreme scepticism; these things are not easily argued to be independent of the corporation. Please produce a couple of independent secondary sources that discuss the subject directly. Note that "reports" and "facts" are not secondary source content, while they are great material to include, but they do not themselves justify inclusion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the feedback, much appreciated. Yes, the content in my sandbox is (more or less) what is being discussed. My intention was to try to present factual information, rather than promotional material, possibly I failed. The inclusion of the media coverage/awards was intended to try to address the 'notability' criteria. I now can't tell what would actually fulfill this at all (nearly all media being subjective by its nature!) - as far as I can see media citation is used widely (on wikipedia). Anyway, thanks again all, I will look at your suggestions. T1kenobi (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 September 2014

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Hello,

I questioned at German-languaged Wikipedia (deWP) if it makes sense to create articles "Festivals by year" and the result was quite positive so I started creating an article about 2012s Warped Tour edition. I searched the world wide web for some reliable sources and I found articles in Alternative Press, Rock Sound, Billboard, the New York Times (festival review), Hollywood Reporter, the Mountain Weekly News (festival review), Phoenix New Times (festival review) and Examiner (festival review), alongside other sources. I contacted the user who deleted the article User:Randykitty (see here). So here are my sources I used:

So, for the 2012s edition of Warped Tour are enough reliable sources available on my opinion. What do you think? Best wishes! --Goroth (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stupid question perhaps but you do realise this isn't the DE wiki and that the individual wikis are "managed" completely independently? I'd have thought asking the relevant projects here would be more indicative for the appetite for such an article. That said the deletion was apparently based on coverage so perhaps improved coverage would help. Ultimately though part of the choice on standalone or not is editorial, so I'd have thought the best place to start with this would be expanding the coverage in the main article, if it becomes too much then a standalone article might be appropriate. As to the sources, most of the ones I clicked on are of the may as well be press release types, so I doubt would be particularly welcomed. I also note you use examiner.com as a source, which can't be linked properly as it's on the spam blacklist, that should perhaps tell you something about the perceived quality there... --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 September 2014

[edit]

5 September 2014

[edit]

4 September 2014

[edit]
  • (Redacted) – Impossible to do - the article in question and the AFD have been suppressed by oversighters, so mere administrators cannot undelete the article. In fact, for consistency, these DRV edits probably need to be suppressed too. BencherliteTalk 07:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC) – BencherliteTalk 07:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
(Redacted)

No Consensus was reached, the article was submitted for AFD and within hours the article was deleted. It should have been given 7 days for discussion, and there were suggestions that the article be moved to Kidnapping of (Redacted) type article instead, (Redacted) name is all over the news, his notability has been established. I understand that the family requested his name not be used, but James Foley (journalist) exists and so does Steven Sotloff (Redacted) is in the Sotloff video, and his information is being reported worldwide. While the family requested his name not be mentioned in the news, The Guardian printed his name anyways: (Redacted) , along with saying, "asked the media to withhold (Redacted) identity, at the request of his family, but within minutes his name was being published widely online by international news organisations such as (Redacted) " Google results: (Redacted) His name is all over the news, and despite the horrific nature of the circumstances, and the fact that his wife doesn't want his name out there, it is. Notability has been established. Wikipedia should be remaining neutral. There should be a better policy in place in regards to this. MeropeRiddle (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
  • Having looked, including google archives, I see a case that is not in any way offensive to Wikipedia, but may well be subject to a reasonable request for privacy. Or is it censorship by a controlling inner circle subverting the community? I don't think so, but it is important that processes are transparent. The page has been oversighted. See Wikipedia:Oversight. Who oversees the oversighters? That would be the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee. Ask them directly, and please do let us know if you remain unsatisfied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oversighter note: Due to changes in real-world circumstances, suppression criteria are no longer met for the suppression of this page. Suppression has been lifted, as have the deletions that were made in order to support suppression/in advance of requesting suppression. Risker (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 September 2014

[edit]

2 September 2014

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Michael A. Aquino (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The initial discussion determined this article should be deleted at the subject’s request, and there was a discussion that the individual was not significant, and also no longer relevant. Additionally, it has been argued that the subject is adequately covered elsewhere. I would have to disagree. First, with regards to the subject’s request for privacy I would have to argue that his actions in the interim do not warrant a request for privacy. In the interim he has released another book (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1484926455) and conducted interviews (http://disinfo.com/2013/09/devils-advocate-interview-dr-michael-aquino ). Additionally, it is not a case where the interviews were about only the book. He is answering questions regarding the areas discussed in the original article. It seems the issue is less a desire for privacy and more a desire to control what is said. As an encyclopedia, there should not be consideration taken to honor a request based on that reasoning. One should not be allowed to request privacy and then continue to remain a public figure. As for his notoriety, it is clear the importance goes beyond a significant role in the Church of Satan and having founded the Temple of Set, although I feel those alone would make him more worthy of inclusion than many other subjects (at lease with a redirect to Temple of Set). Mr. Aquino was an intelligence officer for the US during Vietnam, and is credited with the creation of many techniques that continue to be used today. In fact, it is Psychological Warfare, and not Satanism, that is the subject of his new book. If his role in development were as large as he argues then he would be worthy of an article. Additionally, Mr. Aquino attempted to make himself the face of Satanism in the 1980’s, conducting several national TV and magazine interviews. He presented himself as the highest profile Satanist in the United States at the time of the Satanic Panic. Again, it is hard to argue that someone who took that action, and received such recognition is not significant. Finally, while obviously hogwash, Mr. Aquino is a major figure in conspiracy theory circles. I would not argue the allegations should be repeated in an article, but I would argue that it is yet another area that should be mentioned both with regards to the current environment and the Satanic Panic of the 80’s. By and large I believe that this undeletion was done in good faith, but that it represents manipulation of information by the subject, and is, in essence, no different than a subject editing his own article to paint himself in a better light, and is in many ways worse as it represents not just the manipulation of information but the hiding of it. 198.135.124.71 (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Can you show where Aquino has received coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS) to where he would merit an article separate from Temple of Set? At a previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Aquino) there was a lot of concern that Aquino did not have a lot of notability apart from the Temple of Set, as most of the reliable sources only mentioned him in relation to ToS. He had also requested that his article be deleted, which did have a lot of weight on the discussion, but it was a valid concern. As far as his other accomplishments, we would still require coverage of this in multiple reliable sources that are not WP:PRIMARY or otherwise considered unusable. The thing is, just writing a book does not make someone notable, nor does being known within a community or group. I'm not trying to be harsh, it's just that being known (WP:EVERYONE) is not enough to show notability and overturn an AfD- especially since Aquino himself requested that the article be deleted. As far as him being the creator of several techniques that are used within the military, that could help count towards notability but you would still have to show coverage of this in reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just coming on and saying we should restore it isn't enough- you have to show proof that we should go against the previous AfD and Aquino's wishes. If someone is notable enough then we can still have an article for them even if they were to request it be deleted, but we really, really need that coverage since this is slightly different than some of the other biography-related articles on Wikipedia in that he specifically requested its deletion. Even if since that point he has decided to strip naked and run down the busiest streets in New York City with a banner saying he's the founder of the ToS, we would still have to default to the last ORTS ticket he submitted. If you can get him to submit a new one where he says that he's fine with having an article, that would be very, very helpful. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 September 2014

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:List of songs recorded by Kesha (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was deleted per WP:G5, but from what I saw of the draft article it holds potential. The user that created the article was blocked as a sockpuppet without a formal SPI. At the present I believe the block was made in error as well (though if shown diffs to substantiate it, I'll be happy to withdrawal that statement).Looks like he was a sock, withdrawing the bit about him possibly not being. If the draft needs a new steward I am happy to take over it. If nothing else I'd like the page restored so that it can go through the formal procedures for deletion, because as I am disputing it here, it is clearly not uncontroversial. Zell Faze (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppeting is beyond obvious (not only the edits, but compare User:KeDollarsignHa to User:Keshasbyotch). G5 is an established speedy deletion category, and the deletion fell within it. I have already refused to restore it, and maintain that position.—Kww(talk) 01:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at the edit histories tomorrow, but even if we work from the assumption that they are socks, we shouldn't dismiss the draft outright simply because it may have been created by a sock. Certainly G5 is an established criteria, and I completely understand and agree with its original use in this case. Because the draft appeared, at least at my brief look at it before the user was blocked, to be a reasonable draft to continue to work on, I think it should be restored so that it can continue to be worked on. --User:Zellfaze on mobile where the tilde key is pretty much inaccessible.
The user does appear to have indulged in sock puppetry due to obvious similarities in editing pattern. As far as the draft itself is concerned doesn't it deserved to be reviewed on basis of its content not on its creator activities? The last time I saw the draft before it was deleted it did appear to be in a reasonable form. ow@!s (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zell Faze, you can go ahead and create Draft:List of songs recorded by Kesha. G5 is no obstacle to re-creation of a page by a good faith user. However, Deletion Review is not here for the benefit of bad faith users, and we have a long history of backing sysops who make the G5 speedy call. There's a consensus that editors who're banned from editing the site are still banned from editing even if their edits appear to be productive. I don't entirely agree with that consensus but it does exist (see, for example, this discussion). So the G5 was procedurally sound and I'm afraid you'll need to re-create the page from scratch.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The policy seems incredibly silly to me, but if that's the way it is, then that is the way it is. Zell Faze (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand our policy on G5, if a good faith established user wants to " adopt" a page from a banned editor by making substantial contributions to it on his own responsibility, they can do so. I have once in a while done this or helped someone do this instead of deleting, and so have others. Essentially it seems to be a race between someone who can get there first and add to the article, and some admin who wants to delete it. Neither is wrong. I think we should therefore be willing to undelete. Our policy to not do so is useless. It did not stop this banned editor--it will stop nobody who wants to act in bad faith. It's time we changed it. While we still have it, we can make exceptions to it, like essentially any other policy--it just takes a consensus for a particular case to make an exception, not the much more difficult consensus to change the general rule. S Marshall, perhaps you can see it this way and help us do something that makes sense in the context that we are here to build the encyclopedia, and everything else is secondary. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't forget, either, that the speedy deletion criteria are discretionary. It says so explicitly on the opening lines of WP:CSD. We can choose, well within the policy, to say 'thank you, banned user, for you article; we will keep it' despite G5. No opinion at this stage on whether we should do so here; that discretion shouldn't be exercised lightly. Mkativerata (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To a certain extent, DGG, I do see it that way. I said that there's a consensus that banned editors are still banned even if their edits are productive. I also said that I don't entirely agree with that consensus, and I don't ---- I feel that the question of whether to remove banned editors' contributions when they seem to be productive is a difficult one, full of special cases and exemptions and editorial judgment ---- but it was a consensus reached at a full RfC less than a month ago, and I personally closed it. Given that DRV's primary purpose is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and given that KWW's G5 was in accordance with a consensus, how can I possibly !vote to overturn now?—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The idea sort of reminds me of Poisoning the well personally. Might these sorts of situations be an WP:IGNORE as well? Zell Faze (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Zellfaze, however we might want to judge all articles in isolation, in practice we do need to pay very close attention to all edits from such editors before letting them into the encyclopedia. It depends somewhat on why they were banned, but most such editors have in the past had an unfortunate history of entering improper material into the encyclopedia, and some have been known to continue with such things as copyvio and promotionalism and poorly sourced BLP. But {{U|S Marshall|, you can vote on the basis of further considering the implications, or say something like "Endorse, but allow restoration" to indicate that it can in this case be restored, though KWW did not do wrong to delete it and it would be unfair to have an overturn on his record. I don't think we disagree much. I'd agree to such a close here. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion provided that the author of this page indeed was blocked or banned. However, if some editor in good standing wants to personally take responsibility for the page (and possibly improve it), then it seems to be a good idea to undelete it. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will personally start the AfD for it if upon further examination it looks like it can't be given sources and improved upon. It wouldn't be the first time I've eaten my words. That said, from what I saw, it was actually in pretty good shape. If an admin wants to review it before undeleting it and give a second opinion, I'd be happy to cede to their opinion of the draft as well. Zell Faze (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kindness UK (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello, I would like the Wikipedia Community to undelete the page Kindness UK. This page was deleted because it was 'mostly self-referenced or unsourced'. I have since provided additional unbiased, independent and reliable sources which provide evidence of significant coverage and notability of the organisation. Please see the changes and additional sources added to the Kindness UK page on user page Emehtwiki/Kindness_UK. The previous Wikipedia article for Kindness UK, on reflection, did not contain sufficient references and therefore I understand the decision to delete it. The organisation is unbiased and neutral with the sole aim of sharing kindness and uniting people in kind acts. In consideration of the sources provided on Emehtwiki/Kindness_UK user page, I believe that this organisation is notable and the Kindness UK Wikipedia article is a valuable resource for people interested in kindness organisations and researching the topic of kindness and should therefore be undeleted. Emehtwiki (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting, as the closer of the AfD, that my exchanges with the DRV nominator can (mostly) be found on my talk page at User talk:Deor#Request for Undeletion of Kindness UK. Deor (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation and send to AfD. We're not actually being asked to undelete the article here, but rather to move the userspace draft into the mainspace. Nor are we being asked to overturn the AfD: it was a very small discussion of a very different article with, seemingly, no sources provided. So I think the userspace draft can validly be moved into the mainspace despite the AfD. In my view, the sources set out in the userspace are not great. I have real doubts about notability as, obviously, does the deleting admin. One or two sentences in the article are also too promotional, but that can be fixed. But the sourcing is sufficient (eg [35]) to at least give the article a chance of survival. And I think this should go to AfD for a second round: it's better to debate the sufficiency of the sourcing there (where deletion sorting might, this time, attract editors knowledgeable of the subject matter) than to have a quasi-AfD here. Also, I would hope that the article could at least be redirected to Kindness Day UK, rather than outright deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_September&oldid=643057473"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy